Planning Commission 3-19-19

001into order this is the Tuesday March 19th meeting of the City Planning Commission and I guess and you should know that you have both a chairperson and the staff member and not our normal roles so we consider ourselves the a-team but we're gonna do our best so I will start with a call to order and the roll call with that was the call to order Commissioner Ackerman here Commissioner give Randall Commissioner Mills here Commissioner is so vague here Commissioner cheer oh yeah commissioner Weatherby here Commissioner woods we have seven that is a quorum great is there anyone who can move the agenda moved by Commissioner Trudeau seconded by Commissioner get Randall all in favor of any Corrections or changes all in favor of the agenda as posted please say yes yes that's everybody minutes of

002the previous meeting I don't think we had any so will our introductions I don't think we have any of those either okay so now we're up to item number six reports from city administration City Council Planning Manager Planning Commission officers and committees and written communications and petitions we'll start with thank you madam chair I'm a bit tired City Council got out last this morning at 2 a.m. and it was a it was a busy night so I'm gonna walk you through a few updates a handful of which are directly related to this body a smaller handful tangentially related and then just wanted to update folks on one other item the items directly related to the Planning Commission the mallets wood PUD down on Ann Arbor southeast side of town passed at second reading you'll remember

003this is the second time we've run through this process on this property there was a clerical error in its original passage the next item the Lockwood PUD on the west side of town on Jackson failed at first reading this was a postponement from the original first reading in order to hold a public hearing on the item this was a property of senior housing 40% of the units would have been affordable to seniors a property at 2625 Valley Drive was annexed into the city to rezoning that came through this body larger districts multi parcel districts one on South Ashley you'll remember a c2b district and then west hoover and our four seed district both passed at first reading although there was more discussion on south ashley and we'll figure out the direction there if you'll remember

004the recommendation from staff in this body was denial because of the contamination on the site and the the idea that a c2 beam a greater incentivize a private developer to clean up this site through a brownfield process and I'll remind folks that's within the historic district Commission as well the other property West Hoover very little conversation however well leave it that but passed a first reading the next item directly related to this was City Council passed direction to the Planning Commission to review and revise the downtown affordable housing premium trying to increase the utility of that premium and the public benefit of that premium City Council also directed staff to pursue regulation of short-term rentals things like Airbnb and because part of those recommendations could very well be zoning related I wanted to bring that

005to your attention tangentially related to this body the city is entering into add a property to the Greenbelt in superior Township and it ranked actually at the highest percentile of scoring so really desired property easements for access to build pedestrian and flood management tunnel between Depot streets and Argo pond we're all approved this is the not the final step but the second to final step in all the legal work we need to do before construction can begin which is really exciting then three city-owned properties are to be evaluated for the development of for affordable housing 721 North Main 2000 South industrial and 1510 East Stadium these are the three separate resolutions that passed City Council last night then finally just to bring it to your attention as a few of you or MIT perhaps only

006one of you also serves on the Transportation Commission draft revisions to the crosswalk ordinance will be heading to the Transportation Commission and the disabilities Commission for their review and guidance before coming back to City Council likely sometime in April or May if I were to guess but obviously dependent on the those two commission schedules and agendas long night long update if you have any questions happy to answer thank you very much but with that kind of update like must have been there late all the other things too but are not planning related okay next is Planning Manager mr. Leo do you have anything okay thank you any Planning Commission officers or committees I'll just note that next week so RC meeting the ordinance revisions committee meeting is going to be rescheduled because more than half

007of us can't make it I don't think we have a date or time yet but for people who do follow the o.r see it's not going to be next Tuesday evening we'll figure out what that is and post that written communications and petitions there are a couple in hardcopy I think before us are in the package okay see the this item number seven is audience participation this is the first of a couple opportunities for members of the audience to address the Planning Commission on any item that isn't listed on the agenda for tonight and if you do speak now or at any of the opportunities for public comment tonight if you'll fill out one of the comment forms and drop it in the box either before after you speak that way we can keep record

008of that so does anyone want to address us now David de pais yes a general comment about some of the land use ordinance you guys are going to be considering later tonight generally I really like the staff reports that are submitted but in my opinion we the staff report should include a section about how these ordinance are affecting our sustainability framework why are what are we trying to do and how does it meet our sustainability goals some certain expectations should be you know noted so we can measure whether this ordinance is successful or not how do we know our ordinance is successful unless we have a certain goal presented so that's my main point there so thank you thank you very much would anyone else like to address the Commission all right moving on to

009item number 8 public hearing scheduled for the next business meeting I see one in our packet which is 595 River View Drive annexation and Zoning for the City Council approval it's a request to annex a point six acre parcel in Ann Arbor from Ann Arbor township anything else that you had to add is that only that you know of as well that is all that I know of very good moving right along unfinished business we have none and so we are on to item 10 regular business we have three items tonight and for each of these we'll start with a staff report which miss Delia will give and then we'll have the public hearing and then the Commission discussion so the first one is 2705 Newport annexation and zoning for City Council approval Thank You

010mr. chair tonight chair this is a straight this straight forward petition is to annex it is to annex and Zone a single piece at 2705 Newport Road it is the Erb downward Picazo annexation and zoning is a 1.1 acre 1.2 acre parcel from Ann Arbor township annexed into the city to be or petition to be zoned r1 a single-family zoning district this is at the request of the property owner and they're requesting it to be able to connect to city utilities there well has failed staff is recommending approval all right now we'll open the public hearing if anyone would like to address the commission okay well close the public hearing and I read the motion and then yes okay the motion is this the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and

011city council approved the herb downward Picazo annexation and r1a single-family dwelling district zoning at 2705 newport road was the Commissioner move that moved by Commissioner Ackerman seconded by Commissioner Soave we are open for discussion all right I think we're ready for a vote then all in favor of the motion as read please say yes yes yes that's everybody okay next item is we make sure I have these in the right order yes it is a petition to amend chapter 20 or chapter 55 the unified development code for city council approval to allow restaurant bar and food service use in the office Oh zoning districts under certain conditions thank you as you mentioned this is an amendment to chapter 55 section 515 and 516 to allow restaurant bar and food service in the office district the

012amendment the amendments are proposed to allow these under certain conditions such as when there is already a large office building a little bit of background the office district currently allows traditional office uses including financial services banks general offices medical dental they also as a little laundry list of a variety of other uses that are permitted such as all forms of residential some public institutional uses childcare centers education schools hotels a few things are allowed by special exception use under the heading of incidental services which are accessory to a principal use you can have things like a cafeteria so there's a there's a small element currently of restaurant II type use but that would be within the main building and not generally intended for the public it would just be for as incidental to that employment

013use the proposed amendments would allow and regulate restaurant bars and food services in the office district the first amendment the first thing to amend would be section 5.5 table 5-15 with a small amendment we'd be adding a P to the O column for the restaurant bar and food service row if you can see this screen I am pointing to it right here and it is circled in the staff report second amendment would be then to add some use specific standards to section 516 3l on the screen here the first standard for one in the c1 district is not repeated on the screen but is in the staff report but for the O district we would add this new language shown by underline and in summary the criteria would be restaurants would be allowed if it's

014a four acre parcel or more if there is a 10,000 square foot I'm sorry 100,000 square foot building or larger the driveway for the restaurant must be shared with the office use and it we're clarifying that it can be internal to the building or it can be a free-standing restaurant we have done some analysis we found that there's about three hundred and seventy-three acres of land zoned office about two hundred and eighty parcels the average parcel size is just more than an acre there are about twenty percent of them are more than two acres just 1% are more than ten acres under the proposed use of specific standards there will be three addresses that would be eligible for restaurants 7 7 7 East Eisenhower 789 East Eisenhower and 27:23 South State Street they are here

0152773 south state 7 7 7 Eisenhower and 789 Eisenhower in the funfact category wolverine tower would also qualify but it is owned by the university of michigan and some of these acres and parcels are land that is zoned off you'll find it in the office district but it is owned by the University we've been a little bit slower in rezoning land to PL upon when upon acquisition by U of M but this the specific standards were set to try to capture office developments having about more than 500 people these are considered large and we felt that that is the size that could help support a full service restaurant without generating more vehicle trips and although modest these amendments would broaden the permitted uses of the OU district to further activate what is now a limited

016use district this would benefit both the employees and occupants the daytime occupants of that district but as well as the as the city this would be furthering our goals towards providing a more active vibrant mixed-use community and staff is recommending approval and I'm here to answer any questions thank you very much we will now open this up for a public hearing if you'd like to address the Commission feel free to step forward yes David deep ice again um a couple things were nagging at me about this proposal and lot has to do with some of the definitions of what's going on one that wasn't a definition was kind of bothered me that we're sort of creating a zone I was only benefiting currently two large landowners and that to me seems a little bit like

017spot zoning through the backdoor so I'm not sure what you guys think of that I'd love to hear your conversation with this you start discussing it but that did bother me a little bit the second is the idea of I think the zoning calls for a shared parking lot and shared is not defined in the ordinance my thinking is okay could you have a separate standalone restaurant with its own parking lot and an office with its own parking lot and just the owner of the property say well you can park anywhere does that mean that both those Lots are shared parking lots are we talking about you expect a continuous contiguous parking lot to be shared by both entities and the third thing was there's no definition on how many restaurants would be allowed on

018this and I don't know how the area height and placement rules are fit into this but I can see if you had a large frontage and the office building was farther in the back maybe you could put two or three restaurants up near the front and is that something we really want and I guess my final question would be you know aggregation of office properties you know you have a couple one and a half office zone properties and somebody buys out three of them puts up enough office space are they in there going to be able to you know put a couple restaurants up in the front or wherever they want so hopefully our some of that discussion answers to some of this when you talk about it see what your thoughts are so thank

019you thank you there anyone else would like to address the Commission on this item okay then I'll close the public hearing and read the motion hmm the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approved the amendments to chapter 55 unified development code sections 5 : 15 and 5 : 16 to allow restaurant bar and food service use in the Oh office district and provide youth specific standards can I have a Commissioner move this please commissioner so they seconded by Commissioner Wetherby commissioner thank you madam chair and thank you to staff for preparing this my questions and concerns are pretty mirrored from the public hearing I appreciate the idea of being able to include restaurants bars and food service in the office district I think it serves a few core

020functions that you know one it's reducing vehicle trips mid day as people who work in the offices have the opportunity to eat local or in the immediate area and into it it just creates more walkable opportunity and what would otherwise be you know fairly bare in office space so so I appreciate that and and then third I think these large lay office buildings are going through some pretty interesting market dynamics that as open office spaces become more popular as people work from home more and more just the amount of office space that companies and organizations need is just reduced and so I think a lot of these office buildings are having a hard time filling up and finding tenants and the ability to stay flexible to provide you know valuable land is of interest to

021me I did agree that the idea of creating a zoning ordinance citywide that really does only a small number of landlords and properties did feel a little off to me and there may be opportunity to see some of that benefit in other areas there are a lot of office complexes throughout town they could see just as much benefit however any single building doesn't reach that hundred thousand square foot requirement nor is any parcel individual parcel four acres and so I put a question out to the Commission to see what people's interest is you know in talking to staff one idea would be allowing for restaurant bar food services to be a percentage of square foot of an office building and the reason that that alternative resonated with me was one we have precedent so if

022you think about our light industrial zoning district you know 10% can be used as retail so there's some precedent of structuring our zoning ordinance in that way but also you know as you increase the size of the office you presumably also increase the number of employees which means that you can likely fill a larger restaurant without having to increase your parking requirement or increase the traffic trips in and out of the property similarly as you reduce the size of the office you one you reduce the likelihood that those earlier factors will be accomplished but also just as building code comes into play eventually you probably size yourself out of a usable restaurant space and our smaller office spaces may become irrelevant which may be appropriate so I just wanted to pose that as an idea

023something i discussed with mr. leo and mr. Leonard this afternoon I just see how something like that resonates I don't know what percent to plug in there I think that's something that we need to talk about and I think as if we do talk about it I think the the factors to look at our impacts a parking impact to traffic trips and EPIK generation the ratio of employees to seats in the restaurant and then eventually kind of what thresholds maximums or minimums we want to look at in terms of square footage of restaurant space so that's that's my deal that's my two cents I'd love to hear colleagues thoughts commissioner Gabriel I think that's a really intriguing idea actually and that addresses some of my concerns too one thing I would like to clarify that

024I could have looked up before him but I didn't so perhaps our planning chair can can fill this in for us is what is the difference between office and you know like what would be restaurant parking like is it to the one is it you know like what what what are we looking at here in terms of the the real difference of parking requirements for people who are in their cubicles and the same square footages how many tables would fit into that same square footage thankfully mr. Leonelli see I'll start with the office the general office space requires a minimum of one per 333 square feet okay and a maximum of one per 250 square feet so basically a minimum of three per thousand and a maximum of four per thousand medical dental a little

025bit more on parking requirement a minimum of one space per 220 and a maximum of one space per 180 square feet and restaurants if they are standalone commercial page a standalone restaurant requires one space for every 100 square feet oh wow ten per thousand so twice or three times as much as office but if a restaurant is in a shopping center the shopping center requires a minimum of one per 285 a maximum of one per 250 square feet so much more in line with office so almost comfortable yes yes maximum is the same yeah the minimum is lower in the shopping center okay cuz that makes a big difference for me I guess in some ways we could ask the question like why do we care whether it's restaurant or office if the parking like

026if it allows kind of flexibility in some ways of certain things to happen in terms of an evolving workplace and in terms of I mean you just may have demand there may be some places kind of more isolated and it's like they just need some place to eat in other places that you know that don't have as much and I could I mean this building has like a tiny little cafe you know I doubt people come here just to get the coffee and then leave you know I mean there there it just seems like it allows and and in regards to the point of like how many places can open up I don't know it doesn't matter like could it be a bunch of little inside food truck ideas you know I mean really like

027in some ways so I guess I'm kind of inclined to be flexible with this in a way to be able to allow for a changing workplace and because my first question was why four acres like that it just seemed huge to me and it seemed too few to really make much of a difference and I don't know so right now before I've heard many of my anxieties and issues around this I mean I'm inclined to have this feel flexible and in terms of fitting into this sustainability framework which i think is an excellent question and I'm glad you raised it I think you know the opportunity for people to be able to go downstairs to get their lunch instead of drive somewhere else I think I think is great so I think that's that's a

028big you know that's a big thing actually in terms of car trips so I would love to explore the percentage thing more I think that's a really interesting idea and this totally feels like shopping center to me not like standalone restaurant in terms of the comparable you know parking ratios so that's that's where I am right now with this Commissioner woods mr. Leo I was wondering can you tell us where is the demand for this change coming from is this something that originated with the business community or could you just give us a little history of that yes we did receive a petition submitted by Oxford properties which does own some land in the South State Street Eisenhower area other elsewhere as well they do own 777 Eisenhower and 789 Eisenhower and they had submitted

029a petition to for a text amendment they had actually said requested that offices with more than 200,000 square feet of floor area be allowed to have restaurants I think they were looking for an amenity to their office tenants they had said that they are running at about or a little bit lower than but they're running at about one employee for two hundred square feet so there are 200,000 square foot building has a thousand employees in it and as staff when in analyzing the petition that's where we came up with you know it's that is an extremely high threshold maybe let's broaden it a little bit 500 employees is still a lot of employees in one spot to be concentrated in one spot that's almost like a little neighborhood in and of itself and a pretty

030dense neighborhood at that during the day but it did come from a petition was submitted to consider a text amendment thank you so a couple of questions then come out for me one is I agree with someone who said that many people are choosing to work from home and those kinds of things so I'm wondering will that change the numbers of employees who are going to be in these big buildings and one on one hand that frees up some of their space to have a restaurant on the other hand it means that they have fewer people who are actually going to be using those services so that that I think would be interesting the other thing is do new restaurants in a in a big building like this does that begin to undermine the mom-and-pop

031kinds of carts and other things that are out there that many employees find that they want to go and visit and walk out on their lunch breaks and things like that so but I don't know whether or not any kinds of surveys or anything like that has has been done to get a to get a feel for that I agree with my colleague that when I saw that it was it was four acres I thought where's that number of what's generating that number you know why not 3.5 why not three or you know I just really wanted to know what's the rationale behind making it change like this so I'll continue to listen to my colleagues to see where I come on this so thank you when I first read the headline on this my

032first concern was or we're just gonna allow these then are we just gonna turn everything into restaurants and then I let sort of like how we allow residential in our mixed-use districts and we get drive-throughs and and then I read it and I saw that you thought about that and put these constraints on and then I went the other way and I think I share the the opinion of what we've heard at the table that it seems like a really large high threshold and it which does make it feel off because it then it really does only apply to three properties so I'm also very interested in seeing if we can find a different balance and I do like the proposal of studying it as a percentage so I'm also in support of kind of

033taking another stab at this because I don't see the harm and having a variety of uses I think you know the benefits pretty clear as long as we're not just incentivizing conversion of all of these this office space into slowly restaurant space but I don't yeah so I think there's there's a balance we could find one question I had just going back to parking how would the parking requirements be determined if they were adding save they're adding a free-standing building and adding a little bit more floor area like is that going to be driven by the use so it'll be driven by the current standard for restaurant use or would it be driven by some use under the office classification I do believe that that area could be clarified a little more I think that

034the initial and the intention was without the the vehicle and the off street parking must be shared with the existing or proposed office I think we intended for there would be no parking requirement for the free-standing restaurant that it would just need to use whatever parking is available for the office but that could be much more explicit also it could be what clear that the the freestanding restaurant would be applied it could be clarified that the office standard could be applied we can even come up with a third number so that that is probably something that's worthy for the discussion yeah and I think trying to find a balance there makes sense because I don't we don't want to create a lot of parking that isn't going to be needed but so making sure we

035understand what those standards clear is that Commissioner Weatherby I just want to agree with the rest of the commissioners um when I first saw this I have you know why is it limited to these restrictive conditions and and I currently worked in buildings where they have little restaurants and you know places that are really geared toward outside I worked at the University library and they put in a cafe that is one of the highest generating cafes and there's no parking whatsoever there and and now I work in a building where there isn't anything and and people do take their cars all the time I mean they take their cars to go get a cup of coffee they take their cut and I think if we could limit that as much as possible and I don't

036think it's because they really want their Starbucks I think it's just that they want a cappuccino and there isn't one in the building so so I think this can you know it's a tenuous sustainability link but I think that there is there is a case for it I actually think having a food service available in a building of 200 people or 400 people are 700 people is is very helpful so I do think that probably percentage is is probably I mean that makes sense in hearing it but I don't know you know I don't know what that number would be but I think you know a small coffee shop for a few hundred people a larger full-service restaurant if there's a thousand people make sense to me so that the percentages seem reasonable but the

037only you know I did have the the thought could it compete with local businesses but it could also be local businesses so I think there's there's not you know there's no nothing that says it's going to be a McDonald's and even those are franchises so it's hard to hard to say that it's going to compete necessarily I did have a question though were there any potential downsides was it just parking was that the the main concern it's a that's a very subjective downside I mean on the one hand I don't think there are many obvious downsides but it it's perhaps a matter of perspective it would be moving the office district towards a more mixed use district it wouldn't be Justin just an office use which may be good or bad along those lines the

038office is often used as a buffer area between residential and more intense commercial and if you're adding a little bit more intense commercial uses into the office that does minimize the benefits of having an office as a buffer but we also have things like conflicting land use buffers and so forth so there's a lot of overlap I think a lot of this is just is depending on your perspective and your your goals about what are the pros and cons okay thank you madam chair and I had a chance but it sounds like we want to explore this perhaps a little more that we have some sense of possible solutions not necessarily the hard numbers associated with those solutions and I think if we were to refer this to a work session or postpone this to

039another public hearing maybe an interesting data point would be where office districts do come into contact with residential districts just so we could get a better sense of what that looks like on a map and then what the conflicting land-use buffers are between office and residential just to make sure that if we were to change potential uses that those are accounted for appropriately so I don't want to cut off any other colleagues but I think it at some point soon I'll make a motion to either refer postpone depending on staffs recommendation assure something so I'll just fill in the last tooth here um yeah one of my big concerns was about kind of freestanding and what parking trigger that would be because typically when we look at parking requirements its per the building highest intensity

040use and if it's a free-standing restaurant it goes to 1 to 100 but I would have met like thinking about those operating hours during the day it's mostly serviced by the office use and at night when the people using the office aren't using that parking lot anyway dinner service you've got more than enough parking to balance those out I think in the remarks of driving out to get your coffee and lunch the same with deliveries so it's two-way traffic all day long people getting delivered stuff to their office and seeing designing more and more office space the amount of amenities getting developed into office space taking some of those kind of construction elements out and having general construction of those sorts of amenities in a larger building kind of reduces construction impact to have larger

041kitchen nuts and things within each office space so if there's several tenants I actually see a trigger that those tenants would do less build-out for you know those sorts of amenities individually if they had shared amenities so it's a pivot to just the office building standard which creates more shared built environment which i think is that kind of a big sustainability trigger that you're not operating multiple kitchens refrigeration units and things like that they're huge energy loads so I think like I support a communal office building amenity to carry that load I do agree that finding a smaller scale that supports more parcels as you all know I'm big into the adaptive reuse and how we can modify certain zoning to fit more businesses and I think that's a big trigger for small businesses and

042restaurant tours to finds pockets like this so it's not large properties looking for maybe larger outfits to lease out to their their arc I'm looking at a map both along Jackson Road at Jackson in stadium and there's c3 that has a particular restaurant with some parking triggers in the office as a buffer between that and residential so I can see where if that office space kind of grabs that c3 scope creep we can have a lot more street parking issues in the residential areas so there might be kind of a two-tier system 10% from my experience in the building code is a pretty typical accessory use to look at but I would be interested in a working session or something to evaluate kind of the lower tier because in a 10,000 square foot small office

043a thousand square foot restaurant is still pretty substantial that's a true restaurant so that impact in a buffer area could be on the higher side of proportion so that 10% might be actually a sliding scale down so I would be open to like a working session so really iron out some of those numbers to make sure that office doesn't become some other type of zoning that is more disruptive than what it's strategically meant to do as a buffer thank you and I think everything that I had written down has now been said which is the great thing about playing chair for the day and I'll just reiterate the things that I think that we should bring to the working session I think Commissioner Soviet really picked up on the point that I was gonna make

044about right now we're thinking about parking during the day and the benefits this provides during the day but actually this could really be beneficial we could cut down on the amount of parking lot that we need for restaurants if you know if it's that dinner crowd is after the office clears out so I think that this is really an opportunity for sustainability and particularly even if we're just looking at this part time one of the things that we have been working on in in the ordinance revisions committee is thinking about transit oriented development in this in this part of town and how mixing more uses may make that that area more sustainable and you know an ability for people not to have to drive my husband works from here and like there's no there's no

045place to go for lunch the other thing that I think we'll want to talk about in when we bring this back is where exactly what Commissioner Ackerman brought up where are we buffering where does office serve as buffers and maybe there maybe it just so happens that parcel size kind of controls for some of that so I don't know what our mapping ability is to like do it on the fly but I'm wondering if you know if the one acre threshold is kind of helps us get at that or something like that and I I think this idea of a sliding scale is really helpful and also I have no sense of how big the floor area is of like a restaurant and so you know in a in a thousand or a hundred thousand

046square foot office like if it's 10 percent like it's 10,000 square feet a big restaurant like I think so so like maybe we don't even want that maybe it's more 5 percent I mean I think that kind of understand that understanding too we talked about this so I will entertain a motion to yes I will refer this topic to I will move to refer this topic to a work session date to be determined and publicly noticed that seconded by Commissioner Trudeau any discussion about that then all in favor of referring this to a future work session please say yes yes now we're done yes those kind of motions thank you all right item number three let me move well that'll be fun when I get to read what the proposed motion is so right now

047I'll just say that this item is proposed difficult one more I don't got it okay I don't do that until after the public hearing right I totally know but I needed to know that see clearly kind of yeah 18 put second-stringers okay um this is the proposed amendments to table 515 permitted use table and section five point sixteen point six point D accessory dwelling units within the UDC thank you madam chair okay I am going to explain some proposed amendments to the UDC regarding accessory dwelling units these amendments will expand where the ad use are allowed they will amend the requirements regarding the they have to be attached or detached they will remove the requirement that any new entrance be located on the side or rear of a structure they'll remove the 5,000 square foot

048minimum lot size requirement and they have a reordering of the requirements into a more logical groupings I was not the author of this these amendments but in reviewing them I was a little confused and so I did my best to be able to both explain them and have you understand them as well one is fairly straightforward we have amendment to table 515 I've circled in red what we're the accessory dwelling units will now be allowed the A's indicate accessory and they will now be allowed in the r2 b r3 r4 a r4 c r4 they say a b c r 4d and r 4e they will not be allowed in the r6 which is a mobile home because it's the ownership structure you can't exactly own your mobile home outright because they're usually on the

049land lease then in the packet you'll see that the there is a strikethrough version in the packet and it looks like there's a lot of strike throughs and a lot of going on goings on so I will describe it as this for the first existing requirement in Section 516 6d number one that is not changing currently says an Adu is permitted on a parcel that has one single family dwelling as the permitted principle use requirement to that is not changing the owner the owner shall occupy either the Adu or the single family dwelling on the property except for temporary absence 'iz provision 3 is being deleted provision for is turning into provision 7 the requirement for the 5,000 square-foot minimum is being deleted and it will read four Lots up to 7200 square feet maximum

050size is 600 feet of floor area for the ad you four Lots greater than 7,200 the maximum Adu size is 800 square feet regulation 5 is changing the regulation for without any further change regulation 6 is being deleted 7 is changing to 5 and it's being a little clarified the total number of persons in the combined on the property shall not exceed the occupancy established by the zoning ordinance 8 is changing to 9 without any further amendments 9 is changing to 10 without further amendments 10 is changing to 6 11 is changing to 3 and 11 is changing to 3 so in short in the end with these permitted or with these amendments section 516 6d will read that one it's permitted on any parcel with a single-family dwelling in any our district and the

051asterisks is for the r6 - it's one dwelling must be occupied by the owner - you have to retreat you have to record a deed restriction with some specific content for two unrelated people plus there officering in the ad you and five for unrelated people plus offspring over all six is a minimum 30 day lease 7 is the size of the ad you relative to the lot size 8 it is permitted in conforming accessory buildings and this would be also means you can build a new accessory building currently you cannot and 9:1 parking space for pray to you or none if you're near a bus stop so I am happy to answer any questions I hope this clarified what is changing and what is simply just moving around in the proposed amendment is there clarification

052before we open it up yeah on on your in short list number five the four unrelated people plus offspring wasn't that changed to be the number of people in the zoning yes it's probably it's four or six depending on the zoning yeah that's a PowerPoint error not okay there okay okay we can ask more questions of mr. Leo after the public hearing which I'll open now so if anyone would like to address the Commission please David de pais why is a huge positive that this is coming forward again I really think the hard work by staff and the commissioners and residents to help realize that ad use haven't met their expectations and to get some changes for that are going to make it a reality a couple suggestions I have four possible amendments one has

053to do with the 30-day lease you don't have any many communities have a section where no subway scene is allowed I think that you might want to consider that because you can have a situation where maybe I rent something for nine months and then I'm gone for three months and I you know Lisa to whoever wants it for two weeks or whatever for weeks now maybe you're thinking that the original lease agreement might preclude that but there might be some owners that say hey I kind of like the Airbnb model maybe I'll just I don't want to deal with the hassle I'll just rent my ad you out to an agent and then they can sublease it to you know whoever and I can rake in that was extra profits so I would like to

054see maybe no subleasing allowed on the properties the second thing I'd like to see is one exception to the owner-occupied rule where you could allow one person to rent the entire property I mean ER the whole idea of ad use came from the granny 5 idea where you know you build something to help your parent you wanted them close but not too close or maybe a child a recent graduate that is starting out in life maybe you like to have them still live with you but maybe not right in the same building so I'd like to see the same opportunity offer to renters for that as would be two owners of these buildings so I'd like to see an exception to that owner-occupied if the entire ad you and the main property is rented out

055to one individual so thank you for your time and hope you'll approve this these changes hi my name is Jessica Lita I'm a renter in the fifth Ward and I have to say that ad use have been kind of my introduction to how ordinances work in the city and how change works in the city I a workshop last fall the ABCs of a to use and had a builder from Portland here who is an experienced ad you design builder and I learned from her and in looking at other communities that what we're going through is what a lot of other communities have gone through which is evolution a lot of cities implement an Adu ordinance they see how it goes for a couple of years they amend the ordinance they see how it goes for

056a few years they amend the ordinance and so it's been kind of liberating to see that something like this can actually be a living reflection of how it's working or not working in a community I also this is a little bit of a process point but I attended the working session on ad use and I actually really appreciated that the word document with all of the edits was in here it was just interesting and helpful to see how people were thinking through the changes including I know it's confusing to read out but how the how the different amendments are being kind of resolved logically and I'm also pleased to see a couple of the changes making it easier to implement ad use and I had not just historic districts but districts closer in to the

057center of the city the idea is that these are hopefully more affordable housing and to have them be walkable and accessible to more things that's really great so I appreciate the change but I think what I'm trying to say is I appreciate the process and I look forward to the conversation thank you hi Jessica I'm Jeff Crockett and I look at 5:07 sees Kingsley and I'm not representing any organization tonight I'm just here speaking as an individual and I think most of us here tonight are here for affordable housing and I am in favor of 80 use and I would like to compliment the planning staff for improving the ordinance in terms of setting up time requirements and restrictions on the number of related guests I think many of us are really concerned about the

058fact that if 80 use become B&BS that's going to really reduce the housing stock and so there needs to be restrictions there but I do have three concerns about the current proposal first there was no requirement that the design of the Adu should be compatible with the design of the primary structure and I think this is a problem no I know in the historic district there is a screening process where the ATU needs to be compact ball with the design of the main structure and I think that's a good principle should be adopted everywhere otherwise you're going to end up with a lot of ad use that may not be compatible at all I look terrible and I think look design is a factor in the beauty and the sense of community for a neighborhood

059so basically the second problem I have was and I haven't heard any discussion about this is enforcement and we're very sensitive to this in our neighborhood because of the experience with the sign ordinance and anytime you have temporary signs the problem is how are you going to monitor the timing of this so in regards to this ordinance you set time limits of six months for example in terms of people have to be there the trouble is how do you track that what happens if you a neighbor reports and says well I think this person has been gone for you know six months so you confront the property owner there no data to support support it one way or the other so I think that this needs to be considered at any rate to come up

060with some kind of plan so that where there are violations basically there is a response to that the other part to enforcement is having the staff inspections that enough inspection staff to actually do the enforcement and the building staff now are certain understaffed and so I'm one of those fans of saying we need not just more building staff we need more planning staff to respond to the community so I think somehow that needs to be addressed if not here than by council my third concern is the affordability of constructing a tea use to begin with I connected on a social media site with someone from Grand Rapids who said after a number of years they just had to people you know participate and I said well what's the cost of building and they'd be 80

061you I thought it may be 50 50 grand is that three minutes up there's not a line behind you so go ahead and talk well it seems to me that affordability if we're really to take this seriously their meat needs to be some support from people who are considering building a to use and Jessica may be that person but it would seem to me that if you had examples of well designed ad use that work from other areas and you present that then you'd have a greater likelihood of people doing it and the other thing is help for the financial aspect of it I mean from what I can gather is only people who middle-class people who have a certain have a mortgage are not going to be able to afford getting a second mortgage

062in order to get an Adu it's only going to be those people who have already in my opinion bought their house and have no mortgage who can afford to get additional funds to do that so how how can we address the affordability if we're going to be serious about making ATS happen thank you very much is there anyone one more or maybe not hi I'm Tom Stolberg either one - zero - Traver Street I want to be the guy that says pause for a moment and let's think about the worst-case scenarios of this cuz we're gonna get them whether we think about them ahead of time or not we're creating a zoning change we're creating a buy right for people to build something in their yard and as one of the other speakers said if

063you're not in a historic district there's no design regulation on what they built you know my hobby is ships and I want to build an Adu that's six hundred square foot it looks like a boat I can't I have a neighbor down the block for me who loves to salvage material and he's built out buildings on his property with salvaged siding and things like that so I'm not trying to scare everybody in that this is all we're gonna get but I think we need to think about the worst-case scenario because somebody is going to end up with that worst-case scenario in their backyard in the setback of their neighbor's yard and we've had some good comments from everybody who's spoken but that's four of us I think we need more public engagement on this this

064is gonna impact just about every homeowner potentially and you know we have we published notice on this but you know are we giving individual notice to the homeowners that their neighbor might have a new structure in their yard I don't know what the requirement for notice is but I think we should think about the idea that most people are this is under the radar for most people and most people are going to like the idea of an Adu when they think of the traditional concept of an Adu but as my concern is the new structure portion of that let me limit it than my concerns to just that brand new structures and I think we need to work on this a little bit more get more public engagement public input and think about like I

065said the worst-case scenarios there's always somebody wants to game the system when you make a rule somebody who's looking to make a buck off this and there may be something we haven't thought of well somebody will think of it cuz that's just like hackers you can't keep they're faster than us are coming up with the ways to get around the system so I want to think about you know how can we have more public engagement and also as we move one step at a time in the ATU process maybe we're not ready for this step of brand-new structures because the next step if we took one more step after brand new structures and added not on their occupancy by adding new structures now we're one step away from going over the cliff of upzoning every

066single family neighborhood to having detached duplexes we need to be a little further away than one step away from that thank you all right well close the public hearing and I will find the motion to read the Inner Harbor Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to the unified development I'm an amend this code as presented to increase the opportunity for accessory dwelling units in the city of Ann Arbor there moved by Commissioner Weatherby seconded by Commissioner Sauve discussion Commissioner Ackerman thank you madam chair and thanks for the thoughtful comments from from the public I just have actually a lot of questions if that that's all right it's for context the original ordinance was passed by City Council in August of 2016 and it's been a long two and a half years so some rashers would

067be helpful and I just want to nail down well certainly a couple items just be crystal clear no matter the zoning district ad use could only be built on parcels being used as single-family dwellings correct and they the the properties have to remain owner-occupied that is an owner has to live on-site that is in the primary or secondary structure that is currently required and that requirement is not supposed it's slated to change okay and then in a hypothetical what happens to an ad you if a duplex or a multi-family building is developed on an R 2 R 3 R 4 or R 5 property that what would happen to the idea an ad you was left it could be left physically standing well that's where the deed restriction comes into play so that's where the

068deed restriction comes into play and so if you want to do this and you want the the the benefit of the ad you as opposed to a duplex then you'll need to encumber your property so that if it and which runs with the land and so that would be a separate but parallel process to all your permitting and construction of the ad you itself right got it okay can you remind us of the setback requirements for detached ad use to adjacent properties in residential district well in a residential district accessory structures can be as close as 3 feet from the side or the rear property line they can only occupy 35% of the required rear yard so bigger than lot bigger the sites of the structure whether it be a garage or an ad you

069we have been coached by the planners have been coached by the building department to say there's an asterisk there and the zoning ordinance I we can issue you a permit for that structure to be 3 feet from the site or your property line but that closed you'll need to have a higher construction standard for fire codes so you may choose you may want to choose there is an incentive to put it either 5 or 8 feet from a property line you'll be able to get more windows you'll be able to do a more typical residential construction standard but it could be three and then I realized this is quite the range there's a lot of zoning districts and sub zoning districts in the our district the residential districts what is the range of side and

070rear setbacks for primary structures to a property line in the single-family districts it ranges from three feet in the are one E and D up to I believe 14 feet in the are 1a okay multifamily gets into the the minimums get into the double digits like 12 feet 20 feet and so forth then just for the removal requirement that any new entrants be located at the side or rear of the structure can you clarify what the regulation is currently and what that means in practice and what the removal of the requirement would mean in practice yes I can I was trying to go back to the right now the codes says the ad you shall be designed so the appearance of the building that be the primary building remains that of single family or a

071detached accessory building such as a garage or carriage house so if you were having the ad you in the principal building you would have to put the entrance to it on the side or the rear of the principal building and that if you were if it was in an accessory building more opportunities for the placement of the door and that this were the removal of that means if you were to perhaps converting your garage in your home is not the best example but if you were to incorporate an Adu into your home you could have a street facing door got it okay and I apologize if they missed this but can you reclassify what more logical groupings means sure well if you go to the in the packet there in general it starts out with

072it's permitted on a single family and then the owner occupies the unit and then talks about the design then it jumps into a lot area then it goes back to housing inspection requirements and it's supposed to make the interpretation and the reading of the ordinance a little clearer yeah trying to more chip more chip away that that's where the like 11 became 3 yep wonderful and then can you remind us of the taking a step out of the the changes here and speaking to to some of the the public comment I do understand the interest in avoiding short-term rental for these properties and that's something that we're looking at citywide to begin with and so I think that's great that as this body offers up recommendations for new ordinance that we take that into account

073to begin with just as an editorial note from my personal experience and from the personal experience of many of my friends some are short-term rentals or sub leases are a very very affordable form of rental housing in this market it's how I survived many summers as a student and then my first summer as a young professional and allowed me to do a lot of saving I needed to do and so it would be great and I would have loved to live in an Adu during one of those summers and so it'd be great to find a way in which we can both allow for summer subleases but also avoid you know the the behavior we're trying to avoid which is more the Airbnb style short term rental and just as a possibility perhaps change to

074the lease or sublease minimum to three months or something to that extent I don't that's throwing an idea out there but I just wanted to plug the importance of subleases in our rental market for the summer months and not lose sight of that while we try to solve another problem so I'll leave it there I really appreciate the answers I would love to hear other colleagues discussion commissioner so they I'm just gonna piggyback on the least time because I'm reading it 30-day lease more than 30 days for a lease correct the six months is for owner-occupied it's like you take a vacation or sabbatical as owner-occupied those are the two kind of timeline benchmarks that we're looking at correct correct okay so it would allow for like a three months summer lease or semester long

075lease for these 80 use correct correct yes it could even be a 45 days at least well 31 days actually but it would allow for the three month or the seasonal I mean I really appreciate where all of this progress is gone to make these more feasible to happen I think it's a great kind of tool in the UDC on for affordable housing so I'm just gonna kind of say kudos for progress there's I think adding sublease to the terminology for item number six I'm just gonna lay it out now we'll see what everybody else is saying but just before I can I make a proposal for it but leasing in subleasing of a rental for no less than 30 days seems like a pretty easy change to cover kind of those sorts of maneuvers

076and loopholes I think it is interesting if both of them could be rented out under a single rental light lease agreement both buildings would be an interesting proposal because if a single-family house could be converted to a rental and somebody just wanted to rent the entire parcel long term like the the the condition that we have an owner-occupied on with these 80 use is to kind of manage the renter right in this kind of small condition and so if if we're talking about a typical single family rental property there isn't somebody on site to manage it anyway right so that parcel is offsite managed so I may not be so willing to put it on the table now I'd be interested to hear you know everybody else's thoughts on it but it could be kind

077of a next progressive stuff to think about where this this actually could lead to maintain either owner occupancy or single occupancy of the entire parcel so I think it's an interesting idea to propose in terms of design I do want to kind of address those comments design is very subjective I think a boat would be cool and a fun architectural effort I see a lot of existing buildings that if we made a requirement to match would add more ugly things into our neighborhoods so I think it actually gives young designers ways to actually experiment in a small scale and do something more architecturally significant do some risk trying new material applications and so I think it actually is a catalyst to expand and test and improve design as much as there is a risk that

078you're gonna have something ugly in your back yard so I don't I don't think that's something we should regulate and I don't think we we don't regularly design anywhere else design review board board is also voluntary so those are my two cents I I support this probably with just a couple chain just you know that are kind of on the table but no nothing raises a red flag for me that this is going to cause issue it's only gonna kind of cause more opportunity commissioner good Randall I agree about the design part I was on design review board and we don't you know if you build a house now we don't regulate that if you build a big ugly garage in your backyard we don't regulate that either and so to add this in as

079a separate thing feels kind of onerous to me I not in this round but in our in our v3 version I know that in some of the research that was done the first time around with this we looked at some other cities that had some really interesting templates and I think that could be a interesting direction for us to head in another thing I would be open to would be not something that would be completely regulatory but maybe some some themes for people to hit about roof lines or breaking up big expanses with Windows or something to kind of give people some general guidelines and be open to that I don't know if that's in this I don't think it's in this but I think it's where we could go I could be open to

080that but I don't think that we could get too prescriptive about that just based on how the rest of everything works and the other thing I would like to just put out on the table is that this is a pretty sparsely attended Planning Commission meeting on this but boy when we did this before it was standing room only there were so many people here so this really does have a very robust history of people showing up and so I actually feel totally fine about where we are right now and I think the reason we don't have many people here tonight is because staff did such a good job of reaching out to people there first and second I mean how many times dude there are a lot of times that we talked about this there

081were working sessions and so it may be it may be kind of perceived right now that it doesn't seem like who's showing up to this thing this is a really big important thing and why is a really big important thing and many people showed up so it was full of a lot of voices from people from the affordable housing community and it was it was very well attended so I I think it's testimony to the fact that there was such a good job done before that we don't know a lot of people here tonight frankly and I think we do need to relax it in order to be able to encourage it I mean it would be great if we had the problem of these are going on everywhere but they're not you know and

082I think this will like move the needle a little bit which is great we need to probably take baby steps with this but I think that we do need to keep taking steps so I I support where we are with this I agree like the minor tweak that you talked about that I'm totally fine with that so that's that's kind of where iam with it I think in terms of enforcement you know it's just like with anything else in the city that it's probably going to be neighbors you know reporting to the city I think that's likely what it's really gonna be and they probably will are things that you know that have an impact on them so so that's where I am tonight on this guy thank you just to start off if mr.

083Leo do you happen to know how many 80s have been applied for and/or constructed since we passed the ordinance I do not know but I think that you may be able to count them on one hand I can't say definitively but I'm fairly confident it's in you can count them with one hand right yep and that's yeah I was I hadn't heard an update but I know it's been a number very close to zero and so and I do think these like we've seen in other cities that have taken this approach as Ms leta brought up you pass an ordinance we see what happens and this is a common experience where not much gets done we make a small we make some small changes see what happens and then eventually we've seen these things really

084take off in other cities and so I think one step at a time is the way to go I think these are a prudent list of incremental steps that are not nothing raises big red flags to me I do appreciate the the point that we should be thinking about like for opening up we're relaxing rules how could those rules be exploited and I just I don't see anything that looks like it's a huge concern to me I totally agree on the points already made about design we don't have design standards for a garage so why would we you know so we don't have a design standard for homes for cars like by do we would we have that for homes for people and I very much agree with Kushner surveys point that having these smaller

085scale projects for people to be creative on and try things out is an opportunity to really do that similarly on things like notice accessory structures have have rules that apply to them and I don't see why these would require anything more significant than what's already on the books for a new my neighbors gonna build a garage like there's rules for that there's rules for this I think those that they're you know we don't hear lots of complaints about this being a really high priority problem around the city for other kinds of accessory structures that get built all the time the sublet point I I'm happy that we're starting to have a conversation as a broader topic in the city I think that's a really important one to wrestle with to get right because there's a

086lot of ways we can do a lot of harm while we're trying to protect it against harms and I would strongly prefer that we have a conversation about sublets in particular in the context of how we do list of let's city wide rather than just specifically attached to the conversation around 80 used and I know that conversation is coming so it's not punting on it like weird I think we should take us seriously and be thinking about how a to use fit into that mix as we have that conversation but I hesitate to try to get too deep into the weeds on that on this side I think it's the I think as it's written I'm pretty comfortable with and I'll just say I would also in the future as we continue to take baby

087steps and iterate I fully support and love the idea of having a set of templates or guides or exemplars for people to follow I think that's a great idea we've seen that another city and it can make it that much easier for people to get these done if you don't have to pay and architecture to a bespoke design and you know you've got one that's gonna be comply and it'll get through smoothly lowers the risk makes it easier for people and we get what we want I think that's great and I'm also I would also be willing to explore that conversation of full property leases I believe before the ATU ordinance you could theoretically have a granny flat if your granny lived in it because there's so part of your your immediate family so it

088didn't trigger these unit requirements so some kind of concept similar to that where if you're renting the entire property that has an Adu but you're using it in such a way that like was legal before the ADA ordinance existed so your granny lives in the second unit or your you know college aged child or something like that that that would be a great conversation to have down the line so I like I like queuing up more ideas to kind of continue to refine this improve it and expand it carefully keeping it you know inbounds with community interests so yeah Commissioner Weatherby so I I live in our 4c neighborhood and there's a fair number of duplexes and what's interesting and near the stadium so huge Airbnb area and what's interesting is almost all of the

089duplexes are owner occupied or a long time like 20-year renter occupied and then rent the other unit for Airbnb the single-family homes often are turned over to a Airbnb so I actually have some hope that this will actually be better and allow more homeowner or full-time owner or full-time tenant and then you make your money on the Airbnb still with the little parcel in the back that that I think right now we have the reverse where the single homes it's worth it for people to just air B&B them and and in and so it's not worth it for them to rent because you can't actually rent them for as much as you can air B&B them so I actually think that this may sort of instead of being more Airbnb actually allow for someone to

090live in a house and have an Airbnb or reverse or and there are people who you know will go to live in the Airbnb while they rent out their house or you know there's lots of combinations and I actually think it it may help the situation rather than hurt the situation for those areas I think it's it's easy to hold back and worry about the worst-case scenarios but I know 10 years ago we were not at all worried about Airbnb because it didn't exist and the scenarios you know there's always gonna be a worst-case scenario and there's eyes gonna be that one person who pushes it but I'm happy to see that we are iterative on this process already which is different from a lot of the processes in the in planning here so I

091think the fact that we already we already know that we're gonna be iterative with this we already are iterative with this and if something bad happens I don't know that we can plan for that entirely because we we just there's so many things out there that we don't know about right now so I think taking these small steps and moving forward incrementally is great and also pulling back on some things I think we've made some changes if if it doesn't look to be going in the right direction so I'm pretty confident that that this process is is set up to get the best out of it and and I think we're already kind of behind a lot of other places in the country and we really should move forward with this and I'm I'm happy

092with these these changes that have been made I was gonna say I'll add in that I agree with everyone on particularly on design and process and enforcement I mean this is the idea of timing and is something that comes up a lot there are many places in our ordinance where you know something is allowed for a particular period of time and it's really you know it's up to it's up to neighbors to kind of be on the lookout for that I mean that's just how our code works I I'm interested in the discussion about what to do about subleasing because in my mind that needed to go hand in hand with what we wanted to do if we were going to allow renting out the entire property which I do think is really an interesting

093- one to one entity in particular like I think you have to have limits on subletting if you're going to allow the entire property to be leased out I the idea of renting out the entire property is something that I think is definitely I would want to consider it for for round three of this because I think that that might I mean one of the ideas of making sure that this is owner-occupied is this is one of the big concerns right and we the idea of like taking baby steps I think is important but something that came up I remember in the first time around of discussing this is what happens if the owner of the you know of the unit that of the property where you do have an ad you goes into the

094hospital or something like what do you do then with that property if they are no longer occupying or in a position where they can't occupy it and so I think that that's an interesting I think that we need to consider that we're particularly going to need to consider that when we have lots of these things we're not there yet and that's why I think that this I'd like to punt on for until the next round because I do think that this is going to be iterative and I think that that needs a lot more consideration once we have a lot of these things but I'm worried that that would gum up the works right now and so would rather not deal with that and I'm the the subletting thing then I think I'm torn on

095that because I do think if this is a broader conversation that I would almost let that be part of the broader conversation you know limits on subletting or at least the least the terms of that but I also see this is a good protection because this is one way that I can't imagine gaming the system right and so maybe it makes sense to just deal with that now did we did someone it sounds like looks like Commissioner Ackerman wants to know does do you want to make a motion okay I will make a motion and I think part of it is because I feel comfortable making a motion for you because it's at a 30-day we're not talking about extreme kind of sublease terms here and so at since this is kind of a special

096part of the code I think some special terms like this might lead to that discussion somewhere else so I'm gonna make a motion to modify item six to read leasing or subleasing just leasing subleasing or rental of the ATU for less than 30 days is prohibited is that motion seconded seconded by Commissioner Ackerman discussion of the amendment yes thank you madam chair I just there three scenarios they could unfold tonight after this if this amendment is passed we recommend adoption of the ordinance amendment to recommend an aisle are we postponed if we recommend regardless could we get mr. McDonald in the City Attorney's Office input on that just to make sure it covers the basis based on kind of the intent you're hearing tonight a question back would you be wanting Fick maternities request and

097then maybe reporting back to this body and I mentioned this because the normal process is when planning staff submit items for City Council the City Attorney's Office does a review also as routine that's helpful I guess during that review should we vote tonight to move this forward can it just be noted explicitly to mr. McDonald the City Attorney's Office that the intent is to you know what has been stated tonight okay I'm just so that that review has that context Thanks other discussion of the motion to amend yes commissioner woods yes can you repeat it again and then just tell me what it's intended to do item six the motion to amend to add so it will read leasing subleasing or rental of the ad you for less than 30 days is prohibited so the

098intent hold up please I can't I was looking at that list can you say okay so this is what you wanted to read I'll try to leave seen subleasing or rental of a to you for less than 30 days and the intent is that if a lessee wanted to sub wanted or needed to sub that lis sublet out the space the ad you that the terms of that sub least would hold to the same benchmark that the ordinance does that no less than 30 days to avoid loopholes of subleasing to somebody else that could then sub sub lease for Airbnb you know weekends and those sorts of things I I think I'd have to vote against that and the reason for that would be I'm just thinking in terms of sometimes there are students who

099just need a couple of weeks or something on a sublease as they're waiting to go abroad or something like that they don't need full month or for something and so in this case if they were to find an Adu and they only needed it for less than 30 days then they'd be prohibited correct okay correct yeah so much yeah then my other question is how do we really enforce this because a lot of it is going to be driven I guess by neighbors or whomever noticing things or something because many subleases they're just really contracts or all kinds of things that are happening between people and people aren't really writing that down nobody really knows unless some problem occurs where you got a sublease and the person didn't pay and then you do it and

100and I'm working with students all the time and I and I see it so I guess my question is do we really want to put this into this if there's not gonna be any teeth behind it so I think the intent is more to cover the abuse of this in somebody operating this as an ear bein to be more continually and that that will get reported now if there's there's a unique condition that it's a two-week lease and somebody wants to negotiate it's a it's a one-month lease and they only occupy it for two weeks or something like that could be something that they manage I also think that right now where we're at with these increments the amount of ad use on the market that students might be looking for a two-week lease but

101if there's only so many and this is the tipping point of them having available to wheat lease or not versus the chance of abuse for all of these Airbnb s that we're seeing I'd rather protect the kind of traffic and and the intent of the ad you for longer term lease more so than the condition of you know a couple week lease at this point as a more incremental protection of 30 days or more that's the curtain so it's almost as if there are actually two things going on on one hand many of us want to do something about the Airbnb and we're using this as an opportunity to do that not realizing perhaps that there are some unintended consequences that can happen to other people even though we don't have that many ad use

102out there yet I mean we're sort of doing this towards the future thinking maybe one day there'll be 70 80 90 hundred I don't know out there and so we want to have something to do about that so I would just sort of caution how that you have to be careful I think when we come up with ordinances where we want to solve one problem and we keep talking about Airbnb ease around the table but I don't think I really see them anywhere on the paper that were that we're using and so I guess I just kind of have a problem with that and and I'm not just directing that to you I'm just directing it to us as a body that if that's what we want to be regulating or working towards then that's

103what we should be doing as opposed to you know doing it sort of like sideways thank you I entirely agree with Commissioner woods I there there is a conversation we need to have here around sublets and I think that's a bigger conversation than around e to use and because there aren't very many of them we're also not creating a huge risk of a proliferation of them and if we can regulate sublets later it will still apply to a to use whether they're built tomorrow or not so I don't see the urgency of trying to solve this problem now especially since I think there's more conversation to be had and I can think of a lot of ways this was fine in a lot of ways it's not fine and I just think I'm rather leave

104it as is now have the conversation about sublets and everything apiece and that sort of thing down the line yeah commissioner Ackerman I really appreciate that feedback I think that kind of sways my thinking and so just to put timelines on it the conversations around short-term rentals the next step is that by July 31st the city administrator will report back to Council with kind of some benchmarking of what other communities do and some recommendations for direction so just for context any conversation on subletting or short-term rentals probably won't even really start until July 31st I also agree that you know I think we're not unleashing the floodgates onto the community that this doesn't mean introduced a lot of risk so I think ultimately I I hear you and I think this probably causes more questions

105than it does create solutions so I it's a small tweak but I hear you also just as a clerical note mr. Leo I believe we've decided that the entire UTC will include Oxford comma for that matter I'll take out the extra space between it is agreed and see the Attorney's Office hasn't reviewed this amendment there we go yeah I knew it was Kevin's fault I'd be something that I would add on to the discussion that to what Commissioner Ackerman just said beyond the expert comment which was also bothering them greatly is that in terms of unleashing the floodgates I would remind people that no matter what happens tonight this goes on for City Council and so however we act tonight like various they're still at least two months more in the process ahead of us

106and so this change is going to take some time anyway and so I was clearly on the fence before about whether we should deal with here and I think I think that there is broader discussion that should be had about what what consequence limiting subleases has and so I I think I will but I appreciate you bringing it up and I think it's really something to that we we ought to consider I think that this is likely going to be a concern and I think the fact that there's already been movement at council don't think about this citywide and not just in this is really helpful I think that had that not been you know part of the discussion last night I that would certainly have changed you know what I would want to see

107in this today yeah commissioner sube yes I would just I really appreciate all the discussions and I think kind of what what this leads to me is kind of this question of 30 days and if the concern is kind of something shorter as the suppli and like what that triggers just not to modify again or any of those things but as we evaluate this and even kind of full parcel leases and things what timelines - leases for this section of the code mean and if it even exists later on right so if if subleasing isn't part of it because we want to do something that could be available for less than 30 days what does item number six exist so it's just an interesting other piece of the conversation now that's rolling to punt to

108the next evolution of it so I appreciate it did you have something to add commissioner yeah I just I don't know if we want to take an up-or-down vote on this and as the second I would just offer to withdraw that second if for the motion to amend I just I don't know if uptown vote really would add anything to the minutes or the record would you like to withdraw if all right so we don't have to vote on the amendment that we can no longer see anymore we are back to the ordinance as drafted and the main motion any other comments on the the main motion the ordinance yes I just want to clarify so I mean this isn't gonna happen but if somebody decides to hit the ground running you know in a

109month and build one of these and totally has Airbnb on their brain if we change that I mean just because it takes a long time for us to change things we're just starting to do the exploration of short-term rentals if somebody decides this is why they're building theirs under this code but we end up changing it in two years when we finally get around to actually making it firm thing are they still able to do their Airbnb model and say well I built it because of that because you allowed it I'm just curious like it would it change what would they be able to change that with would that would they be grandfathered in is my question it's a very interesting question I'm I'm not sure if I can answer definitively tonight or on the

110fly some of the things that I'm thinking about are there's no physical difference between these time limits so like the it's we we don't have anything in here right now saying if you do a short-term rental for example then your height limit is 20 feet but if you are a year rental so because there's no physical change I'm not sure if they would be grandfathered in they we might have to honor that like a duration of a lease like say something started on September 1st and they have it rented from August 31st until September 3rd there they would have been legal on the day they started uh-huh but then for the next then in October that's what I'm thinking because there's no physical differences I don't think they would be entitled to any grandfathering because

111once their contract is up and it goes back up on the market I think they would be subject to the ordinance at the time okay because I guess what as some ways around a lot of people that are considering doing this for their own homes the more bedrooms the better is the way they're looking at it in terms of how many beds they can cram in and how many futons they can set up in the basement and all that sort of thing so it I think it could have physical ramifications in the way you design it to a certain extent but if they still have to fit all of the for unrelated person blah blah blah if that all still then then you can only cram it full of so many people right because you

112know yeah because there's we don't there's no separate section that says well the occupancy for a short-term rental is Rex but the occupant song term rental is why so all of that sort of leads me to believe without total analysis but all that leads me to believe that they they wouldn't be grandfathered beyond whatever was actually going on a day of adoption already that's that was my only that's my only concern that leads me to another question though I just want to make sure that can you go back to the I'm actually do this the you could only you were suggesting that perhaps there would be some method by which people are putting additional beds in and which and so effectively renting to two different people so to on potentially unrelated people but but this

113is one ad you so presumably it can only be rented to one person right I just whelmed that one person or two into one there can only be one lease six unrelated people two unrelated people in in this single ad you plus their offspring that's that's what we're maximizing like yes that's what number four says is that in the ATU between two unrelated people I see is there it does there need to be a limit on like I guess this is the Sun well no this is the this is the sublet idea like that it can't be it may be one dwelling unit but it there's two different leases could you're releasing up by bedroom like that just I don't know how that works yeah within the ad you that's possible carry town like there's

114a there's a lot of old houses that you see summer market that people sublet only their bedroom of Elise how it's making me wonder like we currently have I believe zero right right exactly I know that's right I appreciate that yeah yes you're right and and again that it doesn't necessarily have any what you were just saying about there being physical differences based on that I I think that that's right maybe somebody does decide to physically design it differently but they're it's not required right no mmm all right other other comments questions on the main motion so this will be effectively summarized on this slide this is what we're voting on no changes to what you see but lots of marks markups in them you know from what is currently on the books alright so

115all in favor of the motion as read please say yes yes yes all opposed that's no one so the motion passes on to City Council okey dokey we are at item 11 which is another opportunity for audience participation you persons may speak for three minutes about any item that they wish to address us on seeing no one item 12 is Commission proposed business I am going to have an item of commission proposed business and I think it's missile EO if you could please have mr. Leonard add on to a working session a discussion about how to incorporate considerations of sustainability within the staff reports that we get I'm I think it warrants some discussion both what we want to see but also to what extent there may be interest in other staff in this building

116reviewing proposals like I don't know the director city really wants to review things or not like anyway I think we should we should talk about that so if we can put it on it doesn't have to come to the next working session but on a future working session if we could talk about that more right so noted thank you anything else could I add to that just as part of my hat with the environmental commission that you actually related to the sustainability framework which has metrics and measurements attached to them I think that that would be them we're really trying to make that happen more with the environmental Commission I think it's good for us as a city to be thinking about those things too some of them are going to not apply at all

117um but some of them will and I think it's important for us to actually try to quantify some of these things too so that we can actually measure how we're doing so yeah and I think us all looking at the framework together and the things that we want to see measure and report it out to us regularly I think that's right and for us to be reminded of what those measures are because I think we're you know as a commission we we know generally the spirit of it certainly but there are a lot of specifics in there too that I think would be helpful for us to just hear on a more regular basis - so I think it would be a way for those worlds to knit together more seamlessly any other Commission proposes

118business I will entertain a motion to adjourn motion made by Commissioner Weatherby seconded by Commissioner sauvé all in favor yes yes we are adjourned thank you you