001in City Planning Commission meeting we'll begin our meeting with a roll call good evening commissioners Commissioner Milstein here commissioner Mills Commissioner give Randall Commissioner Ackerman here Commissioner Briggs Commissioner sauvé Commissioner Trudeau commissioner whether it be here commissioner was the full power of the Planning Commission this evening happy spring do we have any introductions this evening no thank you do have a commissioner that will move the agenda move by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner gear ándale any discussion or changes on the agenda all those in favor please say aye aye pose it's approved minutes of previous meetings we don't have any of those this evening reports from city administration City Council Planning Manager Planning Commission officers and committees written communications and petitions we will begin with our city council representative Commissioner Ackerman Thank You mr. chair
002meeting last night three items I want to bring to your attention the first is with regards to the center of the city in November of 2018 the electorate of the city passed proposal a which puts forward that the property known as the library lot above the fifth and division parking structure underground parking structure to be dedicated to civic Commons to take the next steps in that endeavor City Council will be establishing a task force to pursue and explore what can happen there of note to this body is that applications will be written by the parks Advisory Commission and ideally the task force will be seated by around July because this is a civic center and parks design a lot of the similar expertise required for Planning Commission would probably be desirable for for this task
003force and so we're looking for among other skill sets architects Landscape Architects and engineers the next item a was a resolution that passed directing the city administrator to collaborate with the Ann Arbor Housing Commission to explore affordable housing options on a series of downtown properties that include the climb lot the Carey town lot 415 West Washington and the 400 block of North actually and finally with respect to road redesign there's been a lot of community dialogue about what sort and what degree of public engagement is necessary for Street redesign resolution was passed last night that did two things the first was to hold staff to a higher standard around community engagement with respect to Street redesign the second element was to to make certain that City Council be the final decision-maker for any major street
004redesigns that include things like street diets which as we know can contribute to reducing carbon emissions and make cycling pedestrian safety safer so those are the three updates I had for you from last night long agenda three items for you Thank You mr. monarch doing just briefly prepping you for the working session scheduled for next week we got three items anticipated for that working session we'll be taking your next look at an updated sign ordinance which staff and a consultant have been working on so I'm looking forward to presenting an update to you in that regard we will also have a ordinance required pre petition plan unit development presentation to the Planning Commission by petitioners seeking an altered site plan for 28:57 Packard this is a site that was previously zoned r1 e site plan
005was denied and they are seeking a planning development application so this is a required step in that process and then finally with your generous extension of the time frame for that meeting will also be revisiting a application to amend the office district to provide for some restaurant use in that district based on potentially on certain sizes of parcels thank you Planning Commission officers and committees are there any reports mr. Gabe Randall from environmental commission this actually is Energy Commission via environmental commission the Energy Commission will be working on a solar access ordinance that will be coming our way at some point in terms of what buildings homes are allowed in terms of their own ability to gain solar for solar energy so stay tuned and that will be coming our way at some point thank
006you written communications and petitions we have a couple of items that was included in our packet this evening audience participation at this time I'd like to invite any audience anybody who is in the audience to address the Planning Commission in regards I Tamar not on our agenda this evening there will be time for you to discuss the items there are on our agenda for this evening but is there anyone here in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission in regards to an item that is not on the planet on our agenda for this evening if so please step up to the podium state your name for your name and address for the record and slipping hi my name is Karen white I live at 27:19 Cranbrook and I'm here in preparation for your
007deliberations on the 28th 57 Packard rezoning which a large number of my neighbors and I are very much against we don't think it's a good plan and we don't think it's a good use of a very scarce resource as far as we're concerned they're not making more three hundred-year-old trees in Ann Arbor and they're not making more real estate in Ann Arbor so we want whatever development goes there to be the best we're also very concerned about the water running off that property once all those trees are removed so thank you thank you very much good evening town Stolberg 1202 driver not at the last council meeting last night but the prior one there was a discussion involving proposed PUD so it's some things that were said at that are relevant to this body because
008of the discussion of PU DS and that was about the lockwood development which did not pass it was almost like two different conversations going on simultaneously so council member Bannister brought something up that she's brought up before and council member Ackerman then mentioned that he wanted to set the record straight because every time she brings this up that's he felt he needed to set the record straight and he didn't think what she was saying was accurate however they were having a different conversation this was about the Lowertown PUD what council member Bannister and other council members like council Murray we're talking about was the failure to approve the Morningside site plan the current site plan as a PUD which the property was owned effectively by not approving that development as a PUD but approving a
009site plan with variances and conditional zoning the developer was given a PUD with everything except one thing and that was a requirement for the community benefit now mr. Ackerman mistakenly thought that council member Bannister was talking about the prior PUD which was by the Strathmore company I believe a 2006 PUD and that one has expired and that's not what council member banister or councilmember Haner or council member was talking about the problem with taking a site that was master planning zoned PUD and giving it a PUD with everything but stripping it of the name PUD was that we lost the community benefit and as you'll see along with the PUD that you're gonna be discussing later tonight that community benefit can be met 15% of the units as affordable housing in that case it's about
010620 units so it's about a little over 90 units affordable housing on-site that were not built or the formula still needs to be determined there's one variable that has to go with there's a formula but one variable that council needs to set but we can measure in terms of dollars as a payment in lieu to the affordable housing fund which the other one tonight is it's in your packet on that same formula same variable missing but the estimate would be approximately 10 million dollars that was lost to the affordable housing fund by not approving the Morningside PUD in the morning side side plan as a PUD but giving him every sink in the developer everything that Peabody would have except the requirement for that community benefit that's what they were talking about thank you is
011there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission regarding an item that is not on our agenda this evening hi Tim Paul here to speak on parking minimums I was recently in San Diego and took notice of the fact that they voted to eliminate parking minimums near transit this seems like a great idea by imposing parking minimums we are effectively forcing people to pay for parking whether they want it or not in reducing the incentives for walking bark biking in public transit the eliminating parking minimum we can also reduce the cost of housing which is a significant issue in Ann Arbor and encourage more use of alternative modes of transit I've encouraged the Planning Commission to look at doing something like this because we want to encourage more alternative modes of
012transit particularly with climate change being a real issue and also the desire for more walkable communities and not seeing all these C's of parking that people build because they're required to and yeah so this is yeah I wanted to bring this up and hope you consider something like that and a few thank you so much anybody else wish to address the Planning Commission where it's an item that is not on the agenda see no one will move on in our agenda public hearings scheduled for the next business meeting mr. Leonard we have known in public hearings scheduled for the next regular business meeting so my proposal is we take keep that valuable space on your calendars and see how the working session goes next week and I will likely fill it with something if we
013even if we get through everything on the night thank you moving on to unfinished business the first item for us this evening is 841 Broadway Street PD zoning and conceptual plan for City Council approval our procedure for this evening will be for the petitioner to make his or her presentation afterwards we will get city report public hearing and then we will move on to discussion so we'll start with the petitioners presentation Thank You mr. chair and thank you again for the opportunity to come before you just a few moments of overview in terms of what was presented to you in advance of this meeting when we came away from what we thought was a very healthy discussion with with the Planning Commission last month we regrouped with planning staff to really try to hone in
014on the modifications to the proposed regulations that we believed would address the comments both that we heard from Commission and that we heard from from residents in the community I just want to take a few moments in hopes that I can once again master your your there it is to just highlight those changes because I feel that that the the Commission is seen the based regulations I believe was provided a what I hope was a carefully redlined modification to highlight the changes but I want to spend a few moments talking about kind of the genesis of those because it was a good healthy exercise we went through with with the staff first and foremost I wanted to talk about the park components what we heard from the from the Commission it was that there was
015a generally in our view a lot of consensus around the components that are being put forward but that the Commission wanted to see a baseline wanted to see certain items that were under any and all circumstances as we move forward through this process going to be a part of any future plan and so we did add specific requirements we really pulled things that were in the list of things we were all aspiring to and decided to just put them in the required items in advance of of any ultimate approval those items include the the watercraft launch the two additional access points and the and the walkway from one end of the property to the other I I feel like it's probably worthwhile I also point out because we we kind of blew through it pretty
016quickly there was a lot to go over last time about the things that were already embedded in those regulations and so I I felt it was we felt it was important and re highlight that that the plan already called for a minimum of six acres of public space in the overall plan that had already called for something that I think is important because I think got lost last time there's a lot of I you know valuable debate about the the merits of the course of the river over the last hundred and twenty years we we sort of figured that's above our pay grade the river is supported by the dam however we recognize that and I think the city literally had concerns that the dam needs support so the the the regulations also call for
017substantial investment into the dam in support of this project but really in support of the community financial support for affordable housing we did touch on and the LEED Silver certification and of course the the substantial remediation of the site pardon me there we are pulling forward from the back of the regulations because it relates to it I think we also had a healthy dialogue about the Conservancy model and we spent quite a bit of time talking about how the Conservancy works how it should be governed and how it how it should operate by the time this project achieves fruition we elected in working with the Planning Commission to embed those requirements into the regulations as well what you see in front of you are really the key points of that I don't need I don't
018want to revisit them but for the benefit of the community it certainly calls for the formation of the 501c3 the establishment of the Board of Directors participation on that board of directors as most conservancies include both members of the immediate surrounding community but also members of the city and park and and parks organization and more importantly because we think this also was something we heard loud and clear out of the out of the community and something we're committed to is that we need to establish a baseline of funding so what the what the regulations call for is a is a baseline of a million dollars that that forms that Conservancy and establishes it but by no means is the end of the process that involves funding that that that Conservancy to operate in perpetuity boy
019hand-eye coordination tonight we also spent a quite a bit of time on something that that we were fairly confident was was moving in the right direction I think after our most recent meeting and the the gap between our last meeting in this one really gave us an opportunity to to visit with the parks Advisory Commission itself the plan for a secondary means of access we shared this plan with the parks Advisory Commission in this very same room I think we had a good dialogue there I know action was required of the of the Commission at that meeting or or asked for what we really wanted to understand was in our view whether we were whether anyone saw any issues relative to this plan that we should bring back to this effort or we should incorporate
020it into it I won't speak for the Commission but I will tell you what I heard and what I heard was that I believe that the members of the Commission to a member saw this as an obvious and an appropriate solution I think they recognize the work is on us to to come back with final engineering plans and specifications for this before that Commission our team walked the site again to make sure we weren't overlooking any any obvious concerns associated with this and I think everybody sees it as a logical solution for for the appropriate need for emergency access to that end and I guess I'll just highlight this we have continued our dialogues with Amtrak because this involves them as well we have another call with them tomorrow and our monthly calls as I
021said in the prior meeting and I just more for the benefit of our of our residents in the room Amtrak also is aware that this is a critical part of the plan and and also sees it as a logical and appropriate emergency solution in the kind of the old-fashioned nitty-gritty of zoning ordinances we heard an awful lot in the last meeting and spent some time saying what about this plan is leaving cause for concern for what we're hoping to achieve at this stage and I want to take a moment to step back on that and say because the question came up why why follow the process that we're following which is first rezone then site plan obviously there's a great deal of complexity in a set like this but it really comes back to we
022want to understand that we have a shared set of rules for the exercise that follows and that is the the deeper dive into site plans in these multiple uses and we recognize frankly following the conversation that we had last month that there remained some some gaps and gore's if you will between what our plan shows which I would suggest most people see as a good outcome and some room in that in those regulations we never viewed that as an opportunity to materially change the plan we obviously as developers and as planners want to make sure that we have minimal wiggle room as we move through a plan and really engage with the site at the level of construction documentation and site plan but what we felt that we could do is clearly pare back on
023that gap so that there would be more confidence by this body that if it was approving the rule book that though that the likely outcome that follows from that rule book is is unequivocally the plan that you see in front of you or something darn close to it and so we looked at that and we made some modifications the most obvious wit of which was something that frankly I already had in my head and wasn't on the dry on the on the regulations is that we have no intention and frankly desire to to break the the rough dimension height dimensions of the residential and so we pulled that back to eighty feet we feel that gave us more than enough room to produce the the buildings that you see on that we had depicted in
024the prior in the prior meeting and we you know with some like I said wiggle room so we have to come in from minor variants because of a roof element or something that that's protruding above that I think the floor area ratio was another very good point and what we did spend a lot of time with Smith group and Hamilton arson is said let's let's program these buildings and what if each one of them had to grow in this direction or that direction what's what's an a reasonable amount of what I would characterize is play in these buildings knowing what we've shown on this plan to allow us to develop what we're developing with without having to come in for variances but this is not an opportunity to build another building on the site it's
025literally an opportunity to define these buildings more carefully so we cut that back from 124 percent to 80 percent I think setbacks were important and I think we heard loud and clear the questions raised really mostly about the hospitality and so those are the ones we focused on we felt the other setbacks were appropriate and so we wanted to ask for a minimum setback from the river of 20 feet now bear in mind and our current plan there is literally only one building it would even come close to that and that is obviously the hospitality what this is intended to this image is intended to depict is that that is 20 feet from from the property line and so because we want because there seemed to be some concern that somehow or another that was
026going to close off the public access that we're trying to achieve of course it doesn't accomplish that in fact what we're drawing right now is is is I would say in excess of that by a few feet but we but we felt the 20 foot was something that would protect for that outcome and then a minimum of 10 feet setback from Broadway because there was some concern there as well so those were two items that we're not in the prior plans I am down to like what looks like seconds so I'm gonna wrap up here quickly oh and then the rest of them I'll taking questions but I apologize for running over and I'm more than hit we're more than happy to follow up with dialogue thank you thank you okay I think I can
027finish up right or no I took it out not on this one I apologize I'm usually better than that I'm sorry all right at this time we'll head over to mr. Kowalski for the staff report thank you couple of additional items I want to touch on here you can see one of the concerns we heard last time regarding that parking ratio and the number of how we had calculated it before so as you can see on the slide here and is represented in the Supplemental regulations we went back to kind of more of the traditional count these aren't quite like hotel right now and our code is one space per room so there's a slightly reduced a little bit but it does allow the wiggle room and it does allow for some it does allow
028for extra or enough parking I should say not extra and it also does include the or will include the 50 additional spaces on top of what's required for the uses that they program at the site the 50 additional spaces would be designated for public use only so in general would be intended for the canoe livery the open space and things like that one of the key features also that is V if you remember from before we were kind of having a discussion with the developer regarding the requirement of a structure whether a parking would be structured on the site or not so I think we came to what I think is a productive solution in that the supplemental regulations as well as a plan that they be revised to say that if the parking is
029all provided on site 50% of the parking would be structured which is is it which is what we had what staff it has been requesting previously however the developer also wanted the ability for some flexibility and is optimistically I hope working with Amtrak on the adjacent lot to allow for some shared parking this accomplishes some of the goal I think it in this plan which was for us to kind of minimize the amount of service space still make sure that we do have enough parking because obviously as you know we don't want to provide over parking but there's a lot of uses on the site there's a lot of flexibility and when these uses will occur in the peaks for some of them so I think with the shared parking it accomplishes the same goal
030where we can have enough parking but yet in the in the case that there wouldn't be this parking surface park you would not sprawl out so with that we have allowed the provision to share parking with the adjacent property now as part of that shared parking I think an additional public benefit for the city would be out of that is is as if you know and many of you probably know by now that is it's a pretty unimproved lot that amtrak lot it's I think at one point kind of a gravelly surface or I mean it's it's asphalt but it's period so in order to be used as a shared parking wouldn't need to be upgraded to today's parking standards which would include detention landscaping and things along those lines so that could be a
031definite benefit for the city so that is a significant change from the previous regulation so you did see that would allow in summary basically if all parkings on site 50% has to be structured but it does allow the ability for them to share parking off-site I think some of the other most of the other ones were covered I wanted to touch on the well the height was also a big one but he we did touch on the height previously that was another issue that we know was a definite concern for the Planning Commission going through here the really that was kind of it of how we shored up the or tightened up the Supplemental regulations a little bit and if you would see it was mentioned previously the last there's been modifications to the last
032paragraph or less item of those supplemental regulations regarding the 501 C C 3 for the open space and when that would be dedicated prior to seal so that that would be what included within the supplemental regulations and that concludes my presentation thank you thank you HAP is still recommending approval thank you very much at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing anybody in the audience this is your time to address the Planning Commission in regard to this agenda item you have three minutes to speak before the commission this is time for public hearing if anybody would like to address the Planning Commission in regards to this item please stand up to the podium state your name and record are your name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes to
033speak before the Planning Commission Tom Stover again one to zero to traver Street says 705 by the way Oh overall I'm supported this project I'd like to thank the development team the public engagement from them has been wonderful it really stands far above other public engagements that the public engagement from the developer stands well above what other developers have done and I really appreciate that I think PD is the appropriate zoning category for this site I think it's interesting what they're doing with the area plan now in site plan later but as long as you're all figuring out how to make that work it can work when we first talked about this site you know there a lot of people were hopeful as was the the land owner and developer of this site that the
034train station could somehow be incorporating to this whatever happens at the Depot site as was I the full road station is dead the funding that was available or thought to be available at one time is no longer a possibility or feasibility and it's a shame that we've let that go so long but the developer had to move forward the land owners waited and been patient and it's time to not wait for us even though I can't see the full the road station going through but I thank them for their patience and holding out and wish it was part of this project but it isn't when I first heard there was a hotel as part of this development this is you know going back a little ways I so hmm but I didn't know so much
035about hotels and since then I've learned about hotels and hopefully I've got to May first closing as part of a partnership on a hotel project so surprised you learn something and I think it is a feasible thing for this site after all the ingress egress a single non-emergency access off the bridge to me I can't imagine it working but on the other hand I'm not a traffic engineer and if they can figure it out oh great I would support the project if they can figure out how to make that work it just seems like a challenge but I'm open to see them solving that problem the height of the hotel that's the one sticking point for me at this point 9 storeys at that location is going to stand out nothing around it in that
036view shed accept it it's going to be a monolith the Kellogg eyes Center is not far away on paper but as you approach the site from many different angles almost every angle it's not in the same sight line this will be standing quite alone and I have not heard much about that except from other neighbors who agree that we can't envision a nine story structure there so I'd like to see that addressed and discuss hopefully this evening by the planning commissioners other than that I think it's a great project the developer offers quite a lot it's a mixed-use development and which is appropriate for that location we need retail in that area and they're offering wonderful amenities to the public thank you thank you good evening ethel paths 1014 elder boulevard can you hear me
037what what this represents this development is what the developer wants to develop is what he tends to develop it has nothing much to do with what is needed at this part at this portion of town your job is to do planning if you were planning from scratch on a vacant piece of land what is it that you would what kind of uses what do you think we're appropriate here I do not think this is a problem what they really need here is some of what they had before like a major grocery store they could use some offices like medical or dental or lawyers offices and and retail convenience retail so that they don't so the people here don't have to drive all the way out our Plymouth Road to get it even the least little
038thing there's nothing much available here so what is good planning for this area that's your job as far as I'm concerned you are representing the citizens of Ann Arbor as to what is good planning for any one piece of land and there are several neighborhoods here it isn't just Broadway it's also all the townhouses that are along the river I think up traver the whole neighborhood up traver the whole the whole a neighborhood on Pontiac there are whole section of residential areas that lack any amenities to go with residential but it's not needed here is more residential I think the traffic the traffic that's going to because they're at lower Broadway bridges north side of Broadway bridge is going to be horrendous because we already have traffic problems there and this is going to add
039that many more people people with their cars I'd the open space that I first saw was maybe they are improving that but at first it was sort of a stingy little bit of setback setback from the important Creek I'm going to be listening to all how you each each of you explains how this is the suitable use and development for this area thank you thank you hi Stephenson Rams burg I live at one 0:07 right Street perched basically right above the river so I think that the major blind spot and and and I also want to echo Tom and everybody I appreciate the developers allowing us input on this and and I do think it's a good project and I'm in support of it the major blind spot is the height of the hotel in
040the location of the hotel it's too tall and it's too close to the river if you allow them to put a nine-story building right there it'll set a precedent Ann Arbor whether it intended to or not it's done a good job of keeping the river of green space a wide open path now you put this hotel there and you bought on that traffic right there so that car is coming into this area have to pass by the hotel in the retail it almost makes this an exclusive island and it's not an island it's the city and I think the developers are seeing this from the inside out as they should but as you know citizens as as as the neighbors to this we're seeing it from the outside in and from everybody I talked to
041no one likes the hotel I think it can be moved back I think it can be addressed as they have listened to our concerns I haven't seen any kind of change in the placement of the hotel and I think that's the number one concern of the citizens the image we saw earlier and the image right here it doesn't reflect exactly what you're gonna see you're gonna have a massive shadow and a monolith shading the river and and and and in a small piece of land a scrap a land to get under the bridge that connects it to the dog park so I hope I hope you all take all that into consideration this will be permanent this won't go away thank you thank you hi I'm Rita Mitchell I'm at 621 Fifth Street and I've
042been a long proponent of keeping the train station where it is on Depot Street and I like what I've heard from the developer in terms of working together with Amtrak and I could see that being something that could be improved over time and perhaps even more coordinated with parking and I'll truly hope that the approach to the train station is one that keeps it where it is and that parking and other access can be improved for the particular project my concerns have to do with the environmental aspects the cleanup and making sure that it's thorough and I'm really I'm concerned that there may be a shifting of the responsibility from dte the current owner to our brownfield funds and I'm wondering I really consider that questionable in terms of its fairness in terms of the
043financial responsibility I don't know if that's something that you all deal with here but brownfield cleanup is something that we all pay as taxpayers so it's a concern the other thing in terms of designed to be thought of regardless of height and I do feel there is a concern to be had with the height of the hotel but lighting in that area I would hope I've heard more recently about dark skies approach to lighting so that any lighting since it is so close to the river there is wildlife and you know things that we really should try and protect I'm quite surprised to hear 20 feet being the step back from the river as well so those are I think my main concerns Thanks thank you hi Karen Isley I'm at 6:03 Swift Street so
044we're ready I'm sorry 6:03 Swift Street right across from the river I will I guess one of the things well a couple of things that we're concerned about in that area is the traffic of course coming on to Broadway it's it's very difficult to get through that area at about five o'clock little after 5:00 trying to come over the bridge I don't know if anybody commutes that way but it's it's very difficult it's also backed up on Pontiac coming in in the morning at about 8:00 o'clock 7:30 8 o'clock so that traffic is going to all pull into that light that's there now and it's gonna be an issue also we're very concerned about the hotel location and the height just visually if you think about 20 feet that's about from that screen to the
045back of that column right there so when you talk about 20 feet off of the river that's not very much so I hope you'll take that into consideration because you know as you as you're building just trying to stay within 20 feet of that space is going to be very difficult hi I'm Ellen Rams burg and I live at 1503 Cambridge Road I I want to echo but not dwell on the sorry but not dwell on the height and the placement of the hotel because I did see how much the developer had addressed questions that you raised at the last meeting but that question which has continued to be a stumbling block for the neighborhood has never been addressed the height of the hotel has never been adjusted and the had even though they in
046the new regulations say the pad may move that's not really been clearly dealt with and I think another concern is that if Roxbury is not the manager of the or if they're not the developer of the hotel then does that mean that the hotel developer will be adamant about height and placement and and it's such a concern for citizens that I don't want to see it lost another concern that I had was that the pedestrian bridge is still tied to the brownfield development money and if they don't get as much development money as they would like through the brownfield will that go away and I think in your regulations I would really like to hear that spelled out other measures were addressed but that one was not when we think about the river the fact
047that just about from Dexter to epsilon T there is almost no encroachment this close to the river and I think the encroachment of only 20 feet away from our greatest asset not giving it a real riparian buffer and also not giving it the feeling that the river is our public domain is a real problem with this and I think citizens over and over have said that to you and I hope that you will take up that case with the developer thank you good evening my name is Peter Allen and I live at to-to-to for applewood cord annarbor and I have some real estate just up heard from this long North Maine right at the dam I've been there for 25 years we spent several million dollars fixing up those buildings I and it's all to
048help try to make the riverfront more accessible more open to the public we've been very involved in the pathway the border-to-border trail we've been overlooking this godforsaken site for so many years and it's great to see somebody as talented as the Roxbury group getting involved and trying to create a great place for people having six acres of public space having a wonderful walkway along the water having the best firm in the country in pbs.org and Smith group and managing the design and the elements of that public space having a restaurant on the river people been talking about it for years so I think the idea of the height I is not as germane as creating great place great place along the river that's open to the public can I encourage you to endorse their plan
049and get going as quickly as we can thank you very much thank you anybody else hello I'm Mary Holley vessel I am at 635 Smith Street which also overlooks the Cascades directly across from the proposed site I appreciate the time and effort expended on this development proposed development our family has on the same property for over 150 years living through the railroads the coal refinery the trains everything else that you could emit the stockyards so to say that we should proceed I agree with parts of the process and but I do concur that an eight or nine story hotel on that site not only will we be looking directly into that not only is it permanent but I really feel that the city of Ann Arbor has invested millions of dollars developing the Broadway bridge
050so that it complemented the transfer from upper town to lower tone to really reflect the aesthetics of historical buildings but now we're being in essence force-fed that it's a good opportunity to put this hotel so close to the river blocking any visual of the aesthetics of the Broadway bridge anything that you could relate historical buildings towards and and seeing a very in this in this regard a very shadowed affect so those of us that are would be living through it it's it's not only the the construction but having to view that day in and day out would be a real travesty as taxpayers so I hope that you look at you know again working with a compromise a fort a four-story hotel expand it back down towards the the area south of their location but
051I think there needs to be a compromise here I really do thank you thank you hi my name is Dane Paige and I live at 4:11 longshore Drive I represent the Society of lay voyagers which have lived there at 4:11 longshore drive for going out a hundred years now in the natural and historic district we've made several endeavors in the past to keep this area natural and preserving some of the woods there including wanting to move the some of the livery operations to the other side of the river which would take additional pressure off of the Argo area and I want to reiterate some points on one of the other said on the height of the hotel and its proximity to the river already the 999 building on Broadway takes up some the horizon and
052some of the rolling and sloping hills of Ann Arbor which were the glacial deposits of old which is why many people settled here in the first place and we rise doubtful of the necessity of development but it does seem like you have some nice plans as long as you take into consideration the chemical deposits there and what kind of runoff could come from the construction with that kind of proximity to the river but thank you for hearing out the public on this thank you all right seeing nobody else I will close the public hearing and we'll move on to reading the motion our motion is the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the 841 Broadway Street PUD planning to development district zoning and area plan do you
053have a commissioner move move by Commissioner mill seconded by Commissioner goob Randall we are in discussion Commissioner Mills I have a laundry list I thought you guys would go first and then I could just pick off what was left but I um thank you I know that last time I was one of the people like picking out where there were discrepancies and and it's because you know what we write you know if it gets passed becomes the rules and so I think it's I really think it's you did a great job at listening to what we were saying and kind of figuring out I understand the idea of the wiggle room narrowing that band I think was really great I there are now that I can see through like some of those big things that
054were glaring before I think that there are additional things that I have questions about but I think a lot of the steps that you take and were really addressing a lot of those what slides did we miss or what was part of the presentation just that I would love to see you act actually I want to say Matt did a nice job of picking up but if you if you want to know I can I can yeah I've I saw this one can you go to the what this is the other one what's that going the wrong way I apologize I'm not that good at this okay so this I don't think we thought didn't see this and I in it dawned on me also that I missed an important point and Commissioner Mills this
055was something that I think you highlighted which was the old version had this kind of either or option the either/or is gone now this is very much we're committed to the mixed use development a subject to secondary access but I think that was clear enough in the yeah in the report that III just felt like it was important to point that out um there were just some what I would characterize as open questions that couldn't immediately and unequivocally be addressed in zoning regulation or I would say aren't appropriate to zoning regulations that we didn't want the Commission to believe we're not on the table any longer this these are just items that we believe flow through a process once rules are established and come out by the end of the process and so a stormwater
056management spent a lot of time on that we really looked at what more can we can say I want to thank the Planning Commission for curating the flexibility of adjacent parking because that adjacent parking option actually does create the opportunity for some flexible uses of rooftops we started to actually the stuff some elements that really aren't ready for primetime but I think will come back in the in the site plan phase if we're fortunate enough to move to that phase includes also how can we utilize the pavilion for instance which is a concept that is very important to this and in that roof structure on stormwater management so we were mostly focusing on not losing track of that I listened we figured there be more discussion about the hotel so the the other point was
057again this is about rules this is about understanding the the interplay of of space and how these things can be used to enliven I you know we're not obviously a development group that is that closes its ears to what the community is saying and we recognize there's some trepidation about utilization of the space closer to the river for the hospitality I think we spent some time last week explaining why that is the right home for hospitality we want the opportunity obviously to present that as a realized plan because we believe there's probably more concern than then will ultimately be warranted when we do our homework on on that plan that being said we recognize what we were presenting here today was still just the rule books so our view of it as site plan is
058the place where where you still hold the cards in that discussion yeah and I think and that so one of my big I mean that's clearly one of the things that continues to come up and so I don't know that I have the right solution and since you guys had me go first I will pose this to you and you can respond to this right now the limits are on you know how close what's written into here is how close the hotel or whatever's on that corner could be to the river how close it could be to the road and there's a height limit but I'm wondering there we don't have anything I I think that there can be beautiful tall buildings that stand you know there can also be really ugly tall buildings that
059stand out and there's nothing and and the design part is really hard of that but I don't know I pose this to you guys because this is not normally my thing is about whether there's something about design that that we want to include in here or do we want to limit for example I'm just thinking about this is the concern Austin downtown - we have a limitation on the diagonal just because right now it could be we don't necessarily limit the footprint of this I'm not I'm not so worried about fer honestly but I could see 115 foot tall slender building right it's very different than a very blocky or I don't know I mean it could be it could be very large right like it you put all at your FA are up there
060if you wanted to and so I think I'm posing that back to us as something to consider that I'm just floating or to kind of limit the square footage of it that's one option the other thing that I would note though that's along with this I I have this shared this might conflict in my own mind about how close is too close to the river because I do want to make sure that we're protecting the river but at the same time the idea of having a riverfront restaurant is great like I mean that was a huge asset for the city we one of my concerns honestly over the new development agreement is that it doesn't require that anymore there's nothing that and there's nothing that says that they're the only thing that's required in terms
061of land use I appreciate the the increasing specificity about what's required on the for the park area and it does require 90 residences 90 residential units but any retail use is permitted and there's nothing that's required and so and even if there was a hotel there there's nothing requiring that there be a restaurant in the hotel and I don't think that we would want a hotel that close to the river if it doesn't have a restaurant that people can use and so I'm not sure I'm posing this kind again out to us I think that's a problem like I think that there there needs to be more specificity on that I don't know what the languages I can work on it if other people think that that's of relevance but I think that that's one
062of the holes here right that we that that you could still build a hotel but it doesn't necessarily have to have a restaurant right on the river and I was going to say like Oh a lot of amenities that we like that we were seeing on the park side the open space side were permitted but not required but I think that the addition of the requirement that there's a million dollars going towards maintenance is is but definitely a greater benefit like maintaining a smaller set of things in my mind is better than building a whole bunch of stuff and not maintaining it so I think that that was a really I appreciate that move and that's not necessarily what we asked you for but that's what we got and I appreciate that and thanks to
063staff for having that in there let's see on the parking so I like the I love the idea of shared parking we like we need to see more shared parking in the city I don't love the idea that the way that the regulation is written is that if that you only have to have a parking garage if you have zero offsite parking and so I I want to hear other discussion right now this is like not great version of this but I would propose that we don't actually this I don't actually want to make a amendment but I'm going to later on have something that's about changing that the surface area for on-site parking cannot exceed 50% of the required spaces so that if you have some amount off-site because it's possible right now to
064have 10% off site and then 90% on site all surface parking and I don't think that's what we want so I don't think that serves a greater good yes I just want to clarify in that framework there is also a hard cap on impervious surface in either circumstance so I think and and that impervious calculation reflects the concept plan that's presented to you I think the question that that we put forth in the first version of this and our subsequent discussions with the petition team was that's great but is there an opportunity for further sort of savings of impervious surface if that requirement still exists but I want to I want to clarify that in that circumstance that you're describing there is still a hard cap on the impervious impact to the site in either
065circumstance yeah I still think that this is good there's a lot of parking here we know that it's just more it's more costly I get that but it's also way more efficient to have that have you know limit imperviousness that way so I mean unless other commissioners have comments on that consuming otherwise that's probably a proposal that I'll an amendment that I'll make I want to clarify with staff the on page six of the development or whatever the regulations are when it's talking about parking and the things that are going into the parking formulas the electric vehicle charging station and all of this kind of stuff is that does that apply also to offsite parking those same standards if they arrange for offsite parking or is that only the stuff that they on their own
066site have to conform to that so even if it's provided off-site it would still have to conform to that I think we that's what as I was reading that it was unclear so I think we need to be clear if you that my when I disagree with my colleague what you're doing here with the blending development is you're creating a zoning district for this property if the parking was provided on the on another site that is not subject to Planned Unit development then the this same zoning development regulations I would apply to that zoning district would do so we would also require some documentation that those spaces are accessible to a neighboring site but unless that property was specifically included in the beauty rezoning which it's not at this point then if that's something that
067you would like to see applied I I'm not sure the best way to impose those standards for this zoning district group onto a non included site yeah so so I think we should at least then again out make a I can come up with language but the electric vehicle is charging stations is the key one and so that rate of providing one per 50 like even if I want it apply to the entire required parking even if some of that is met off site so if they have a thousand spaces you know it's just easier numbers you don't I mean that they would provide you know I don't know what is that twenty spaces even if they're only if they only have 500 spaces on there so I does something math because that's okay so
068that's something that I'll I'll work on writing up something according to that and then the question and I don't know if this I'm gonna start with staff and then but maybe this is a question for the petitioner is I noted the same thing about funding for the upgrading the dam is that the way that it's written it reads to me that they only have to fund that if they get brownfield funding so it's it's a public benefit but that's based on but I don't think that's a public benefit so I would say it is a public benefit it is uh it's a potentially a source of resources that the city can utilize that might potentially free up other resources to for other uses in the city but you're you are right it is explicitly written
069in such a way that if it is not supported through that financing mechanism that it would not be required okay so just to be clear I think because there would be financing from tax payer funded things for this I think that the real benefit there is benefit in the in the land set aside this one is because it's contingent on getting tax payer dollars for that I would just not that's not a done deal benefit and it's also not directly out of this so there's actually a logical answer okay those I think that those were the main gist of my stuff but I reserve the right to come back with those amendments if I hear other people like moving towards that way we'll be back to you shortly sure commissioner woods I wanted to get
070a clarification on one of the points that commissioner Mills me and that was about whether or not there'd be a restaurant there with you know a view of the river that I don't know what else to do I got it on okay whether or not there would be a restaurant there with a view of the river and as I'm looking in one of those sections on page five where it's listing required principal uses and a restaurant is listed down there but it's listed under permitted uses and so my question is whether or not the city has ever actually required example a restaurant within a building in order for the to me the development agreement or whatever you want to call it because we see a lot of instances sometimes where restaurants sort of fail in
071projects and so what happens in that case and I guess that's the question for staff but if the petitioner also has some comments that's fine but I wanted some clarification on that I I don't know specifically if we if I can point to examples of a restaurant being required there definitely approvals that are contingent or conditioned upon mixed use a mixed use requirement that might be one way if you were uncomfortable with being so specific in requiring that specific use that specific sort of category of commercial use we could explore language that just requires puts that into sort of a commercial land use category but on the flip side if the petitioner is proposing you know as it's written now it is permitted so it's not required I think that would be a release it
072might be a substantive change to that regulation you are really locking in that land use in a very specific manner so if if but if that is something that you really believe is is very critical to considering approval it might be appropriate we did our best from a staff perspective finding the sort of minimal based components that we think that should be achieved in any regard and didn't include that in our recommendation I might be able to speak to that Commissioner woods and actually welcome the conversation because it's getting back to what I think we sensed from the Commission last time is is something we all share which is that the notion of these uses reinforcing each other not only provide vitality to the built environment but they provide vitality to the public space and
073and and believe me we understand the balance our hope is that this body will understand by committing a very very small portion of the footprint along the riverfront with proper setback from the river and absolute public access in front that they will understand that that's an important trade off to the 1,200 feet of unbroken and and and and if you will completely open public space that follows from that so that's a that's a little bit of a commercial for why we we would ask for the dispensation to present a hotel in this location with the site plan phase that that that the community can react positively to what I would tell you about that hospitality is it reinforces the other things that the exact things that you're asking for we do this for a living
074hospitality baguettes F&B or food and beverage restaurants and not just any F&B but usually high-quality FMB so we would rather entertain a dialog about holding us to a high standard on that hospitality then then find the conversation moving in the direction of fear of the of the outcome and so whether it is to commissioner Mills point about design standards setbacks the sort of things you do in a downtown environment when you're concerned about things being too close to other things not just set back at the at the ground but step backs at higher levels we we welcome a set of design stairs admittedly we didn't incorporate those in the zoning ordinances but I think I think a requirement of those prior to site plan is something we could articulate but the actual thing that you
075that Brett might consider kind of mind-blowing in understandably from a planning perspective we look at as is not worrisome at all if what you're saying is we understand that from a planning perspective from a design perspective from an activation perspective a hospitality use needs to be in this location but we want to make sure it is high quality hospitality use and to us that means it has certain minimum requirements and and and and even issues of FA our per hospitality for instance we would welcome that input those sorts of amendments to allow us to keep moving forward in designing and something that the community can be proud of then say too much to think about let's kick the can on that one so so I not afraid of waterfront a restaurant we know that what
076makes waterfront restaurant not only happen in this plan but thrive in this plan is its connection to that hospitality use and so we're hopeful that we can make you know we can we can make true plus two equals six on that rather than kind of stepping away so I hope that's helpful another question as we're looking at the renderings that you've given us for example and some of the feedback from the audience about nine stories in the hotel have you actually come up with your plans for the hotel I mean I think it's one thing to have you know a big blocky hotel there it's another thing to have almost an iconic kind of a building there that really makes people as they're driving by go you know people come to town and they say
077oh let me show you this over here by the Broadway and you know like you see this or something I mean so there's there's opportunity there's opportunity to do that but I'm just curious you know we've seen some Blackey buildings in our times and people just sort of turn their heads when they go buy more they just forget even what they're looking at so it couldn't agree more we take this stuff pretty seriously and I hope that that the degree to which we take it seriously has been reflected in in the portions of the project that have been more fully realized and specifically the residential and we're quite excited to share the the additional components that that we are more close to being able forward like the pavilion like some of the additional answer that
078uses and albeit we'll be the first to admit that the hotel is a placeholder right now we're trying to preserve the opportunity to develop a hotel within rules and and I'm we're quite confident and and and the image you see in front of you now was was not intended to depict architecture per se but at the same time trying to make sure people appreciate that the same sensitivity to use of materials that we brought to the residential buildings will ultimately brought to that hotel I am the first one to admit and I think anyone else on our team would be that the the placeholder of the nine story hotel on this the images you've seen today would have once a really is it gonna look like that and and that's a fair question and and
079we are as the as the parties looking at this trying to create the the flexibility necessary for the hotel to succeed economically but obviously at the same time we want it to reflect well on this entire development everyone who's here who's a resident of the community says I want something that I like having in my neighborhood and I want to remind everybody would that we're extending this neighborhood onto this park so if we do something from a hospitality perspective there that doesn't reflect well in the view of those of our neighbors who are on the other side of the river ask yourself how it's going to view be viewed by the those residents who are being who are considering living literally on this site so that's not obviously anything other than the the the the
080point that the process improves and and and and produces the best possible result as we move through it together and and so quite frankly Commissioner woods were at the early stages of that we would prefer guidelines and rules and these regulations that that this body feels put enough onus on us to produce good design and allow the site plan process to be the the the next step in that process we are looking forward to the moment when we can turn our full attention to that hotel but with those rules in front of us because we can design things in a lot of different directions I can tell you that the impetus to nine stories in the sistas was to minimize footprint so it actually cut in the direction of Commissioner Mills point there are other
081ways to achieve this I will tell you that the proposition that we're trying to preserve for is in the range of 130 to 150 room hotel this is not a massive Hotel this is the the regulations that are before you particularly with the other FA our requirements pushing against us really won't allow us to build much more hotel than that that is what we might call in the industry a boutique hotel it is not a large-scale hotel it is not at the end of the day all that much bigger than a residential building that might hope that might house a hundred or 120 apartments it's just us trying to use we all recognize there are certain constraints on this site this happens to be a location even in the current Lamar and that was one
082of the other things we didn't touch on but the one that we are ultimately committed to is buildable and so in a site where we're trying to unlike unlock the better part of seven or eight acres of public space we have to take advantage of the buildable property and this is one of those locations but we welcome rules that this body feels will will drive us to good design we'd like to believe we're gonna be driven a good design either way commissioner Ackerman Thank You mr. chair they said the developer first for the public engagement process getting multiple compliments in a night about public engagement is certainly what we want to hear so thank you for that epi how's the volume can you hear me how's the volume speak up with me by the way
083yeah you're doing great so I first just I thought I heard you say site plans plural earlier in the presentation could you clarify what the process will be for site planner okay I misspeak but but as we look at this PUD we believe that there is the opportunity to present a single site plan or to come in in pieces under the regulations and say all right within the zoning overlay we are now asking for site plan on this component versus this component the regulations still preclude us from advancing certain activities at all until other conditions are met so as as a master developer on this site for instance would be our hope that we would have the flexibility to say hey looks listen the the residential component of this street grid and and and the
084parking solution is is ready for approval can we bring that forward and lock that down within these rules and and then step forward at a later point but obviously from our perspective time is money so not much later point okay now now this these these commercial pads are ready and and it just gives us the opportunity to kind of do this without in the context where there might be multiple parties taking on various components of this within the rulebook not having to literally bring everybody all at once right is that a fair characterization from my team in terms of kind of how we looked at this fair enough as we talk about phasing and we talk about parking structure which is obviously a large investment that would satisfy parking requirements for a lot of the
085property I just be curious to understand the phasing perhaps a little bit better well the good news on the parking structure is basically integral as designed right now to the residential so it either gets added at that stage we have either secured a adjacent parking solution acceptable to to the the city or we haven't at that stage and it doesn't mean we don't ultimately but that parking as as depicted in that plan is integral to those four buildings and it's the only structure that's depicted it doesn't it does it's it's inconceivable to us that we've come forward with kind of Zone one there without without that figured out okay thank you with respect to the 20-foot setback and I suppose maybe this is a good opportunity to talk about the hotel as well it just
086seems to be a theme as we look at the renderings it is curious to see 115 foot hotel dropped down steeply to the the food and beverage restaurant and I'm curious if there would be opportunity to shift massing from the hotel to the restaurant as it means to bring the building height down and extend the massing horizontally probably I'm gonna go to this image so that we're all looking at the same thing where is our pretty picture up from it's there yeah it's been our belief from the beginning that the answer is yes there is that opportunity okay and I asked you mentioned Jace there is that opportunity okay you mentioned in the actually on this slide that the hotel pad comments that you'd like to explore the building massing and it sounded like you'd
087rather do that in the site plan process but then you also said that you'd be comfortable with some of those regulations ahead of the site plan process I'm curious would bringing down the height allowance for hospitality and extending that use to the what would that be the west its alleviate some of the mast er the height concerns for the hotel I think it's conceivable okay I'm trying to think on the fly about how those things could be offered as alternatives without without constraining the outcome at this stage and and the reason for it I so I study yes it's conceivable it is also conceivable and we've had approaches in interest from very capable FMB as well as hospitality groups around this that that those part those activities want to stand next to each other but
088not be integral and so all we're trying to do is create a universe where where we can get to the best result for the development and and for the community without without unnecessarily constraining that but yeah councilman you point out an obvious opportunity I believe it would permit for some lessening of height if the building extended over that I think you know there's there's some logic to that yeah and I think that if I would say is a more you know I think meaningful conversation then then setback per se yeah fairness back is we're dealing with site constraints 115 feet I just get concerned about what the shadow effect is I mean to the restaurant even in the morning hours your Sunday brunch is just in the shadow that path is almost entirely in the
089shadow I imagine year-round or in through the day as the Sun moves but yeah I'd be interested in understanding what could be shifted as we move forward and and what that looks like in supplemental regulations again that I'm you know I've got people smarter than me behind me and smarter than me in front of me I think what we're trying to do is so I can be perfected architecture on the floor yeah we're trying to figure out a rulebook that that gives this team the comfort our team and yours the comfort of knowing that we've got a mechanism for having this discussion and and you you know I think it is it's certainly a direction we could go Minh I think without without undermining the the economic vitality of the of the resource I think
090is what I'm saying okay well good I'd be happy to consider that as we move forward along with some more assurances of the parking structure I think those two are great additions I wanted to make sure we talked about lighting in the dark skies the Planning Commission along with the Energy Commission are partnering on some new zoning regulations around lighting and I just wanted to understand kind of the timing or the effect on on this rezoning and subsequent site plans hey mr. Leonard my shirt cost you so I don't have I don't know exactly when that would be ready for consideration by either this group or the City Council my I guess my recommendation is if it's something that you want to ensure is applied in the zoning framework of this property it'd be appropriate
091to include some reference that dark skies compliant lighting would would would be required for any physical construction on this thing do you all deal with dark skies another actually some of our some of our stakeholder meetings we we had some actually extended conversations about it we I think we're comfortable being having whatever rules are being generally applied in projects of this scale we we're we always get concerned and everyone says well you know why do you worry about PUD as a developer you worried that it winds up becoming kind of a Christmas tree of great ideas and we're still just we would be delighted if there was a zoning classification that would allow this project to happen but we know we need to we need to kind of create rules if those are being generally
092applied yeah in other zones with these uses we don't want to be an exception we just don't also want to be sort of the poster child or for every latest and greatest idea yeah yeah and it's something that's moving through the process of two Commission's and other council members discuss it so it's the direction and I will just say customer I would just say that it is something we have looked at very seriously we tend to in our developments like to humanize lighting or so that we sort of think a lot of developers over light things and and so we're taking it we're taking it seriously but we prefer anytime there is a there's a guidance in in the regulation that we be asked to kind of live within that okay great I I really
093appreciate your receptiveness the in the supplemental regulations the 60% of area B lands to be impervious is that being then the entire parcel not just area one or two it's that's the entire parcel site okay okay so I'm hearing kind of three potential amendments as we can move forward that will help I think alleviate concerns we heard from the community I love the parking structure I'm hearing dark skies and then potentially lowering the hotel height and encouraging that massing to shift to the west but I also recognize that not everyone has had the opportunity ask questions so I just wanted to summarize I'm hearing those three general ideas I'm gonna show you Brandel not be too prescriptive about shifting in one direction or the other would and I know you're looking for rules to be
094able to make your lives a little bit easier in terms of following something but one of the downsides I think of of our especially downtown development guidelines is all the buildings start to look pretty similar after a while and I think I probably don't speak for myself and saying we would actually really welcome some creativity with the way that you handle the massing and that I think what I would if I were be so bold is to characterize how we have thought about things before is to not have it feel monolithic and to think about how to break it up in ways that make it more interesting and that that western direction is something that gives you some wiggle room in terms of how to be able to move the jigsaw puzzle around and I
095do believe that the restaurant can still be very distinct looking even if it's still part of an overall building there it's really you know all kinds of you know your designers okay you can feed that stuff out and it doesn't have to have the same I mean there's all different kinds of ways you can skin that cat so I think I'd rather not be too prescriptive about it moving in a certain direction but for and and this is not your site plan and this is always the the issue that we have with the area plan but having this dialogue now allows you also to think about ways that you can attack this problem and that I would just say think of that entire envelope and how you can move things within that to be able
096to address the concerns of it feeling monolithic along the bridge and that it feels really different than what's around it because that's what we're hearing yes I also feel like in general the city of Ann Arbor has really turned its back on the river and that I think that having some retail right up there is okay with me personally and that I think of San Antonio and the Riverwalk and just how successful those kinds of things are and though I agree that we I mean I also am right above the river my offices and I just saw Red Hawk today and all kinds of great wildlife that goes through there and I completely support the need for it to remain green throughout most of it I think it's okay also for there to be moments
097where the people come up close and the development comes up close and you can sit out on the terrace of the restaurant and have a beer and be feet from the river I think that's okay to have that happen in places so personally for me that doesn't completely put me off even though in general I do like it being a real corridor for a wildlife and things too so that would be my comment around that in terms of lighting I would say our parks are not lit at night there does not and so I would say however you handle that to think about that area when an area to that we're not looking for you know fireworks at night unless there's an event you know something that you that you all you know have planned
098but that you know if there is a bridge or whatever they be crossing over into super dark land it's light on the other side so I think in general the tone of our parks is it's closed at night and that that's okay you know so I don't think we're inviting people to necessarily I mean it's kind of go at your own risk in some ways for the for the rest of the park system so I'd say in those places where it does get close to think carefully about that 0.1 foot candle or whatever that we're talking about at the property line with the new dark skies ordinance do you feel that way not just about overhead but like pathway lighting I think that generally speaking that our parks are dark at night and I think
099that it would be weird in some ways to have it be less lit up something for a hundred feet and then to have it be dark again and that whatever your terraces are and things like that obviously those will be lit but that the park part of it the pathway part of it that connects to other things I wouldn't think about for me that's how I feel anyway is that the tone of our parks in general is that they're they're dark at night and that they're not lit up so that would be my my sense of that but I would I would welcome any dialog from the rest of the Commission on that as well commissioner brings so to carry on with that discussion of dark skies the dark skies ordinances you guys will recall
100from our session when it comes to mixed-use we didn't set the same sort of standards and so this even if we had our ordinance come into place it wouldn't necessarily create the protections that we might think are appropriate for this given site and so I don't think that we should rely on the dark skies you know our upcoming light ordinance to protect this space in the same sort of way I think that we might in the regulations want to provide some sort of basis around lower scale lighting particularly at that you know you know one foot candle or you know in that in that park space and and thinking about lighting overall in terms of shielding and stuff the shielding component will will come into place but I do agree that that's important I concur
101with discussion around parking and then I'd like to also stress the hospitality section I think that it's pretty incredible to me that you're coming here tonight and there's this you know really sort of this warmth about this project from from the public around community engagement and how well the process has been going and the only thing you're really hearing a little bit of sort of you know major concern about that that reoccurring thread is the height and set back of the hotel and gosh wouldn't it be amazing I mean I know it's overly optimistic to think that we're gonna have a PUD project that is non-controversial once you get all the way through Council however I think yeah but I think really addressing this area I mean I think it's quite reasonable that people are
102pushing on this this is we haven't done anything if we haven't done planning around what are important scenic view sheds in our community that's not sort of a document that you can reference but if we were at least on the feedback that we're hearing here I think we're recognizing that the river and that view in our community is important to us and there's concern especially that historic view going into Lower Town this is something that's interfering with it a 9th 9 story hotel and in some way I would like to see that address this evening I don't know exactly how we how we deal with that but I I do think yes there's possibility for a beautiful stunning building there but I don't want to see beautiful stunning buildings in Ann Arbor very often and
103I you know I think the project is beautiful but I don't wanna I don't want to you know I think that I'm a little skeptical about what that ultimate hotel is going to look like so I would welcome more discussion around that site and also I think 20 feet if you could discuss a little bit with the construction around 1224 setback and what that looks like would be really helpful because I think there's concerns about both being 25 feedback but also what that would look like in terms of potentially contaminate you know Tama nation during construction yeah yeah during construction is obviously something we always deal with but I if I could address those again I think I I think we would unequivocally like the the the creative freedom to to demonstrate that that this
104project with a limited footprint on that side of the river with a bit more height particularly given the the the change in grade that occurs there which a number of these projects are none of these renders I don't think immediately do justice to would seem appropriate and inviting and indeed become what we said when we were here last time hospitality often becomes which is which is not something that repels the community but actually draws it together you're absolutely right commissioner we we spend a lot of time garnering what I think is a substantial amount of support within the community for this myth mix of uses so on the one hand what we've heard quite a bit from our nearly forty sessions outside of this room was people are excited by what the hotel and the
105FMB can do at this moment in the riverfront this image was merely intended to try to say listen this isn't this is by no means walling off the river this the image that that Hamilton Anderson used to create this was taken from a photograph last week reminding that there's another monumental structure right there and it's the bridge itself and so this this is below that point the bridge that's pretty high above it but we we understand that if to my way of thinking and listening to these comments it seems that that there's a great deal of consternation about the height itself and and then some questions or concerns about 20 feet off the river this is too dependent depicting 20 feet off the river right here and remember what happens is you turn that corner
106as you open up onto this remarkable site so there's a moment here and I'm not gonna try to suggest there isn't a moment here where we're tight to the river and I do agree with the point of view that moments like that are worthwhile in a river front sometimes if they're done right I would to be completely candid I would rather not have the height of this particular property become the you know the lightning rod if you will we would rather have the Commission say gosh darn it if this thing were a story lower and we had a design process that would allow us to revisit massing and those things like that keep moving you know we would certainly you know consider that reasonable feedback and something we would we would work on and we'll
107be the first one to come back I can say geez we tried to do it and the hotel doesn't work so and I'm not saying that's what's gonna happen so I I just think we've established a dialogue here that dialogue isn't going to end and and and the last thing this group and the and the interests that have been assembled around it to make this project happen it wants to be is is is is a group that looks at a project where we see all of this obvious benefit and everyone's saying yes this is the right mix of uses on this site and we just become you know Don Quixote chasing a windmill for an extra story on a hotel we're just not built that way we think we could make the case for this
108but at the same time we would rather say we would rather hear from this commission say see if we can work it out this way if you can't you can't Minoo were but but III believe there's some flexibility on height quite frankly we've said that already we think that that the site in the end in a properly designed hotel would not be offensive to this body or to the community but I would I would rather make the case for an eight story hotel or a seven story hotel and and still be able to make the case for a hotel because I think that it really brings something to the to this site and location that I want to have that opportunity present and knowing that this body can still say not approving that development insight
109plan could you respond to the question about construction and then I would also caution I don't think you're gonna find much sympathy going from nine to eight stories in terms of what I've seen I agree I think the night story hotel everybody would come from a perspective that's really different from the community perspective I think it's thinking about what that view shed looks like I I merely want to remind the body that the that the residential buildings are six stories tall so we're really not talking about night and day here and I think probably we've done ourselves a disservice with that rendering quite frankly so the buildings are six stories those are I think eighty feet we're talking about a hotel 115 these are not this isn't single-family homes in and the Statue of Liberty
110I mean this is these are in a range and so as it relates to construction there is a period where that where that is create certain inconveniences I would simply say on this site is creating zero inconveniences because no one has access to the site right now I can tell you that our mindset on development of this property is moving in the direction particularly aligning the environmental remediation which is the first thing we have to do with the development is to create if we're able to move forward to create the the public space first offense everything that is non public space since our regulations require certain things to occur before a CFO anyway and then move back from that so kind of create the public access experience and and then have the development occur after
111that so our of hope is if we do it that way or first giving something before we're causing kind of constraint at that location but right now at that hotel and all these buildings are in a location that the public can access at all so I don't know if that answer is it I guess I'm mostly interested in in the impact of 20 feet off the river isn't very far for a large building and so I'm curious what that's sort of what the construction since we're talking about setbacks of 20 feet what the impact of that could be during on the river during construction because that to me that's that's problematic well I think if you think about zero lot line construction which is not obviously if you think about the the kind of construction
112is going up in the in in city centers around the country and frankly in our own here it we're accustomed to building in a constrained environment I'm not concerned about negative impacts to the river during that period of time I was simply responding to the fact that obviously there's no access between the building and the river during that period of time but there's none now I we're very accustomed to zero lot line development this is less this is considerably more generous than zero lot line development so I'm I'm not concerned it's a slab on grade construction and so it's not like we're digging a deep foundation and building up from that so you create a pad and you go up and so in fact a lot of hospitality development and particularly in in the kind
113of strata that we're talking about here is pretty rapid construction these days because a lot of his main modular now and that advances construction more accurately so I'm not overly concerned about that and but that's how I view them I shut you down I'll come back to some of the points we've talked about but I'll switch gears a little bit just a couple of questions I think I know the answers to but I just wanted to confirm the first is on the emergency access I did notice as permanent secondary access is required so we don't know I think the PARCC part I'm not worried about the Amtrak side we don't know what's gonna happen with the train station one way or the other so I'm assuming whatever is gonna happen you will have an ironclad
114capsule or something yes the train station but no the process I apologize for please go out I think you're answering my question yes yes I mean we are working we had already before our last meeting introduced to Amtrak the notion that this was going to be required and it's within the range of things we're asking them for which is access under their site to bring utilities to the site access changing their access point to the fire end which actually opens up this passageway this this was a this struck them as a pretty obvious thing and something they certainly again particularly when we started with the with the can we drive over the tracks and they all fainted moving to the Conservancy so I appreciate the additional detail there that was something I had some questions
115about and I appreciate the commitment of money because that was my primary concern as we get all this stuff and then we don't have a way to pay for it having that deposit to get it up off the ground is good I'm curious about and maybe this is a question for staff or maybe because it's not really clearly defined and to how we're going to select the representatives what the board is gonna look like like what's the process that that like goes through the loop to actually kind of stand it up and figure out what it looks like I probably don't want to describe that whole thing in the zoning regulation I'm curious if you have thoughts on that or thirds of staff wants to chime in on that we have some thoughts as we're
116doing it for a Detroit Park right now with the city of Detroit and so we're forming a 501c3 in that instance the city of Detroit said we want to have X percent of the of the representatives on that Conservancy board then you want to say the board can only have nine members or ten members of twelve Mars they said they wanted three who were designated by the city either mayor's office or City Council in there because it was a different structure and our attitude once we in that structure agreed to that was you tell us who it is and so so we are view of it in the regulations was let's let's establish unequivocally the formation of the enemy that it's board driven and that there will be city representation and leave it to the
117city to identify who and how we assumed it would be somebody in the parks department minimally sure and think about that for a minute because because I could see yeah I could like think always thinking worst-case scenario is like sure we get 10 reps from the condo associations and then one rep from the city and the condo runs it and also the ongoing funding like there's no stipulation there one way or the other it'll have a they'll have a budget they'll get money from somewhere there's no ongoing commitment dollars well it's a combination actually I think there's two commitments being made here one we're committing to a baseline of improvements that we just simply have to pay for right we stopped short of the entire list because some of those things involve an operating model
118in some cases that still has to be worked out with the city for instance delivery so so so there's two things I feel we did in this one was we're we're building this Park for all intents it's got to be at least six acres it's going to have the border to border to trail and I have to we have to come back and say here's our plan for that here's what it looks like here's what it's made out of you all have to approve that we will have a point of embarkation for watercraft we will have two other points of americaís ssin we're sort of laying out the bare minimum here and that bare minimum is itself millions of dollars and then we're saying and we're gonna form a Conservancy for the operation of that
119public space and on top of all of the other sources that we believe we will drive into that exercise fundraising sponsorship naming the things that typically occur and in these contexts and by the way condo association fees which which will help support this park we are putting a million dollars on the table so again beginning of the exercise what we wanted to eliminate was any question of substantial commitment to this exercise and so I'm not going to suggest Commissioner Trudeau that it's the end of of what has to occur here sure yeah and I'm a little less concerned about the money and then just maybe a little more clarity on what the board looks like but I need to think about that I'm curious that I think I'm the somebody one of the public speakers
120mentioned a potential different mix of uses just to address that point I think an office use here would be way worse from a traffic perspective like the traffic load is exactly the opposite what we want is drawing lots of cars in exactly during rush hour hours rather than putting housing near our hue big job centers at the hospital in the university and yeah just in the pattern of trip generation with residential and hotel is much more spread out and having a more 24-hour presence on the site rather than a limited time of the day I think all speaks well to this mix of uses so I'm pretty comfortable with the residential hospitality retail restaurant and excuse did you want to do address that point and then getting to sort of whether we want to require
121any sort of use I'm really uncomfortable with that idea of saying we have to have a restaurant oh not only because because we're writing a zoning rules here we're not this isn't for the next ten years this is for the next however long this parcel is zoned this way to be developed and that would severely limits the ongoing reuse in the future of what might happen we might in 40 years want to see something completely different here and like how how how much how much do we want to tie this to a really really specific vision so I'm very much not comfortable with that as much as I really really want a restaurant on the river here I walk down here all the time and we would be there all the time there was a
122good restaurant here which goes to my second point coming back to the proximity of this stuff to the river I agree with the point that having you know some built environment a human presence in a limited footprint up against the river it can be a really good thing I think I've heard that through a lot of the public discussion - a lot of people have found that idea of healing keeping it limited is good I think the placement near the bridge across from the old whatever that power building is I don't know what that actually building is on the other side of the river but having all that built environment concentrated right there in one point makes it feel like the right space I think 20 feet one of my concerns was like blocking and
123I think was a good point of not wanting to lock public access to the riverfront I think is a good one and having the 20 feet to me feels about the right amount of space to make it feel like it's still open but have have that presence up on the river so that doesn't bother me by the way I do want to point out 10 feet off a Broadway we added that too because the bridge is right there it doesn't bother me so much either way but yeah yeah the 20 feet I think is good from my perspective although this this whole conversation really does highlight the frustration of doing an area plan versus a site plan as we do or not we're talking in these generalities and I understand why this is super complex
124and trying to get it to specific to soon makes it really hard to actually realize and I think that's legitimate but it's gonna make this conversation really hard because we're reacting to a lot of theoretical like abstract things and and the concrete is what we really care about and we if we give up too much control too soon then we have a harder time dealing with the concrete when it comes back to us and I don't have a strong sense of what I would even want to support here because I do think there is some value and leaving some flexibility for design creativity because I think there's a lot of different ways this could look great and a lot of different ways this could look horrible like the rendering that you showed like I think
125looks bad just because it looked very impermeable it's like I don't want to be walking on a path and seeing like a workout thing that's just like a lot basically the wall of the side of hotel-like like the building to feel like it's open to to the Riverside into the path and accessible and not just a building there even if you can see into it but that's all design level stuff that we're not really discussing at the area of plan level and I don't know if we can really regulate clearly enough here so I'm an easy with it but I can respect it we're like wanting to preserve that flexibility I'm eager to see site plan or site plans so we can have a little bit more concrete discussion about some of this stuff yeah
126so anyway that's those are kind of my thoughts and what's come up so far Commissioner Weatherby I think just to make the discussion on the height a little more probably complicated because we don't all agree I I think what worries me and this gets to the site plan is I would sort of hate to see a long six story building that blocks a very large chunk rather than a slender nine-story building that might feel tall but only block a very small part of the river right now when you drive over you don't really notice the river a whole lot because it's the way the the bridge is and the way the site is I I really would hesitate to sort of say we only want to get you know this height because I feel like
127it might end up being a big block that that really interferes much more with the river and and so I I definitely agree with the some of the comments of you know if we're too prescriptive now then we might be unhappy with what comes out at the end so I guess that's my thought on the height and I know that that the neighbors don't like the height so I want to be respectful of that but I just worry I mean you need to build a building that is worth it for you to build and I worry that if we're too prescriptive on one side it might make that building less palatable once we actually see what it looks like so you know back to you my wheels turn and I see various ways to achieve
128these objectives I mean that's all I can say I I feel like your weather commissioner whether you're actually correct that if you just simply said I'm gonna limit height you know it's the law of unintended consequences we're not trying to create those unattended concepts but I've every expectation that the that our neighbors who are in the audience say will be back here when we show that when we show the hotel and if we get it wrong we'll get an earful and and one thing I I can clear quickly sense from this commission as you listen to that and so I I agree I would rather this is all good input I believe there are ways to to balance these things and I believe and I realized rendering with with good architecture people will say and
129get it I get that and if we if they don't you know we won't get approved so I I don't I've seen this in action in more than one body like this and that's why I'm not I I'm not a I'm not afraid of the the power that this body wields and I respect the power of this body wields and that's why I'm confident that we'll find that middle ground I really am and and so if if to give us direction that that gave some comfort the Commission felt that there had to be a design step or some other exercise that we went through we would welcome that as we have in the past my guess is when we get to the process of actually designing this we'll do exactly what we did with the
130residential buildings in the park and that we will reach back out to the very community that that we've engaged with today and some of the very same people in this room and say what about this so that we're we're not we're not asking you to do our job of getting our own neighbors to feel good about we're going to develop so I understand the the double-edged sword of what you just said but I would say we are you know anyone can be brilliant on an unlimited budget and unlimited and you know the life this project this site already has constraints and so we are we will be the first ones to raise our hands and say gosh you know we just killed the goose that laid the golden egg we can't make all this work
131but but I would be I would not be here today because we wouldn't have been successful in other projects if I told you there were ways to solve these these concerns we believe there are and and we would we would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that to the community into this into this commission you know at the design phase and then I just had one more comment that people brought up the traffic the last Commission meeting and again I understand there's there is a natural understanding when you look at a site this constrained that that there's a challenge here that that as one of our residents said today it was like I don't know how you would solve that that's why I actually have respect for the for the for the empirical exercise that the
132city's engineers went through and I'm going to give a commercial again the community is getting its money's worth with your traffic engineers they they they're skeptical Bunch and I mean that is a compliment and and but I think our engineers are pretty capable to and and what I would remind everybody is something that got said here and I can't remember by whom so I apologize but but the use is I think was Commissioner trail the the use is here and the lack of density and we have we had one letter that I know came to the Commission that said they were not building enough buildings out there and I said please say that in front of the Commission because the reality is we this is not a dense development and the uses are residential we
133can call hospitality something else but it's also a residential you it's counter cyclical and and it is not a heavy user of traffic we're not going to suggest that there aren't traffic issues in this neighborhood what the traffic study which we paid for which which was ultimately reviewed and and commented on and ultimately consent on with with your own traffic engineers made I think the the following conclusion there are traffic issues in this neighborhood this development as proposed does not materially negatively impact those issues but there are mitigations being put in place anyway and those include a left-hand turn lane and a signal amongst other things that are not as obvious when you look at this like how we're handling traffic flow on the site and so we don't we don't make light of it
134again if we can't handle that issue properly we've got it we've got a hundred and some-odd residents who are as upset as anybody else but but I would say of all the things that we've been through in this exercise and it's not an easy project the one that that I would characterize as almost bordering on a pleasant surprise other than by the way this is phenomenal reception I think this overall development has received in our and our exercises it's that traffic wasn't the Achilles heel of this project that that that if we were talking about the mammoth traffic counts that were originally being suggested by by the enlarged train station on this site which I know is still in the back of some member of the communities heads different issue but even that project was
135managed in the in the study that had determined that this site could handle a 1,500 space parking structure in a massive new train station this is a light touch development by comparison it really is and I think and lastly and all in my commercial and traffic it's the fact that we've found so many different ways to get people to the site it's it's the fact that in the end trip generation was taken into account the fact that this site is walkable bikable bow and and and it's not just people driving on and off in cars and so the potable now I have to think about it's it's canoe able so anyway that's my commercial on traffic it's we did we take it quite seriously but it's it is a manageable issue on this side okay
136thank you amateur so they well thank you commissioners for laundry list before it gets to me sorry so I actually only have a couple of details one is about height but in the language it describes residential eighty feet and hotel at 115 feet and no other uses are described for height requirement catch okay thank you that is correct the limitations that are in there are strictly for the so we do not have a height maximum for office use well there's no officer you mean if they provide some on the stairs principal permitted uses office use is number two right with no height restriction correct I mean they'll be when we come in through the site planning but correct we can put a height restriction on that absolutely so I think that's something I'm gonna put
137on the table that we might umbrella you know that's 115 feet if that's it to the entire site so nothing exceeds that I actually don't have too much concern I think coaster weather be hit kind of that balance that slenderness ratio versus distribution of views to the river and letting the design team and it come back to site planning we can evaluate it at that point and I don't want to squeeze too much into this doing some architecting on the fly thank you for foramen I kind of looked at the site it looks like that building could be about forty five feet deep and it's a yeah and thirty five foot height difference so you have less than a forty five degree angle if we did do step backs so I would just put on
138the table I'm not going to make an amendment here that an 80-foot height maximum at the river would allow for that Sun to hit those step backs to allow more Sun down to the river instead of casting that shadow across so that could be a way of looking at a little bit of form base code to allow some more daylight across the river I think you know there's I think there's two points of concern with the height is what I think I'm hearing views of the river and then the kind of ecological effects of just shadow there's just a large cast of shadow and so the step backs would I think solve a lot for the shadow the the views I think are different things that I I don't have much of an issue with
139at this point for every base plan so I don't know if you guys have looked at that and we haven't you I would really respect the fact that we're thinking as well I'm flying this when you say step X and I just want to make sure I understand how you saying if you're saying 80-foot before it steps back away from the river or step X in any direction to create 80-foot height at the river and then it could step back you know in some proportion or you know a rule of where that shadow line ends but would more height more yet stuff yes yeah no really just be a function you write your pointed out an obvious constraint here it's an it's a it's a skinny site mm-hmm so we we see that from architectural
140step X I have time in the downtown and other and other DDA districts and others but those are usually those aren't those are usually step backs to create to break up the facade not to like move the building back 30 feet in a step back and you know because we're talking about a reasonably now yeah so I'd be concerned about prescriptive step X that we couldn't model in front of us but that being said I would rather have a rule that we could work with than no rule at all yeah like trying to diagram something out on the fly and it's feeling tight right away so I'm feeling comfortable like it's like yeah I'm trying to architect real quick to be like is this even feasible and I don't want to put rules on the
141table that are difficult to make happen later and I do think that site planning we will be able to have another moment to address this so I just kind of want to say that I understood from from the room there was some Tiger me back here so look at that um I guess I want clarification on the size of that Hotel and the footprint cuz that's not in here so other than kind of the area plan that we're looking at what is the limit is there a limitation to the square footage of that building as I read our the regulations as proposed it's only on the total project there's an FAA that's correct do you think I had one moment kind of looked at again the hotel and if a hotel you know there's only
142two residential and hotel or defined outside of kind of the overall area uses and if Hotel had to bundle another permitted use into that zone but I really do feel that the market is gonna demand more than isolated Hotel on that corner so I don't feel like putting it that in right now does any good so I don't know if I've offered anything more than schematic sketches over here to say does not fit but the height restriction to the overall project I think is something I might punt right back over to Commissioner Mills who's directing some things up so I had a couple quick comments and questions so one of the things that I'm still uneasy about as the area plan even though we're getting closer to what you know limiting this I'm still in
143a little and easy about what I'll actually turn out us so I just wanna make that comment and further with the regards to the height of the hotel building this is I guess a question that I've had for a while and I'll a staff is there any way to restrict or to give more authority to this to the Design Review Board so that a if a PhD is approved they must also get the approval from the design board Design Review Board is there a way so that we don't get an ugly building is there as long as it's not brown but is there I I suppose it's probably possible but my my cautions is that this is remember this is writing a zoning ordinance and so for the benefit of decision makers both the Planning
144Commission and City Council for the benefit of applicants for the benefit of the public having a clear expectation of what can be realized in in this district is important my hesitation with just including something that says and by the way it has to be approved by the design review board to what standard we they they are advisory only now for downtown projects they also have design guidelines which surrender that advice if if they were interested in doing that I would want to find the way to for the benefit of everybody involved find on which basis those decisions would be made I fear that just saying whatever the Design Review Board wants is probably a little bit unfairly general and so my initial reaction is if there were a thought is that if there were a
145desire for design guidelines it might be on the petitioner to present what what kind of constraints might give them the flexibility necessary as they proceed to site plan but give you an ultimately City Council comfort that those design aspects would be addressed and you know in a way my we could explore the use of the design review board and existing design guidelines as some reference points towards that end but I would be reluctant to just and sort of a very generalized way just to require that because again it's not pointing to what criteria would be used and I think there's a lot of opportunity for dispute over what decisions are made in that regard could we tie it to guidelines which ones which which character district there's several like that I write no I understand
146that now all right so a couple of comments in regards to although we'd love to have a restaurant on the riverfront I am not 100% sure that that's a long term sort of thing we've seen several spots on Main Street sat vacant for a long time and so although I'd love to time down and say you've got to put a restaurant on the riverfront I also don't want it to sit there vacant for years upon years upon years so I I think we should probably leave that alone for right now at least that's my inclination and then there's a couple comments about the brownfield cleanup can you just discuss that a little bit absolutely it's and this may be running over some ground no pun intended that we did last time but again just to
147kind of put it in broad terms the Department of Environmental Quality approved a response activity plan for this site that calls for a remediation to what they established as a acceptable recreational standard for the public space that is the removal of any contaminations that that a that the public had come into contact with in the entire zone that we've designated as the public space zone here to clean fill of at least two feet that essentially amounts to room of all of all contamination contamination that is still on the site which while quite extensive in its in its areas is completely delineated at this point and largely involves a couple subsidence a substance is one that is sometimes generally referred to in in articles you read about this as the quote blue soil it was a
148byproduct of an inert very visible actually as it turns out byproduct of the coal gasification process that occurred on this site for seven years so years it has been completely identified it will be completely removed there is also some some residual tar deposits that will also be removed that is the entire public space area the the the location where the buildings and hardscape exist is largely where the old buildings existed when if you recall I brought that image that really grimy image of this site from the early 20th century those are for the most part foundations and leave-behinds that we will in in lieu of disturbing we will encapsulate with a with a substantial cap that amounts to the foundations of the buildings and reinforce the soil to receive those new those new footings vapor
149intrusion barriers and all of the things that are usually brought to bear when you're building out over into old industrial foundations at the chance that some some residual vapors come through will be deployed and are mandated the entire and then there's quite a bit of geotechnical work that was also which is basically making this site stable this is of course in addition to the over six million dollars of remediation that already occurred along the river front to to preclude any offsite migration the the current brownfield plan cost for that in my environment work is in the range of nine million dollars so it's a it's where a brownfield plan with brownfield tax increment financing it really makes a project like this possible and and so that's you know that's kind of a nickel tour but
150it's a substantive is the first thing that we do on this project and it is a big part of of what if we're fortunate enough to advance this project tonight and then through the City Council process we hope to get at this year this is our hope to really begin to heal this site in this in this calendar year Thank You mr. Ackerman actually I want to hear from Commissioner Mills first if she has some amendment language commissioner Millis okay I have five there's one based on what I heard I only have one change to the height and that is to should we take each of these individually we should okay so the first one I'll go and reverse order then is to change the language that says hotel and just replace that with non
151residential use so makes the max height 80 feet for a residential use and 110 feet for non-residential use do we have a second second by Commissioner Weatherby on that amendment sure Trudeau maybe a question for staff is is non-residential sufficiently clear to would that imply hotel users hotel residential use it's not non-residential use okay good Commissioner so they just friendly amendment 115 115 sorry yes it's late yeah well it's not even that late it's for their discussion all those in favor please say aye aye opposed that amendment is a proof pushrim else I'm gonna try to do these in the order that I think that they're the least controversial okay so the next one we'll take is with regards to parking and so the one that I heard at least one other Commissioner was interested
152in is changing section 4G the the what's kind of purply in the printout about the parking garage requirements to say the surface area for on-site parking cannot exceed 50% of the required total parking do you have a second so the surface area for any the you know you go you can where it's Memphis the surface area for any parking that is built on-site cannot exceed fifty percent of the required total part of the total parking required for the site the idea is to not get ten percent off site build ninety percent on site all surface that's the intent so you guys can like rewrite it but effectively you can't have more than 50 percent surface area couldn't can I ask a question of yeah I'm is that permissible long as Commissioner I just want to
153remind the Commission that the the original proposition that that staff brought forward was that 50% of all parking would be structured yeah and there's an additional restriction that no more than sixty percent of the entire site can be impervious so we were asking for the dispensation and we're not have to be mysterious about this if we're able to secure parking on the Amtrak site it would be possible to achieve the parking not in any way expand the footprint of parking on the site and not have to build a parking structure right so my whole hope is because I I didn't quite understand a minute I don't want an unintended consequence that I have to build yet what I want is if if you so we well if what we see is 50 percent parking effectively
154on this if you can get all of it if you can get 80% of what's required elsewhere then you don't have to build then then you're 50% but area of you know it's covered or that the footprint this is this is where it's weird because we don't often talk about like the percentage of surface area that's parking you know what I mean is this very confusing I just don't want ninety percent like it's still I it's a lot it's a decent amount of parking you know your if I monitor I just want to make sure I understand that proposed amendment that if more than 50% of parking is required on site then it has to be structured is that what you're saying yeah well then half of that has to be structured no what I
155was saying is let's let's assume a thousand spaces cuz that'll be easier okay great from the air right you should only be able to see 500 spaces on-site if that's all done through you know a tube level garage okay that's one thing if 500 of those spaces are off-site and then the remaining 500 that remain there they can all be in in surface parking it's just if you secure a hundred spaces off-site and you need to build 900 spaces 400 of them are going to have to be over an existing over other spaces does that make sense so from the air you're only seeing 500 spaces there's surface area of a lot is only 500 spaces maybe that's too complicated I just see a situation where it's easy to say like as written right now
156if the thousand spaces are required they could get 50 spaces from Amtrak one space from Amtrak I understand the problem I'm not sure seeing that I understand the problem now and I understand that it was an unintended problem and I think there's a way to fix it I just want to take another couple minutes so you exercise my language it is let's use the real numbers of the site roughly yeah that plan shows roughly four hundred and forty four hundred eighty six spaces I understand the point that I get one adjacent off-site space and you can and and I can serve but but what cuts in the other direction is if I only get one adjacent off-site stays I'm still building that parking deck because I still need 480 spaces minimum because of these new
157standards right so we figured it regulates itself because I still whether I go on-site or off-site have to produce 480 spaces so so in theory there's a tipping point that I let's say first of all it's unlikely we're gonna get a piece of Amtrak but you need to protect against that and we understand that if we get the entire Amtrak site and are able to put a hundred spaces on that site which is roughly speaking what we think is is achievable on that site that something we only need 380 on-site and we're probably then at the point where we can start talking about geez is it really worth going up a level in parking but the only reason why I think it's self-regulating is you still are requiring a minimum number of spaces to support
158this project so I can't do a I can't I can't just fake it out by saying oh look I got in adjacent space so I don't have to build a parking deck anymore yeah but I understand that the way it's written you could say well you mixed it so you don't have to build a parking deck I also don't want you to max things like I don't want you to go over right we don't want to over park either and so and because over parking there's nothing in our code that says that there's a maximum there's no management right and so an every additional space that you require unless you go up it is just additional imperviousness and I know that we Mack we have a cap on imperviousness right but we we don't want
159that's not how we want to use our land area I think and so that's that's what this is trying to so with understanding and again a step has a question could you at least I apologize but I didn't process now you know my intended language is so what could I apologize could you say it again I can say it on more time so that the surface area of the parking that is the of the parking that is provided on-site mm-hmm cannot exceed on-site okay on-site right cannot exceed 50% of the required total parking surface area I guess the surface area that we were required to provide 50% but if we're only on-site it has to that's the point it would be 348 if if we didn't have the structure and had all the surface parking
160that you see it would be 348 spaces what you're looking at if that was a parking lot versus instruction instead of being a two-story structure yeah yeah you'd have 348 spaces on our site and then we would get the remaining spaces that were on the second floor of the deck from Amtrak so we want we just wanted the right to be able to do that yes then we'd have some flexibility with what we could do maybe with with whatever would be the rooftop or so so let me let me clarify actually with staff what's intended in what's in here so the to the extent of the minimum required parking is achieved entirely through on-site parking ah now I've seen what's going on at least fifty percent of the required parking shall be located within one
161or more parking structures so if there's again just for ease of numbers that's saying that if there's a thousand because I can do a thousand a lot easier right so there's a thousand spaces here five hundred of them have to be in a parking structure so you're still going to be able to so that's 250 on one level 250 on another level and there's still 500 that are surface parking is that right so from from the sky of seeing 750 spots rather than a thousand spots because it's 50 percent has to be in if it's all on-site correct if it's on if it's all on-site okay so the reason that this is really tricky right is that it this is gonna change because our formula is based on how many units you provide right like
162I don't want it to tie it into like a particular number because we may not see exactly this footprint this is exactly why you're not doing this is I'm gonna use just a moment to vent with commissioner Trudeau or maybe it wasn't commissioner sure it was totally commissioner Milstein and say like area plans are so tricky I actually say is it possible instead because what you're saying I think I understand is just because you got off site parking doesn't mean you can add more parking floor more parking for parking square more parking yeah so so is it is the is the amendment that that perhaps would achieve this to the effect of an apartment pardon if I've got to get the syntax that order if you're already comfortable with us achieving these ratios completely on
163site that to the extent we and we only asked for dispensation if we go off psyched and potentially not build a deck if we say provided however that going off site does not allow us to increase the total parking count that could be achieved on site that that gives us the flexibility to move it around without without necessarily adding parking I guess without creating a maximum parking about in other words whatever gets approved for on-site parking yeah you can spread it out to a neighboring site but you can't just add more parking without I was just suggesting that basically you're just taking that that second floor off that decadent and using Amtrak for it instead I defer to others but I mean again what I'm still concerned about is is the growing footprint of this
164not yeah but it sounds like maybe commissioner brakes has a better way of thinking about it maybe is that okay Commissioner Milstein Jeremy yeah I don't know if I have a better way of thinking I would suggest that you raised another issue that I not sure that we were I was thinking about at the very least about because you've provided offsite parking you're now providing an additional parking on site I was more concerned personally with the idea of one spot goes off-site and then all of a sudden you're no longer required I know that you're constrained by the impervious surface what turns the parking deck up exactly but my position that we can't do that because of the minim partners right and so I looking at the numbers that you're providing where you're anticipating somewhere
165around 486 spaces your ideal world is that you get a hundreds of spaces off-site now you have three hundred and eighty six or so spaces on-site and now you don't have a structure looking at that scenario and thinking looking at this view here what I'm seeing is I mean we're obviously looking today at a pretty ugly site when we look down but I'm not I would prefer to still look down on a parking structure that ideally has some sort of green roof or something like that rather than a big parking lot down there surrounding all of those buildings and then the parkland on the other side and so I'm not sure that the ideal scenario for you at least in my mind is our ideal scenario for that site so I'm curious what others how
166others are feeling about because in the ideal world they're getting a hundred off-site 380 without a parking structure is our others comfortable with that scenario that for me that's a little uncomfortable but I don't for what it's worth and again I'm just giving you the intent one of the benefits of not having to do a stacked deck there in that location it doesn't eliminate covered parking because we have to deliver covered parking to meet the market requirements of the residential it's a difference of what you're doing on that surface are you putting more cars in that footprint you see as parking structure now are you creating a roofed structure with one level of parking that by the way was purposeful to open up the opportunity for a rooftop there that we might be able to
167do something with in terms of a green roof or something along those lines we would probably have never brought this up on this point if we had thought that that a covered part not in a parking structure were the same thing in the eyes of of planning because we knew we were either going to do a one level of car parking with another level of parking above it or a level of parking with a roof on it so we're just again trying to maintain some flexibility also recognizing and we all think parking is abhorrent but it has to happen somewhere and we've really done our best to put it away in this location and so so again we welcome avoiding the gotcha that I think perhaps Commissioner was Mills was concerned or even perhaps pushchair
168was concerned I just would make the point that our parking minimums preclude the gotcha here because we have a certain number of parking spaces we have to provide for and if all we get is two parking spaces from Amtrak we're still been in a parking deck we we we there there's a tipping point in this exercise as my only point commissioner give Randal so packed every single day and so I'm just wondering what is what do you feel like is truly feasible about being able to get parking out of Amtrak people are parking there and walking away no they totally yeah the conversation with Amtrak is they don't believe half those cars are actually part are actually train users and they want a regulated parking lot because they know that once we build this assuming
169we're able to build this beautiful development they've got an unregulated parking lot and it'll just fill up with cars okay so Mirai tore problem there right now quite literally okay so you can't but you can't take a hundred space no I mean so that's it I mean so there is a cap here people in terms of kind of what's possible because I'm not gonna park a mile away you know it's basically has to be this spot there's no other spot there so there really is a very limited amount that they can get here and still allow ridership for Amtrak are you thinking a hundred that you could actually is that the total lot or what you predict based on Amtrak's assumptions about how many people are freeloading but its total lot we just think it
170creates some flexibility right that's all and and again I we weren't trying to create a brain teaser here we're trying to create a little flexibility if they do if they are able to get into that amtrak lot that thing is falling apart there it's terrible and so in some ways I see that public benefit of them actually fixing up and having stormwater control on it and planting some trees and not having people parking all over the grass which is what's happening right now that that is a public benefit then maybe I don't know I'm just putting it out there because that really is in terrible shape it really is buried in mind and all that is still subject to its own site plan of programs right exactly and for what it's worth and we can't
171count those spaces in this count and and thereby take advantage of any opportunity to lessen the parking structure without that site plan approval so another check in the system if you will and then could I just a couple of other small things is it possible to do a working session with them about alternatives for the hotel maasai plan it's just so like done you know is it I don't even know if you all be interested in that but it just seems like every trip there's more flexibility to be able to have some sort of work shopping going on rather than this is what they're gonna do and we either like it or we don't like it I don't know is that just not we've never done it that way before where it's kind of in
172the middle of the process or does it really not afford any more flexibility it's just that we can make whatever these sessions we want them to be or do we have to have a site plan in front of us in order to be able to really review anything for these types of meetings that aren't working sessions absolutely you could we could you could schedule a session to continue consideration in this proposal it like could we vote for the zoning change but as kind of pre site plan be able to do some something in a forum that allows us to sort of alternatives to looks because I think that really like that hotel can be done in so many different ways and in some ways it's helpful for us to see alternatives to be able to
173understand what some of the positives and negatives are absolutely but you are going to have to consider that site plan according to these beauty regulations that's right so you you could do that but if something comes out of that that is not reflected in these PD regulations for some reason it's not a right it's unlikely commissioner once I just wanted to make a comment on that piece that you just asked and I I don't know I'd be really reluctant to do that in terms of a working session because I think we begin to set up expectations for the petitioner that perhaps we're really not going to meet or maybe we might change our mind and it's in these kinds of sessions where we have a proposal before us that we're actually going to vote up
174or down on something so and and maybe I'm just channeling Kevin McDonald right now but I think we have to be really careful about about that sort of that sort of process on a different thing I had a couple questions about your parking thing and it's now you know we went from height to parking but one when you're if you were to build a parking structure this is gonna be public parking work and you know people can come and go and pay to park yeah it has to be actually this is this parking there there's certain number of spaces will be secured or reserved if you will for the residents but everything else that goes on in this in this development is some form of public access to the building to the buildings its retail
175it's its hospitality it's it's utilizing the the public space so think of it as a not unlike some private parking structures you you see in in in put in on city streets and in certain municipalities I don't not sure there any private parking sir and in Ann Arbor but certainly there are in other cities in Michigan right pull a ticket go in and use the parking structure okay the other question was or the parking lot do you want to build at the core of this we parking structures are expensive and not always and they're permanent and so we look at you know and so I'm not trying to open another can of worms for for the Commission but but once that parking structures built in that location is the only thing that will ever be
176built there for all time and and what we particularly because it's it's integrated into the residential so we look at parking as a necessary evil you know and in all of these projects and so if we're able to figure out a way to organize that 480 minimum parking spaces we need in that back area of the site without building a structure to do it it leaves the opportunity at some future date if for instance the train station actually does move and there's some opportunity to do something more more useful in that location maybe some some you know obviously at a later date with an entirely different piece of property it creates some some some optionality so we're not we we've accommodated ourselves that if that's the site we're building a parking structure but it's not
177like parking structures people sometimes think all parking structures are these great things developers love to build them their part is just a means of parking to us thank you so I'm thinking there's a lot of yet-to-be unanswered questions and a lot of or some thinking at least that needs to be done so I want to continue the conversation but I also do want commissioners or I don't want commissioners to feel pressure to vote on something they may have not thought through at this point so I I'm not voted or I'm out I'm not putting forth a motion to table but that's something that we may want to as we continue discussing this we may want to think about shortly commissioner Mills this one I like now I mean we could you could change my initial
178thing to be 75% of the service area I I don't I don't know about this one and I now that we've talked about I see pros and cons of updating the neighboring property versus you know the neighboring what's it called parking lot versus doing double-decker here and so on this one I actually am gonna withdrawing just defer to staff so if somebody else wants to take that up like do that I'll go through the my next I still have three more the next one is easier just below that purple paragraph on on page six it's in number one I would replace the last word installed with required so this is basing the number of electric vehicle charging stations on the total number of parking spaces required so even if they get off site parking they
179have to does that make sense correct so we could add the link whether off-site or on-site is that we were saying if whatever required parking is used for this development that's how many Sanders day and I can Claire Summa bleed they'll build it on site so they have control over it but it's we want as many spaces as you know one one fifty two percent of what's required okay V do I have a second singing Abeka mashenka Brandel further discussion on that one word change all those in favor please say aye aye opposed and we're back to Commissioner Mills okay dark skies this is my language that would add a new thing somewhere I could just add it to the end because it doesn't fit necessarily with anything else so I guess it would be
180what are we up to you what's after you V B yes the development shall employ dark skies compliant lighting including fully shielded fixtures and minimum illuminance --is two surface areas I'm trying to channel my like dark sky stuff that's one sentence light trespass this is this is the thing I think is really important light trespass at the river or a property line shall not exceed point one foot candles that's the standard that we have in residential areas I think especially if we're talking about a commercial property up to the river I think that's really important personally so that's what I would propose do we have a second seconded by Commissioner gear and all mr. Briggs I was also wondering if we might want to set different standards for the it's sort of broken up into
181zone 1 and zone 2 so that zone is it one that's the parkland has is treated more like our residential standards which is what point point three right and our draft ordinances I'm sure right so that's one piece yeah and then secondly we also have for the color spectrum management we have that all permanently installed lighting for multi-family residential developments and all non residential lighting shall have a minimum color rendering index of CRI 70 and I'll permanently installed lighting for multifamily residences and all non residential lighting shall have a correlated color temperature of no greater than 3000 so having those components that's not part of our current ordinance if for some reason this doesn't the lighting ordinance doesn't move forward quickly that's busy to me those are components that would be those are standards we
182can certainly live with perfect is that friendly to the seconder and I feel like it's important so that like everyone has a different standard an area to that whatever we have for our you know we're hoping for for the new lighting ordinance that it falls at that line the line at the border of area two so area two has has different standards than area one and Harry one is darker than an area two and so so instead of it saying up to the river that it says to area to Tyrion whatever the border yeah I'm doing them so that would be my only yeah I think that that makes sense and that's a point one for the at the property line is if we're treating area one like our residential areas which we also say
183public lands honestly in their perfect so this is treating it no different than any other than if the lighting ordinance actually passes that make sense so can you restate the first happen that Erica can read the second that I have well I I just want to make sure that we're recording us that that that the development shall require Dyke dark-sky compliant lighting including full cutoff fixtures maximum light trespass over shielded is usually not that full cutoff should shield it fully shielded fixtures shielded fixtures and minimum illuminance is two surface areas so there's a there's a standard there's a book that says these are the ranges of illuminance is and what we're effectively going for is like lighting things to the minimum that's reasonable in there so that one's the was she thing and what's that
184book standard that your IES sorry I'm scrolling through draft ordnance in getting lost in it yeah maybe we could just its IES handbook I not there in the is handbook additionally maximum light trespass of point one foot candles at property lines at the line between area one in area two at property at line it's not gonna be actually the property line it's gonna be great yeah it's good it's gonna be the yes the area line between area 1 and area 2 so point of demarcation so the intention is that area two cannot have light trespass exactly one foot candles beyond the property the the line delineating area one from area 2 yes and it keeps that part dark and what happens in area one from a lighting standard requirement so any lighting that they would
185have to require or enemy lighting that they have would have to meet the fully shielded usually it goes back the other way to I mean your well that's gonna apply across the whole development right so I'm trying to understand is there any light trespass restrictions for area one so the whole site cannot have light trespass behind point one right I mean there will be there will be parts of it that are that are brighter than point one right like there's going to be points not as brighter than point one foot candles presumably outside people's you know underneath people's porches and that kind of thing it's just at the border going into that it can't be if presumably it would go the other way too though I cannot imagine that they're going to be delighted things
186in area one trespassing into area two that would that would create such a trespass yeah both areas I just want to be clear both areas would be restricted to not provide create any light trespass beyond point one foot candles yeah there at any area boundary at the area Brown do your property line and then could you repeat the color yes I'll repeat that and I could just send you the draft I mean I could send that to you after the spell repeat it out loud but the one piece I wanted to clarify there isn't ever anticipated to be parking in area one that's anticipated to be green space right yes okay because one of the things we have in some areas is parking lights going down but okay so I'll read it out loud and
187then I could share that information later so you get it right all permanently installed lighting for multi this will probably need to be I'll permanently installed lighting for multi-family residential developments among all non residential lighting shall have a minimum minimum color rendering index of CRI of 70 and then all permanently installed lighting for multifamily residences and all non residential lighting shall have a correlated color temperature of no greater than 3000 okay really it's just all lighting on that site because you're only contemplating yeah no email about that actually sure so they I support oh this is the one area I'm looking at between area one an area to plan is the pavilion and the drop-off area and the ramps and lighting in that area they're events in the evening and safety for pedestrians and how
188that building structure and pedestrian area of bus those two property lines and if it might create a conflict with the amount of lighting that could be required so I'm not sure how to address it now but if we needed lighting on those ramps and sidewalks if there's an evening event I mean could you just say unless required by applicable code I mean I don't you know do we have code requirements on those you don't currently we do maybe I don't I'm just putting that out there but I mean as proposed now technically we are going to need to see a photometric plan where there's no foot-candles along that red line that exceed point 1 so as long as we think that point 1 foot-candles is adequate for lighting whatever needs to occur there then this
189is then I think it's appropriate if we think that a higher level of lighting is warranted for that use and I suggest some exception or call-out to accommodate that yeah so when I was around I mean honestly you can get point 1 foot candles and Lola areas and you're still having adequate light I mean they can have greater light on their property the idea is that they can't put it off or into these adjacent areas I don't think that I don't think we're gonna run into ok issues where that within the property itself there's not going to be adequate lighting based on field study do you guys disagree no I think the Sherwood's so my question is to two parts one part is the fact that the dark skies ordinance and everything hasn't actually been
190passed whether or not we are being a bit premature in terms of requiring this for a development and you know I understand that it's something that very well may pass but it hasn't yet and I don't want to make us vulnerable to either some sort of legal issue or what happened the other question is because we're looking at this I'm assuming we're doing this because it is a PUD and we're we're able to sort of expect more than we might if it were not but because it is one whole property and now within this property we're saying area one in area two and that's basically based upon the fact that I mean these aren't they're not different property owners basically you just sort of drew a line and said okay let's call this area one
191let's call that area two is that correct actually that was the line that was drawn by this city planning to really did note you know some differing approaches in these in these clustering uses a certain way and so I think that to be completely candid we assume that that if that site plan changes that line might move with it but it would it would continue to follow these uses so the uses would push that line not but we respect those zones as relevant so it's the uses not the geography or anything like that that it will eventually be geography and and we think our view of it is given particularly the constraints on the site which I like to remind everybody go beyond whatever constraints this body puts on us it includes certain things like
192the floodway it's been tried to guess it's gonna look an awful lot like this okay yeah so it's complicated for example icy ice rink in there and I know that's a concept but if it is an ice rink and they want to skate at night I assume it might need a little bit more light I don't I don't know but um so I guess I'm just sort of taking a cautious approach to this even though I totally understand where we may be going with it but again we're sort of getting down in the weeds so to speak without actually going through the whole process so mister the point one foot-candles is a standard that is currently in our ordinance now so I don't think you're the Commission would be going too far down a any
193sort of new limbs with that you're right the Pioneer development provides some for some flexibility and asking for things and the petitioner to gain some flexibility in other aspects of the code so you by doing so you'd be sort of creating a mini lighting ordinance for this particular property along those lines I'm if I could clarify with commissioners the benefit of the line between area and one if we are if we are saying that you have flexibility within those areas so long as the light doesn't trust pass to the boundary I certainly see that benefit at the property lines I'm not sure I see the particular benefit of holding them to a standard on their own property if we're saying you have more flexibility once you're beyond that line we're sort of creating a arbitrary
194lower light level stripe through their property but we're not saying what happens within those other areas so it might make sense just to simplify that to say more consistent with our ordinance that it would be at the property boundaries that would work - should I get Brandel I guess I feel differently because this is next to the river and it's a natural area and so I do feel like it's different and that and especially the place where it comes out really close I just I feel like it it's I'd rather not think about it as one property in that way and that there are special conditions going on with this as a as a natural system that I think are beneficial to try to limit the light where we can so I guess that's how
195I feel about it mr. Brinks yeah I would agree I mean I think we already have created this area one is sort of a parkland and that's how we're envisioning it and so I think it's appropriate that we're sort of protecting that at the boundary in terms of lighting - I mean we're not exactly saying we're not preventing in terms of what Commissioner woods was sort of concerned with that there might need to be higher level lighting at some point like on an ice rink or some think that that could happen there but it couldn't trespass off of that and I would hope that there would be some sort of mechanisms to make sure that that was off when that area was not in use we're not we're not saying that at this point but
196I I think there's still flexibility on the site but it's sort of trying to treat that area one is is it different it's a more natural space to some degree commissioner Sylvain likes more clarification because if at the property line were candles and you know in this schematic layout area one covers the entire riverfront so we're at point one there for the perimeter that middle line the boundary line versus property line we're looking at point one and then twenty foot and then point one again so within that twenty feet we could create a high intensity use along that path as long as it gets to point one foot candles again so I don't know where the drop off is because we could have a higher illuminance within area one anywhere as long as that perimeter
197so that middle line you can go point one all the way up to 50 foot-candles back down the point one and create the intensity that area one isn't protecting the river from area 2 the way I read the ordinance like it's only at the edge no matter what so the edge of the property line is protecting the river against itself so I would be actually amenable to just the property line which would give more flexibility to pedestrian lighting than those sorts of things for the amenities within the property itself because I don't I don't want to hold kind of a second tier territory to the lighting design when we don't really even know what it is yet in the rulebook I can I'm sorry I just wanted to add one thing for clarification not to
198dwell on the lighting issue but it's in reference to also what mr. Linder brought up earlier I think one of the issues when site plan when they had to submit a photometric plan they were going to have to submit to photometric plans that show zero across this line I don't know that that's really possible I think that that's a real challenge if the real concern is at the river or at that small little ribbon area along there maybe we can address that separate but I don't know how to separate photometric plans can meet at zero along the line yeah that would be very difficult I think to enforce or to practically apply I understand the intent but I don't I don't know that they can accomplish showing zero along that line I'm not a lighting
199designer and Erica knows and and Sarah knows more than about this than I do because they were the one writing the ordinance my intent is that there isn't lighting an area one and so it's like it's not going back up and back down and all that sort of thing it's that we're keeping it as a park and none of our parks are lit and that if there's some low level stuff that can happen because of some occasional use at night I just I feel like this is a natural system that we need to respect too and so I don't know I think we may maybe were tying ourselves in knots at this point and that we should just see what's submitted and say this is what our intent is and see if you can meet
200it and maybe that's a better way to do it so they're not putting pedestrian lighting you know for 200 feet along this one little area which and then you hit the dark on either side of it I mean I just think in general we should really be trying to keep this river area dark at night that's how I feel so I in some ways I don't really care about the ordinance as long as you all get the message that we keep our parks dark at night in general I mean I think that's it and this is this is not like a downtown on this is not a library a lot understood you know it's not it's like we've got the river right next to it so in some ways I'm and kind of agnostic about
201whether we try to change any language tonight or not but just so that you all understand what we're contending that's what I care about so mr. Mill's and I I can see both sides I like I don't feel strongly about the line across the middle of the property I wanted to make sure that we didn't allow light trespass onto the river you know and I think I think by if that's the property line like that we do that I think you're absolutely right we you clearly know that we're interested in like lighting particularly an area one and I mean and what this what at least the rest of the language talks about whether or not we have a dark line between area 1 and area 2 or not what what it does is hold you
202to minimum illuminance is right like I mean we really just want this not to be glowing right so that's something that I'm okay with but Erica's looked at this a little bit more than I have and I I'm no lady an expert I mean I'm I'm certainly trying to make sure that we're not suggesting something that's impossible I don't I'm confused about the the suggestion that worse that the the photometric plan would require zero along the line I don't think at any point we're requiring zero it would be 0.1 and so that the intention of the from my perspective of trying to create the separation between area 2 and area 1 is that there is this recognition that the lighting at the edge of area 2 is more intentionally shielded so that a once it
203hits area 1 its treating it sort of like a neighboring property that needs to be low have low lighting and so it creates a different structure for lighting with an area 2 because if you were only thinking along the property line then you're really it's a very different potential design of of lighting I mean we could also that's at a lower standard within area 1 of 0.3 you know but I think that's getting that's much beyond where we want to go with this you know but I just I I'd be curious to get some feedback if if you're you're here if you have any concerns with that area to an area one and the no III mean I think we heard both sides of this I think we certainly understand the intent we're certainly comfortable
204with including something in an amendment so that people don't have to concern that it all this got lost if you wanted to do it one area I think we're gonna approach lighting in the same way if you want to divide that line we're not particularly troubled by it we respect the fact that the Commission is having a full somtime this topic but to be to be completely candid pleasure the Commission on this I think we can live within it and and agree with what you're saying about that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have zero at that line yeah her point 10.1 makes sense so I agree with you on that too so we have a motion on the table can you keep clarifying that it is that right now are we making
205the distinction between do you are okay you are you are requiring to summarize you are requiring dark skies like compliant lighting and you're doing that by requiring fully shielded fixtures with in all areas of the site that it cannot be illuminated beyond the standards set forth in the IES handbook based on the use categories that neither at any property line nor the brown boundary between area 1 and area 2 can any light trespass exceed point 1 foot candles and the CRI and color color corrected temperature ratings of 70 and 3,000 have to apply to college I feel like we've memorized it Kent alright commissioner Milstein no commissioner Mills yes commissioner get Randall Commissioner Ackerman yes commissioner Briggs yes commissioner so they yeah commissioner Trudeau yeah commissioner Weatherby yes commissioner was no motion carries Commissioner Mills
206we're back to you okay this is the last one but I wanted just a little bit of explanation on this so this is about the setback from the river effectively what I would propose is that the setback from the river four buildings that include a minimum of X square feet of retail or restaurant space be 220 feet and for buildings that do not include effectively public space retail or restaurant space that we have a larger setback the reason that I was proposing this is that it ensures that anything that's built on that River we've talked about the benefit of having public space either retail or restaurant along the river and that's why we would encourage something being built there and so we would only allow things to be built along the river if they have
207one of those uses in them effectively the the question is like what is the right amount I I don't I don't design restaurants or retail things so like it's 5,000 square feet like an appropriate amount in a building it's not the entire building has to be that but a building that contains at least 5,000 square feet of retail or restaurant space could be within 20 feet and then it's 40 feet if it doesn't include 50 like so if a restaurant were built that was 6,000 square feet it could be built 20 feet to that but then in the future if they wanted to shift the use of that from market conditions to office it would not be permitted because it was no longer met the setback yes because because one of the things that we
208were talking about about you know we want active uses publicly accessible uses along the river and those locally accessible uses are you defining as simply restaurant in hotel I suggested restaurant and retail but I leave this over this was this was my kind of compromise of like okay we you know I don't it's a suggestion it's a proposal mr. Weatherbee so I like the idea but the implementation I think what worries me is let's say it's a restaurant but there's no door on the river side and it's a blank wall and you have to go around to get into the restaurant unlikely that you'd put a blank wall by the river but you never know and so you know would we really get what we wanted from that and part of this is my experience
209with some of the new apartment buildings near me is some of them are very active and it's just like the entrance to an apartment building and they're actually very active in life in the sidewalk feel good kind of but they're not public and they're not restaurant or retail but it still gives that activity and I just don't know if requiring it to be a restaurant or retail that's it's empty without a design parameter I just I worry that it's not gonna do what we want it to do mr. Ackerman Thank You mr. chair yeah I think I err on the side of flexibility as well you know I think one of the coolest things that could ever happen would be a restaurant goes out of business and the Ann Arbor District Library you know leases
210the space and opens a branch or or you know the Conservancy next door sets up a learning facility or something so I you know those are you know pie in the sky unicorn ideas but I I do I feel like I do err on the side of flexibility commissioner so they if we limit uses to a building adaptive reuse becomes difficult so I cannot support this motion commissioner Mills I'm an argument case I I just worried there's nothing that says they can't build one of the apartment buildings on the river and like is that okay as we've been talking about like in terms of where it is like there's nothing in our regulation now that what would limit that and so right now and again I think that there's lots of good things in this
211but this is an area plan right and that's what I were like the sticking point from the community has been what happens along the river and does this belong that close to the river and how tall is it along the river I think that there were lots of arguments made for why we shouldn't be talking about height because actually I think a better metric of as we like think about all of these things is like how much of this that public walkway is shaded in various like right shapes and sizes and I think that that was something honestly when you come before us like I think that's important the other thing that I hear is like we generally protect our River but this could be a really cool thing on the river I'm not sure
212that the community would would believe a really cool thing on the river is another apartment building and so that's what I that's why I'm uncomfortable with allowing something that doesn't have some sense of mixed-use along along right along the river that that's my if it helps because we know that the that the same reasons that we talked about before about why this doesn't want to be a residential location here and it wants to be hospitality and we know hospitality wants adjacencies to work we are actually not all that troubled if it gets comfort with the rules to suggest that you're comfortable with that setback as long as there is what what through my head is River facing retail I think that that gives some flexibility from hospitality and other uses I can tell you that's
213going to be a restaurant but I understand you want to maintain an appropriate structure in the zoning ordinance so riverfront any River facing retail which could be hospitality or which could be F and B or or another public River facing use is understandable to us I guess and and and and that the square footage you suggested of a minimum of five thousand square feet in that in that use it doesn't trouble me in the least I mean I think that's already essentially what we're programming there so if that helped the discussion well and to follow up on my other scenario keep in mind that like any zoning district beauties can be amended so if there is some restriction and that adaptive reuse in the future might support our market conditions might support other use it's
214not to say that they couldn't seek amendment to the PUD regulations it's obviously a more substantive review process than a psych plan but to that end if that's a slight sort of moderation of concerns of being too prescriptive that that opportunity does exist the PUD supplemental regulations could be created they can they can be amended so if there were some market conditions and forces that would direct reconsideration of that in the future because it seemed too restrictive at that time that could always be considered but it's obviously not an easy process rahmel so just to follow up on that though if we don't have a restriction and they propose an apartment not them somebody else proposes an apartment building we can't then say no no we're gonna change the restriction that's correct right like that's
215correct okay so I don't know if there's an actual motion made I would make a motion to amend that section 3 page 5 honestly this is you guys know how I generally feel about area plans this is one of the sticking points for me because that that building is the sticking point for me in this whole thing so that's why I don't know that there's support for this but I feel like I need to do it so that I can feel comfortable voting on the whole motion so the amendment would be to change it to say let me look at it again from the north property line 20 feet minimum for buildings including a minimum of 5,000 square feet of river facing retail uses or 40 feet for all other uses for buildings that you
216know for all other buildings do we have a second the intention is not is retail restaurant the hotel uses okay do we have a second Thank You Commissioner Shido any further discussion on this motion let's do roll call vote sir Milstein yes Commissioner Mills yeah Commissioner Gabe Randall Commissioner Ackerman no Commissioner Briggs yeah Commissioner so they Commissioner Trudeau it's your prerogative commissioner or whether me no commissioner was no motion fails okay I think Commissioner Mills you're out of motions we're back to the main amended motion Commissioner Mills since I will be voting against this I want to tell you it's because it's because of this I'm I'm worried about that particular building I don't love area plans I love what you have shown us I really do and if this has come as what comes
217before us I will absolutely support it but I can't support the rezoning for the area plan without some more specificity about what's happening on that corner so I please I if this passes please like I really like this I think that the rest of this is fantastic rezoning is our opportunity right as a as a board to actually you know set the rules and make sure that it that we're seeing and that's one of the challenges that we have I understand the reason about why you would bring an area plan rather so I plan to us I get it it's just really and I and I think you guys made lots of great strides in helping to give us more certainty that's that's the corner that's I think the tricky one and because that's the
218thing that that's a concern for the community and I think a concern for me personally like I generally would like to have active things along the river as long as they're going to be active I just want to let you know that's why you'll have to see my vote well we understand and my only hope is that that we have the opportunity to bring a site plan before you but it starts with a rezone and so all I can say is we were comfortable with that restriction because it is consistent with our intent further discussion Commissioner breaks yeah I would say why I voted no one that I'm actually much more concerned I also I'm concerned about in that corner I'm just I know there's not support here for increased setbacks at large I'm really
219concerned with what happened the ultimate form of that hotel because I'm pretty concerned with hospitality that close to the river there I think I think it's natural that what ends up on that in that section is gonna be some sort of river facing retail it's just that's clear what's not so clear to me is what the massing of that building and is gonna end up looking like I'm going to stick my neck out here we would a restriction against residential at that location achieve the same result free also comfortable with that if everybody else is comfortable with that my only hesitation with that it would be with what akima sure so they said with adaptive that used to be used some very nice words I don't remember what they were but something adaptive change without
220amendment to Brett's point I personally just just trying to be helpful thank you retracted all righty further discussion Commissioner wins a lot more iterations of this to come including letting our public and council have yeah my great good say about this so I'm ready to vote I know anybody else all right I think we will do a roll call vote so this is a motion the main motion amended to restrict overall height of non-residential buildings all non-residential uses to 100 maximum 115 feet that electrical vehicle spaces are required at a rate by the required parking spaces not those constructed on-site with everybody's permission all of the lighting requirements and those are the amendments to the original motion that you're voting on now how's that sound like got everything okay Commissioner Milstein know commissioner Mills yeah
221commissioner give Randall yes commissioner Ackerman yes commissioner Briggs yes Commissioner sauvé yeah commissioner Trudeau yes commissioner whether we yes commissioner was yes motion carries thank you thank you for your patience and thanks so much oh you won't be disappointed when you see this I appreciate it all right moving on to new business ten a five nine five River View Drive annexation and zoning for City Council approval I'm sorry that we did not take a break but we're gonna get through this the petitioner is not here for this so we all go to staff report mr. Kowalski it seemed all disappointing after all that sorry I'm 595 River View Drive it's a single-family house annexation and they are seeking r1b zoning which is consistent with the adjacent the adjacent parcels and the main reason is their
222septic is failing and they'd like to hook up to our system and staff is recommending approval thank you is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission and regards to this item this is in regards to five nine five River View Drive annexation seeing no one I'll close the public hearing and read the motion the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the Allen annexation and our 1b single-family dwelling district zoning 590 fiber rear drive yoke I'm sure they'll move move by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner Trudeau do we have discussion commissure Briggs [Laughter] they do need to make ten point one it's not zero okay any further discussion all those in favor please say aye opposed it is approved now we move on
223to audience participation members of the audience may address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes if is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission I'm Ellen randsburg and I live at 1503 Cambridge Road and I want to put in a plug right now I know that you will be considering 78-51 is that correct Packard okay and I want to point out to you that if they apply for a PUD that's correct they have not yet we anticipate that they will okay so there's a 1840 house on that site that is one of the first houses to be built in that Pittsville area and is well worth preserving I would like for the Commission to figure out if they can bring that to pass in this PUD proposal and to
224recommend that you think about just moving it down the street to Borough Park next to cobblestone farm they were adjacent to each other for lo these many years and I think it would be a really fitting public benefit to preserve and keep that house within a convenient and historic almost historical location that it is and now so I hope you'll take that under consideration thank you anybody else wishing to address the Planning Commission seeing no one we're gonna move to Commission proposed business is there any Commission proposed business C nobody do I have a motion to adjourn move back mr. trudeau seconded by Commissioner Mills we are adjourned thank you you