Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. My name is Donell W. I'll be chairing tonight's meeting. For detailed information on meeting procedures, please re review the full printed meeting agenda available at each end of the deis. Manager Kelly, would you please call the role? Absolutely. Noting that there are three known absences this evening for Commissioner Ains, com uh Council Member Dish, and Commissioner Norton. Commissioner W here. Commissioner Hammershmid here. Commissioner Lee here. Commissioner Mills

here. Commissioner Weatherby here. Commissioner Adams here. You have a quorum. Thank you, Manager Kelly. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Moved by Commissioner Mill, seconded by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor of the motion, please say I. I.

Any oppose? The motion carries. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the February 18th, 2026 meeting? Moved by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Mills. Is there any discussion of the minutes? All those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. Any oppose? The motion carries. That takes us to agenda item number five, reports. Um, and uh, yes, uh, reports to the planning commission and written communications. I think we have, uh, commissioners, uh, Commissioner Dish's report printed. So, Manager Kelly, were you planning to read that into the record? Great. So, I will turn it over to you for this whole section. Uh there have been two council meetings since your last planning commission session and I can report that at the 219 meeting 7:15 through 717 East Huron resoning was approved at second reading. Uh the community participation signage UDC amendment was approved which takes effect July 1st and the uh bike parking UDC amendment was however sent back to this body for further review uh with a note to um take a closer look at the class A requirements in the D1 and D2 zoning districts, increase barrierfree requirements, and also review opportunities for more class B bike parking across the city. So, there will be some staff work on that and you will be seeing that again at this table. And then at the March 2nd meeting, the 558 South Fifth, the dean resoning uh was approved a second reading. So, that is your council report for the manager report. Um for any students or recent grads who are listening, planning

services has a current paid internship opportunity posted. This closes on March 12th. We're bidding farewell uh as of last month to our uh longtime intern of over the past uh roughly year, Beth Hartzog, who assisted with the comprehensive plan work and some other important initiatives. She did credit us uh in her internship with securing her full-time position. So, we are very happy that that worked out and was a beneficial learning opportunity. um at your March 10th planning commission work session. That will be at a regular time, but it will have a different format than usual. It will be in council chambers at 7:00 p.m. It will be open to the public, but it is not planned to be streamed or recorded in order to encourage open discussion. Staff will be giving a planning 101 presentation, and there will be more opportunity for dialogue between the commission and audience members than in a typical meeting. This has been communicated through the city's meeting calendar and our email subscription service and commissioners will wishing to suggest agenda topics should contact manager Leonard by this Friday, March 6th. As a final note, I would like to mention that if all goes as planned, city council will be voting on the comprehensive plan on the March 16th agenda. So, um, barring any changes from our clerk's office or, uh, unforeseen circumstances, that will be going before council at that time.

Uh, thank you, manager Kelly. Uh, just a note on the work session. We made that change at my request and we made the change um that precludes it from being recorded uh at my request because we're not going to sit at the dis. We're going to sit uh down in the audience so that we're together uh having a conversation and it can't be recorded um when we're down uh in the floor and in the chamber. So that's why there's uh changes uh for that. Okay, great. And then uh Manager Kelly, just a clarification. Is it uh does the comp plan that comes before council on the 16th, is that a first reading or is that the complete um reading? Oh, sorry. Planner Bennett is going to answer.

Um that will be the the final decision can be made that night. There doesn't have to be a first and second reading with the comp. Okay. They there is there's a public hearing and then a vote at that meeting. Correct. Okay, great. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure uh that was clear for the public in the event they thought there would be to a first reading and then a second reading which can be a typical process for those items. Do other commission officers or committee leazison have anything else to report at this time? Go ahead.

Um OC met last week. Is that right? People on OC with me. It was last week. Um we talked about two things that are on our agenda. And then one other thing that we're going to see soon but is not on our agenda that I am blanking on and that was the biggest conversation we had. Alexis building electrification. Okay. Building electrification. The the height limit exceptions. Thank you. God, it was it was really fun and you guys will see it soon with us. [laughter]

Thank you, uh, Commissioner Hammershmid. Um, that brings us pardon me, that brings us to public comment, agenda item number six. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes uh for any item not listed as a public hearing or a dedicated public comment period. We will first hear from those of you who are present with us in chamber chambers and then we will turn to remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on zoom. For phone access, call 87785325247 and enter meeting ID 9776341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone in chambers who would like to address us at this time? [snorts] Many Kelly, do we have remote participants?

There is one caller. Phone number ending in 534. Do you have permission to address the planning commission for 3 minutes?

Good evening. This is Tom Stalber. I'm calling from 1202 Traver Street in the heart of Lowertown. Like to uh talk about R2A in general, a little bit of history. um maybe some questions that uh should be discussed this evening later on. But in terms of background, letting you know that uh one of the hats I wear is as a landlord, we have a number of duplexes. Uh so I followed this pretty closely. About 3 years ago, um the city changed the R2A rule and the intent was to allow more duplexes where it's already zoned duplex. Uh but things like lot sizes were too small or lot widths were too small uh to actually be allowed to have a duplex. So those lot sizes were reduced. Um and here we are today with something like 904 Lincoln. I'm sure you've heard about that one where it's a 10,000 ft lot and the way the R2A rules are written, it's uh 2500 square ft of lot per unit. So, the house was raised there and two duplexes were built on that site for a total of four units uh two each two pods of two on that lot. Um, I've asked and been told that, uh, if I have a 7,500 square foot lot or more, uh, where I have a duplex now, I could add a third unit. Uh, the third unit wouldn't touch the other two. Uh, that could be, I believe, 10 ft. I think it's double the sideyard setback. Uh, separation between the two buildings. So, I'd have a pot of two and a pot of one. I'd also like to confirm that uh if you had uh 5,000 square ft uh that would give you two units. Um do they have to be attached or not attached? Um a duplex is generally considered attached, but the way the rules were

written up um I don't think it's clear that they they don't have to be attached any longer. Um I won't swear to it, but perhaps you'll cover that. Uh so the question is you know what is a duplex these days and or what is R2A these days? No longer a duplex. You can have multiple units more than two on a lot. Uh and the configuration uh can be a couple different orientations. So I hope that history uh helps with your discussion later on tonight. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Stalberg. There are no further hands raised at this time.

Thank you, Manager Kelly. I'll close the public comment uh and ask if there are communications from commissioners. Seeing none, uh Manager Kelly, could you apprise us of the public hearing scheduled for the next business meeting?

Uh absolutely. at your uh next regular session uh which I'm blanking. It's on 3:18 or 3:17. I'll find out in a second. 3:17 on March 17th at 7:00 p.m. in these chambers. There is the 525 South State Street vacation for city council approval. This is a proposal to vacate the northern 26.5 ft of the South University right ofway between South State Street and East University Avenues. All properties abuing this right ofway are owned by the University of Michigan. This is in Ward One. And the second is the 615 Riverview Drive resoning for city council approval. This is a proposed annexation and resoning of a single family lot from Ann Arbor Charter Township to the city of Ann Arbor R1B zoning district. There's no proposed development. The lot is 14,375 square feet and found in W 2. There may be a non-public hearing dedicated public comment item, but we're still tracking those to see if they're ready. We're not quite ready to confirm, but you might end up having a third agenda item.

All right. Thank you, Manager Kelly. That takes us to agenda item number nine, unfinished business. There is none. Which brings us to agenda item 10A, regular business. This is 359 and 371 South Wagner Road reszoning rez25-00006 for a city council approve approval. This is a petition to reszone two residential parcels totaling 12,197 square ft uh area from R1D single family residential to R2A single family residential. The 359 South Wagner Road parcel has a single family home and the 371 South Wagner Road is a vacant parcel. The applicant wishes to demolish the single family home and build a one, excuse me, build one two family home per parcel. Uh the requirement uh for an area plan is not required per uh 5.29.7A, 29.7A nor is a site plan required per table 5.29-1 of the unified development code. Staff approval uh excuse me staff recommendation is approval. We'll first hear from the petitioner. Then we'll hear a staff presentation followed by a public hearing. Then our discussion followed by our vote. Welcome. Good evening everybody. I'm Candace Brier with Midwestern Consulting. I'm here with Martin Skora. He's the owner and the applicant for this petition. Um we're happy to be here to talk about the requested resoning. Um so, as mentioned, this is two existing parcels located on the east side of Wagner Road south of Jackson. There is an existing house at 359 um where Marty lives. Um and then the the property to the south at 371 is

currently vacant. Um there are two additional parcels that Marty owns immediately east of these parcels. Um those are also um zoned R1D but are not part of this request. It's just for the two that front on Wagner. [snorts] Um there are several similarly sized residential parcels north of here that are all also zoned R1D. Um the D nature area is immediately adjacent to these parcels to the south and east. Um that property is all zoned public land. And then on the west side of Wagner Road, that's Scio Township. So those parcels are all zoned for um limited industrial. Um the permitted primary special exception accessory temporary uses in the R1D and R2A zoning districts are exactly the same um except for two family dwellings which are prohibited in the R1D district. So, the approval of the requested reszoning to R2A would allow for the construction of one duplex building on each of these two lots. Um, the two new buildings would have direct direct access to South Wagner Road and be designed to the dimensional requirements of the R2-D R2A district which again are not significantly different from the dimensional requirements of R1D. I think the only difference is the side setback is slightly larger for R2A. Um, as far as the future land use plan goes, um, the current West area future land use map designates these parcels as single and two family residential, um, the future land use map from the current draft of the comprehensive plan identifies these parcels as residential. And as I'm sure you are all very well aware, um, the residential land use category is intended to provide a variety of housing options to accommodate diverse household incomes and types. Um the preferred building forms include duplexes and triplexes as primary uses under the new comprehensive plan. And additionally, the requested

resoning supports the goals and strategies of both the current master plan land use element and the draft comprehensive plan by providing a range of housing choices that meets the existing and anticipated needs of city residents and increasing the supply and diversity of housing types [clears throat] for households of different sizes, abilities, and income levels. Um we did have a community participation meeting um a couple weeks ago on February 19th. Um postcards were sent out um up to 69 I think postcards were sent out. Only one of them came back as undeliverable. So that was a win. Um I think we had eight attendees at the meeting um that asked a few questions and overall it was pretty pretty short meeting. Um but copies of the the meeting summary and the notification, the presentation, all that should have been included with your packet. Um, with that, we're happy to answer any questions. For the most part, it's pretty straightforward. So,

great. Thank you. Planner Bennett, we'll have your staff presentation. You all can sit down while u planner Bennett gives their presentation and then we'll call you up if we have questions.

Um, I don't have much to add. I think it's pretty straightforward. um resoning request as um the applicant mentioned it aligns with our current um future land use map and the one that we are hoping to adopt soon. Um there have been no other concerns from staff um that reviewed this and um you can see in your packet that we have recommended approval.

Great. Thank you. I will now um open the public hearing. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on this one item. We'll first hear from those of you present um and then we'll turn to uh remote participants. To speak remotely, press star9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please ensure you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to speak on this matter? Do we have remote participants who would like to speak on this item? There is one hand raised. Mr. Chair, phone number ending in 534. You have three minutes to address the planning commission. Hello, Town Sberg. Again, I'll be extremely brief. Hopefully uh you can address the uh if you have two units to the have to be touching in R2A question uh on a lot of 5,000 square feet or more. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Stalberg. We can uh planner dio will I'll ask the question in just a minute if that's okay. All right, manager Kelly, are we done with remote participants? Sorry, there are no further.

Okay, great. Thank you. Uh therefore, I will close the public hearing and read the motion. Uh the proposed motion is the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the mayor and city council approve the resoning of 359 and 371 South Wagner Road from R1D single family to R2A 2 family. Moved by Commissioner Mill, seconded by Commissioner Lee. That brings us into discussion. And if someone wants to pose um Mr. Stalberg's question. Planner Dio has an answer and we could start there or if someone else wants to kick off. Uh we can start where you'd like to start.

Start there. All right. Uh Commissioner Hammer Smith uh asks that planner Dio uh respond to Mr. Stalberg's question.

Thank [clears throat] Thank you. The R2A district allows both single family homes and two family homes or duplexes. So you can uh as long as you meet the lot area calculations uh per dwelling unit, you can develop either a single family home or a two family home or with enough lot area some combination of those. If you are going to develop a duplex or two family home, it must those units must attach to meet the definition of a two family building. And it has somewhat also to do with the building code. But the because both types of uses are permitted, both structures are permitted.

Thank you, Planner Deo. Do we have any other discussion on this matter? Commissioner Lee, thank you. U this looks pretty straightforward to me. follows the comprehensive land use plan um currently in the 2009 plan. So, I'll be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lee. Planner Bennett, what are we receiving?

I'm sorry I didn't pass that out earlier, but um the um property owner Martin here who's in the audience, he delivered these to city hall to share with the um planning commissioners. I believe these are examples of homes that you have built. Yes. Built across the city of Ann Arbor. So, they're meant to be a reference or an example of um the type of work that he's done before in the past. All right. Thank you. Any other commissioner comments or discussion? Com Comm Commissioner Hammershmid.

I know that we all know this. I just want to point out that you said it too in your presentation. This is what we are looking to do in the new comprehensive plan. So this would be an example of a project if we once the comp plan passes if we are able to do new zoning and allow multi- excuse me more than just a single family residential in residential districts this would be a byite project and you would not have to be here or go to city council which saves time and money. Um so yes I will also be supporting this and in the future you shouldn't even have to be here. Thanks. [laughter]

Other commissioners, are we ready to vote? Manager Kelly, would you please call the role? Uh, yes. On the motion is presented. W Hammershmid, yes. Lee, yes. Mills, yes. Weatherbe, yes. Adams, yes. That carries. Thank you and good luck.

That brings us to item 10B, regular business. Street vacation for John Street. Street vacation for John Street. A proposal to vacate John Street, a oneb block street extending between South Fifth Avenue and South Division Street. All properties abuing John Street are owned by the applicant, the University of Michigan. Staff recommendation is approval. We have a petitioner uh presentation followed by a staff presentation followed by a public hearing followed by reading the motion, our discussion and a vote. Welcome

relations in the office of government relations at U of M. Um, the vacation of John Street will allow the university to move forward with phase two of the Wolverine Village project. Phase one is going to be complete in August of this year and we hope to break ground um on phase two in the next couple of months depending on the approvals required to the city. So, we're working with that. We're just starting that process now. But John Street because of the way it's juxtaposed in the middle of the site was key to be allow us to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll turn to planner Dio. Thank planner Bennett. Good night. For a staff presentation. Thank you. Uh please allow me to present the staff report that was prepared by um planner Joshua Shake um who is out of the country right now working remotely. Um this is the John Street vacation for city council approval uh for which the planning commission makes a recommendation. Um the University of Michigan owns the entirety of John Street which is a oneb block street extending between South Fifth Avenue and South Division Street. um and they are seeking vacation. So they can further as mentioned their south campus plan or sub area plan. To vacate a street, city council must pass the resolution and the street is considered vacated at the time the resolution is recorded. There are some public sanitary water and storm water manes located in this right ofway. um but they are to serve the street the parcels on John Street which are owned by the University of Michigan and so ownership of these mains will be turned over from the city to the university. Um I believe as mentioned the staff recommends that the street vacation be approved. The vacation is in the public interest and will facilitate future use uh land use of the adjacent parcels. The staff report contains some city engineering comments that require no further action but are provided for um uh for your information and they contain um some of the procedures and requirements and some of the things that will happen upon um vacation regarding the utilities both public and private that are in this former street. I am happy to answer any further questions. I have forgot to advance the slides. These

are the same images that are in the staff report. Here's just an aerial photo. And here is an excerpt from the University of Michigan South Campus Plan.

Thank you, Planner Deo. We'll now uh open a public hearing on this item. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on this item. We'll first hear from those of you who are present, then remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. F will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please ensure you're in a quiet area and please mute any background noise. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? Seeing none, manager Kelly, do we have remote participants who'd like to address us on this item?

We no longer have remote participants in our meeting.

Therefore, I shall close the public hearing and read the proposed motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve amendments to chapter 55 unified development code section 5.22 22 related. No, I've jumped ahead of me. Thank you. It's a much longer uh motion. I was like, this is just a vacation. We shall read the correct motion now. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the John Street street vacation. Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Lee double vacation. All right. Any discussion of this item? Oh, Commissioner Mills,

I love when streets go on vacation. Like, I I just think that's fun. And then we get to do this again in two weeks is fun. Um, and one of the questions that I've had over time that I feel like maybe once upon a time it was asked and I've forgotten the answer to is what happens like who who gets the land, which I the staff report suggests that it's equitably divided with people on either side. I get it. Like if that's policy, cool. I also recognize when we've been talking about right ofway that we have and the price and what it would cost to expand existing right ofway like we have to buy it. And so I I'm not suggesting I mean this is something that I think is not specific to this property but just strikes me as the we that once upon a time we probably had to we may in some situations have purchased this right ofway this public land and when we vacate it like poof [laughter] uh in in um yeah So, and Commissioner Lee's kind of words here because um so I don't know how I feel about that, especially given how hard it is. I mean, overall as the policy, I think that this one makes sense. It's a road potentially to nowhere. And I actually think about like movement around that space and I don't know that it it's adds additional value in terms of circulation. Um, but just knowing how tricky it is and how expensive it would be to acquire additional right of way overall, it feels a shame that we don't that there's not revenue that can then be circulated back into the purchase of new right of way in places where we do need it now for Yeah. So overall, I support this and it's more about the policy, but I don't think that

that is actually in the UDC. Is that right? About how vacations work? Yeah.

Uh, thank you. Um, uh, rightway vacation or street vacation is a, um, process very specific to a plat. The city did not purchase this. Um, when you plat land, um, which is almost exclusively done for residential purposes, but it could be a commercial plat. When you plat land, you know, some of it is is shown as u public right public rights of way and some as platted lots and the the developer generally sells off the platted lots but dedicates the land the roads to the local jurisdiction. Um for right ofway that we have purchased or the city has purchased or somehow they're acquired, it's a different process. Street vacation is a very specific process related to the plat act. Um, and so it's undoing a portion of a plat. So I can almost guarantee that the city did not purchase this particular right of way. And it is the plat act that specifies how you both uh record a plat but also do a street vacation. And um when both sides of the street come from the same plat, the process is the the right of way gets split straight down the middle and little pieces go to each side. But uh it it depends on where the land comes from because if you're at the edge of a plat and all of the land came from the one plat and you have an adjacent plat to the other side, land doesn't go to those other plat people or lots. It only goes it stays within the plat and that's a procedure that's specified in the plat act if that makes sense. I was speaking fast.

That and that's a state law. The plat act is a state law. It is correct. Yes. It's a way to subdivide and sell off land. That is very interesting. Thank you for teaching me today. Thank you, Planner Do, sorry. Um, Commissioner Weatherbe and then Commissioner Hammer.

So, I think this is maybe more for the petitioner. Um, one of the things about this as someone who lives in that area and has noodled down John Street many a time. It does make kind of a really big block. And and when we talk about like street vacations and what's going to happen, I'm I do get concerned that then this will just be a big monolithic block that is no longer permeable to the average person. Um, and I just didn't know if the university had any, you know, is this going is cuz you've got the space on the other side, too. And now this is in a place where people walk through often like it's getting chunkier and chunkier for the average pedestrian to sort of get through. And I think um, you know, there is a lot of stuff on both sides that would be nice to get to. So I don't know what the if there is a specific plan that will allow for sort of non-motorized transit through that quite big block.

Well, if you look at how um and I think one of the images shows phase one, Commissioner Weatherbe, and there will be an internal way to get through as well as an external along the railroad, what they're calling um Wolverine Way. Um, but this will also be divided. So, students will be able to walk through the middle of it as well as along both streets on And will non- studentents be able to walk through it? And what's that? Will non- students be able to walk through? Like it's it's like a university an existing university space where it might not be clear that you can get through, but that there is a way through

like many of the walkways on central campus. So, yeah, I should Yeah, everybody will be able [laughter] Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Weatherbe. Commissioner Hammer Schmidt, that was actually the same exact question I was going to ask. So, thank you. I was in a staff report saying, and no offense, but the vacation will have no impacts on vehicular or pedestrian access. I was like, hold on, cuz this would create an entire super block. So, I appreciate your explanation. Um, and look forward to seeing what you guys build. Any other discussion? Commissioner [snorts] Lee?

Sure. Yeah. Um, just a note for folks that the [clears throat] vacation of the uh the underground um storm water facility does come with upsizing I think alongside Madison Division and Packard, I think is what I read in here. Just wanted to confirm that that was indeed going to occur to service this proposal. Um once they're vacated um we take responsibility for them. Woo and um they'll be incorporated as part of the overall plan which comes back to the engineering review and things like that. Gotcha. Cool. All right. Yep. That looks good to me. I'll be in support of this. Thank you.

Any other comments? Are we ready to vote? Manager Kelly, would you please call the role on the motion as presented? Yes. Hammer Schmidt, yes. Lee, yes. Mills, yes. Weatherby, yes. Adams, yes. That carries. Thank you. I have to count this meeting has to be a little different than what we [laughter] What do you mean?

Thanks for your have no idea. [laughter] That takes us to 10 C. Regular business amendment to chapter 55 unified development code regarding storm water management reviews. A proposal to amend section 5.22 storm water management and soil erosion to clarify the sites that are within the jurisdiction of the county water resource commissioner. Therefore, storm water management plan reviews are deferred. Staff recommendation is approval. We'll start with a staff presentation by Planner Deo and then we'll have a public hearing. Planner Deo. Thank you. Um we have presented to you tonight in your packet one staff report that covers two um two different amendments proposed as two separate agenda items with one staff report. The first is uh the first are some amendments to section 522.1 storm water management specifically uh paragraph C um [clears throat] that proposes to clarify the current requirement for when storm water management review is delegated to the county water resources commissioner from henceforth I will say the county um by switching [clears throat] to an easier to understand list our my colleagues in the public services area have asked for these amendments. They have found that the current language um is not very clear to our customers which are generally developers. Um and we have proposed um the changes both on the screen and in the packet. Um, this section was revised recently uh in 2022 to adjust the review

responsibility between the county and the city to match our geographical boundaries. Um, as I mentioned, our staff find our resulting language a little bit confusing. Um, and we agree. So, we are proposing these amendments to just write out the circumstances for when review of storm water management systems will be done by the county. Um it is a more easier to understand straightforward list but it does maintain the the same gist. Uh we are recommending approval of these. All right. That takes us to a public hearing. Manager Kelly, we have no members of the public in the chambers. Do we have any members of the public online? How wise of you to ask this before reading this bill? [laughter]

We have no remote callers.

Since we have no members of the public in present nor online, I will read I will uh hereby close open and close the public hearing and read the proposed motion without uh without objection from the table. Okay. Uh, the Ann Arbor [clears throat] the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve amendments to chapter 55 unified development code section 5.22 related to storm water management review to clarify the circumstances when review by the county water resources commissioner WCWRC is necessary as proposed in the attached ordinance. Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Adams. Uh, discussion. Are you ready to vote? Manager Kelly, would you please call the role?

Absolutely. Commissioner Adams, yes. Commissioner Weatherbe, yes. Commissioner Mills, yes. Commissioner Lee, yes. Commissioner Hammershmid, yes. Commissioner Weiss. Yes. That carries unanimously.

Thank you everyone. That takes us to 10D, an amendment to chapter 55, unified development code regarding solid waste terms. A proposal to amend sections 5.18 special dimensional and site layout standards. 5.20 Landscaping Screening and Buffering 5.29 Specific Procedures. and 5.37 definitions to change outdated references and terms related to solid waste and solid waste containers for consistency with recent amendments to chapter 26 solid waste management and the solid waste regulations. Staff recommendation is approval and we have a staff presentation by planner DO.

Thank you. I [clears throat] will again be referring to our joint staff report. Now these are amendments to um throughout the UDC to match up with some changes made by other colleagues to chapter 26 and the solid waste um regulations. The chapter 26 um was um um I'm mumbling so let me start again. The staff report contains a summary of the re amendments um both the current text and the proposed text. Um it is not exact language. It is a summary uh table in the code or in the staff report. But you should know that there were revisions to the solid waste regulations approved by city council um in December of uh this year and in January. And chapter 26 was also amended um in January of this year. The changes including include updating and adding some new definitions and provisions for solid waste container storage and collection. The UDC already obviously references solid waste. Um, and we use some of the same terms, actually most of them. Um, but we applied them inconsistently and sometimes create combinations of words that are not actually found in chapter 26 or the solid waste regulations. Um, in the packet, uh, those key terms that you'll see crossed over between the two chapters, um, are listed as well as their definitions. Um, and we did a review, uh, knowing that those terms and references were changed. We did a review of the UDC and found a few a short number of places that we should update um, to match and use the terms that the solid waste chapter is using. we should use them correctly um and as they are properly

defined. Our ch proposed changes include uh a change to section 518 which is the special dimensional and site layout standards specifically 518.1B.2.a that is on your screen now. It is regarding what is permitted in the front yard of a residential zoning district and we are proposing to change solid waste containers to curb carts. Second change that we are proposing is to in section 520 which is landscaping screening and buffering specifically subsection 520.6. on your screen is are the track changes and final changes of our proposed amendment. We are amending it to specifically apply screening and buffering for solid waste container points of storage when it's visible from a street, a park or residential zoning district. Um, and with curb [clears throat] carts um and as usual curb carts on parcels with single and two family dwellings are still exempt. The changes will clarify that screening and buffering is required for the point of storage, not necessarily point of collection, which could be out near the street and only when existing buildings do not already provide screening. A third [gasps] amendment that we are proposing is to section 529.1 addressing zoning permits. Um the change we are proposing is to change dumpster to solid waste container. um that reference and our fourth amendment proposed is in section 529.8 8 which deals with required plan information. In paragraph D the dimensional plan layout and in paragraph H the landscape plan. We are

amending whatever term we have come up with on our own to the actual term of solid waste enclosure uh container points of storage and points of collection. Thank you. Planner Deo. We have one more amendment though. I'll be [laughter] quicker. It's to the definition of open space. You took a long pause there. [laughter] Um, it is to the definition of open space and not surprisingly we are recommending approval of these amendments.

Thank you, Plano Deia. Manager Kelly, there remains no one of the public in chambers. What's our condition? Online. So I shall open and close the public hearing seeing as though there are no members of the public either in present uh chambers present with us nor online. And I will read the proposed motion. The Ann Arbor [clears throat] City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve amendments to chapter 55 unified development code sections 5.18, 5.20, 5.29, 29 and 5.37 related to solid waste terms for consistency and accuracy with recent amendments to chapter 26 and the solid waste regulations as proposed in the attached ordinance. Moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Mills. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Mills.

I just want to thank staff for including the track changes version since when OC saw it last week. Commissioner Lee, just to be clear, all of this is just simply simplifying and making consistent the verbiage and lexicon related to solid waste containers. Correct. Um I would say 99% yes. There is some changes in that landscaping and screening section. Um I think if you read that um word for word right now, it implies that the screening goes around all four sides

of the enclosure. And we wanted to make it clear that we you do not need to screen all four sides. It's specifically screened from view of from those points of view. And if the therefore if the buildings themselves screen not necessary um and that way also you can get to the solid waste. So because it's [laughter] not screened on all four sides. Gotcha. All right. Thank you very much. I just have a a question. None of these changes impose uh changes on existing structures or do they now become if they're if they don't have a let's say the fenced area. If they don't meet that standard, do they become non-compliant and they only um get revised if there's something that happens on that site?

That aspect remains unchanged by the by this terminology change. Um yeah, even without these changes, if something did not provide screening, it may be non-conforming. Um but um uh the landscaping and screening section in its entirety is applied upon site plan um approval. So existing sites without these the screening and buffering will [clears throat] just remain as is. But if they are site plan, they are subject to compliance with current code. Great. Any other discussion, questions, comments, or followup? Seeing none, manager Kelly, would you please call the role?

Certainly. Adams, yes. Weatherbe, yes. Mills, yes. Lee, yes. Hammer, yes. White, yes. That carries. Thank you, Planner Deo. That takes us to 11A. Other business, there is none. Manager Kelly, do we have we uh acquired any remote participants? No, we have not.

Um seeing as there are no uh members of the public in chambers with us nor online, uh I shall open and close the public comment. And then uh commission proposed business. Is there any I'm sorry friends, I do have one question. Um, so I've been tracking with the nine bills that uh have been uh co-sponsored in a bipartisan bchamber way uh in the state to make uh housing a little bit easier to build uh here in the state and was highlighted by Governor Whitmer's uh state of the state uh address uh this uh past month. And I wondered um did staff have any plans to apprise uh this uh commission or the public on these um collection of bills or whether or not staff had any indication whether the city's lobbying efforts were in support of these initiatives and whether staff would be able to give us any kind of updates or guidance um especially um as we look forward to the comprehive of land uh use uh appearing before council and if approved then the process of us starting the work to implement that. So mainly um have there been any discussions inside staff about these bills that um would be helpful for this commission to be made aware of? Are our lobbying efforts in support of this? and what if any impacts would this uh collection of bills have on the comp plan and our work to amend our UDC?

Uh yes, staff are aware of these bills. Um we uh luckily have um access to the Michigan Association of Planning. They sent out a email alerting membership about this and we sent um resent a staffwide email to make sure that our team was aware but we haven't yet had a chance to have a conversation. That's the type of thing we'll usually discuss at one of our all staff meetings. So we have not done that yet uh specifically on that topic. Um, I would be happy to compile a list of relevant links to share with the commission by email if you would find that useful, but we did not have special plans to brief the commission on these other uh, but I would be happy to expand your awareness of them by collecting some information and sharing it. I'm not aware of the extent of the city's um, lobbyist uh, involvement. I think um what would be interesting to me and I uh defer to staff. I think I I'll send an article uh to you, manager Kelly, which has uh I think it's from Strong Towns Grand Rapids. There's a review of all the bills and links to them so that you don't have to compile that. You could use that if you wanted for source material or if there's something else you want to use. I think what was interesting to me was I didn't know when we uh get engaged in this process um if at all. And by that I mean um do we wait until the legislation passes and then it's a response to the passage of the legislation or if there is work that is teed up in um anticipation that it may pass especially something like this which has so much um legislative support. uh because one of the key things in it that was surprising to me

in my review was the change in the minimum setbacks. They are changing the rules in such a way that [snorts] one can interpret it as no municipality can create a setback greater than 15 ft um from the property line or five it says or or 5 ft from the rear or side setback. And I know some of our minimum setback rules exceed that and that um if enacted, I'm sure there'd be enough time from the state for local municipalities to uh address that. So I don't think I'm trying to get ahead of that process. I'm just trying to understand um how we should think about that. So if there's any guidance uh that you have, I'm I'm open to it at this time. Otherwise, uh what you've already communicated is sufficient.

Um I would say that uh if it is something that your body wishes to discuss, we can certainly put time and agenda. If you um uh if you would like to send a communication as a body to the city council, city council would be the most appropriate body to weigh in as a in a supportive stance or in a you know no support letter uh on individual bills and they would uh send those through the the city clerk and they can be there there's a certain time that they're read on the house floor and so forth. Um and then the also it would be through the wishes of the city council and city administration to advise the city's lobbyists to uh support or not ex or express dissatisfaction with particular bills because for example the preeemption that you mentioned for 15 ft that would put uh some of our efforts to rightsize the TC1 setbacks for example uh into a difficult spot because there's nuance there. But um yeah, I'm I'm open to your I actually am not sure of how fast moving these are, what the timeline is. So I'm not sure how that plays into any interest of the body to discuss it further. Commissioner Adams,

the only thing I was going to say is if you discuss it at your staff meeting, I would think about um the way that I understand the preeemption to work here is it would it wouldn't it wouldn't take wherever our number is and reduce it to their number. It would zap the number. So, it would zero out on the effective date everything that's in conflict. So, the way that normally you'd address that is some type of springing or savings clause that would say in the event of some sort of nullification, we go to this number. I'm not sure if that's something you want to have in the can um in case these pass so that the number doesn't become zero overnight, whenever the effective date is. I haven't read the date of the bills in terms of when they go live. Just something to think about to get to get in front of it in case it does happen because I I don't think that we necessarily want everything to go to zero. That's it. I know I uh proposed this, but if anyone else has a comment before I conclude my comments with manager Kelly, I'm open.

Well, if it is something that you would like to discuss, I I [snorts] would like, you know, to know that there's broad interest in it. If it's something that you would like to bring up for awareness, I think that that has been satisfied and I'm happy to circulate a more links or resources. I because I'm not sure what the next

Yeah, I think for for me my my interest level is what you just said based on what I just said. So if the minimum setbacks are 15 and five that would have an impact here and so then what is is there a plan is there like a a normal a standard operating procedure for things like this since it's a package of bills that are being proposed. So you wait until they're passed and then you respond to them or if there is a standard operating procedure whereby city staff prepare in the event that it's going to be passed and then respond to it. And if that's the case, I would be interested in this conversation appearing on a work session where we don't already have something planned and it might have been queued up for uh cancellation just so that we understand. and then if we can understand then we can help the public understand uh how these changes might impact uh in their local community. So that's all and I'm I'm happy if at this point um you want to take this offline and we can discuss it. But I did want to just bring it in the event that you already had something in place cuz you all are capable, competent uh active working uh planners who are nimble and responding to state uh changes. I will take this back and uh see what the best course of action will be with manager Leonard.

Okay. Thank you, manager Kelly. Any other uh Commissioner proposed business? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Weatherbe. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? We are ajourned. And I still got