Planning Commission 12-4-18

001come to the December 4th 2018 City Planning Commission meeting will begin this meeting with a roll call good evening commissioner Ackerman here Commissioner Briggs a my echoey you're getting feedback okay Commissioner Briggs oh yeah commissioner get Brandel present Commissioner Mills Commissioner Milstein here commissioner sauvé Commissioner Trudeau yeah Commissioner Weatherby here commissioner was quorum thank you do we have any introductions this evening I wonder do some staff available to answer any questions on petitions later but none at this time thank you we will now move on to approval of agenda does anyone do we have a motion to approve move it Commissioner Mills second but Commissioner Brandel any changes all those in favor please say aye anyone opposed moving on to minutes from previous meeting before us this evening we have this the September 18th meeting

002Minister Weatherby seconded by Commissioner so they any changes or discussion all those in favor please say aye opposed all right those have been approved moving on to reports from city administration City Planning or I'm sorry City Council Planning Manager Planning Commission officers and committees written communications and petitions we will begin with our city council representative mr. Ackerman Thank You mr. chair city council met last night one item of note for this body is the city finalized its second round of annexation since 2015 this round involved 88 parcels and what were it's really distracting sigh oh and our burn pits filled townships so beginning over the course of the next 18 months the city will move forward and annexing those properties into the city of Ann Arbor and its public utilities thank you I think we

003may have fix it or it's being fixed right now mr. Leonard does not have a report this evening Planning Commission officers and committees Commissioner Mills I just thought I could sorry my voice is terrible and that makes it sound really bad the I thought I'd report out that the ordinance revisions committee did meet last week and we discussed three items going through some of what is looking at changes to the accessory dwelling units part of the ordinance this was written to request of us by City Council and so I think that's something that will be coming before all of us soon we also looked at front highway setback and temporary sales so those will things be things that I think we'll see soon communications and petitions for us this evening we have quite a bit

004of written communications please take a look at that when you have an opportunity all right moving on to audience participation at this time this is an opportunity for anyone in the audience to address the Planning Commission in regards to any item that is not on our agenda this evening so if you are here in regards to Lockwood or Apple Way we ask that you please wait until we have a public hearing for that is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission in regards to an item that is not on the agenda this evening seeing no one we will move on to public hearing scheduled for our next business meeting it's your honor yes scheduled for the December 18th Planning Commission meeting are for new public hearings one is a proposal

005to annex and Zone a proper single-family property at two four five Orchard Hills Road the second public hearing is 8:30 Henry Street a site plan for City Council approval approval this is a proposal to demolish three structures and combine four Lots to create a new in constructing new 11 unit townhome the third public hearing is for bright dawn village apartments plan project and rezoning for City Council approval this is a request to rezone an 8 acre site from two r4d and construct four four-story multifamily apartment buildings including a hundred and sixty new units 40 of those units would be designated as affordable housing and then the final new public hearing would be four three 935 research park drive this is a special exception use in site plan a petition for a medical marijuana growing and

006processing facility in the re zoning district thank you alright we are now moving on to unfinished business and before us this evening is Lockwood of an arbor site plan for City Council approval our procedure for this evening will be the petitioner will have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation petitioner and their team as well after that we will go to a staff report and after the staff report has concluded we will then open up a public hearing so the petitioner would like to begin you have up to ten minutes yes you will I'm trying to bring it up right now but of course it just had a little did in there hold on a second ago [Music] evening first and foremost I'd like to thank you for having us here this evening to

007present before you for believe the third time but we're happy to keep at it to address any concerns and comments that you have so I'll get into our presentation I would like to keep it relatively brief in light of the amount of time we've already gone over various things but I'll start with a quick overview of the development the project we're proposing is 95 apartment mixed income independence even senior living community three-story building we're seeking a PUD zoning classification and 30 it will be a 37 thousand square foot building footprint approximately a little over a hundred thousand square feet in total in terms of the overall structure we're planning to finance the property through the sale of low income housing tax credits and through finance to first mortgage financing from the Michigan State Housing Development

008Authority tax-exempt bond mortgage program and their gap funding program as they call it which is a combination of federal home allocation as well as Misha's preservation fund balance sheet program as far as the residents that our proposed development would serve it would provide a new housing option for local seniors whose lifestyles fit with a single building service and rich community who do not need dramatically more expensive assisted living so basically the gap market between senior apartments without any services or coordinated meal service laundry services coordinated resident events and assisted living and kind of the other end of the spectrum which would be a much more intensive medical oriented and significantly more expensive option typical starting prices in a market like Ann Arbor are $4,500 a month up to well north of six thousand dollars a

009month depending on the service package selected the four plan and pricing mix will be six studio apartments designated for 60% area median income households for based on current area median incomes and estimated utility allowances $883 per month twelve one-bedroom apartments designated for 60% or below area median income households for $939 a month and three two-bedroom Apartments designated for a 60% area median income households for 1128 dollars per month we would also have six additional studios which would be designated for the 50% area median income which is under HUDs classifications is the very low income classification provided definition those would be ranging from seven hundred fifty three dollars to seven hundred sixty nine dollars per month eleven one-bedroom Apartments at the 50% ami level for seven seventy six to eight seventeen a month and three two-bedroom

010apartments for 932 to 981 a month and our current estimate of market rents would be twenty-seven hundred dollars per month for a one-bedroom apartment of which would be 32 and 32 hundred dollars per month for a two-bedroom market rate department which 322 as far as the service is offered at the development there are really two types of classifications of services one would be services that are by living in the development are just automatically included as part of the the amenities and kind of the lifestyle for the residents living there access would include access to all amenities which include for this proposed development a game room movie room arts and crafts room Interfaith Chapel fitness and wellness room and a barbershop beauty salon additionally the community would operate a shuttle bus and provide transportation services to

011residents both on a signup basis and just a ongoing basis for kind of high demand areas drug stores grocery stores things of that nature as well as coordinated enrichment activities including fitness classes arts and crafts games outside musical and entertainment and catered social gatherings happy hours and like and then there is there are also available services which would be services that would be outside of the base rent so for for people who are participating in the the package of services including dining with three meals daily weekly housekeeping services weekly laundry services and optional off-site events such as concerts and sporting events for those optional events transportation is included the only aspect would be additional would just be the cost of an event ticket or something along those lines if such existed if it's not a

012free at community about in overview of the public benefits of the of the development is a creation of affordable housing 41 apartments in total of affordable housing added which based on some of the feedback from housing and Arbor Housing Commission and and just the kind of the history of affordable housing in the last 10 years and Ann Arbor is a significant addition to the market the project furthers the mixed-use aim our objective of the Ann Arbor master plan for the area by there's an area with with commercial uses as well as residential uses adjacent so this being a moderate intensity residential use fits within that framework water main extensions and pipe upgrades use of a storm water infiltration bed existing tree canopy management as well as contribution to to mitigation contribution for for the forestry

013department expansion of the neighborhood pedestrian network including over 500 lineal feet of sidewalk along Jackson Road which we connect to improve connection to public transit and significantly improve pedestrian safety since that whole stretch of Jackson Road has no sidewalk currently there also be a new play area for public use which would be right on Jackson Road on the on the northwest corner of the site dual charging station for electric vehicles and dark sky lower lighting techniques implemented with to minimize light pollution in the area have here on the on the screen we have a visual of the sidewalk additions you can see the the majority of which is off-site on Jackson Road a graphic of a rendering of the proposed play area which would be public access and easily accessible off Jackson Road especially with

014the addition of the sidewalk there were also just to overview a few changes from to the development improvements based on feedback from this commission and from the local community which includes addition of studio apartments a significant increase in affordable apartments from 19 to 41 a reduced building footprint and it changed in dumpster location to an loading dock to reduce the impact on neighboring properties this graphic demonstrates that the most recent site plan and landscape plan with the new dumpster and loading dock location and also the alternative use analysis with our 1c zoning which is the current zoning the allowable building footprints based on an alternative site plan prepared by our architects which complies with all applicable zoning regulations would have a building footprint forty thousand four hundred fifty square feet with paved area of over

015thirty eight thousand square feet for open space of 48.8% square 48.8% and and 30-foot rear yard setbacks and five yard side yard setbacks which actually be applicable in this case our proposed site plan is a building footprint of 37,000 square feet paved the area of over just over thirty one thousand square feet and fifty 5.2% open space with the smallest set back being 41 feet three inches and so this is a graphic of the alternative site plan layout under our 1c and lastly the open items from the last meeting to refresh were the ability of the price of a property owner us to enter into agreements regarding various things salt usage and whatnot which we were able to do and then there are also members of DEQ here as well as the fire marshal to

016of weighing on those other issues thank you thank you we will now turn over to mr. Kowalski for the staff report okay I just have a couple of quick items really to go over at this point I'm not gonna rehash the entire staff report like an additional some of the items to follow up on were touched by the petitioner previously most importantly one of the issues that the Commission tabled it for one of the major issues in September was the question over infiltration and any of potential effects that may or may not have on the government plume in that area as noted in the report and also mentioned previously we do have a representative mdq here tonight which would be able to answer some of those questions we did additional staff met with some planning

017staff as well as additional city staff met with the mdq as well as the Washington County Water Resources commissioner in mid submitted to late September to discuss this project as well as kind of set a mission for where mr. lund will kind of touch off on his follow-up research on the and the issue of infiltration as well one of the other items was regarding the lighting on the site again touched on by the petitioner but I further verified you went through the dark sky dark sky qualifications and this does we'll meet the dark sky qualifications for the hard shut offs on the fixtures that is also something that will be put into the supplemental regulations as well as any development agreement and lastly was the item of the potential salt runoff and things like that

018noted in my staff report they assets and salt make sure we did staff to do some research in addition reach out to our natural features crew and things like that I'm on this site really the there'll be no direct drainage of the salt into any of the adjacent areas or wetlands it is all going through fire retention basin similar to other projects within the city so there won't be any direct drainage and the salt sand mixture will will help in addition we've looked into other potential for treatment but none of them really staff didn't feel comfortable with any of them so really those were the three main items for follow up after the last Planning Commission and Seth is still recommending approval at this time thank you thank you I'll now turn it over to

019mr. Leonard for introduction of the staff that's here thank you as a couple of those who are in attendance tonight this evening to answer any questions were already referenced but on behalf of the city staff we have Bryan Stiglitz he's the water treatment manager he will he is transitioning into the role of the city's primary liaison as it relates to the Paul diamond plume we have Kathleen summers ago there were questions previously about the written comments that staff relayed the fire marshal is here to answer any questions that you have in that regard we have Peter Stevens the land development coordinator who his expertise is ins the storm water standards geology and the like he's already provided some testimony but it's available for any questions that you may have Cynthia Drennen ger our transportation engineer

020for the city you'll recall that one of the mitigation requirements for the intersection with Jackson was to make sure that visibility was appropriate she is also here to answer any additional questions that may come up dave Bornmann the national area preservation manager is also available from he previously testified as well if you have any questions in that regard and as mr. Kowalski indicated Kevin lund from the Michigan Department of Environmental equality is here I would like to provide him perhaps an opportunity to just address as he has not been able to present any comments prior to this evening thank you alright at this time we will open up the public hearing could we could I invite mr. lund I'll brief you before the public hearing thank you for the opportunity to talk to the board

021and explain a little bit about what what we know about the Gelman plume and where it is Matt could you pull up that cross-section that she developed at planning and I'll just use that as a as a graphic to kind of help explain specifically on site and then talk a little bit to little bit about what we're looking at for other development when this was brought to our attention we wanted to speak to all development and relationship with the government loom not just focused on one development it's actually not yeah it's not in the slideshow unfortunately it is in the book it's that's okay you have a copy of it in there in the packet you have that you have a cross-section it's like one of the last pages yes and the groundwater in that

022pack in that picture flows from the left side of the picture to the right and what we've done working with the Gellman in the investigative standpoint is we've identified that there's no contaminants no 1 4 dioxane down to greater than 100 feet that's when we first start pick it up so that's Anna left or what you're looking at would be to the left of that would be the monitoring well we call 118 and 118 we did see any contamination as we installed that weld so we got well well greater than 100 feet and then we saw some contamination the only thing I want to point out too is there's there's some challenges it's a complex site in groundwater when we talked about growler elevations there's two different kinds of groundwater elevations there's the water table

023elevation which is a real shallow water and then there's an elevation we call it as ometer or kilometric elevation and that's a bit of a pressure because when you take a water when you put it well below that that clay layer that level comes up but really that contamination that we're seeing is in that lower level it migrated there it didn't come down from the surface and migrated across from the Gellman property and so there's clean water above and it's then the dirty water in the or elevations I'm doing a lot of arm waving here but that's that's that's the nature of the beast so from the perspective on this site we do not see any challenges with any changes and conditions that are being proposed that are going to have an effect or don't

024anticipate them to have an effect on the Galvan prop plume in addition to that is our contingency we have probably 15 or 20 monitoring wells you know in that general area that we're looking at on a regular basis okay so they brought it up so the lines that are diagonal are more of a clay and this is you know to be frank this is a pretty good representation of what the geology looks like here it's an oversimplification it's a little more complicated but it's a pretty good representation so on the left side we monitored the water quality coming into the picture and we didn't see any contamination until we got just although just about to that first that clay a clay layer that's a little bit lower and I don't have a pointer but there's

025a screen interval that you like something you see in that monitoring wall or 118 that's a some horizontal lines about where that elevation is we're first started seeing the contamination and that's why that well was installed there as you go to the all the way across the picture under the first lake or first sister those monitoring wells over there again we didn't see any contamination there until we got very deep and closer to that lower clay so that's thick that gives us a lot of confidence that we're not going to see a problem here in addition to that like I mentioned we've got several monitoring wells to help us monitor any change of conditions we've been looking at all of the sites historically since about 2016 the county in the city of requiring an infiltration

026to try to manage the stormwater issues that have come up over the years in West Park and and I to the town additional rain events that have happened and what we've been looking at is what impact that might have on on the plume in other areas so west of here is a development that the University of Michigan put up and we look pretty closely at that it turned out the University of Michigan had to install ponds they couldn't filtrate that's pretty common in here is an infiltration is very difficult in the shallower zone because of the compacted sands they look like they'll give you some Apple tration but they may not I guess in general we're really know happy to be here and happy to help you guys make your decision and we don't anticipate

027any challenges with the Gelman flow and if we do we'll we'll make those changes with the Gilman people through the courts if we have to so with that to get any questions for me thank you I'm sure we will have questions for you after our public hearing so thank you so much for being here if I could just add I have the opportunity to speak with mr. lund right before the meeting and he was appreciative of your previous discussions about requiring the maintenance of those monitoring wells on this site and the opportunity to accommodate the Department of Environmental Quality if they would like to seek any additional monitoring wells on that site in the future as well so I know that was something that was discussed previously he had expressed some appreciation and I'm specifically

028asked that to make sure that that could be perhaps incorporated into any approval thank you all right at this time we will open up the public hearing the rules for a public hearing for this evening are you can line up we'll have three minutes to address us those who are representing any groups any community groups will have up to five minutes to represent us when you come forward please state your name and address for the record and as you are either starting to speak or finishing up to speak if you could also fill in one of these cards and put it in the basket so that we may notify you if this petition should be postponed this evening so at this time Thank You mr. chairman my name is James d'amour and I'm vice chair

029of the Sierra Club urine valley group and I should probably represent in the group I've asked for additional time if so it's so consumed the Sierra Club here in Bali group is a 3300 member organization represent inch village throughout wash knob Monroe and Lenawee counties dedicate to the protection of enjoyment of the wonders of the natural environment of the land for future generations to be sure we understand the city's continued desire to accommodate housing of all varieties and we are sensitive these continued demands on the city however one development happens it simply must be in concert with the notion of quality of life for all residents and do not radically disturb the natural systems and features of our city that is a detriment to the sustainability of the local ecosystem we reiterate our concerns that

030we shared last spring we regarding the this petition we disagree with staffs assessment that the Lockwood petition as before you be recommended for approval in its current form would respect to this issues in this case as before we have noted the steep slopes running eastward away from the parcel towards first sister Lake we should note that various water quality advocacy organizations have recommendations for cities with regard to protecting wetlands they recommend setbacks of 25 to 40 feet the Lockwood project currently has a 15 foot buffer we believe that given the circumstances this project does not meet the criteria of minimum disturbance some natural features necessary for the completion of the project furthermore as the city has invested considerable resources in creating a rain garden on the eastern shore for a sister Lake we are not

031understanding why further changes to the petition were not provided prior to this evening as needed with respect to this issue as discussed by mr. lund there is the question of the government plume this community is coming to grips with potential 1.4 die offs and contamination further eastward into the old West Side even in the West part not more than ever we need to be cognizant of efforts to compel down here corporation by the state for more effective radiation before I go further my statement I'm glad to hear that you know them some sensitivities done with respect to this issue in terms of about monitoring at the previous meeting commissioners wondered loud with a core of the plume weather development should be halted throughout the potential spread of the plume we can't say for sure however

032as this particular site is in close proximity to the form of government site it is absolutely important that as the state what possible federal intervention compels Danner to clean up the plume should not be hobble of interference by this potential development we cannot enter reiterate that enough for these reasons would regret we respectfully ask that this petition be not approved in its current form with the direction that greater sensitivity of natural assistance particularly cognizant of dog park and for sister league be considered with respect to this project we thank you for considering our comments thank you thank you hi my name is Pam Bommarito and I'm a resident of what we call the west over Hills Subdivision I live at the corner of West over and Porter at 2:04 West over I've lived there for

03315 years this is my first time ever doing this song bear with me others have spoken as you know this to the scientific and technical issues involved with this proposed development but my concerns are more about the environment the traffic on Jackson and Wagner is loud and this development would add to that at night with more trucks deliveries ambulances buses and of course workers and residents cars there will no doubt be an increased use of salt I'm not sure yet that that salt issue has been resolved at least to my satisfaction and I know that salt runoff will have a huge negative effect on this beautiful little sister Lake I love the wildlife here it was the closest to my little dream of having a cabin in the woods that I had always wanted I

034have seen turtles crawl up west over from the lake to lay their eggs right in my backyard neighbors have periodically marked off turtle nests in the road closest to Dolf Park so that the cars wouldn't disturb the nest turkeys walked through my yard I've seen geese Falcons and hawks flying overhead I think this development is read to close to our lovely natural area which of course it includes much more than just the Dolf park itself it's likely to affect and maybe diminish the amount of birds that use this Natural Area as a fly away fly overhead or even the ones that stay around all year about 500 feet from me and I'll run the corner of port in Westover I know that they're monitoring the Galman plume apparently they're attempting to shore up or enclose

035in in a bunker style with huge cement blocks the pump house for the horizontal well I think this would be before it goes any further and you decide I think you all have to come and see what that looks like on the corner of Wagner and Porter and also drive up to the proposed site and see what it looks like in real life the Lakewood proposed site and you know and just see what we're talking about as concerned neighbors so our neighborhood Westover Hills has already paid a high price for the Galman plume we needed to abandon our dioxane polluted wells we had to annex a considerable expense to the city's water supply which now I think I really truly believe is threatened anyway as the plume moves toward the river until that horrible mess

036of the Gillman plume which has been you know can I go on they've about five more sentences five more seconds about that till this messes that has gone on for years to successfully addressed and the plume is no longer a danger why would anyone want to further disturb the fragile balance we all want and work hard to maintain in our beautiful little corner of the world thanks for your time thank you good evening I'm Susan Miller I live at 205 Westover Street I've lived in Westover Hills for 19 years the lockwood development would about Westover Hills a very small area of about 95 houses that already struggles to maintain its integrity as a cohesive community in a highly commercial corridor and copes with a number of quality of life issues the dirt dirt roads are

037in deplorable condition and were rated de and F in a traffic study by done by the city you can see that in the photos I passed out Westover Street in particular the Central Street in the subdivision cannot manage the additional traffic the Lockwood development would bring because there is no left turn from westbound Jackson Road Westover street is regularly used as a cut-through for the many who want to avoid the intersection at Jackson and Wagner Westover is unpaved regularly flooded and terribly pitted by large potholes especially where it intersects Jackson Road where the city bus stopped in the community mailboxes sit Lockwood represents a doubling of the west over Hills neighborhood so traffic and other impacts would be great homes in the west over Hills Subdivision already have significantly depressed selling prices compared with less

038commercially impacted neighborhoods in the city the the Westover Hills neighborhood is dealt with substantial ill effects from the dioxane plume since the plume contain our wells as paths explain enforced expensive annexation into the city thus we are highly disturbed by the idea that the Commission would take any risk associated with a large waste water infiltration system that might hasten the movement of the plume toward the Huron River we're also disturbed by indications that the Commission might be willing to disregard appropriate wetlands regulations allowing a major building project with associated road salt garbage dumps and heavy equipment immediately adjacent to the first sister Lake which sits within Dolf nature area a large development that diminishes our sense that we are a neighborhood and introduces noise and light pollution and other disturbances is not welcomed by most

039in the community 40-plus people have already spoken against this development none have spoken for it the city's own master plan clearly argues against such development the property proposed for Lockwood is owned single-family and should maintain that zoning or it should be purchased by the city as in addition to Dolphin nature area or possibly developed into a dog park which is needed on this side of town thanks very much thank you hi my name is Cheryl pallava and I'd lived in the area in the 5th Ward there for 20 years actually I served on the very first Ann Arbor Commission on disability back in 1980 and I'm a retired pediatric nurse so I do have some empathy and great appreciation for what you go through as you sit there before the citizens of Ann Arbor and

040have to hear some of the same things repeated from the neighbors in this case I'm asking you to look listen and feel what the members of this community are saying in opposition to rezoning and therefore in opposition to Lockwood commercial development on this piece of land the land use is envisioned by the company will impact the natural and human environment in adverse ways it will hurt first sister lake with polluted runoff from impermeable surfaces large amounts of winter salt oils and fertilizers from extensive plantings will find their way into already stressed wetlands this isn't any old swamp it is an ancient unique and attractive park created by the city for the citizens to enjoy and we pay for it why was no wetland permit enacted it seems like a certain rigor is missing and people

041have already made up their minds what about that 15 foot setback instead of the 25 to 40 foot recommended by the DEQ and tip of the mitt we cannot simply trust that it will be okay we are concerned this type of building use is too intrusive to the park like nature of the area and literally spoils the beauty and potentially the survival of migratory birds mammals reptiles insects plants and the enjoyment of such by the people of Ann Arbor who indicate time and time again a strong commitment to such green things according to the philosophy of the master plan a change in zoning is supposed to have a beneficial effect for the city how by adding a few jobs $1,500 expense for a studio sized apartment including food this is a quiet modest little neighborhood

042the streets aren't even paved where people take pride in their homes and yards it's unfair to place dumpsters loading zones pollution within spitting distance of peaceful backyard play and it's unfair to create dangerous traffic situations the issues raised are not new to you and you have the power tonight and I hope you have the wisdom to choose to develop this land for the benefit of all the people thank you thank you very much hi my name is Shana Cahill and I live at 336 Mason Avenue my husband I have lived in the Lake WA neighborhood for four and a half years I'm making a statement tonight to post a Lockwood development project and the zoning change that would allow it I've dire concern to us neighbors is the environmental impact of the proposal we have

043documentation from the EPA anyone can look this up online it's 9:05 f one three zero zero one stating that stormwater infiltrations like the one proposed should not be placed over contaminated groundwater the nine foot deep machines would push 75 thousand cubic feet of water down through mostly impervious surfaces which could infiltrate the aquifer channels where the dioxin flume currently resides Michael Birkhoff at an EPA project manager couldn't he could not find any other dioxane sites with this sort of stormwater infiltration machine built over a plume so why should we be concerned about stormwater infiltration systems being placed over contaminated groundwater because we we risk injecting that rainwater into the plume and accelerating its approach toward Barton pond the main source of Ann Arbor's drinking water putting stormwater machines over dioxane plume could be like lighting

044a match in a dry forest it might not catch on fire but do you really want to take the risk of the lives and health of thousands over 100,000 people to do so would we all want to go together in on taking the risk of contaminating our water source with a known sejun imagine how this could have impact an arbor why it's spread illness astronomical mitigation costs a deleterious effect on our local economy it wants to move their home or business to a place with unsafe water and lastly I'd just like to reiterate another simpler reason to say no thank you to the developer which is owning the parcel is known for single-family homes not a large complex residential structure period if one day per zoning single-family homes are built on the parcel Lakewood neighbors

045will welcome our new neighbors we pose this development and we invite the developer to select another more appropriate site thank you thank you my name is Carol hobby and I live at $356 and I've lived for 42 years in the Lakewood school area in the late 70s I was one of the secretaries of the sister lakes Association which has been a very active organization in our city my job at that time involved printing and distributing frequent newsletters to 310 homes that were in the Lakewood school area the Westover Hills and those homes of off Liberty that were part of this area and but right now we have been stewards over all the years of protecting these lakes these great lakes and even restoring the trails limiting the salt that goes on the streets watching even

046for the fewer curb cuts that would be affecting the traffic in the area when businesses along Jackson Boulevard were developing our attention I think right now though has to be paid to the homeowners who had faith that the master plan and this tree said he meant something when our neighborhoods and school districts were zone single-family home I don't think there's any credible reason to give preference to an outside developer who's buying commercial land if so at a lower price and turning its back on the homeowners that have been living there I don't understand why the city could choose to put our neighborhoods interest decide to give preferential treatment to an outside developer and against its citizens we want to live in this beautiful beautiful setting that's all alongside parkland and I hope the city will

047do the right thing and be loyal to its taxpaying citizens and leave the single-family housing as promised in its master plan thank you thank you good evening I'm Henry Hershkovitz I live at two five Ojai Lake Avenue yesterday I completed a simple exercise I wanted to see the locations of other Lockwood Senior Living facilities and if these locations existed with single-family residences and neighborhoods here's a Google map of Lockwood of Fenton I don't know if you can see this or not but to the west you might be able to see farmland to the north lies the Fairfield apartment complex to the south flag star Bank and to the east genesis credit union all businesses and apartments next if I could get it is Lockwood of Davison in Davison Michigan it too lies between the rollaway

048bowling alley and lounge and Willowbrook apartments there appears to be one home to the south but that shares the block with a remax real estate office lock word of Waterford is closer to Ann Arbor but it too appears to be carved out of farmland in fact it lies just north of the Riverside elementary school which sits on farm Road to the east lies three live three of large apartment buildings Lake Huron woods lies behind the Lakeshore Presbyterian Church and appears to be situated in a vast forest although there are there are homes to the north I doubt I could reach them with my 3-iron my simple exercise ends with the Lockwood of Burton it is bounded by a forest on the east st. Nicholas Church to the north and cyclone carwash to the south a

049cost across the street we find a Gordon food service business I found five Lockwood rest homes not exist honestly on a steep slope not appear to be endangering any Lakes and not appear to be located a soft ball toss from any single-family home like the facility Lockwood is trying to ram into a property zone single-family residential if the neighbors gathered here tonight appear to be part of a NIMBY conspiracy it's because in no other location has Lockwood sought to change existing codes and deprive neighbors of what they purchased their homes for to live with other neighbors in an appropriately zoned neighborhood I thank you thank you [Applause] hi my name is Otto McMillian and I live at 1-3 Street West over I want to employ the Planning Commission to reject a Lachman project here are

050six reasons why number one you should not reward bad behavior by developers but that I mean buying cheaper land not properly zoned with the scheme to pressure the city to rezone the property zone r1 and should remain so also this developer is not trustworthy after the initial site plan was communicated to the neighborhood they did a bait-and-switch to make the building much bigger and much closer to the west over Hills neighborhood number two the project is not consistent with the city master plan for this area because of the commercial size kitchen and dining area it would create excessive in unwanted commercial traffic noise in the west over Hills neighborhood here is an excerpt from the Ann Arbor city master plan for this area quote while commercial development continues along Jackson Road to allow additional commercial

051uses adjacent to this neighborhood would not benefit the area in quote number three the project is too big for the property if we were zoned r4d the maximum number of units would be 82 not 95 the park units insufficient to handle daily parking you see Lockwood's own estimates number 4 the developer has not worked with the neighborhood to address our concerns a PD is supposed to work with the neighborhood not against it after the May first Planning Commission meeting postponed partly because of this issue locked had a quick citizens participation meeting which didn't address any of the neighborhood concerns they haven't addressed the size of the building in a significant way the location of the building the noise or the lack of parking they offered nothing that the neighborhood requested the only benefit is the

052tot lab we didn't ask for everything else is a negative number five the potential the works in the daxing plume underneath the area with a concentrated water infiltration system is not worth the risk to public safety number six beside the infiltration system potentially causing holes or fissures in the clay below does anyone know what a large mechanized structure pumping water sounds like what are the frequencies and decibel levels when and how long does it run can you feel it if you don't know the answers to any of these questions you should out approve the westside of Ann Arbor recently experienced a low frequency hum in the middle of the night from hi94 construction that disturbs sleep for hundreds of citizens myself included I just like to conclude by saying this should be stopped here and

053now don't kick the problem to the City Council I'd like to believe zoning the city master plan working with neighborhoods and public safety means something to you all thank you thank you hello I'm Matt why Bart from to 401 Mason I'm not in support of the project just a few things your graphic on the screen right there shows it they have to push the snow somewhere you physically can't move it to the back of the property through the grass it's gonna go in the lake those elevation lines show it's a steep drop off any melting snow is gonna go in that direction it goes downhill you just can't get away from it it's a senior community they're gonna salt it look at Westgate shopping center just for the liability of people walking on the sidewalk

054it skate every time it snows if you have a six-inch snow if you take a shovel and push at 8 feet you could have technically 4 feet of snow it will come pack down to two or three but if we have two snows in a row where's it gonna go you have one entrance into it if they push it off to the side there you've got one narrow entrance into the property a fire truck can go through an 8-foot draft and that here's my notes hotels are we've done all the traffic studies on it it's great we're putting two new hotels in the land zone for hotels half mile down the road it's gonna affect the traffic even worse we have no crosswalks on Jackson there spoke with the hotel owners at the last at

055his planning meeting he said they didn't have to put in one because it was just too dangerous for people to cross there he said it was supposed to have one for the New Hampton Inn and they withdrew it and the city approved it because it's just too dangerous to put a crosswalk there the sidewalks they're putting in are taking it West out of town towards Wagner Road and a bus stop it's great but you still can't get from there to Lakewood sub because it's on the street and there's no place to put a sidewalk unless they put an elevated boardwalk over the wetlands to get to connect the two and then third independent of Henry's trip I happen to be at the Lockwood and Davison it's got a huge beautiful parking lot it's building and

056parking lot it's right in the middle of a city they've got more spots than they can have handle and it was full so there are 60 spots with ten employees is not gonna cut it there's gonna be more cars because if you're over 55 you still drive here and then there the public playground it's great and then they're seeing how its access to Jackson Road where do you park on Jackson Road where do you park on Wagner Road they've got no parking in the neighborhood because the westover and all that all the employees from all the businesses were parking on their streets and they're not even paved so most of that's no parking so the a playground really isn't doing anybody any good except for the few houses in the subdivision there who can get

057there you can't cross the street you can't drive there you obviously could never park your car there because there are lots going to be full and you can't walk there because you can't even come from Lakewood to get there so that's those are my concerns and and that's it thank you thank you anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission and revert system this will be short and sweet in comparison my name is Donna pointer I live in Lakewood subdivision at 310 gray lake the city master plan which was designed to benefit the citizens has this whole corner area south of Jackson east of Wagner and just about all the way down to Liberty as r1c residue or another residential development I think it's completely inappropriate to change our master plan to place this particular

058three and a half acre parcel abutting the park lands between two one very good sizable r1c Lakewood subdivision and Westover which is on the other side of the lake the access to Jackson Road is really dangerous and so the previous person mentioned crosswalks and so on it's I had heard the city was going to put in some sort of a traffic light possibly even at graylek but haven't seen that I just looked at the plans downstairs I went through every page that's posted these large drawings and the various schematics and the runoff from this property in three separate directions that even says on the drawings downstairs this is the runoff it's all down into the lake and I've been in Lakewood for 53 years we fought the 90 in spite that they wanted a storm

059water coming into the lakes just to save them we don't need a big runoff property like this running into the first sister Lake which is a natural glacier moraine it it doesn't make any sense I'd love to see the city enlarged off park and and make it more park land but that's probably not likely but the small number of residential houses that could be put in that parcel with the proper zoning that it has right now would certainly be welcome I think by both west over and Lakewood thank you thank you is there anyone else in the audience my name is pricilla achiever and I live it I've lived there since 1984 and I've heard when I guess I'm opposed to the project of course one of the things that troubles me so much about

060all of this is there's just kind of a don't worry we'll think about this tomorrow over the years that I've lived there I've seen many assurances from DEQ that don't pan out tonight mister one is saying that the granite I mean the clay layer is gonna hold and nothing will get loose but the whole 30 year history is that plume keeps migrating and migrating and migrating you can't with certainty say that it's not going to be affected by this very large paving over of three and a half acres and in fact mr. lund himself was not all that certain two weeks ago when we talked about this at the card meeting second there's a great reliance by Lockwood on these low-income federal tax credits I've been discussing that issue with my council representative for the

061last couple of months and he has a very different view of the availability of that mr. come on mister might wish to talk to mr. Smith about this because he says it's just not going to happen and if it doesn't happen and you've approved the project on the basis that it's going to be all of this great affordable housing there's essentially no penalty for Lakewood they'll be out of compliance but the building complex will be there what happens to the residents we are being forced to give up a lot giving up our single-family neighborhood for their benefit and it may not pan off they may not get the tax credits and last of all I noticed that in the the liquid materials they continued to say that there's only going to be one food delivery

062truck a week and I have to say every similar assisted living senior housing advertises that you know they have a chef and they have fresh salads and fresh veggies are you actually proposing it's gonna be frozen meat patties and and week old salads and moldy fruit I don't think so I mean again it's just it simply can't be true that it's gonna be one truck a week it's gonna be a lot more I and I echo mr. Y barks and others comments about the unknown nature of the infiltration system and what that's going to do to the plume and the noise and the resulting disturbance to the neighborhood in your packets I think you have a document liquid infiltration I think you have a document about the wetlands and I hope that you have all

063looked at them carefully and think about them thank you for your time thank you [Applause] yeah okay I'm back I'm your friendly neighborhood chef this is I'm chef Bill Collins I live on Porter Road I've done some research at the last meeting where she's passed on a deal about the new noise is a new secondhand smoke and that's all over the country how it's being projected so I'm just here just to talk about at the last meeting Zak ermine my guy said to Lockwood we want to know about the noise and mr. Lockwood no disrespect talked about the noise in the kitchen I don't think that's what he meant he meant to noise that comes from when the dumpster comes and so his people were so nice to me I did research and called the

064chefs I called Cisco I called the produce guy and I asked him just to be honest with me how many deliveries do you get because when you talk about a dumpster hitting the ground it's almost like a baby earthquake and so they just said with that amount of garbage that amount of stuff it's going to be three or four deliveries I'm sorry three or four pickups a week and they said directly he came up with this book he opened his book up he pointed here and say it's two to four deliveries a week that's just not true I mean that's almost like lying to the Commission lying to the government you know between Cisco and the produce in the noise and I'm gonna go in a different direction because I'm not going to talk about

065the plume I'm not going to talk about all this scientifically stuff I have no idea I'm just a chef I work in a commercial kitchen he's gonna do 400 meals a day that's huge that's produce guy told me he goes a Lockwood three to four times a week if not every day on special deliveries so with that being said if they're gonna come here and tell us the stories of their documentation he brings his book up he opens up two to four deliveries a week that's just the lie so let's stop lying let's just be real you're gonna serve good food for some good people in a good neighborhood and maybe someday I'll be one of your chefs and maybe it won't be any annarbor if not that's all I got to say I'm out

066of time you guys have a good holiday I appreciate what you do for us okay I'm sorry I didn't bring any food that's all I got and I wish you the best of luck but please you know three-strikes-you're-out thank you is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address them hi I'm Elizabeth Collins I'm the neighborhood representative first and foremost I did send a bunch of information I hope you had a chance to see I'm mainly going to fake focus on talking about the plume and reiterate some stuff that Kevin London said the Gelman dioxane groundwater contamination site is thought to be the largest one of its type in the country maybe the world right here under this property is the highest concentrations of 1 4 dioxane in the city of Ann Arbor

067you can see the highest color goes right through here you poo-pooed the idea at the last meeting of halting development over the tucks at ground water until more unknowns were answered well we have information that these machines could be pushing it I know they seem to think that it's not but I have some other information from Roger rail I think you got anyway we also have yeah the information that the concentrated infiltration could cause a shift in the flues and unknown ways the use of the parcel could be used for future plume remediation too we do not know enough about what this could do and the residents are asking you the planners to do due diligence to match the scale of the problem this is real and this has been going on for over 35

068years the last meeting you requested Lockwood hire a hydrogeological study I guess that was Kevin lund and oven Pratt with their little sketch drawing when that came out on each track at last Thursday I sent it to Roger rail are not normal infiltration infiltrating all over the property it has concentrated 75 thousand cubic gallons going down into these machines I have a letter from Larry Lemke I don't know if you saw that that said that the clay layers well this is a quote the subsurface hydrogeology is complex and in general clay layers are not very extensive in the Glacial aquifer system beneath Ann Arbor he has done renowned academics on the plume for years so Michael Birkhoff also with the EPA mentioned that he was very concerned about it at the stakeholders meeting he got

069Evan and Kevin I don't know if they told you that to start a new committee and do research around town around all the wells and where infiltration is that was only a month ago I'm sure this information can't be completed yet or the research and then we come to the EPA document - that does state I don't know if you had a chance to see it that it the contamination itself has considered the brownfield the water and to put these on top the EPA forum states should not be done again we have been told for years from the state that these practices are okay I have stuff here to judge Shelton back in the day that the DEQ messed up oops you know then what then we're just stuck cleaning up the mess after and

070watching the plume move on and on and on anyway Roger Ailes with with their sketch drawing that they had that I sent him he used the DEQ swell logs and the D Huez own information and I don't know if you saw it on his page 8 that shows there's a complete pathway from the infiltration this is with the D Huez you know I don't know if Kevin can speak on this but I don't know it's the same information kevin has but Roger of course has has a lot of time and knowledge he is definitely a neutral party in this he's kind of the watchdog over the plume I call it and he doesn't have an inch in our neighborhood at all but he just really cares about not pushing the plume when you talk about

071shallow channels and when you were looking at that thing I have my well log on Porter Ave that was sealed back in the 90s at 103 feet at a non detective dioxane two houses away was a well at 80 feet that had 2,900 parts per billion that's a shallower channel it's not all black and white and the clay layers are only so significant so please please please we need to tread lightly where this plume is and use our thinking caps thank you thank you is there anyone else in the audience hello my name is Leslie Beamer 143 West Overstreet I've lived there 10 years and I want to thank you all for being here but also for developing an arbor we are in opposition for this development and that piece of property we are not

072an opposition of senior living take a look at our audience we have over 80% of our neighbors are seniors we brought our seniors what we're looking for is that Lockwood development on a piece of property that would sustain it that the neighbors would be happy about it and all their other locations have you placed there are no neighbors to oppose it you place them in places where they have plenty of land and that's very exciting Sarah I am so sorry that you're sick that is not fun to be sick and set and we just found out that the news noise pollution is a secondhand small can you imagine I mean you know being in more noise pushing that we already have we live in a single family neighborhood we would like to stay that way

073you would love you guys to find a place for this in this Lockwood development that isn't that is in the Ann Arbor area but also that would sustain that that would hold it that people would be happy that and welcoming in thank you thank you [Applause] anybody else wishing to address the Planning Commission seeing no one I will close the public hearing and if without objection I'll read both motions and we'll take them together all right motion number one the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve Lockwood of Ann Arbor Planned Unit development PUD zoning district and supplemental regulations PUD site site plan and development agreement motion number two the inner BER City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve Lockwood of Ann Arbor

074development alternative mitigation plan for a maximum of 46 percent of required mitigation as monetary contribution to the city of Ann Arbor Street tree-planting fund Commissioner will move moved by Commissioner Mills seconded by Commissioner Trudeau we are in discussion Commissioner acraman Thank You mr. chair and thank you to everyone who's come out tonight and has continued to come out through this long process thank you also to the petitioner for your responsiveness it's a date when we begin this process I gave reassurance to residents that I couldn't support the development as it was initially introduced in that time things have changed the square footage has been reduced by six thousand square feet which is about 15 percent decrease from its original footprint parkings been reduced it's been realigned the loading zone similarly so we've gotten some reassurances

075about loading unloading times and frequencies now we'll have some questions about how we guarantee those but they do still seem to be some and I also want to comment on doubling the affordable housing that they can't be understated the importance of it 41 units of affordable housing especially senior focused affordable housing can be critical to this city over the course of the next 20 years as our senior population doubles but like I said there are a number of outstanding issues and as I was listening to residents I was taking a tally of the different topics that came out and the order in which the frequency in which I heard topics were wetlands dioxane noise and light snow and then traffic if you bucket it into a couple different categories so we'll start there and we'll

076see where the conversation goes you know I think first and foremost octane is one of those existential issues to the health and well-being of Ann Arbor residents and we have to have a fair amount of certainty in discussions with staff there are a couple means through which we can deal with storm water right storm water being the the number one risk or anxiety that I'm hearing from residents and it's interaction with the plume that sits beneath the site the the technique you being used here is a form of infiltration I was just hoping that I could get either some information from the petitioners civil engineer or staff as to why we decided on this form of infiltration as opposed to other forms of storm water mitigation that may well into some people may limit the

077impact on the plume or any risk of of approaching the blue so my name is joe manor gonna wash non-engineering and the civil engineer we went with infiltration because as the city guidelines point out that we need to follow the Washoe County water resource commission who encourages developments to utilize infiltration were available we do the infiltration test with a geological engineer and we dig down we find the sands we locate the sands this particular site had a incredibly great location in the front corner which is where we located the infiltration system where the water is kind of going to now naturally infiltrating so we're kind of mimicking that system the other alternative would be to basically store the stormwater if the site didn't have infiltration so it was all in pervious clay we would store

078it we would treat it we would discharge it to the road right away as I understand it the city in the county incentivize developers and sometimes explicitly required developers to look to infiltration first because our stormwater infrastructure system is pretty overburdened as is and any time that we can naturally put stormwater in the ground as opposed to storing it and then pumping it into our infrastructure is better from a you know capital infrastructure perspective in cases like this where there is proximity to any contamination or sensitive natural features is there any and this actually probably a better question for staff a is there opportunity you look to other mechanisms to deal with stormwater such as the tension Peter Stevens LAN development coordinator I did the stormwater review for this and to answer your question there

079are ways to get out of the infiltration it would have to be approved through the public service as an administrator because it is city code that you do infiltrate if it is possible there's no incentive to infiltrate there is punishment if you can temple trait as far as extra storage qualify looms for the site so I think thank you very much that's helpful to understand the mechanisms so I think I'll want to put a pin in that topic for the time being and move to some others with respect to to the wetlands the as I as the staff report indicates the sand salt mix would be something that would be governed by a development agreement so they wouldn't be able to use any kind of synthetic snow and ice treatment so the development could restrict

080that as we talked about before I I do want to just caution the Planning Commission as we get into really operational discussions as opposed to really land-use physical improvements it does get more difficult just practically to enforce but that is the mechanism by which we would try to do that to be clear we don't have staff going out on a snowy day and determining what medium is being put down on parking lots but in the event that we discovered for example that something was inappropriate or contrary to a development game in this state this this case we would notify them that they are out of compliance with their approval and look to rectify the situation okay I I suspect there will be other questions around the interaction with the wetlands so turning to to noise

081in light a member of the audience had said that the petitioner had told them that there'd be a single delivery a week that wasn't my recollection can you remind the body operationally how your commercial kitchen will receive shipments actually I should say any of your operations will receive shipments I believe the number was two to four food and produce deliveries per week and we kept we've presented logs I don't have in front of me but it was in the packet that was submitted that was a log of our other similar operations which are actually a little bit larger in scale ranging from 106 apartments to 126 and so that was that those were the numbers as I recall I don't know if that has any exhibits I think that were sent over do you anticipate

082any other shipments so I'm just trying to get a sense of the total impact of trips in and out by commercial vehicles we don't expect any any sort of regular shipments of laundry service laundry services done on-site so we have laundry facility designed into the plan and laundry services done on-site and the for the shuttle service that you'd be providing would the loading and unloading occur on the east side at the main entrance it would occur on the east side of the entrance now how many trips are there I'll have to check my anticipation would not be in excess of two or three trips a day it is well it is a relatively high capacity van it's not really a commercial truck it's it's a van and it's 59 passenger vehicle okay thank you there

083would you mind describing the lights that'll be in stalled you're coming close to our dark sky goals and I'd like to highlight that cuz I think that's something fairly unique I would have to have our architect way and on noise and light pollution I'm not sure we're probably fully satisfied residents concerns around noise but I think light is a little bit more specific it's there are only so many fixtures on site and if you could speak to your external fixtures that would be helpful I will say the lighting is designed according to the city standard there's only a few lights basically along the east side and along the back most of the other lighting for the sidewalks and everything else is done with low-level bollard lighting which would be really minimal I think the photometric

084plan also showed that we have full cut off light fixtures and I believe there was the option to have some of the lights dimmed down even further you know after certain hours at night I mean that could be worked out based on I don't think you have evening everything nothing so yeah so we wouldn't need lighting for deliveries in the back or anything like that cuz everything's done during the daytime I mean you're familiar with the city's leg position standards I think can leave the property line correct correct and you're in full compliance nothing will leave the property line nothing will leave the property all right um I think from there perhaps some questions around traffic I know we have a member of the traffic engineering staff available just trying to get a better sense

085of impact to Westover which has been identified as a cut through from from Jackson to Wagner I'm with an also better understanding the turn on to Jackson and changes to the sight line distances maybe we can do any impacts to the neighborhood to the west from traffic first and then we'll we can tackle all the turning motion for Jackson thank you for being here thank you know a lot of staff members who are here Cynthia rennaker I'm one of our transportation engineers as far as the traffic impacts in general I would like to point out that as far as development goals this type and style of development has a much lower trip loading burden than other other types of general and for instance a per unit rate for this style of housing is much lower

086than the current zoning and actually as no as I was reviewing this traffic transportation impact analysis the development is not actually generating enough trips to require a traffic empower or transportation impact analysis and they did provide that anyway so they're only generating twenty trips in the am peak and 25 trips and the PM peak which is really low so as far as any transportation impact that they're having once once you start dispersing those trips there aren't very many trips going in any one direction no this is I'm sorry this is right now for our discussion thank you the and then more locally to the Jackson Road itself Jackson is a busy street it's a it's not the safest street in town can you please explain kind of how this interacts with Jackson and kind of

087the turning movements that we'd be introducing with the curb cut sure so the location of the driveway one of the things that we were a staff were really concerned about was turning movements and conflict points and how it would interact with the vehicular traffic that's already on Jackson Road particularly with the turnaround so we wanted to see the driveway as far east as possible to discourage any inappropriate movements like if you were trying to sneak over to that turn around or anything like that to kind of control some of those types of movements and we also wanted to make sure it was far enough away from those movements to minimize the conflict points which is where you have the potential for two streams of travel to interact the other thing is that we really wanted

088to make sure that the sight distance was going to be accommodated out here because it is on a little bit of a curve and it's on the inside of the curve which is a little bit more of a concern as if you were on the outside of the curve you're on the outside of the curve you can naturally see farther then when you're on the inside of the curve so we did ask for some additional detail about that and make sure that we are going to be able to provide sufficient not only stopping sight distance which is quite often a minimum for driveways but we asked for intersection sight distance here so that people who are entering Jackson Road will be able to see far enough down the road to actually be able to decide

089if they have a sufficient gap that will also be I mean if the project moves forward we will also be checking that in detailed engineering and we would be checking that in like actually we're measuring the site as the site is being constructed to make sure it's still being met that's a helpful process and thank you and if I could just quickly return to the so the overall the the trips to and from the site which impacts to those peak hours that the model proves is a very minimal impact but does do and you have to remind me the the national entity that we use in order to produce our trip generation reports you remind me of the name the name is the Institute of Transportation engineers thank you and their so the Institute of

090Transportation engineers takes classifies uses throughout the country and collects data on the trends that they see for those uses and and helps local entities regulate those by by giving them the data necessary to predict how much traffic a different kind of use will see and so the use that was used here would be I imagine there's some kind of a residential senior housing usage yes this is land-use 2:52 senior adult housing okay and in perhaps you don't know this offhand but does just their model and the data they collect include any commercial vehicles coming to and from this type of use the the trip data is over all trip data it's not broken down into classification of the but I it would include any commercial traffic that the sample sites were experiencing during those hours

091and similarly I can understand if you don't have this I'll stop your head but do we know if the this use 252 if it takes into account facilities with commercial kitchens or barber shops right the like yeah the land use and I don't have the definition of the land use in front of me but there are a series of land uses for senior style housing and this particular hit land use is for the more independent that with amenities there are also separate land use categories for nursing homes and for progressive care type facility okay thank you that that's very helpful and I concludes my questions on traffic I'm gonna want to return to stormwater and impact on the dock same plume but I also want to give colleagues opportunity to ask their questions so you

092open my time no this is currently just for Planning Commission discussion so this is just summer so the Planning Commission is in discussion currently Commission Commissioner get Brandel so when I look at the most concentrated areas are there's a pretty decent sized area that goes from the Gellman site all the way down to where Jackson and Dexter split we've approved several plans in this area that rely on infiltration for the stormwater practices so we have our sort of general goals that we've operated under for the last you know I don't know ten or fifteen years of generally trying to infiltrate stormwater and so I think we're trying to grapple with this kind of new information of not new but how do we interface these things together and I know these discussions are kind of actively

093happening right now and so as you met with the water resource Commissioner with the DEQ what are some of the discussions you're having around I mean I think part of our issue and we're relying on your expertise is and and this is a larger discussion but I think it relates back to this to about you know what kind of precedent are we setting for this kind of thing because we've approved all these other plans that are completely relying on the same method you know are we just kind of spreading this everywhere now or is it mean that we should be because frankly the impacts of stormwater straight into our creeks are not great either people they really are not that's a reason why we're doing infiltration is because our creeks are completely suffering because of

094that too so there's no easy answer to this thing there really isn't and so what I'm wondering is like what are the larger are you all considering shifting goals or is it just at a strata that is deeper down and so we're not as concerned about it like how is the evolution of the thinking happening with the city and the county at this point in time and I realized we don't have complete in front and be wonderful to have a like a complete geotechnical report for the entire city and that's just not going to happen so how are things evolving for you all in terms of where you see our policy going with this yeah it's definitely a concern to all the parties involved including the water resource commissioner and the DEQ when we met

095the DEQ is undertaking a study they've got some initial data looking at all the sites that have required a filtration that are over the Devon wants to speak to some of that specifically to the Gelman plume we know the county rules say we don't encourage a filtration a contaminated sites in general most of the time that's in reference to a dry cleaner site or a gas station site brothers yeah a plume of gasoline that's soluble floating on a very shallow water table that could be pushed when we're talking about multiple hundred feet between the contamination the infiltration it's a lot different and also looking at the pathology we don't feel that there's going to be that infiltration actually getting to the contaminating the groundwater zone yeah I'd agree with that that analysis and it's consistent

096with our thinking one of the areas that has been developed was the old Kmart parking lot and interestingly they they forced a lot of water into the rain into those garden areas that are in between when one of those areas we have a marching well it's marginal 119 the data in that well since construction and infiltration of all that water hasn't changed the monitoring of watering holes is about seven area monitoring wells in that general area too it's been pretty consistent - so we're that's just one example another this is currently for just planning commission discussion place and so you know in some of the other infiltration areas along Jackson Road there's a several automotive dealers that have done some work where they've modified their storm water - in some cases not necessarily trying to

097get infiltration but retention but they get some infiltration - and in looking at monitoring wells we have around those areas we don't we haven't seen any changes in conditions that are different than what we anticipated based on all the years of observation we've been monitoring the poem for over 30 years several hundred monitoring wells so I can that downstream of the old Kmart parking lot in in that's park there's several strong water infiltration facilities there near the skate park and in the middle of the parking lot over there are there any wells in that area absolutely I can bring up a picture if I can look at my computer but yeah we've got a lot of a lot of monitoring points in vets park and several monitoring points between vets Park and West Park and

098so what are you fun because I know there was an N live article like last week ish about West Park too and so are you finding high concentrations in West Park or is it kind of lower level or wetter what are we looking at in terms of kind of the general movement of how this is operating generally on the the best place to look at where the plume is going is the county website we work we work with the county and they represent that online as a tool of the show folks and where things are but they're showing in a 2d plan in in reality that that contamination is hundreds of feet below you know every you know the holes as you get closer to West Park the part if you start to drop off

099and that's an area that we're interested in we're looking at closer to better understand the risks four to one for dachshund I've been changing as if you've been following it we were at 85 and now we're at 7.2 for drinking water and nobody in in the county is drinking the water everybody is either outside of the plume and drinking well water or they're there on city water and that's something that we work very closely with the County Health Department to monitor and sure all West Park we've done a shot what we call the shallow growler investigation in 2016 to evaluate the concentrations engineer first sir for the first intersection of water some are born to only about 15 20 feet similar to the borings that were installed on on this site and we didn't find

100anything that was of concern we found detections in two locations as I recall we're very very low two to three parts per billion we've been sampling surface water at various locations and we were working with the county in developing a plan to sample additional surface locations in the West Park area that was triggered by an observation of a sample that was collected at the West Park and stormwater structure while these swirl structures just on 7th Street and West Park and a sample collected from there in November October time frame at 19 parts 19 parts is still a ways away from our action levels but it caused us to look into it and try to understand where it might be coming from 1/4 dioxane is is a compound that's used in a lot of things besides

101gentlemen and as you get around the West Park area it didn't look like it did does today there was more industry and other things happening tanneries and things like that so we're trying to better understand that and look into that so would you say in general that your your goals of infiltration are still kind of consistent across the city in terms of handling stormwater or do you feel like you may be taking kind of a more nuanced approach depending from site to site in terms of how you all are thinking about managing this in the future is it feel like it's what I kind of hear you saying is that it's it's lower down and that there's other intercepting layers that tend to kind of shunt it off prior to putting a lot of pressure

102on moving it in the deeper strata am i right about that but that's a that's a fair statement I would agree see there the you-know-what one of one of the folks mentioned my uncertainty I guess I agree there is some uncertainty the only thing uncertain oh this is my uncertainty the geology is complicated collecting more information on development sites what better I'll give us a better understanding and gaining you know but you know there's that there's you know what you can do with you and ask for is a regulatory authority and what your let your limitations are we work with people like properties like this through when there's a contamination on the site there's something called the do care so that they they they insures them that they do the work that they don't cause

103a problem to become a bigger problem and we don't anticipate that happening here based on our observations not only here in looking at what the data is that we have around it we have to monitoring wells right on the property that have been there since the eighties with data that's been consistently click collected since the 90s so so the tax in there is on this site right now is telling you it's over 100 feet deep because at one point we heard something about 40 feet deep but I don't know if that was just you know sort of you know I don't have any data points the verifier is or isn't there true enough just your statement but what I do know is monitoring wells on the east side and the west side groundwater flows through

104that property and it and it is true that the concentrations are the highest there and one of my reasons for asking for the opportunity to work with the developer is because it is a location that might if we were able to negotiate with the liable party putting it pumping well there it could happen and what would that do what would a pumping well pumping well would be a be allow to allow us to pump in a higher at a location where there is some higher concentrations and improve the cleanup and if you've worked in town I believe I lived in the liquid sub for over 20 years I only just recently moved away not for anything wrong but I appreciate what everyone's saying here but I don't think that the Gilman plume is is the

105issue I don't think that the stormwater is an issue if they can infiltrate mm-hmm if they can't if they if they infiltrate and if there is you know in a couple years there's some sort of detection is there any way I mean I'm assuming what they'd have to if the the alternate way of handling this would be to put it in a tank plus 20% right and then release it slowly in the storm sewer system so given the footprint is that something that could be put in later if we are seeing oh something's happening here we just want to pull that off and it's worth it to just dump it right into the storm water system and endanger a creep but that's the lesser of two evils yes certainly poverty is it like a building

106I mean do we have the footprint for some sort of tank system should things that's definitely a possibility I think if we do see changes in the analytical data there there's not gonna be a direct connections the infiltration we're not gonna know why necessarily something's happening but there is definitely size limits so there could be a tank put in it would probably smaller than the infiltration bad doodle loading limits and such right right okay that's it for now thanks and I guess just while we're up here talking about the single-family looking at the proposed plan it actually had more impervious than this one there would be the same stormwater requirements and there'd be even more stormwater requirements for the single-family development and I also heard a couple people talking about the machine for infiltration there's

107no machines involved in this infiltration there are some mechanical separators that the water swirls around so the sediment drops out but it's just a gravity based infiltration bed the water just slowly percolates under the ground yeah there if you want to hear what it sounds like you can go to West Park at about 7:00 and there's a sidewalk there's a couple big manholes there and although the ground are similar swirl chambers then I suspect I would be proposed here that's that's the nature of that is to try to pick up and take out the sediments which is the firt what we call the first flush it has most of contamination especially during the salting season thank you I have one more question about wetlands actually um I don't know if mr. barnman is still in

108the audience maybe you could answer some questions when I look at the aerial it looks to me like the wetlands are at the toe of the slope at the bottom and so correct me if I'm wrong in terms of a buffer you would begin the measuring of that buffer at the edge of the wetland which would kind of be part way up the slope am I correct yeah I think that's right that we've never done one delineation out there but it would be somewhere near at the bottom of that slope basically okay and that's where you'd measure back while on buffer from the edge of that so in other words the wetland is not at the edge of the property line the wetland is at the bottom of the slope so in terms of any

109kind of wetland setback it really wouldn't be on the property itself yeah that's my expectation without having done a delineation out there but just based on the topography okay all righty thank you I'm sure Sylvain I just want to go through maybe with staff to confirm some of the spatial conditions that have come up in terms of setbacks sorts of things so when we talk about our 1c zoning versus the PUD and the setback requirements and there's been discussion about the 15-foot conflicting land use buffer versus the 40 foot setback to the building can you make some clarifications in terms of what's deviating from the current zoning to what we're looking at now in terms of what would be expected to be built as it would relate to the neighborhood sure thank you um some

110of it does depend on exactly how that subdivision wiii be laid out if we go to the example um sorry which may be a typical layout for something like that the rear setbacks for the r1c are 30 feet the side setbacks are 5 feet the front is 25 for the average obviously the 7 now that depends on exactly if you go with this typical if you if you go with a layout that's right here the Lots you see kind of narrow let's just see this mouse move around here yes so those would be the rear Lots right here so those would be a 30 foot setback and you can kind of see the layout of the proposed building obviously over those footprints within that 30 feet so the required you can have a principal structure

111of 30 feet from that rear property line if the subdivision was laid out a little different in those were side property lines similar like right that's up right here that these setback would be five feet but within that 30 feet you are allowed a you are low accessory structures garages sheds things like that those can be within 3 feet of the property line height limits for the principal structure is 30 feet that's measured to the midpoint of any peak drew for the highest part of the flat roof and accessory structures are 21 feet in height and again measured same thing peak midpoint of the peak of the roof so those are kind of the main for instance in a setback I mean what we've we've got here I believe it's about a 40-foot - the

112building is the closest spot I think and well these are about the same there's a slight difference here it's about like 40 feet or so there and but I would assume that this any subdivision laid out would be probably pretty similar to this so those would probably be the setbacks I would be looking at depending again it could be a rear or a side backing up to the neighborhood and then along with that I just want to address the parking lot in terms of within the setback boundaries and what we're talking about just to clarify some definitions here that the parking lot as its laid out we've got a 15 foot buffer on the east side they're good for the curb cuts for the parking okay but then the parking lot that pavement isn't considered

113structure correct as part of us at that correct that's the same in any scene any money so you can pay you right up right to the well single-family you could actually pretty probably right up to the property line you can't in this because it was required conflicting land use buffer and then this this sort of structure if it wasn't considered a PUD what times owning would it fall under that would be a good question actually between an R for D or there's I don't I don't know off the top of my head yeah would be a residential but it'd be a multi-family residential in our fourth year it could be in our 40 yeah I have to go back and run the density numbers they they were already provided in the packet I just don't

114remember it off the top of my head I just I just want to confirm because there's been some high family mixed terminology between commercial and residential and that if this wasn't a PUD we would still be considering this residential development correct it could be I mean it can be done under commercial district - but obviously it could be done into residential okay I think with that I have I want to go actually questions about the fire trucks coming in and out I think there were some questions since you're here as well to kind of it thank you for coming and and I think there was some kind of turning radius and access routes and being able to access all points to the site because there is one road in can you clarify kind of your

115evaluation of the site sure Kathleen summers go fire marshal so I evaluated the site for access has any plan and for this type of residential building you can see that there's that 26 lane fire 26 foot fire lane access road for that whole strip on the east side and then also to the south there's access from ferry on the west so I could access drive over that road does not exist there's no connection the road exists but there's not a drive-in yeah I understand that um so anyway there is access yes I think the concerns were about mainly the north west corner and access if a truck would get from park on the side of Jackson Road or at the end of Ferry Street if that would be able to reach all points with a

116truck and a hose to all points of the so the hoesley it's it's within the required hose length distance and for access it's still it's it is beyond the 150 foot distance however there are exceptions to that 150 feet and one of the exceptions is a fully automatic sprinkler system which this building does have so with the sprinkler system it's it's basically a lesser requirement and based on my measurements from different access points including Ferry Street that was adequate was and I think there was just one more which was discussion about trucks panel drive onto the landscaping to access points of the building we don't drive on landscaping I think discussion point from last time thank you thank you I think we're in regards to noise and light I think we'll start with lighting most

117of the lighting the specs for the landscape lighting are covered does the developer have any plans for lighting on the building that aren't yet put into the site plan provided excellent lighting you're eating that we're not yet seen in the plan we we do not have any any plans for lighting that are not shown that a plan and then I think for for noise I just want to confirm with staff noise ordinance complies with this so any noise after hours well we don't know if it complies and so for any noise at any site resident single-family or the correct we have the same conditions apply those are my questions for now until we really get into I think more stormwater and things I just want to cover some of the physicality commissioner tree down I

118so I have a question about the affordable housing so is it can the petitioner confirm that you're intending to use low-income housing tax credits to finance this or can you talk a little bit about how you intend to finance the affordable housing component yes I can so we are intending to use low-income housing tax credits as a part of the financing for the for the development the type of there are two types of tax credits is there nine what are called nine percent tax credits which are funded twice a year through a competitive funding round and then there are four percent tax credits which are tied to the issuance of taxes and bonds by the state and those are on a volume Kappa below available basis currently the state uses less than 20% of its

119volume cap so they're effectively a non-competitive tax credit if a project can basically make the numbers work so to speak 4% tax credits are really kind of challenging to do affordable housing under because they're pretty minimal amount of equity support in addition to that our planned financing structure involves the issuance of taxes and bonds through the Michigan State Housing Development Authority and in addition to that because the 4% tax credit is almost never enough to be able to provide an effective support to to develop affordable housing the state has or Mishnah has created a program where they'll provide some subordinate financing to supplement that gap and they call it their gap funding program we actually already submitted a preliminary application and receive word back at the end of September that there were like fourteen thirteen

120or fourteen applications and they have a scoring criteria for those we were ranked number one in the group so we're the the likelihood of securing the proposed financing is very high and I guess this might be more of a question for staff but so so what happens if we approve this we have an agreement with the PUD and the financing falls apart and they're unable to deliver on the affordable housing commitment and they're no longer in compliance I quote what what what process does the city go through at that point because the PD ordinance requires affordable housing and some shape or form we would ultimately require that to be compliant if for some reason we determined it wasn't we would likely seek to take enforcement action like we would on any violation of his owning

121that provision would be built have been in our agreement with them if for some reason they couldn't do that the PUD ordinance does explicitly provide for a fee and lieu option as well so one potential alternate scenario might be then to negotiate with them to satisfy that requirement through that means to help bring their site into compliance but I think as as indicated probably first preference is to get the units the only question I had it didn't relate to the plume and stormwater so thanks Fisher Mills doesn't want me to talk I don't want to talk you there but I have a question about this if you could come back up the financing that you're talking about does that happen I mean there are you gonna know this but where does it happen in the

122construction process before the building is built yes okay the financing commitment is issued by board action of the Michigan State Housing Development Authority prior to closing and doing anything with the site in addition to that the funding is actually already in place with respect to the state sells the bonds ahead of the construction and then puts those funds in escrow for a draw down for the developer so I'm trying to figure out a situation in which like if I would fall through and maybe this is a question for staff or for you like what would that what would that look like to have these not be affordable to not fulfil that part of the commitment if you receive those bonds or a met financing so to be so typically what we require as part of

123our enforcement mechanism is that prior to any certificate of occupancy it be issuing issued when affordable housing is component to development agreement and supplemental regulations we require that to be satisfied before issuance of the certificate of occupancy so in this circumstance seeking the tax credits because those happen early is part of the package financing for the construction to happen in the first place we would have the benefit of knowing that that was in place prior to essentially them coming in for building permits because that's gonna be part of the overall financing structure if for some reason they were unable to meet the obligations of those units as part of a condition because typically there is a delivery requirement that you have to put those units in service usually by a typical date I'm guessing that

124would apply to the four percent as well it definitely does the nine they would need to document that satis that was satisfied prior to us issuing a certificate of occupancy they are very incentive to do that because once they get that far into an investment the worst thing to do is have that investment with no revenue stream to come back and support if again down the road we were to learn that somehow those units were not being provided but it was a condition of required development that's where we would seek to take action enforcement action and again what I can think of at least one other option that could satisfy that zoning requirement without in that case if other provision of the units within the development couldn't be achieved thank you oh my goodness um

125I watched another question that I haven't I think this is just a discrepancy in the staff report or based on the petitioners presentation is the percentage the number of units and then the percentage of AMI are the the development agreement says all of them should be 50% or below AMI and at least what's being proposed is a mix of 50 and 60 okay so what proposal so the proposal before us is this mix of I wrote it down 21 units at 60% ami and 20 20 units at 50% ami is that right that's correct okay all right so I just want to make sure that we get that and then a final question probably not for you this is for storm water people - maybe someone on staff is could have you had a chance

126to look at the public comment that we got from mr. rail and can you help us understand it and and like does it seem feasible or can you talk us through I just don't know what I'm looking at I can't describe it perfectly it didn't make a hundred percent sense to me with the overlays it was kind of hard to read on top of each other I can say that the cross section that I drew that he overlaid on top of also used boring logs from the DEQ from the wells he referenced some reports that I did not know about he has a lot of records that other people don't know about so I can't speak 100% to his overlays I apologize this idea that there's a direct link or like a shortcut is that

127that's that's how I that's my words I'm not a pathway is that plausible and I think I'd like without seeing the boring logs that he had I mean if I'm guessing he read them correctly and if that's what he drew that's how he interpreted it without having those boring logs doing it myself I can't say hundred percent that that's what I would interpret it got it Kevin do you know anything I was just gonna ask if you have any further input or or just help us understand how there there could be a pathway I guess hmm I haven't seen Rogers work so I don't you know I haven't had an opportunity to really go through it look at it okay so I really can't comment sorry the cross-sections there are some generalizations made when you

128do a cross-section geology changes five feet from five feet you're making some generalizations and connecting dots and similar allah tala geez so if that's how he described it that's yeah I well I relied on looking at the work that was done by the city planners and I was an agreement with what they did that's what I wanted to you know Express is that the there's a lot of variability in the geology and you can make a picture that has a lot of crazy lines on it or you can make a picture in looking at the the work that was done by others and there's a bit of interpretation in his work but it's not out of line with the industry standard for a lack of a better description would be a fair statement sure I

129and I and these two have way more expertise than I do I am NOT a geologist but I think I think one of the things you might be right you're wrestling with is we've heard a lot of feedback based on our our knowledge and our projections of what's happening here we're obviously we're offering a project that we're recommending approval we believe it meets our standards we don't think it's going to pose an adverse risk to the plume we have examples of other additions of infiltration over the plume that we have data that suggest that it is not substantive because of that that that depth at the last meeting there was discussion of a hydrological study to be clear I think everybody is acknowledging it for we we are making assumptions well reasoned professional assumptions um

130even with more data there will be some level of risk I you know we're talking about underground and even even with a lot more data I think it is unlikely that we are ever going to get to a hundred percent certainty because of what we're talking about so I know that doesn't help but I just want to acknowledge we recognize that we are making some professional assumptions here we think it's on good data we think it's on with good professionals there could be more data I don't know that we would ever get to a certainty if that is something that as you as the Planning Commission need that absolute certainty I frankly don't know if it's attainable the site or any site over the pool well and that's why I will stop talking so because

131they're not to listen to this but the the question that Commissioner gave Randall asked about being able to retrofit or like to change paths if need be that gives me at least some chance that this is not that there is another option that this isn't like pigeonholing us into something that is not that we can't then stop in the future Commissioner Ackerman Thank You mr. chair to that point about the retrofit and I - Commissioner get brands a lot so I don't know the dynamics of our stormwater system and their infrastructure system and their impact on creeks sheds if plan B would be underground attention in the tank I mean first I guess what would be our process and plan to analyze and assess on a regular basis you know have a drop-dead amount sorry

132bad analogy bad word choice you know have a cut-off at which point we want to see a change in system and then what would our process to enforce that change in system B as opposed to the adoption in which we say let's go with Plan B first to get greater amounts of guarantee which would be look to an underground detention system that would keep water within the tank as opposed to infiltrate it into the ground obviously that but I want staffs professional input on the feasibility of that system and it sounds like it goes all the way up the food chain to mr. QP to make those sorts of determinations but I guess I don't know if there is a mechanism or if we can put in place a plan to monitor on a regular

133basis make it determination if if levels have changed significantly enough to switch over to a tension tank it seems like looking to Plan B first is the more conservative and safest option Commissioner Weatherby I know those discussion that the infiltration area is a naturally good area for infiltration so we're talking stormwater we're not talking correct this isn't what's generated from the building this is what's already falling on this site correct its water that's fallen on the roof and kind of put into pipes and pipe to the filtration area okay and it's it's falling now correct the whole site is infiltrating as it sits right now okay so so we are I guess concentrating the infiltration in this area but we are not increasing the current infiltration correct the total volume of infiltration is not changing

134on the site but the area of concentration is changing okay okay mr. souvaine so I've of course about the due care that you mentioned before yeah and if that's the kind of trigger point condition for if monitoring wells change and then how that might play into the development agreement with the pumping well and other access walls so it's a it's a few part question tell me about do care tell me the amount of site you may need access to for pumping well in the future or additional monitoring wells good questions the do care is is something that's been going on since 1995 in every development in the state that has some contamination the obligation of the buyer and new owner is to manage some conditions much like conditions that you guys are placing on on

135the on this agreement on this PUD very similar that way it's it's prevent exposures and and folks from from from being exposed to anything on site contamination here is very deep and it's not anticipated to be of an issue but of issue is whether or not the stormwater that's being infiltrated will move contaminated groundwater around and that may happen but what what we have in place at the department working with the with Paul is a number of monitoring wells that are in vicinity on property and in the vicinity of the property that we'll continue to monitor post construction to evaluate if there's a change of condition if there's a change of condition we'll be asking the company to address that change in condition so to follow up on that you say it's a prevent exposure

136on the site so if this impact pushes that groundwater off site and it impacts a change beyond the property line that the developer is going into does that do care then reach beyond the property bounds if it's because of this concentrated impact the stormwater they do care in this situation is a little bit a little bit different in the sense that a developer as responsibilities as if it comes on site you know he's got to do things that aren't gonna cause it to be a problem on site but he's not strictly liable for that that liability is the Gellman liability so Galman holds that liability we've demonstrated that liability through the courts going back to 1988 and we continue to enforce Gilman to step up and do what the courts have asked them to do

137not what the DEQ is asked me to do but the courts have asked me to do and I think there's a difference so we'll continue to work with them monitoring not just here but the whole plume the plume goes beyond maple road into that spark and we're watching maintaining and asked me the company to do you know step up and do things either putting more watering wells in or pumping the kind of second piece to this is if you're monitoring and you see something it sounds like a pumping well on-site is a strategic path because there's a kind tration what just yes this is one strategic path yeah it's not it's not my only solution or option or the state's only option to ask the company to locate a pumping well I've lived in town

138for over 20 years and into asking anybody in town to strategically place a monitoring well or a pumping well on their property or even on city property is a challenge so having an opportunity to hold a place holder through this PUD process is encouraging to me that we'll be able to put something there should we figured that we need it what's what's this based on the current site plan what's the kind of space that something like this would be required for us to put in the same way that if we're looking at plan B for tanks for storm water retention Wow what's the footprint of a pumping well and access that you need on-site it's pretty small there's several on the whatsits it's the old came our property in that parking lot I think we

139have two or three of them over there we have some in west of west of the development near near the Gelman property but off property may be something that takes up a space like this podium is the actual space everything is underground and in it it can be conveyed or pump pumped over to a transfer station that's over on Porter per se so I mean that's speculation right now I just want to save the place as a potential opportunity in the future and not not miss an opportunity I just want to make sure there's no place to actually put it you know I'm exact into a course I'll make sure there's a place to put it and a place in the development agreement that language both comply we're very flexible I think we can work

140with with a developer on doing something like that should we should we like the languages said if we need it we would be able to work with them okay thank you okay so I think with that I'd suggest a motion to add to the development agreement to allow access to the DEQ for additional monitoring wells and pumping well as necessary based on like any change in monitored levels requiring as necessary Brett is feverishly typing right now I think just language adding pumping well last necessary access for us or do you queue back in monitoring well second general understanding of the ocean front all right do we have a second second by commissioner Ackerman Nystrom else I will assume that the language of this rather than like decide on specific language is this something that if

141it were to go forward that I would really like the language that DQ would like oh we appreciate that yeah we appreciate your support oh yeah I mean I think the idea is to include it I'm very happy to include that but I want to make sure that we get that language in as they see propria so I think what we would endeavor to include in any requirement is that the petitioner the applicant would enable the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to place monitoring Wells and/or pumping wells based on future needs as probably something to the as at the discretion of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality but I think we would also want to recognize that would be in partnership with the petitioner to appropriately locate on the development site so another partner here I

142have to admit is the county the County Health Department permits these kinds of activities and it's a an ordinance within the county so we would we want you know we seek their support - and just to mention this in the audience this this motion or this minor change it doesn't matter whether we approve or deny this this evening this still goes to City Council so we want to make sure that we communicate what we'd like if it does well city council will see it so I just want make sure everyone's clear on that any other further discussion on the Commissioner whether be so several people brought up the snow removal and snow so I'm sure this whether it be so this will be amendment or by any other discussion on the amendment and then we'll

143head back to the main motion all those in favor of the amendment please say aye opposed it's proof mr. Weatherbee okay so snowmelt and kind of in conjunction with the wells and the water and the wetlands and how is that gonna work and I don't know if we just add more people to the podium here or how that's gonna you know how Lockwood is going to do this sir I can speak a little bit to that the parking lot areas are designed to drain towards bioretention areas those are designed to filter the groundwater and clean it and hopefully take some of that salt out before it infiltrates back into the ground can't there's there's gonna be salt that gets into the ground with this system there's no certainty to say that some of that groundwater

144would not go towards the sister lake and and that is that of concern or does that seem like a reasonable that's a little outside of my review guidelines I don't feel comfortable speaking mr. Mill's could we ask that to the are you here for you do the nap mr. Mendell I think one of these things maybe you know we could mean how do we know first of all is there gonna be like visual evidence like oh yeah there's where there's things getting into that like that we don't want and and you know or what is your take on especially the ice melt oh I don't have any special expertise in that either certainly there are things getting into this lake that we don't want it in there you know it's there's lots of Javel development

145around the lake already and there's runoff from the roads and things we had the clean lake steady down the back of the mid-90s that recommended different solutions are trying to reduce runoff into the into the lake through storm planing anniversary more frequent street cleaning and all those sorts of things so any additional salt in there is not a good thing I don't think you're going to be able to see any changes from this how much additional comes from this piece of property versus the entire watershed and there is a hard thing to measure philosophically we know that additional salt and there is not good for it just as additional runoff from lawns and fertilizers and things it's not good for it either that's about the best I can give you mr. water do you do

146any regular monitoring of the health of the lake no we don't commissioner gear Brandel does the city have any jurisdiction if this were zoned the way it went forward was zoning that were single-family that we would have any influence over what those homeowners would do on their own properties in terms of salt no we wouldn't I think sure single-family homeowners we have no control over what they put on their lawns or driveways whether they put salt in things down there we have some control through a PUD but we don't have any other control for through private homeowners single-family homes so I have a quick question in regards to the infiltration system so what if we switch to a tank system for the site can you just walk us through it a little bit more as

147to how how that would work and design layout if you were looking at it from the top instead of the infiltration Basin there'd be a series of underground tanks roof leaders leading to those as well there is no storm sewer available on Jackson Road at our end this property so it would outlet at a controlled rate to the ditch in the front which ultimately flows from west to east I don't know where its terminus is I believe it's the sister lake there thank you yep and that would also get the same sort of treatment as far as water quality design as far as sediment removal on a lab before it enters the detention facility okay thank you further discussion I know it's also where beyond our 9 o'clock break I'm happy to continue discussion or

148we can take a break at this point moving forward I'm sure sure down yeah I may think the thing the thing that I keep coming back to is with the current zoning which you know the neighborhood says they would be happy to accept has the same amount or more of impervious surface that has the same stormwater challenges with the plume and the plume is my biggest concern I'm pretty satisfied with the evidence around the parking and the traffic the noise and the light and we're essentially looking at do we want some large expensive single-family homes here or do we want a whole lot of subsidized affordable housing for seniors which is a critical need and we don't need just one if there are other places these could be built and there are developers who want

149to build them we could handle a few of these we've got our aging population and we're not all wealthy and so we need these homes and from from the cities from the perspective of this to see as a whole that's a huge benefit and we get other benefits with this PUD we get more controlling influence over what happens we've gone over some of those benefits the sidewalks a real benefit I know people don't think so I actually took the bus to go to a fundraiser at Weber's I ended up getting off at Wagner and Jackson and walked this entire stretch it was horrible and crossing is dangerous and and I know the city's still investigating various options for coaching that it's a tricky tricky roadway to make safe for pedestrians but it's a place people

150do walk and I was walking with multiple people who also took the bus to the same fundraiser there's a fair housing center fundraiser and so there are people who would use this it would make it safer to make it more and it's it's a piece of it's a real benefit the parks programs identified this area for a playground the neighborhood some people are saying they don't want one or need one but it's it's in our planning documents where the port the Planning Commission we're here to support our plans and so that they're you know there's it's not that there's no impact there's no trade-off there's no negative sides to this approach but I think weighing it all together it's hard for me to say no I think that especially the housing component is huge and

151the things were trading we are relatively small the plume impacts are a huge concern but those don't go away with the change in the zoning and the difference between beauty or r1c I I mean I'd love to learn more about these trade offs between the tanks and the infiltration we're infiltrating now if we took all that water that's infiltrating now and pumped it into the lake through the ditch I don't know if we're in a better situation but again that's the same question whether we're talking single-family homes or this project so yeah so I mean I'm inclined to support this yeah and the questions are tricky and hard and I think that's not going to go away we need to keep working on that but I think I mean I think it I think it

152makes sense commissioner Mills you are totally right I couldn't help myself even though I have a no voice but Commissioner Trudeau said almost everything that I wanted to say and what he didn't say commissioner sauvé said earlier which was pointing out that our master plan calls for residential this is something that we classify as residential and so that's among the reasons that I think that this is consistent not just with all of those other elements of our master plan that were articulated but in terms of this specific area it is residential further discussion mr. Ackerman Thank You mr. chair I just want to summarize what we just heard about the difference between the detention tank versus the current plan to infiltrate just to restate it to make sure that I can't express it correctly and

153that I understand it correctly if we were to infiltrate the stormwater we'll go where it goes now which to some extent is an unknown but likely towards the sister lakes there is a good chance that there's a layer of clay between the surface and the plume although we don't have a full data set to be able to speak with certainty there could still be impact to the plume and that we're adding volume and so dispersing the contamination the the the second option which is detention would be we we funnel all of the water into an underground storage tank we avoid any potential interaction with the plume as the plume sits beneath the site today however we pump it into our infrastructure system which we believe puts the water into the sister lake anyways and the

154sister lake is itself above the plume so either way water is moving towards the plume and our only guarantee our only safe bet would be that there is clay separating infiltration from from the plume itself these problems don't go away with any other kind of development and so we put ourselves in a position of trying to decide do we stick with what would be by right and allow people to develop large houses the only kind of development that you could see a profit for single-family home which has increased impervious surface or do we work through the very stringent PUD process and try to get as much out of any development possible with less impact impervious surface and so stormwater that's impacting our natural features and and potentially plume and that's a that's not a fun

155trade-off these aren't fun decisions to make and they impact people's ease as they drink their tap water as they walk in the park next to their house and the decision would be easier if this was a single-family home I wouldn't like to vote yes but I would have to because that would be state law that it's just by right it would actually be scarier for the people who live next next door and so with that limited trade-off I you I have to look to PUD as the better option than any by right development and that the added benefit of 41 units of affordable housing of a specific type of affordable housing that we do not have and that we will drag desperately desperately need over the course of the next 20 years pushes this to

156to the slightest hair of in the S direction I'll leave it there I am grateful that we've seen changes to the site plan that I think better the interaction with the neighbors they're not perfect they never will be but I'm glad there is at least 41 feet of separation between this building and any neighbor I'm glad there's landscaping separating this 41 feet I'm glad that the height is only 45 feet I'm glad that we reduced the square footage by six thousand feet I'm glad that we reduced the parking and moved it away from the neighbors I'm glad that we moved the loading zone away from neighbors properties I think we have some guarantees and operations in the development agreement that will allow our community and the neighbors to hold this developer accountable to those if

157you happen to be on their property and you see a sand and salt mix that isn't appropriate you call us immediately if you're if you see more than two to four commercial loading and unloading trips a week you call us because they're they're out of compliance if if any light is escaping their property line you call us and I think that's the it's not a fun trade-off but it's the trade-off I think we have to make or their discussion so I have been so I'm a previous I used to live on Dolph Drive corner of Dolphin Sonny wood and I used to spend a lot of time in the nature area and so I'm saddened to see this is what's going in here but at the same time there's another part of me that also

158says 41 affordable housing units it still remains residential there are some pluses to that as well so I'm conflicted and I'm sort of in the middle of trying to set how to vote just because I do have some ties to this neighborhood and being that I spent so much time in the nature area but I think also at this point we need to make a decision we need to vote on it so that it can move on to City Council and go from there so I would like to see others comment on this well I think about it some more I'm sure Weatherby I think you've alluded to something that that people commented on and and if we could pick and choose what we wanted on various sites around town I think we'd all like

159that I don't know that we'd all agree which is the problem but we can't we have to we're faced with someone has a piece of property they're selling it someone wants to buy it and those people are bringing forward this proposal we don't get to say hey you can put that on a different site we don't have sites that we pick and choose this isn't something that we brought up this is something that comes to to us and and in in doing that we have to look at the merits of this proposal and there are a lot of good things about this the affordable housing the sidewalk we were discussing sidewalks increased value in houses near them there are the parks department does not want this parcel or has not expressed interest in in this

160parcel so it will be sold to something and that something would be this this something could be a development of single-family houses which are probably worse for the environment and less able to we can't monitor them at all we can't I had a neighbour once who made the comment that she liked to use DDT on the ants nests around her house we reported her but you know that's the kind of thing that a single-family home things can happen because there aren't regulations and Lockwood is is going to be running within the realm of legality and what is what is written because that's in the best interest of their business and I think that probably serves us well in this area and I really appreciate that no housing will be demolished for this site I've recently

161had many houses demolished in my neighborhood for housing developments I appreciate that it's not as tall I walked around and looked at a lot of buildings in the interim from the last proposal and some of our our most beloved neighborhoods have buildings this size and much largerr next to single-family homes the old west side I mean Lori Terrace is 11 stories I think and and that's a very similar usage so I agree I think with what everybody else uh said is that it's not if I if I ran the city and if I had lots of money to buy this and you know or if one of you won the lottery and could by it and and said you wanted to just leave it I wouldn't be upset by that but I think given that

162we need this kind of housing and this this area and they're giving quite a lot to the city as a whole I think that I'll be voting YES come ashore and get Brandel I guess the only thing that I would add cuz I concur with my colleagues say is it I think we have a lot more control with the single owner with this than with a variety of home owners so the salt the stormwater all those pieces I think that we just have much more ability to be able to manage things in the future with one entity that is trying to get through the system and cooperate then when it gets sold off to you know eight or ten individual homeowners who can really pretty much do what they want and have those lights turned

163directly stare you know glaring into your into your house so that we don't we don't regulate them in the same way that we do a development so actually we have a whole lot more control with this system than we do if it were a bunch of single-family homes and because of the way our setbacks work with all of those you know their garages which could be 30 feet tall and painted fuchsia it could be fun three feet from your property lines you know so this really it there is a lot more control that we have over this system than we do with the single-family so I feel like it's just better for the city in the long run to be able to have that control and I think the affordable housing piece is huge so

164I am I support it for those reasons and I also feel like there's an amazing park system there that's one of the biggest in the city and adding to it doesn't make much sense to me I think it's a great system though that what is there and that it makes sense to have access for people around it to use it and this is one of those possibilities just like you all have the possibility of having your your home around that Park sorry this is just for Planning Commission discussion this time sorry this is for Planning Commission discussion right now sure so they it sought to follow up in terms of clarifying all the development agreement details that are incorporated right now we have the motion that was put on the table today as accepted we

165confirmed salt mixture salt stand mixture as part of the development agreement as written news it can be it hasn't been moved to be correct it hasn't been added fertilizer and pesticide has not been included yet the development agreement updates in terms of the details added per those that we've been through these last three meetings right there so the main changes yes what are we playing the development agreement that we requested it as Planning Commission we have salt and is not in there but it can be can certainly have that there are limitations that the lighting is in there there but I don't have things called out that we just recently ended that's why I can transit trips and transportation well we don't if I can clarify so would your intention be as part of the

166motion to restrict the number of trips that is if they went over for trips that they'd be in violation so that's good gets to my point I would have an encourage if as we get into operational things like that it's very difficult to enforce I we can put it in a development agreement but I can tell you it is it's just going to be difficult to measure and monitor so my first lens of advice would be to for your action to be based on the operation as as represented I'm not saying you we can't put that in the development agreement I just want to be clear that that is quite a bit different than of level in the monitoring well which is very defined and Static and can be more easily verified so I think

167I'm looking I'm looking for we had the 50% that's an adjustment yes so we've got the lighting or the lighting is a justement yes salt and salt and sand if we want to make a modification motion to include salt and sand mixture requirements for you seem like that's it second is by mr. Mill's rather than if if there we could maybe address anything that you would like to make sure that's reflected in the development agreement before it goes as opposed to one at a time so right now as we said we've got the lawn care chemicals and fertilizer is reduced one amendment is to add the restriction on salt use to emphasize sand or other products cut off lighting to meet dark skies that is something that it will probably actually it can be including

168the development agreement we probably make sure that that's clarified in the specs on the actual site plan so that's the good is actually it's sorry if I can jump in real quick it is actually listed in there photometric plans that's something we have on the site plans balls if we can put into the development but that's not in the play people change fixtures over time so we can yeah that's what I was just gonna ask especially for I think fixtures on the building they're more likely to change no porch light kind of thing that I think would be good to include a limit execute I think as long as we arts it saying that it meets you know dark skies full cutoff definitely shielded and then there's nothing in the development again about commercial trips

169again as you heard the trip generation for the overall site is governed by a national standard or an international standard excuse me that does take into account trips if you would like to further restrict it in some way we can put it in here I again it it would be part of the development agreement but as we talked about is getting more into the operational aspects that are more difficult to enforce from a land-use perspective mr. Ackerman Thank You mr. chair and thank you mr. Leonard for for that feedback let me know if this is doable it think it'd be easier to enforce and perhaps meet some of the residents concerns if maybe we limited the hours in which those deliveries can happen is that legal mechanism that we can apply so if the concern

170is the noise of commercial loading and unloading in the rear of the building then perhaps limiting it to the middle of the day when fewer neighbors are home I mean that seems more consistent with other actions and that the Planning Commission has taken with other businesses adjacent to residential areas and sort of limiting hours of operation so that does seem better to me that is probably more also more consistent with the city general nuisance noise requirements which require higher nuisance activities to occur within certain hours could I suggest a and I want to just make sure this is viable to the developer as well but like at 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. window 7 8 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. current noise ordinance founding time' frame correct yeah so what we're doing is restricting beyond

171less than 7 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and so p.m. at the very least business hours is what I would visit our very least mr. Mill's so there are some things like what kind of salt gets applied that the developer has that the site owner has control over scheduled deliveries perhaps they have control over but what I worry about is like when during the holiday season the UPS truck shows up at your house right so so that's among the things that I think and that parsing out between what are these schedule deliveries versus somebody shows up with the flour truck like I think that that's kind of hard so that's where I I'm I feel like in terms of some of these deliveries they may not have control over all of them and I think it's

172really hard to enforce from a staffs perspective to enforce this if we don't know if they arranged it or if it's their residents who called and again living right next to luery Terrace they are my next-door neighbors I don't see very many delivery trucks I understand the concern I would imagine that we would I barely been on the look up for the last six months about this but it's just I think it's hard to enforce something that they may not have a control over mr. Ackerman could I suggest then limiting the hours of use of the loading and unloading dock in the rear of the building so I'd imagine a UPS or a flower delivery could use the front entrance very far away from neighbors blocked by the building but the use of the loading

173unloading dock is you know right there alright it's been moved a couple times yeah I mean business hours you know I mean it just seems like you know people are out and about at that point you know I mean that would be my if I were to say it that's what I would say business hours would be fine we typically our staff in the kitchen starting for breakfast but it's usually only because it's a lighter meal service usually on one person so we wouldn't schedule deliveries during that time anyway because there wouldn't be anybody to handle the receiving and packing into the fridge or wherever it would go so just 8:00 to 5:00 9:00 to 5:00 would be reasonable for us I'd make a motion to add limited use of the loading and loading dock

174between the hours of so I think we have a motion just so I'm sorry changed that's from the about men agreement so I think that's part of it right bundle friendly much further discussion on the amendment to the development agreement all in favor please say aye aye opposed further discussion so I was going back and forth back and forth on this and I think being on the Planning Commission for as long as I've been now so this is year for maybe potentially five we've never gone through the process of adding so many things to the development agreement and even though this is most well this is going to City Council I think that has that has secured my no vote on this because I think we're trying really hard here and even though there's huge

175benefits we're still trying really hard here so that's my my rationale for my vote I think is we're trying really hard with the development agreement to make everything work but we're trying really hard further discussion all those in favor please say aye aye opposed nay it has approved and it's going on to City Council shall we take a break or shall we keep moving forward I say keep alright let's keep on moving forward since no one's pushing for a break thank you to six60 apple we annexation and zoning for city council approval we will start with the staff report okay thank you well two six six zero Apple way it's a single-family parcel scheduled for annexation the proposed zoning would be an r1 b zoning which is consistent with the adjacent neighborhood you can see

176the subject house on there as it stands I believe that house has been demolished at the time and they will after annexation is complete construct a new house and within the city limits and staff is recommending approval thank you thank you at this time I'd like to open for a public hearing is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission in regards to this petition [Laughter] thank you seeing nobody else I will close the public hearing and we will and I will read the motion the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve two six six zero Applewhite annexation and r1b single-family dwelling distraint zoning do you have a commissioner I'll move move back mr. millisecond Beckham is shrinky Brandel is there any discussion all

177those in favor please say aye opposed it is approved thank you we will now move on to audience participation is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Planning Commission seeing nobody we will move on to Commission proposed businesses is there any Commission proposed business at this time seeing no one do you have a motion to adjourn moved by Commissioner Gabriel seconded by Commissioner Udo we are adjourned thank you you