Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

everyone. This is like the one time you get to talk back to me as a group. So, that was it. Uh, but after this, uh, I will, uh, I won't, uh, allow that. So, uh, we were having some audio problems. So, I'm just talking into the mic to make sure that we're all good. And then at some point it'll say the meeting's being recorded. Is it being recorded? I'm waiting to hear from CTN and yes, the meeting is being recorded. They say all good. Okay, great. Excellent. Well, good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, April 7th, 2026 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. My name is Donell White and I'll be chairing tonight's meeting. For detailed meeting procedures, please review the full printed meeting agenda at either end of the deis. And I will note that there are uh communications in our packet that are not on the agenda. The only way to access that is through legisar. So you would go to a2gov.leestar.com, legisar.com, click the calendar view, select city planning commission, and then go down to the April 7th meeting. That will have all of the uh site plans and everything that we're going to review tonight. It's attached to our packet online. With that, Manager Kelly, would you please call the role?

Absolutely. Noting there are two planned absences this evening for Commissioner ABS and Commissioner Adams. Uh, w here. Hammer here. Lee here. Dish here. Mills here. Weatherby here. Norton here. You have a quorum.

Thank you, Manager Kelly. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Dish or Council Member Dish. 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 March 17th, 2026 meeting? Moved by Commissioner Lee and Council Member Dish. Is there any discussion of the minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. I. Any oppose? The motion carries. This brings us to agenda item number five, reports from uh city administration, city council, the planning manager, CPC officers, and our communication and written communications. So, we will start with council member Dish if council member Dish is ready. Uh the city council last night vote approved the reszoning off of Wagner Road of 28 acres from R1D to R2A. There will likely be two duplexes on those two plots that are there and that's great. And uh then we also uh approved the 2080 South State Street annexation. I think that came through here. Maybe it did. No, no, it didn't. Okay, there's a it will because of the zoning. And we did pass a resolution that the basketball team would win and that succeeded it. You know, if zoning goes that smoothly, we have a great road ahead of us.

Thank you, Council Member Dish. Manager Kelly, do we have a manager report? Uh, we do have a manager report and that is that for your April 14th working session, planners Bennett, Deo, and Mr. Leonard are finalizing a series of documents that will be provided in advance focused on moving forward with the comprehensive plan implementation and this will include background information referenced or requested during your March 17th meeting, an overview of engagement scenarios, and also a few options to prioritize where and how the city starts this work. Uh, this will be a typical virtual meeting held over Zoom.

Thank you, Manager Kelly. Do any other commissioner officers or committee lison have anything to report? Again, written communications are in our packet, but they're only available on legisar a2gov.legistar.com. Go to calendar city planning commission. Go down to April 7th, click the agenda, and each of the items are linked uh to the source material. This brings us to agenda item number six, public hearing. This is an opportunity, excuse me, public comment. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on any issue not listed as a public hearing or a dedicated public comment on tonight's agenda. We'll first hear from those of you who are present in chamber chambers and then we will turn to our remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on uh 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 move to a quiet area and mute any background sounds. For all participants, whether in chambers or online, at the beginning of your comments, please state your name and address. Is there anyone in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? There's so many of you here. So, I know they're here for a class, right? Is that the majority? What class do we have tonight? You can speak back before we start.

Okay. Planning law. Okay. Excellent. Is this your class? Oh, this is uh Commissioner Norton's class. All right. Excellent. Let's see if you can get some extra credit. All right, Mr. Garber, I'm sorry. Uh,

no, not at all. They picked a good meeting to come to. Um, Ken Garber 28 having court. Now, this is completely off topic, but I in less than an hour, our president is has pledged to launch an attack that will eradicate an entire civilization of 90 million people. And um, so I have a microphone in front of me. I want to say please don't. Um, I know I'm not it's completely irrelevant to proceedings here, but I think it helps put them into perspective. What we'll discuss tonight is pretty trivial compared to what's going on nationally. Um, so on matters of lesser import, for several years, the Office of Sustainability Innovations has reviewed site plans for compliance with the city's non-mandatory sustainability guidelines. This was helpful, in my opinion, in several ways. It informed developers about more sustainable building practices, including rooftop solar and battery storage, building electrification, net zero or passive house standards, and low emission materials. Few developers have passed the full quiz, so to speak, but some have made positive changes. The reviews also serve to inform the public, and the commission at a glance on the sustainability features for a given project that's under review, like the ones tonight. Uh Joe Lang at OSI recently told me they stopped doing these sustainability reviews, but he didn't say why. Um I'm wondering if anyone knows why uh they were discontinued. Uh I doubt it's for lack of staff time at OSI. Uh thanks to the climate mill. They have a $7 million plus budget, 21 full-time employees. They recently created a new position, commercial sustainability analyst, and hired a geoysics PhD for the job. Um, so I'm curious what happened to these reviews. My other question is, would Commission be willing to ask OSI to resume them? Um, so that's it for tonight. Uh, I realize you can't always

respond in the moment, but I wanted to put the question out there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garber. Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? Okay, seeing none. Manager Kelly, do we have online participants? None with their hands raised. Okay. Did you have a question about the time in the pink scarf? Oh, yeah.

Yes. Yes. Yeah. No, I asked you, so you get to answer, which is wonderful. All right. Yes, if you are here for 805 Oxford, 414 South Main Street, the Southtown site plan at 1601 South State or 2700 Fuller Road, those each have dedicated public hearings or dedicated public comment periods. But if you're not here for that and you want to address us, now is the time.

Or if you're a student and you want to just come and say something to us, we are glad to hear from you. All right. Going once. She did. Um, manager Kelly did. They did. There has a been a hand raised online since our Oh, wonderful.

Uh, okay. Luis Vasquez, you have three minutes to address planning commission. Hey, greetings um planning commission and uh welcome to all the students uh learning uh you know about how the sausage is made in Ann Arbor. Um I didn't get a chance to chime in about uh Commissioner Adams's proposals uh to um uh the commission and uh and to council basically. Yeah. Um uh in terms of uh zoning um and moving forward on zoning in a very positive way, uh I just wanted to uh you know iterate my uh support for those kind of proposals moving forward for the commission and uh thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Vasquez. Do we have any other remote participants? No other hands raised at this time. I will close the public hearing at this point or public comment and move us to agenda number uh item seven, communications from commissioners. Is there any? Seeing none, that takes us to public hearing scheduled for the next business meeting. Manager Kelly, tell us what's coming up soon. you have uh three known items for uh your next meeting um which I believe is on 421 and uh that starts with the 280 South State Street reszoning um that is a companion to the annexation that was passed at council. It's a proposed annexation reszoning of a commercial lot from Pittsfield Township to the city of Ann Arbor office zoning district. There's no proposed development. The lot is 1.19 acres and is in Ward 4. Uh that is followed by an ordinance to amend section 5.19.1 parking requirements, section 5.19.2 to required parking 5.19.3 special parking districts 5.19.5 use of parking facilities and 5.19.7 design of bicycle parking facilities of chapter 55 the unified development code to modify sections to condense vehicle parking requirement tables condense and update bicycle parking requirement tables to improve usability design and accessibility of these facilities you'll recall this was uh sent back to you from council. And finally, an amendment to chapter 55 of the unified development code regarding exceptions to height limits for sustainable and affordable housing

developments. A proposal to amend section 5.18.4 for exceptions to height limits to incorporate and change the features of a sustainable development and incorporate the features of an affordable housing development and to amend section 5.37 definitions to delete the terms affordable housing component and sustainability component. Thank you, Manager Kelly. That takes us to agenda item number nine, unfinished business. There is none. And now we start our regular business 10 A. This is a site plan for 805 Oxford Road, SEU25-00001. A proposal to construct a three-story approximately 23,500 ft² sorority with 47 beds and a surface parking lot with 16 spaces. The parcel is zoned R2B to family dwelling and student housing district. The petition includes a special use exception application which is required for sororities in the R2B district. Staff recommendation is approval. We'll start with a petitioner presentation. Who is here on behalf of the petitioner?

Good evening. Good evening. Let me get that. Pointer. Is it this one or Oh, no. Right there. Does it touch? There's a mouse. There's a mouse. Is it this one? I think it's that one. Okay. Do you remember how to go full screen in PowerPoint? I always do everything in PDF. I say I don't know. Yeah, I use PDF.

That looks like arrow keys.

Okay. Good evening. I'm Joe Maynard with Engineering. Um, here with us tonight is our entire team from architect to owner um to landscape architect um and construction management team. Um we're here tonight to present this project which is a special exception use for um to utilize this property as a University of Michigan residence for the Zeta Sigma Zeta Chapter Capa Capa Delta sorority. That's mouthful. Which was founded in 2018. Um, the Sigma Zeta chapter of Capa Delta has been active on the Michigan State Michigan University. I know, I know it's it's hard. I apologize. State grad, you know. Um with its current facility located on Tapen Street in Ant Arbor, um the project seeks to acquire the proposed property and expand it to 25,000 square ft, chapter dining room, commercial kitchen, meeting space, media, student lounges, house director, bedroom for 46 residents, double and triple occupancy configuration, and associated storage bedrooms and uh club bathrooms. The project site is about 1.1 acres. Um, actually, we were going to It's 1.1 acres located at 805 Oxford Road. Um, the site is surrounded by numerous other co-op and other nonprofit charter houses including fraternity fraternities and sororities. Um, we give you a full list of all the other ones within the neighborhood.

Um, the project will propose to replace an existing 8-in water man that is in Oxer Road. It'll run from Hill Street um down to the project site and will include 380 ft of 12-in water mane upgrades and two new hydrants. The project will extend the city storm sewer system from Hill Street to the project site. Um the project will also completely replace the Oxford Road from intersection of Hill Street to just beyond the southern property property lines. Um, we minimize parking on this to 16 parking spaces in order to only comply with the city's ordinance and also provide ADA compliance, EV parking spaces, a space for the house director, kitchen staff, cleaning staff, executive manager, um provide onspace for move in, move out so we don't have to utilize the street and deliveries of food and pickup of trash. This is all in an effort to reduce any on-site parking. Um, additionally, the sorority uh uses off-site parking spaces for other members of the sorority so they have places to park and they will be utilizing the street parking. The site will also provide 12 class A bike parking spaces located within the building's basement which is available access through elevator and 12 class B spaces that are available outside under a covered pavilion. The site will provide 120% of the storm water management requirements uh on site. So all the impervious surface within the site uh will be collected and stored in an underground detention tank that will release the water to the city storm sewer uh which we are extending from Hill Street to the project site uh within a 38 hour period.

The project has used retaining wall systems that um the type of system we're using is is more expensive, approximately about 40% more expensive than standard retaining wall systems, but it was done to allow a majority of the large uh landmark trees that are circling the property to be saved. Um Sarah, our landscape architect, will provide more details regarding the trees and the plantings on site. Thanks, Joe. Uh, I'm Sarah. I'm the landscape architect on this project. Uh, as Joe mentioned, can you speak a little bit more into the mic? I'm sorry. You can bring it towards you unless it's mounted there. Okay, great. Is that better? It is. Okay. Appreciate it.

Yeah, of course. Um, so, as Joe mentioned, special effort was made to preserve several large healthy specimen trees on the site, including um a very large black walnut to the north, which is actually a city of Ann Arbor champion tree. um a fairly large beautiful tulip tree to the south that is actually on the neighbor's property, but the uh canopy and root zone of which extend onto our property and then um a row of u um conifers along the southern boundary that are also very substantial and in very good health. Um so to that end, we actually brought an arborist on site to evaluate and consult with us. They evaluated all the trees on site against our site plan um and provided recommendations about tree protection for those trees. He will also be working with the contractor during construction and providing ongoing recommendations based on his observations in order to keep these trees in as as good of health as possible. In addition to preserving these existing trees, we are also planting a total of 84 new trees for screening buffers and mitigation. We are strategically placing them to the extent possible in order to soften the retaining walls that Joe mentioned earlier. and we're using a heterogeneous mixture of Michigan native species to provide a uh resilient and healthy landscape. One of our goals with the landscape was to provide the mitigation uh to the extent possible while also adhering to a culture best practices. Um in order to follow tree spacing recommendations, we are unable to actually accommodate all of the required mitigation on site. And so because of that, we are asking to pay a canopy loss fee totaling $23,000 as a means of alternative mitigation. In addition to the tree and shrub plantings, uh the site design also provides outdoor open space um with benches and picnic tables for the resident's use.

Architect will come up and uh give you an overview of the building. Hello, my name is Chris Miller. I'm uh representing core. We're the architect and engineer of record on the project. Um so special uh special care was taken to endeavor to um implement as many sustainable elements to the project as possible adhering to um the A20 initiative. So, we have um a fully electric HVAC system for all of the resident areas and a majority of the first floor area as well. Um we did have to run natural gas in for the the commercial kitchen elements and domestic water generation for the project, but those are the only non-electric uh non-electric utilities on the project. And we are also incorporating um masonry materials that are going to uh incorporate low embodied carbon as much as possible on the project.

Any other questions? Uh we won't ask you questions now. You get a full 10 minutes, then the public, then us. Okay, great. Is that your presentation? Oh, and then we even have a staff presentation, too. But are you all done? I think I think we're done. Okay, great. Thank you. We'll call you back up when we are ready. Uh, we'll turn now to our staff presentation by planner Melen Cochran. Thank you. You're welcome.

So, um, the applicants did a good job of giving an overview of the project. I'm just going to mention a few more things. Um, one, there will be a new curb cut installed along Oxford Road for access to this site. They currently do have a curb cut on the parcel to the south and an easement for access. So, they're going to close that and then open a new one that would provide more direct access. Um, there are also existing sidewalks on both sides of Oxford Road and then there will be internal sidewalks for pedestrians to access the site and things like the bicycle parking 12 class A and 12 class B. We talked about uh the landscaping and there are significant grade changes on site and the applicant did mention the alternative natural features mitigation and that's included in the motion because it must be specifically approved by planning commission. Um but code does allow for up to 50% of required mitigation to be not planted on site and provided through alternatives like um mitigation fees. The developer has committed to a voluntary parks contribution of $7,500. They mentioned that there will be an upgrade to the storm water management system. And I think that is all that I'm going to mention about the site plan. Um, but I will talk for a little bit about the special exception use. So the sorority does require special exception use in the R2B zoning district and the application is attached as part of the packet and there are general approval for criteria that are provided in section 5.29.5D of the unified development code that the planning commission um will look at when arriving at its decision. I'll mention a few of them. um the comprehensive plan and the recently adopted comprehensive plan 2050 recommends the residential future land use category for this

parcel. Um though I'll mention it is very near the transition future land use category which is along Washna Avenue and overall the plan does support varied housing types and greater density across residential zones. Um, in terms of comp compatibility with a general vicinity, the R2B district is the appropriate zoning for sororities, fraternities, and group housing with the special exception use. And they did mention there are existing sororities and fraternities and group housing in the nearby vicinity. This sorority will be built according to the youth specific standards that are section 5.16.1 um and will have required screening where the property line abuds single and two family residential dwellings and will be operated with a resident manager on site. The consistency with the neighborhood um the R2B district is characterized by large and architecturally distinctive houses, relatively large lots with large front front yards and mature tree growth. Um the architectural design of the building is consistent with the distinct architectural character of the neighborhood. Um there are single and two family houses nearby and there will be fencing and screening along those property lines. There are also multiple sororities and fraternities in the area. So the proposed use and density are not atypical for the district and the district in this location. For the natural environment, uh mature trees are characteristic of the district. Um and the landscape architect did to speak about the removal of the trees and they will be properly mitigated for per city code and there will be additional trees planted for the required buffering for off- streetet parking. The project proposes approximately 9600 square ft of vehicular use area. This is a considerable amount of paving for the district um especially near the street, but that's to service solid waste trucks and other things that the applicant mentioned. There is a parking lot at the

rear of the lot um that has the required electric vehicle parking um with 16 surface spaces which is more than typical for the district. It amounts to roughly one per one space per three residents and I someone must have mentioned there's 47 beds proposed. The residents will be students and the location is near campus so there are easy access to other modes of transportation. I mentioned sidewalks and there are also multiple um AAATA bus stops within a quarter mile of the site. Um again, I'll just say it does meet this use specific standards for lot area, lot area per occupant, floor area, continuous screening, and a property man or a resident manager. And that's all I'll add for now.

Thank you. Uh we will now have a public hearing on this uh site plan and uh proposed um item that's before us. I don't know which word I'm reaching for, but I can't find it, so I'll stop. Uh so this is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on it on this item. We'll first hear from those of you who are present in chambers. Then we'll turn to our 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. Um, 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 sounds. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present who'd like to address us on this item? Come right on up. You can either make a line or you can wait until the person who's there uh leaves the podium. And welcome.

Uh respected commission members, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Aradna Krishna. I live on 1835 Cambridge Road right behind 805 Oxford. I moved there in 2000 when my kids were six and nine. My kids ran around the neighborhood playing with other neighborhood children, crossing Cambridge alone and going sledding in what is now Prairie Park. My kids are now 31 and 34. And like all of us here, my house means a lot to me. Outside my home, I'm a cognitive psychologist and I'm a professor at the Ross School of Business where I teach pricing to MBAs. I find that the special exception use application is full of contradictions and falsities. Let me ask you a question. If you were buying a house, would you prefer to have a hillside full of hostas behind you or a sorority that can sleep 70 people and have a dining room that can seat 238 people? I think the answer is obvious. One would prefer the hillside full of hostas. The number of buyers per property would significantly reduce and when the number of buyers reduces, the competition for the property decreases and then the price decreases. To say that house prices won't be affected is simply absurd. It is equally absurd to say that it will not increase noise or lower safety. The place has a seating capacity of 238 and a standing capacity approaching 1,000. Which means it will generate a huge amount of traffic and noise and will do so often. Will the dining room be open to all sorority members perhaps on weekends? Will we expect 200 people coming to eat? Then some of them may walk or bike but some of them will drive down. Where will they park? On Oxford, on Cambridge, on South University, they will clearly create parking problems for residents. There will also be rush week which will bring even more noise. The form says that while they're removing 50% of the trees, a significant

effort has been made has been taken to conserve as many trees as possible. Really, are 22 parking spots necessary? Is a seating capacity of 238 necessary? After all, 42 trees are being cut down, of which 17 are landmark trees. How is this a significant effort to preserve trees? All those trees can be saved if the current footprint of the house and parking is maintained. This can result in a medium-sized sorority instead of a giant sorority. Basically, I'm very concerned about house prices, the noise, the parking situation, and the trees. I believe that the application before us today is deficient in qu in terms of questions four, five, and six, and therefore should be rejected. I feel that at the very maximum there should be permission given for the same footprint as the existing house with 30 maximum residents, 50 maximum person dining room, and no landmark trees being cut. Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you. Uh let me just also note you you're fine. You have you your comments are fine. I'm just going to talk about the podium. There are three buttons uh three lights that are there. Green means you're good to go. Yellow means wrap it up. You have 30 seconds. And when it hits red, please stop talking. You did perfectly. And I didn't want to have to stop you. So, thank you for that. Who else would like to address us at this time? You all are all being so nice to each other. My name is David Patterson and my wife and I are property owners at 1942 Cambridge Road. I'm here in opposition of this special exception use application. This isn't about a new Greek house. It's luxury student housing purpose-built for privilege and exclusivity. And if you've been around downtown Ann Arbor, I think we have a pretty uh substantial amount of that already. This application actually disregards the comprehensive plan as it's already been called out, specifically recommending for the plot to ultimately be zoned uh from R2B to residential. It ignores the established character of the Oxbridge neighborhood and the stated values and pri policy priorities of Ann Arbor. First, the demolition of this historic home is an act of historical vandalism. This Dutch Colonial Revival Residence is actually the only remaining pre-1900 home in Oxbridge. Uh was once owned by University of Michigan physiology professor Dr. Warren Lombard. And uh the current 6,000 ft structure is actually more than adequate for a Greek house under R2B zoning. Uh did I also mention this Lmark house was built in 1897 which is significant in that it is the same year that the Capidelta Authority was founded historically. Uh yet the developers have chosen to go with a full east-wing ballroom design and replace history with a project that is profoundly incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. The new construction is grossly offensively out of scale. This three-story dormatory

will be a massive 24,000 ft, four times larger than the historic structure that it replaces. The scale is absolutely absurd. Architectural drawings show a dining hall size for a commercial banquet venue that's already been noted. This isn't a residential building. is a commercial-grade event space masquerading as student housing in an area that has already unfortunately become a hot spot for fraternity parties known for underage binge drinking and some have ended in tragedy. I think the environmental impact is a shocking act of destruction. This has already been addressed, but clearing over half the trees on the property is eliminating a vital old growth canopy that currently provides critical noise buffer from the uh traffic. compounding this environmental damage. This massive 10,000 square foot surface parking lot will take up a fourth of the property. This number of space w of spaces is excessive and increases storm water runoff and undermines our A20 and carbon neutral transit goals. No sustainability features that I have heard have been proposed, but at least there will be plenty of parkling for gasing SUVs 16 to 22. I'm not sure what what it is. I think the fundamental issue is this. This project delivers all the pain of increased density, magnified traffic, illegal parking, and excessive noise with none of the benefit to housing affordability or access. As a parent who walks my kindergarten to school every day, I have to cross the Oxford Hill intersection every morning, and I can assure you we don't need more distracted or speeding drivers plowing through the crosswalk as our children try to make it their way to Angel School. Uh I urge our neighbors here on the planning commission to uh uphold the district's scale and character and deny this uh application. Thank you.

Thank you. Who else would like to address us at this time? Okay.

Good evening. My name is Scotty Parish. Uh my husband and I have lived at 1945 Cambridge Road for 26 years and raised our three children there. Um, I'm also a professor at the University of Michigan. I'm very pro- student, pro- undergraduate, unless there be any confusion about that. Between our house on Cambridge and the property in question, behind it is a stand of beautiful trees, many of which are landmark. It is these woods that have always made our backyard feel like a little oasis, despite the fact that we also share a property line with a sorority, Alpha Fee, and a fraternity, F Gamma Delta. I have decided to speak tonight because I want to protest the destruction of that segment of the woods standing on the property at 805 Oxford. I also want to protest any further encroachment of Greek housing into our neighborhood. First, the trees relevant to question five about environmental effects. the and I'm repeating what has been said but the application admits that the pro proposed development will require the removal of approximately 50% of the trees including woodland and landmark trees and yet at the same time promises to be built with substantial landscape buffers between it and its single family neighbors. Those existing trees are what buffers the property from our house and planting new ones. They will not buffer for years and years, but we will be dead by the time they are buffering um at the level of many 3 feet wide diameter trees that exist there. Now, second, the application states in answer to question seven that quote, "Most daily travel by residents will be as pedestrians or via bicycle. We share a driveway with the sorority next to us. Never once in 26 years have I seen one of these young women on a bicycle. Uh while it is true that some do walk, a great number call Ubers to get to campus, constantly congesting Hill

Street with waiting cars. Large delivery trucks also idle on Hill Street as they unload. Now, let me address more generally what Greek life brings to the Oxbridge neighborhood. There are the inevitable broken alcohol bottles scattered where children making their way to Angel Elementary walk and bike. Last spring, I saw a group of three Upper L boys who were walking home together pick up a can of half-spent beer lying on the sidewalk and give it a try. Uh, this is a small and relatively benign anecdote, but the excessive drinking occurring occurring in Greek houses can result in tragedy. This was brought home to all of us in late January when a U of M sophomore, having become intoxicated, left the Delta Kai fraternity in freezing weather, wandered in the direction of our houses and froze to death in a yard on our block. It was only a few weeks later that, unfazed by this student's death, hundreds of undergraduates were drawn to another fraternity across the street from Delta Kai. During this event, we not only found numerous young people urinating next to our driveway and in our backyard, but later found a racist slur and caricature spray painted on one of the trees. This is what Greek life feels like to people who live next to it.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Matt Wolf. I'm one of the neighbors living at 1841 Cambridge Road. We came to an arbor 3 years ago. Uh we chose this place because it was very aged and green and beautiful. If we would have known that it would have been neighboring this big house, I'm not sure we would have purchased this property. Um we actually have lived here 20 years ago. We married in an arbor and it feels like the city is losing a little bit its DNA right now. A lot of old properties get removed, replaced, condos getting built and the DNA really the the spirit of the city is slowly evaporating. If this city doesn't take care of its spirit at one point there is really no point living in an arbor and at this point the city seems to really promote the life of students a lot more over the lives of families. I lead a division at the hospital for my young physicians. It's almost impossible to find a living space within the city of an arbor. Most of them live outside of an arbor. And I wonder if that is what the city really is striving for. So in the spirit of having a city that actually is a city and not just a Disneyland for students, I would appeal to you that we really want to have a living and vivid neighborhood and not just a big overdimensional house for um students that is three times bigger than that what's right there and seems really out of space. The other point is the living the the the structure that's right there is really beautiful and you wonder why would you demolish this. I'm a little bit surprised that it's actually not historically protected and that is

really a loss to the city. Losing about 40 trees is a seems kind of crazy to a city that takes its pride in trees. So the whole thing really seems a little bit out of pace here. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh hello hello. Thank you for having me. Um I live at 8 809 Oxford directly adjacent uh to the property. My name is He Sham Shabban. Um 3 years ago uh my wife and I uh purchased uh our property um as a uh young professional uh couple uh my wife a professor a uh lecturer at the University of uh uh Michigan and myself a physician uh it took us a considerable amount of time before finding uh the right house and to uh be able to purchase. We did knowing the area and the makeup of uh the uh uh uh how close it is to the uh university. Uh we did a lot of research. Uh we knew that we'd be moving into an area that um uh is very uh densely packed with students and uh uh Greek housing. Uh and uh we understood that. Uh however, we did spent a lot of time looking at our uh directly adjacent uh properties to see uh what uh would be uh the neighbors for our eventual um uh family as our family uh starts to uh grow. Um we visited a house for our uh uh children uh that uh we are um currently uh uh trying to uh obtain. Uh our concern is with the size of uh it. I remember the day that uh uh my neighbor called me to tell me that she had sold the home um approximately about uh a year ago when they went under contract. and um easing my uh wife's uh

uh concern saying that um uh don't worry that in the size of this house uh it won't be uh more than probably 20 uh women. Um and the initial number of 60 was quite uh jarring for us and down to 47 we still find um um difficult uh to um uh manage considering the um uh noise and number of people coming and going. That is our um uh biggest concern other than um losing uh a potential other uh uh single family uh neighbor in the future. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Jack Jagedish. Uh I live at 1835 Cambridge Road. My wife and I purchased this home 26 years ago. Um we're directly behind the subject property which was a single family home uh when we bought it and has been since. I just want to share a couple of facts with you uh which you're probably aware of but I just want to highlight. The site is shaped like a pentagon. On two sides it abuts other student housing. On three sides it abuts single family homes. And um in other words this site is not in the middle of Greek housing. it it is at the edge of it in a transition zone. Um, and you can see this also on a zoning map or in an aerial view. Uh, if you convert this site from a single family home to a Greek uh housing, it is an expansion of the footprint of Greek housing in the city. Furthermore, um, if you address question two in terms of fitting in with the surroundings, the best placement for a house, a a a sorority or fraternity on this property would be towards the north of the property, which is where the Greek housing is. The current plan that we're seeing actually pushes the house all the way to the southern corner of the property where it is really very close to the adjacent single family homes. Um, and in fact to uh my own house uh the the proposed building is going to be 60 ft closer than where the current house is on the property. Um,

the SEU also talks about uh tucking into the hillside and and the 805 Oxford has a hill in the middle. The current house is right on top of the hill. If you tuck into the hillside, you want the tucking to happen on the far side of the hillside. There's no tucking into the hillside if it is on the south side of the of the hill as as uh happens to be the case. Um I have a few factual things also that I found problematic in the SEU in response to question one. It says there are only two single family homes abuing 805 Oxford. This is patently not true. Um the architectural drawings uh show a dining hall uh with a large capacity. uh you know it's about 2,800 square ft by my measure and it clearly is not meant to cater to 47 residents. Um if there are going to be events there or parties or or a cafeteria uh that is nonresidential use that we should know about in in terms of what we're doing. Um there's the the planning uh staff recommendation says 75 people whereas the request from the petitioner is 47. I also

I'm sorry your time is up sir. I was getting there manager Kelly. Sorry I got there slowly.

My name is Bridget Bllye. Um, I'm a resident of Ann Arbor and I'm and my husband's passing out these pictures cuz I think you should see what it looks like, what their house looks like and you can see the lot line. You can see the the marking of where that house is going to go. And that's their house. That's what they're going to be looking from. And right now they look at trees and you can and on the second page you can see where their house is relative to that one. I think it's worth mentioning because um the planning commission asked in question four, how can the proposed how will the proposed use impact the peaceful enjoyment, economic value, whatever of the neighborhood and the sorority's response to this question was adding this facility will not change the character of the neighborhood or general facility nor adversely impact property values. So that is just so clearly untrue um for people who have bought this property because the number one rule in Ann Arbor is don't buy a home that backs onto a fraternity or a sorority. So how is that fair? Um the other piece I want to mention about this is that no one has mentioned except you the uh expansion of the university into lots that were traditionally lived in by Ann Arbor community members. Right. Um Michigan um has a record this year 53,488 students. 25 years ago they had 16,000 fewer students. Right. So while it's in their interest to accept more students, and I know they've been building dorms like crazy, Ann Arbor is losing lots that had in the past housed downtown employees, teachers, workers, families, and now they house students. So why should the Ann Arbor community get edged out of its own town? Why can't the sorority members commute in from Pittsfield Township and keep the houses for people contribute to the longterm health and benefit of our community? Um, I'd also like to use to refer to the

land use goals of the city's current master plan, page 34. Goal A, this is the first goal is to ensure that development projects are designed and constructed in a way that preserves or enhances the integrity of natural systems. Objective one, this is the first objective, encourage developers to use innovative design techniques to help protect or enhance our natural systems. Action statement one, this is the first one. Encourage the reduction of imperous services proposed with new development, structured or below level parking, reducing the amount of storm water runoff, surface flooding, and erosion. As others have mentioned, the project removes 47 trees, landmark trees. Um and in return return returns to us 16 asphalt paved parking spots and a huge driveway. Um this project has no solar, no geothermal. Um if we think about this trade-off in terms of carbon offset, it's a crime. What happened to those land use goals? Um in summary, the project one turns over permanent Ann Arbor community member house to university students. two goes against the most important land use goals of the city's master plan.

All right, I'm gonna cut you off here. That's our peace and and property. Thank you. Thank you. I think there's two more of you. You're like looking at each other.

Hi, good evening. My name is Bruce Judge. I live at 1945 Cambridge Road. Um, I appreciate the chance to address this body and I took your advice and spent some time looking at the um, city comprehensive plan. I'd like to address a few sections of that. The first is the u, the section the parks, recreation, and open spaces uh, portion of the plan which which speaks to natural amenities and says that natural amenities are necessary aspect of a balanced community and are considered a legitimate land use same as housing. And it's hard to square that with this proposal that's going to eliminate 42 trees and and wipe out that that existing u natural amenity. It also speaks of fostering environmental stewardship to meet the city of Ann Arbor's A20 sustainability goals. And yet this is a plan that's going to add a 10,000 square foot paved parking lot and increase traffic um cars and density. I'd also like to talk about what what's present in the land use element of the city's master plan and starts with this or there it includes in the vision statement this this wording historically significant buildings and neighborhoods will be preserved full stop. That's what it says. And in this case you will be wiping out basically eliminating this beautiful 19th century colonial house which as you've heard has historic historic value. When you talk about the central area where this is based, that portion of of the master plan recognizes that neighborhood preserv preservation is vulnerable to institutional expansion. That's exactly what it says. And then it says, as a goal, we will protect, preserve, and enhance the character of housing and establish residential areas and minimize displacement of residential uses by institutional uses. That's the wording in the master plan. It also speaks of the goal of encouraging property maintenance and

identifying areas with trash problems and target enforcement. Now there other people have spoken to um you know the issues the challenges of living between residences and and this these Greek life fraternities and sororities and that's recognized as well in the plan that talks about the difficulty in developing cohesive cohesiveness among neighbors in these areas close to student housing and specifically close to fraternities and sororities. You've heard and we we've made mention of the tragedy that took place just a few weeks ago when a young 19-year-old underage University of Michigan student uh appeared at an event at this fraternity that was attended by fraternity and sorority members and became so inebriated that he went outside, died of hypothermia and alcohol poisoning. That's what it's like to live close to these fraternities and sororities. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Dorothy. I live with Matias at 1841 Cambridge Road. Uh I myself have not had as much time to look over the plans, but I did want to bring up some points. So, one thing that comes to mind is I I hear the message that this uh parcel is uh zoned for this or it's it used to be a fraternity so it can become uh a sorority. We already have other fraternities and sororities nearby and I understand that. It's the scale that concerns me. It seems to me that rather than uh take the what it used to be, maybe adding another level, we are maximizing the capacity to the full extent possible. And um I wonder if that sets a precedent and we should think about that for other homeowners. uh the impact as it was brought up to the valuation of of our houses um the neighborhood feel. So just because something could doesn't mean it should. And whether or not you approve this plan, I highly urge you to at least put in certain precautions. And one thing that uh does concern me is not just the aesthetics with the removal of the trees, but soil stability is impacted when you remove the that high number of mature trees. 50 saplings is not going to replace what 50 mature trees brought as far as uh soil stability. Um, and I'd like to know that there's going to be precautions for any runoff or underlying

infrastructure um impacts um to the surrounding houses. So, uh I appreciate that the the design team has done what they could to mitigate it, but coming from a homeowners perspective, I'd like to know that there are guard rails in place during construction if this gets approved. and at the very least if this does get approved to consider modifying the design so that the impact is not so large. Um I'm a University of Michigan alumni. I was a student I guess a long time ago. I don't like to think of it that long. I get it. You know students need places to live and I'd like for us all to be good neighbors. I don't begrudge these students a place to live. That's that's not where I'm coming from. I just think we can do a better job of this. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else in chambers who would like to address us at this time?

Thanks, Chair Wise. Ken Garber again, 28 Mill Court. Just so you know, several miles away from this project, um, as usual, I want to address the sustainability elements. Um, Mr. Miller from CORE mentioned the partial building electrification. Um, 6 months ago, CORE wrote that two systems were being evaluated for that, ground source heat pumps and air source heat pumps, VRF, um, variable refrigerant flow. Um, so I have I would have a question for Mr. Miller. what HVAC solution do they finally settle on and they're going to use? Um, always curious about that. Um, he did mention also that they have to run natural gas for the kitchen and for the first floor water heating. I want to make it clear they do not have to do this. Um, if you look at the Wolverine Village dormatory, the new U of M dorm, um, 900 seat dining hall, full service commercial kitchen, all electric. Um, there's not a gas line in sight. It can't be done. Um, the uh, Mr. Hill also invoked 820 in um, describing his plan. That is highly misleading. Um, this project checks almost none of the boxes in the H20 plan. It would, as some others have pointed out, it would have to have rooftop solar, um, on-site battery storage. Um, it would have to be net zero energy, incorporate passive house design standards. Um, does none of these things. Um, now I'm not necessarily knocking the project as a whole, but I'm tired of petitioners saying that it's somehow A20 compliant when it almost completely isn't. So, um I would urge future petitioners to actually read the plan and given the

fact that we no longer have sustainability review by OSI um and for the commission as it always has to critically look at the actual elements of a plan and go beyond the rhetoric of the petitioner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garber. Manager Kelly, do we have online participants with their hands raised? Luis Vasquez, you have three minutes to address the planning commission.

Hey, greetings. Uh, Luis Vasquez, 909 Barton Drive in Ann Arbor, Michigan on, uh, the north side. I have three points to address. Uh, first is, uh, does this project really address any of the housing needs of Ann Arbor? I mean, if you look at what my opinions have been in the past, well, this project would be a 10-story building. I mean, gosh, if you're going to knock down a 1894 uh historic property and, you know, put in a bunch of parking, uh, no. Um, no, I would rather have the 10-story building. Uh second point I would like to make is about neighborhood values. I think having all those parking spaces and knocking down trees is not a good thing. No. Um please um adjust uh your parking needs. Third point I would like to make is you see that sign in front of you all of you sitting there in the audience tonight A2 SU okay sustainable energy utility I'm going to challenge this sarity to encourage all Ann Arbor University of Michigan sorarities and fraternities to join this S EU sustainable energy utility. Look it up. Thank you for your time. Good night.

There are no other callers with their hands raised.

Thank you, manager Kelly. I will close. What is this? The public hearing. I have a lot. It's whether it's a public comment, a dedicated public comment or a public hearing and I get them wrong and you all correct me later and I will read the motion and then that will uh enable us to start our discussion and we'll interact with some of the stuff that we heard as well as with the petitioner and with staff. Okay. Uh so the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission after hearing all interested persons and reviewing all relevant information including the accompanied site plan finds the petition substantially meets the standards in chapter 55 unified development code section 2 excuse me 5.29.5D 29.5D special exceptions and section 5.16.1.E fraternity and sorority house and student cooperative housing and therefore approves the Kappa Delta sorority house at 805 Oxford Road for 75 occupants. This approval is based on the following findings. The proposed use will be consistent with the R2B two family dwelling and student housing district which provides for residential use including special exceptions for fraternity and sorority houses and student cooperative housing. Two, the proposed use will not adversely impact traffic, pedestrian, bicyclist, circulation or road intersections based on its location, excuse me, based on the location. Oxford Road provides access to the site and the proposed use is consistent with the existing and surrounding uses traffic impact. Three, the subject site meets the use specific standards for on-site residential manager. Minimum lot area and minimum lot area per occupant, principal

building floor area and screening. Four, the maximum number of occupants shall be established as 75. Five, a site plan documenting the existing and proposed conditions of the site has been submitted as a part of this application and that the Ann Arbor Planning Commission approves the Kappa Delta uh sorority 805 Oxford Road site plan version 5 dated March 11, 2026. alternate natural features mitigation for 92 in of tree mitigation and the development agreement moved by Commissioner Weatherbe seconded by Commissioner Mills. So now we're going to go into our discussion of this site and we'll entertain some of the things that we heard from you. We'll entertain uh some questions we have for the petitioner and we'll uh interact with staff. So with that, who at the table who would like to kick us off? Commissioner Mills. All right. Thank you. Um I want to start out with a question I think is for staff or for the developer, which is about um the development agreement. I didn't see anything addressing electric HVAC in there. Did I miss it?

It's not in the development agreement.

Okay. So from my perspective, I appreciate the question that we heard from uh Mr. Garber about what it is, but because it's not in the development agreement, I um there's nothing that would require that it be all electric HVAC. No. So I think that's immaterial to our discussion. like unless that is something that makes it into the development agreement. I'm assuming that this is not going to be a building with electric HVAC because there's nothing holding them to that. Um the other question that I have is about occupancy and how we arrived at 75. And I'll just say that I did the math and technically according to the lot area it could be like 130 something.

Yes. Yes. So um for everyone there is a minimum lot area per occupant and that's 350 square ft and for this lot it's about 139 something like that would be the absolute maximum for zoning standards that doesn't get into building stuff. Um they are proposing 47 beds and the code requires that the special exception use and the motion establish an occupancy number. Um so they could go up higher um not with this building. Um so the number 75 is about 150% of what the number of beds that they have and it's just to give some flexibility because increase in occupancy would mean coming back for another special exception use. So if they in the future if this is approved and they're able to squeeze another bed and make a double into a triple, they wouldn't have to come back for a special exception use. Obviously not the case if they need to add floor area that requires a site plan and then they'll go through that. But it's just a flexibility and that number can be anything as long as it's under 138ish. Okay, great. And just from my perspective, I uh have gray hair and I have also been on the planning commission for a while. Um some might say too long and have seen that I don't know. um uh maybe my husband um or my family um have seen um uh sororities or fraternities, I can't remember which one, come back before us for internal modifications, no changes like effectively taking a dining room and making it smaller, making it into living space and um have to go through this process effectively for no external modification. So the idea of having a buffer is very sensible to me overall just because uh especially in the case where there where may be able to be remodeled without that. I

think that that makes a whole lot of sense. Um one more question and then I have a couple comments. So uh the final question is about whether like how what do we do if there there's not regulations I think in any of our things associated with the size of a dining room and how like I don't know how to think about about a um building that may operate as um something that that op that is more like a an event space like h do we have any is that regulated at all in anything or is there something similar?

I'll I'll say something and then maybe um deputy manager Kelly will have something else to add. But for the special exception use purposes, there's nothing about dining. Um it's about occupancy. about the other like 11 things that they're asked to respond to and you're asked to consider. Um it may be a question also for the applicants about you know what the intended use is, what they see it as, but in in terms of the things that you're evaluating it against, there's nothing that responds to dining rooms.

Okay. Thanks. Okay. So, here's my two cents, but I'm I always learn from the conversation with others. So, um, this is a zoning district that allows for sororities, fraternities, like intentionally. Um, and it was already noted like just because it's not there today doesn't mean it's not going to be there, right? Like this this is not actually a reszoning from a place that doesn't allow that to a place that does. It's been allowed forever. Um well not forever but figuratively for a while like um I though think that there's a lot of parking like zero parking spots are required zero. And so I think that there's an awful lot of space that is dedicated to something that I'm not uh I'm actually not totally anti- parking because recognizing when there are people here like they may need to go somewhere but surface area like parking that is not underground for example right that that is requiring removing more natural features I think is it's that part of the SEU that concerns me uh or the special exception use um standards. I also want to note that this is residential and it is in our new comp plan. We talk about residential, but our new comp plan also talks about addressing scale. And so I appreciate that in the staff report there was um consideration given to what we're thinking about in terms of height. But the other thing that is in the comp plan is thinking about maximum building sizes. And actually what's really really hard here is that for a sorority there is a minimum building area not a maximum building area like that is our existing

code is that says it needs to be at least 5,000 square ft minimum and so that is a tension and um here I I don't know that we how we address that sorry you don't understand my comment or not yet can you finish sorry and and we'll All right. And then you can go back. I was just going to say No, no, it's okay. I just want you to be able to finish.

Yeah. Um, so I will tell you I am grappling with the fact that I we all voted to put things in and but I it was important to me that we talked about like as we're thinking about what our residential areas look like. I live in a place with lots of multif family and some of it it it scale matters like um it it doesn't make a difference to me if it's single family or multif family. I think the scale does matter and how how to think about that. I don't know. I saw that there are other um similar uses around but I didn't see kind of what is the scale of them. I and maybe I missed that in the presentation unless somebody has kind of how this compares to the existing scale of the surrounding uses. Um I don't know that that I think that but particularly coupled with the surface parking is the is is what I'm really um gives me pause on this. It's not the the number of people. It's not necessarily traffic. Like this is a place where people can walk or they can Uber and it's a shorter Ubering than coming in from the townships, right? And like they're going to the same place regularly, right? Um it but it's it's the parking that honestly will just be storage for cars an awful lot, not actually moving of those cars. And that that feels not right. So, two things I heard from you were um in your comments were about the parking and the scale of the um the actual development.

And let's not talk about all electric unless it's in writing. Exactly. Who else would like to go? Uh council member Dish. Yeah. I don't want to speak yet, but I just wanted to um I I understand. No, I want to ask what's happening. No, I just mean I'm not going to say what I'm thinking yet, but I want to ask Commissioner Mills if she could explain a little bit more. Um when you point out that um what our code does is it it says there's a minimum lot area that's required for a building like this or minimum lot size. Sorry, not area. Right. It's actually the building itself has to be a minimum of 5,000 square ft.

Okay. Right. Okay. So that's and that's different than the lot. The lot. Yeah. So this is 24ish,000 square ft. So about four to five times. Okay. Right. So it so that's what our code says is a minimum size building of 5,000 for a sorority or fraternity for a sorority or fraternity. That's interesting. But doesn't uh but then doesn't limit what the outer bound of that is. Although there are other requirements that limit the outer bound of something on a parcel. I'm just trying to make um I was trying to understand what and then you so your point you were trying to get at what was that

uh there's something that you feel like we can't speak to or our code doesn't currently have any sort of

except in the R1E we district which is not here in the R1E we effectively say you can't have a you can't build a house that's more than 2,000 square feet like that's what it says we don't do that in any other districts including this one so there's nothing that says We regulate how big that building can be is my in my understanding by setbacks or by height, but not by square footage. And I and that is something that I think ought to be on the table in a conversation about when we look at the residential zones associated with a comp plan like um is might building maximum sizes be appropriate, but that's not on the table right now. Just one just

and this is still not your comment period yet. All right. Yeah. No, I have to think but um but so I'm just trying to say that you have raised uh a concern about scale and scale is one thing that we would get at when we looked at the maximum size of a building relative to the sizes and massing uh in relation to buildings in the context. and you are suggesting that the comp plan asks us to consider that and the code doesn't give us much footage I mean foothold sorry not footage foothold for doing that but you are pointing to an issue around the scale of this building thank you

thank you council member Dish who else would like to speak at this time uh commissioner weatherby so I just have a couple comments um can you face your mic

I will once I have my comments here so Um, one of the things about the usage of this is I looked up and this actually lot was a fratern has been a fraternity or sorority since at least 1951 until relatively recently. Um, looks like it was ta oops in 1997, ta kappa epsilon in 1972, f sigma kappa kappa in 1951. Um, so it is actually historically it has been a fraternity or sorority more often than it's been a single family house. So that just it it's it was interesting to me to to note that. Um, and it has been um, while I do think it was a historic building and there are parts of it, it looks like it has beautiful fireplaces. Um, a history of sorority and fraternity use over the years. I don't think as far as as a historic building, it is um, it has been very remodeled on the inside at least. Um but uh and also they can they could cut down their trees regardless like this lot could be cleared of trees. I appreciate that we have um regulations in place that mean that if you are proposing a building like this that you can't just cut down the trees and that you have to mitigate them, you have to pay in. There's a lot of um we we have made it so that helps the the city as much as possible. But that is um a double-edged sword for the people who live next door because I mean there will be some tree loss. Um I know in my neighborhood we had a a large

development go in and there's actually a lot more trees now than there used to be because they did have to mitigate, but those trees are smaller. And so, you know, it it definitely um I know that that isn't the fact that the city gets more trees is good, but I know that's hard for the the neighbor direct neighbors because it it doesn't always translate to that big tree I used to look at is now not there. Um but I did have a question. The precautions for runoff impacts on neighbors and I don't know who best to do you want to start with the petitioner? Yeah.

Okay. Can we have someone from the petitioner come to the podium and answer Commissioner Weatherbee's question around storm runoff? Did you have a more specific question? Yeah.

Sort of, you know, with uh trees being cut down, with buildings going up. I mean, there's always a messy phase of a of a project. What sort of um uh what can what can you say to us and to the people who would live around here as far as you know impacts to their properties and with with things like tree demolition and building demolition and and how that might affect them cuz it does sound like there are slopes and angles and things here.

Yeah, the property has a lot of slope to it. Um it goes in all directions. So any of the neighbors around the property currently get runoff from this property. Um as part of the project, you know, we will install our required soil erosion silt fencing, tree protection fencing around the outside edge of the property that will minimize during the first phase of construction runoff exiting the property. As the project is built, the the the site will get lowered and the retaining walls will be installed. At that point, the outside edge of the property, everything will be contained within the property limits. So, only the edge where we're protecting all the trees will continue to run off the property as it has in the past, but no additional impervious surface will enter any of our neighbors property. It will all be contained um through storm water collection system including all the gutters and downspouts. Um we have actually also installed some additional provisions cuz we get some pretty heavy rains um that have additional catch basins in the rear of the building that will also help collect any overflow u from the property. Um I don't know if I can pull it up here. We don't have it. Um you'll see that the the house itself has a pitched roof around the outside, but in the center that actually is depressed down. So only the first half of the front of that peak runs out to the gutters. Everything else runs into the center of the building which has a central storm system that runs through the building down directly into the underground storm water system. Um, we designed the storm water system to have pre-treatment and contain 120% of our storm water requirements for the entire

site. Um, within that storm system, we construct a new storm water um, pipe from our property up to Hill Street. U, went with quite a bit of design with the city's engineers to get that accomplished. Um, so that our water will not run out into Oxford. It'll be controlled through a storm pipe into the city storm water management system. Okay. And that includes uh the proposed parking and all the parking. Yep. Everything within the site. Yep.

Okay. Uh with the table's uh permission, I just want to stay here on this uh runoff just for a second if that's okay. Uh so uh could you speak to the neighbors who have expressed concern about the project? uh how they would be able to contact either someone with the development team or with the city if they have runoff issues. Um we will have contact with the um the development team. Um I don't know how best to provide a contact information um for our um I mean it it would be very easy for you just to go to all the neighbors and give them the the proper contact person that they could call so that there would be a a central person.

Okay. Yeah. If they want to see us we can provide that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Who else would like to speak at this time? All right. It's Lee or Norton. Okay. Commissioner Lee.

Yeah. I I think from my standpoint, the standard of evaluation here for the special exception use is pretty specific. Is it consistent with the general objectives of the city comprehensive plan? I'd written down originally, yes. I mean I I I have heard some actually good points from the neighbors again. I I think about kind of the transients of uh they are there for I don't know 2 3 years. I'm not really sure how long they normally stay there for. Um and what is the general objectives of the city comprehensive plan? I've been read rereading the residential. I do think this falls into a resi. Can I just get a confirmation

of the three zones or right now it's are two but um the future land use plan kind of specifies that it would be residential. So the um single family duplexes, triplexes permitted by right cottage court, stack flats, town houses and neighborhood commercial corner, small multifamily building buildings up to three stories which that fits and then standards should encouraging development of smaller more flexible homes um addressing may address maximum building size etc. It's doesn't really talk about large kind of Greek life. Um, and that that's where I'm a little bit caught right now. And really the special exception use is the only thing that we really have discretion over. There's that everything else is kind of like comports, but the SEU is where we can kind of exercise does it fit these specific criteria. So, um, again, my my leaning towards is yes. Um, but then I kind of have been really really closely reading about the residential zone whether this specific fits. Is it designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in a manner that's compatible with existing and planned character of the general vincidity? Again, my initial instinct was I mean there are Greek lives uh you know, Greek life houses here. Um in the programming, I suppose defense there's a house manager that's designated. Sorities generally have um again somebody who's there specifically on site. Uh that said the um the points as to what it abuts um kind of like whether it's majority uh residential versus not is also I'm I'm is it designed constructed operated maintained in a manner. Basically all of this is me thinking out loud right now because I'm actually a little bit in between on this one. I I approached this initially from the standpoint when we take a residential use and push it to 47 to 75 beds. That's a decent I think

upgrade in the overall utility or utilization of the site. How u sorry um I'll keep going. U however I'm I'm wondering um I do have a specific question as to the general character. I was noting that there is a 6-foot fence that is proposed and I was looking for the specific details of that but was unable to find it on the site plan. Could I get the petitioner to give me an understanding of what the buffer looks like or at least like a description of what that might look like?

Hi. Yeah. Uh I can provide I mean I can actually show you. I do have the detail right here. We are proposing just a standard 6ft wood picket fence, a solid fence. Um however, we do have a provision that the the fencing shall be coordinated with all of the adjacent property owners. So if they have specific preferences about what that would look like, that would obviously be taken into consideration. Um, and in addition to the the privacy fence, we are also proposing um uh evergreen screening with hedges. So, it's a it's a combination of the two, but I can show you the detail. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um Oh, yeah. I I couldn't find this 5.4. I don't know that this was on.

Okay. Thank you. Um I don't know if anybody could see, but uh you probably can't see. That's okay. Uh it looks like a regular fence. Um the the question is also what it u what impact can neighbors anticipate from like the visual like vista given that um I did look at exactly where the structure will be located kind of on the site. Um what will the visual impacts be when it is a 28t tall building relative to you know how tall are the evergreens going to be? Let me ask that question. Uh so we're doing as much as we can to preserve the existing trees around the perimeter of the site. So, a lot of those that Well, the ones on the I'm going to ask you again to speak into the mic. It's so that the online people can hear you as well.

I understand. I never I never think about that. So, on the southern boundary, there are very tall substantial old evergreens that do a good job of screening. On the um the what is that? The east side of the property and the north side of the property. They're primarily deciduous trees. So, in the the summer months, the canopy is is really leafed out, but during the winter months, there's not. So, we are bolstering that with additional evergreens to provide additional screening during those those winter months. Um, and just to to point out also the the current house actually will sit slightly lower than the existing house because the current house is, as we've said, um, recessed into the the hillside a bit there. Um,

so as far as viewsheds, it, you know, it's not substantially lower, like a ton, but it is a a the roof line is lower than the existing uh the existing house. I don't know if we have the the graphic here to show that. Um, so all that to say, we're we're doing as much as we can with the landscaping. It will be a mix of conifers and the existing deciduous trees as well as coniferous shrubs to fill in that understory layer as well where there might be gaps. Gotcha. Thank you.

Yeah. Um, another question then I have for the petitioner just as it relates to there's no real governance uh specifically to this but just from a programming standpoint I want to for all the commenters that we had uh what what is the petitioner's response as it relates to a dining hall dedicated to 200 plus people are there activities or gatherings um and part of me asking is is it intended to be a social hub for 200 plus people or is it really specifically for the housing of So could get a better understanding of kind of why a dining room would be designed in that way.

Sure. The so the dining room is set up to have maybe a couple of times a year kind of full capacity and that would be for large chapter meetings or some special event where all of the all of the local chapter members need to attend. During all of the other times, there's going to be tables and really kind of fixed furniture that's going to limit that occupancy closer to like maybe 75 to 100. And that is going to be really for the people that live there, some of the some of the other chapter uh chapter members that aren't living in the house coming for for meal events and things like that. That's that's really going to be the day-to-day use of that space.

Okay, got it. Um, that's helpful. Thank you. Um,

so again, uh, getting back to the special exception use evaluation again consistent with general objective of the city comprehensive plan. Um, a little bit still up in the air for me. Will be designed, constructed, operated, maintained in a manner that's compatible with existing plan character. While I'm empathetic to the neighbors that live there, uh I I also ask myself, if not necessarily here where there are great life present, I kind of ask myself like where else? I mean, really, Pittsfield. I mean, I don't know if that's like a reasonable um uh kind of destination. So, again, I'm a little bit uncertain on that one. Consistent with the general character of the neighborhood considering population density, design scale, bulk, uh we've talked about that. and then will be not will not be detrimental to the use, peaceful enjoyment, economic value or development of neighboring property or the neighborhood area in general. This is probably where we have some of the most um I suppose uh clear disagreements as it relates to that particular uh the neighbors are certainly opposed to it. So um and then the last one is not have a detrimental effect on the natural environment and so the evaluation of the development agreement as it relates to electrification and the evaluation of uh the systems that are proposed. Let me ask a question for the petitioner um specifically. So on the commercial kitchen front, um were there any considerations to try to do a fully electrified um building and envelope in general and what kind of evaluations were done from that standpoint?

Yes, we we definitely evaluated it and and there were some some cost decisions that were made and looking for uh equipment consistency between houses and different things like that. That that's really what what drove the what drove the decision. Okay, got it. Understood. Sure. Thank you very much. I've talked for a while now. I'll concede the floor. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Nordon,

I have um maybe for the architect. I'm curious um who made the decision on where to actually situate the house on this parcel. I don't know who Well, and what I'm trying to get at is this is frustrating. You're placing this structure just as close to the neighboring properties as you possibly can to do the most disruption to the neighborhood when it looks to me like you could have scooched it much closer to the road and and solved a lot of these problems. I don't understand why the design was done this way. So we we worked with the city of Ann Arbor um quite closely to to site the building for ingress and egress out of the site and fire department um fire department access around the building. So that that's that's really were some of the driving factors for where it got located on the on the site.

Can I uh ask a clarifying question right where you are? So, are you saying that the fire department required you to place the building where it is?

No. The fire department required us to have access to two sides of the building with maintaining a minimum of 150 ft hose lay around the building. So, that requires us to get the fire truck next to the building um along the parking area in order to gain that hose lay distance around the the building. Can I ask another followup right here? Uh, so I was on the site today and I was on the site uh yesterday and going up the driveway right now. So, how how are we going to get a fire truck up that slope? So, how are you lowering that site enough so that that's not a a real big pull because a standard fire truck trying to go up uh that slope right now would be problematic.

Yep. That's an excellent question. Um, it's one we're building a new entrance drive off of Oxford Road. Fire department requires a maximum of 10% slope on a driveway for no longer than 150 ft. So, we had to lower the entire site in order to get a fire truck into the site. We also had to create a front turnaround space not only for the fire truck, but for the trash um receptacle. Um, the city requires that a trash truck not back out into a street and it must have a space to turn around. That pretty much forced us to put a turnaround in the front of the property. We tried numerous ways to bring this house forward, but as soon as you bring that house forward, you've got no room in the back to turn a fire truck around and provide access um for the trash truck to come in, turn around, and exit as well. Um, I can tell you we went through probably 15 iter iterations of this project with different buildings to try to find the one that reduced the impact to the natural features, the trees around the site and provided the city's requirements for fire access and uh, trash receptacles.

Back to you, uh, Commissioner Nort, and I'll save my comments and question when I get to speak. The other question I had was why you weren't using induction stoves instead of gas, but you kind of already answered that your the cost. Um, we have an induction stove. It works great. You don't need to have gas to have a really good cooking um opportunity. I would encourage you to re revisit that decision. One of the things that also drove that is DTE doesn't have the power to support our kitchen and electric case at this time because they're working for data centers or they just don't have a little bit in that area to support that type of infrastructure. Yeah.

This is frustrating. It's especially frustrating to me to hear that the fire department is driving this. I um arg The fire department would like to have two-lane highways around everything to maximize getting firet trucks through as quickly as possible. And I'm really sorry to hear that that's what's driving this decision because I think it's a pretty lousy I mean I'm not shooting at you guys. I if in fact you tried every which way you could to push it forward to the law and I'm glad you tried that. It just seems to me this this um but let me just say I I recognize folks concerns um with the sorority life and frustrations with it. Um I don't imagine it's pleasant. This will accommodate. The reality is the university keeps admitting more students. They have to go somewhere. Um this will um provide a fair bit of housing even though it's high in luxury um that's not there currently. That will help the housing market. it's starting, you know, it's taking pressure off of um other places these students would go and live. So, there are benefits that way, but in terms of finding a design to do this in a way that minimizes the impacts to the to the setting, um squitching the property right in the corner, right next to everybody, just seems to me to be a really bad option. But I I understand you're kind of left without choices if the city services folks are telling you that's the only place you can put it. So I don't know what I don't have any other questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Norton. We'll go to Commissioner Weatherbe and then Commissioner Hammer and then I imagine Commissioner Dish will be ready. Um I just wanted to do a followup. Uh do you have a letter from DTE stating that you don't have that they don't have the electrical capacity? We don't have I I wouldn't say we have an official letter, but we do have we have communication with them that the available capacity and and close proximity is not there. It would take extensive upgrades, regional upgrades to be able to get the electric to the building. Thank you, Commissioner Hammer Schmidt.

Thank you. Um my first and potentially only question I just have to say, but my only question is for staff. picking up on the trash and fire. Are these requirements due to the number of proposed occupants in this building? I'm just imagining that you wouldn't need a fire truck to be able to turn around in a site as it currently exists with a single family home.

Uh it is different for single family homes and multi multif family homes. I can't say exactly what the difference is for like the number of beds and things like that, but solid waste won't pick up um carts. they they need a dumpster when it's more. So, I can't speak to the specifics, but yes, it is definitely different than what the requirements would be for a single family house. Okay. Um, let me also ask this followup. If the original structure, which sounds like it used to be used as a fraternity or sorority, was maintained, but they moved in a bunch more people. Do you think that these fire like how would that impact the fire and trash requirements? You're not building a new building now. So, how would it impact it? Fire code is very complicated. So, I don't want to try and answer that one because I don't think I can. Um, it's fair. I mean, would they would they maybe would there just be like a cap on occupants? It's like, well, you can't you can only have like 10 people living here.

Maybe. I think there's like it it can be classified as something different which means it goes to a different code and so the yeah I've learned a lot from the fire marshall I've not learned the answer to that. Um solid waste does calculations per occupant and how much trash they'll generate and things like that. So depending on what those calculations say um maybe something might be different but I I can't tell you how.

Okay. Um, I would say that I share Commissioner Norton's frustration with the placement of the building, understanding, I guess, the why. I don't like it. I mean, I don't really understand it. Um, but I understand it. Um, but I have other issues as well. Um, so there are many things that we can't specifically require in developments that are by right where we're not changing the zoning district. we can't, you know, require anything specific for um sustainability even though we always ask and always want to when we have the banners in front of us. Um but because there is a special exception use um there are standards for that and these are not necessarily cut and dry which is why we're having this deliberation. Um I so for me like that's what I'm focusing on more and I'm looking specifically at numbers four and five. Um so four is how may the proposed use um impact the use peaceful enjoyment, economic value or development of the immediate neighborhood and general vicinity. Um I mean these are these are like fairly subjective. I think I I'm not convinced I'm more convinced by the neighbors that came out and spoke against this than I am by the response in um the document from the petitioners. Um the response was that it will have no material impact, but looking at the plan and the scale, I'm not quite sure you how you can argue that. And then more concerning to me I think um how may the proposed uses affect the environment or natural features on the site and in the general vicinity. And in our unified development code it specifically says we need to determine if it will not have a detrimental effect on the natural environment. And this is where I think for me there are a lot of detrimental effects. um demolishing the existing home which and I you know I have not been in it but I looked at it on Zillow and it looks like a perfectly it does

not look like it's falling down. It looks like it's completely usable. It's over 8,000 square ft. I mean it's not a small home. I feel like it could have been reappropriated into something else. Like I just have a lot of issues with demolishing something that seems like a perfectly good home technically historic or not. Um, but but if a home built in the late 1800s is going to be taken down, I would want to see the most sustainable building in Ann Arbor being proposed on this site. And I do understand the reality of construction costs, but you don't have to have natural gas in a building. You could be committing to all electric and you could be writing that into a development agreement. You could have added solar. I mean, the roof is not designed that well for and I don't know the trees and everything, but I don't even know if that was explored. There really are alternatives, but you have to try hard. You cannot just ask DTE once. They are going to tell you no. There are ways that you can do this. Um, and it's frustrating that the city of Ann Arbor has this strong commitment to sustainability. We just aren't seeing it. And I do understand the realities, but it's still frustrating. Um, and then looking at the new site plan, which thank you to the um, community member that brought us this um, specifically, it looks almost entirely impervious with a substantial amount of what I have to have to assume is concrete in parking. Um, I assume it's going to be concrete and not an impervious surface. And as you've already heard, we don't even require parking anymore. Um, so these are these are things that are very concerning to me. I agree with a couple of the commenters. Um, I think we can do a better job of this. Like I completely agree with that. And then um I think you Mr. Patterson had said and this is not a verbatim quote but you you basically said it's it's all that you're bringing like all these issues the issues that we have with density. Not that I think density has issues, and I

don't think that's exactly what you said, with none of the benefit benefits of increased affordability and increased housing for longerterm residents of Ann Arbor. So, I think I'm at a no just so all you guys at the table know where I'm at. Wow, you're helping us whip votes. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Dish. Okay. So, there is I am extremely concerned about number five, which is how the proposed uses affect the environment. And I agree with Commissioner Hammer Schmidt that demolishing uh an apparently fairly recently refurbished existing home, demolishing the entire structure is not a particularly sustainable thing to do. Um although you own it. Um, I understand that the amount of impervious surface on this site is related to fire and trash issues, but to me that is an indication that this project is out of scale. That kind of impervious, the addition of that much impervious surface to give us just 47 beds. I mean, I don't know when this used to be a fraternity or a sorority, how many people it housed then. I would like to know that. That would be useful information for me to think about what this project is doing for housing density here. So we are not talking about a campus

adjacent area and we are not talking about a place where it would be appropriate to have a higherrise um structure such as 5 to six or 10 to whatever we've approved elsewhere. So I don't I don't know what the in I mean I'm not going to compare its increase to it being a single family home. I want to compare its increase to when it used to be a fraternity or sorority. And so I would love to have staff research that because it would help me think about this. But um these fire code and trash requirements are related to the number of inhabitants. There is a number under which solid waste doesn't ask for a dumpster. And there is a number under which you don't need this much room for a firetruck to be able to get in and get out. And so I mean scale is otherwise somewhat subjective but I think these are objective indicators. Um and there is just nowhere in our comp plan that we say we want um 16 spaces for 47 beds. There's nowhere that we say that. And there is that uh um can somebody quickly the parking ratio I'm

it was 1 to three um one space for three residents. Okay. So how does that compare to Beakman? Uh Beakman was I think it's 6. So can you make the other one a point? Oh you want me to do math at the table? Well I I I don't I don't have success when it is 33.

So it' be 33. Okay. Thank you. So it is lower. All right. It is lower. Um but still I mean that is uh not something that we're encouraging. And um I will underscore what others have mentioned that as far as sustainability is concerned. This project is not compatible with the general objectives of the comprehensive plan. There is no solar. There are no batteries. There is as Mr. Vasquez has called in and suggested no commitment to be part of the SEU. Um I think the answers about we need gas for this and is is they are just not we don't see we have seen other buildings do better and if DTE cannot supply the electricity for this building because there isn't capacity in the area um that is another indication that this is out of scale in terms of the number of inhabitants that it wants to add and you know we are always in the build business of tradeoffs And I'm feeling like the tradeoffs here are not the payback that I'd like to see. I mean, I'd prefer to see somebody come do a gut rehab of this thing and house 20 people or I don't know, whatever it used to be. I don't know. I mean, I don't love the gut rehab either, but obviously um cuz that's not very sustainable. But knocking down a building is big. And when we do that, we get more out of it. Typically in this city, we have been getting way more units out of building tearowns. Uh especially when we're not talking about tearowns of um is it wrong to say derelict housing or rundown would be better? I don't know. Um so I have just I really have reservations about this and um to make a full judgment about it, I would I would like to know more about what used to be how many people used to be housed there. We often

know that when we look at these things.

So, uh, hearing uh the my colleagues at the table, I want to, uh, ask manager Kelly to, uh, help us, uh, with our conversation before I make my comments. Uh, first of all, uh, could you just apprise the table of the special use exception and the discretion that we have? Many of us at the table have noted um that there are concerns about the natural features maybe even um the in adverse impact for traffic, pedestrians, bicyclist or creation, road intersections, etc. Um I have had mixed feedback about whether or not we can make a decision on that, you know, as a deciding factor. And so if you could just apprise us of how we can uh wrestle with some of the concerns that have been articulated uh since this is a special use exception and then after hearing from you I will make my comments.

Uh yes there is a uh area within the special exception use that speaks to the conditions uh for special exceptions use. you may impose uh reasonable conditions that reduce detrimental effects to a minimum. Uh so that is possible. Also, you could for example um say, you know, we're not happy with the alternative features mitigation. We'd like to uh you know, we would we would like to uh see something conditioned on uh keeping more trees and we'd like to postpone and have have you come back or there's also the option to express your the general nature of your concerns, which you all have been doing, and postpone the item. uh to give the applicant an opportunity to take another uh chance at the drawing board um for staff to research some of the you know past conditions see if there are any scenarios which might be more favorable to uh the table that's of course you know so I think if I'm hearing you correctly uh we have some discretion we can create some conditions based on the conditions of the SEU We could uh ask the petitioner to uh redesign some things based on our concerns. We could also table uh this matter to a date certain in a future meeting.

Did I hear you and understand you correctly?

I might recommend uh potentially not a date certain. That is fine because that gives more time sense to have a if there are significant changes to have a new public hearing to have new notification to the neighbors because there is strong interest in the in this development from the neighborhood. Um okay, thank you. I'll be back because I have some more questions uh for you uh uh planner Kelly. All right, so my comments. So I I did spend some time on at the site uh to try to understand uh mainly uh from the comments uh from the couple at uh 8:30 uh 1835 uh Cambridge. So, I drove the property, then I looked at your property, but you're both up a hill, so I didn't want to trespass in order to uh take a look, and I didn't want to knock on your door and introduce myself because I knew I might see you here, and it might be considered inappropriate for me to talk to you prior to this time. Um, so I I think my big concerns uh for the petitioner uh is the parking. Uh, this parking is out of scale. um 16 uh parking spaces here is completely unnecessary uh in my view. And I'm trying to reconcile what I'm hearing you say, which is you needed the space for the fire trucks, you needed the space for the garbage trucks, uh and then you needed the space for the holding of the snow. Um but that so like let me clarify that. So, if somebody wants to come up and have a dialogue with me, this will be helpful because it's going to go to what I do next. Oh, there's a new speaker.

Hi. Um, good evening. I'm Spence Herald. I'm a national consultant and I do sarities all over the country.

Sure. So, um, your question on parking, we actually backed into the parking numbers. One, we have to have a couple spaces. They're going to be for snow. Take those. We have to have a couple for EV. Take those out. We need to have a visitor parking spot or two. We need to have parking spots when there's a move in. Otherwise, we're going to be having people on the street um with it. We have a cook. We have cleaning people that will come. So, we backed into this. We would love more parking. I mean, we really would, but we can't get it here. And so we backed into the minimum number that we felt that was necessary to have the le least inconvenience on the neighbors here and also met the meet the minimum needs of the daily comingings and goings. This is not a long-term parking lot. This is actually a functional parking lot for the people that will be going there day in and day out. House director um other people like that. Um there was also mentioned earlier and I wanted just to clarify this about electricity and about the existing house before we actually

before before you do there cuz I'm I this is my time. Sorry.

No, it's okay. You know, you you didn't know. So I'm I'm just letting you know this is my time. Uh and we're going to stay on the parking. So the only reason why you have to do the EV is because you have so many parking spaces. If you reduce the number of parking spaces, it's proportional, right, to the number of EV. So when you say it, the way that you say it, you make it sound as if we are requiring you to do it. That is not our decision. You are in charge of this site. You decide how much parking to be there. And based on that parking, it then flows that you have to have different things. So this is my issue like uh as the 4 and 1/2 years I've said at this table, the number one thing that I talk about is parking. We have too much parking. We have too much car space. So, I'm going to say something that's not going to make the neighbors happy. I wish you would extend the housing into this parking. That would be better uh for my point of view than having this parking here. But that that's just it uh for me for the parking. So, thank you for that. I'm going to keep going and if I need to ask you to come back, I will uh on that. So the the big challenge that I am and and this is another thing that I've discovered because planner deo told me this whatever the fire marshall wants the fire marshall gets. I think that was a direct quote. Uh and so um I'm just really perplexed uh that we have to situate this building in the way that we as these developer or this petitioner has in order to meet this requirement. I don't I'm I'm very reticent to um uh have any opposition to housing. There are just too many people in our community that need to be housed. Um as I drove in this evening, I count the number of people that I see standing outside the Delana Center. There's somewhere between 35 and 50 people who are there that are looking for a bed tonight. So, it is just incomprehensible to me to sit at this table and vote

against housing. I cannot I cannot do that. But I recognize the concern that you all have articulated and I appreciate you all coming. I wanted to say that earlier, but I opened the floor faster than I um should have and I appreciate um just the regular concerns that you have as neighbors. Your neighborhood is changing. You have concerns about the changing nature of your neighborhood. Uh some of what we're dealing with is by right. uh Commissioner Lee and others have noted that uh in this residential area, some kind of housing can go here and a sorority and fraternity can go here because this is an area that's zoned uh for them to exist. And so what we want to do is uh come towards the petitioner in a way that allows them to do what they want to do with the property that they own while recognizing that you as neighbors are impacted by that. And I think we um if the table is in agreement uh could um uh sort of have a dialogue about what we'd like to see in this uh petition that is absent and then uh have a conversation with the petitioner to see if they would like us to just vote on that now or if uh we can uh talk about a opportunity for them to take our feedback and maybe come back uh to us. So, Manager Kelly, I told you I would be coming back to you and now I am. Uh, so what is your um advice and counsel here um given what you just heard me say?

Well, one option that I failed to mention previously which may be obvious is that you could deny find that it does not satisfy um and everyone is clear on that that okay the findings to your satisfaction. So, uh, I want to make sure I put it all out on the table. Um, my recommendation to you, not recommendation, advice, your my advice, my advice to you, I mean, I think that there there are things in this proposal that um, the table is struggling with. Uh, things I've heard are obviously parking was mentioned, the demolition of the home, the scale.

Yeah, I haven't even gotten to the trees there. there's a lot of trees that impact to the neighboring properties and whether or not those items are reflected in the findings and I I think some of you are really wrestling with those. So um you could give the applicant a chance to satisfy those because you are you know if the will of the bodies we want to try to find a way to make a development uh a special exception use that does meet these findings that works with um you know what we would like to see and how we are interpreting the development visa v the development code and you could ask them to uh come back to you with something there. It's would not be over. It would go back to site plan review. They could uh propose changes. Um that of course would have uh a cost to the applicant.

Yeah. And I'm cognizant of those costs. This process is not uh cheap. It is very expensive uh to get to this part and then have to uh redo site plan and resubmit that because they would have to go back through fire um sewer, water, storm water. They'd have to go through engineering again. Those are substantial costs uh that we would be uh sending back to the petitioner. Okay. Uh Commissioner Lee.

Yeah. Um thank you. I wanted to ask what is the current state of the house? We we talked about this and I'm asking the petitioner this question. Can you tell me kind of like what the property is like and did you evaluate ever after kind of reusing the existing because part of uh one of the issues that we're having is embodied carbon within a building, right? The restoration reuse. Obviously, you know the condition of the house better than we do. So, could you just give us a little bit of background on that decision-m?

Yes. When we initially came to look at this property, we did an evaluation and the first consideration was buying the house and using it as it was intended as a sorority fraternity. We looked at that. Then we looked at the life safety features of the house. No sprinklers and we you have to put sprinklers in. Um I'm not letting my daughter who wasn't a sorority live in a house without sprinklers. Uh number two, there's this thing called Americans uh with a disability with disability act. We have to have some compliance. That house has absolutely no compliance. It's on five different levels. Then we look at the rooms. We look at all the uh ins and outs of it. And basically there's no way of doing it without tearing the house down. Um, I've done a lot of evaluations on similar properties in almost 30 states and this one there's no way you could you can't put a square peg in a round hole on this one.

Got it. Thank you. That's helpful. Um, one of the things I did want to say actually is that it does take a tremendous amount of work to get to this point. I also do want to say they are planning on replacing an 8 in uh water supply pipe. Is that correct? Please tell me if that would constitute this is for staff that would constitute as a public benefit. Um it's it's a requirement for them to do their storm water and this was the system that they agreed upon with our review staff for storm water management.

Okay. Gotcha. All right. Thank you. The other thing that I also wanted to point out was I did think about what it means to have this much impermeable surface. Um they are putting in that kind of like filtration device. It was mentioned on the the site plan. I do think also that is a benefit to have that kind of filtration device. Um so there are things to like about it. Uh and I will be a little bit more clear on again we have to be like while there's discretion we have to be as objective as we can in applying the special exception use application. So like I put scoring to it will be consistent with the general objectives of the city comprehensive plan. I gave kind of kind of like a five out of 10. Uh it's kind of a maybe uh because I think this is resi in terms of the overall use and I'm not sure that

and when Commissioner Lee says resi he is referring to residential. Yeah. Sorry. For those of you who might hate to know that

um will be designed, constructed, operated, maintained in a manner that's compatible with existing and planned character of the general vicinity. Designed. Yes. con. I I I tend I looked at the overall um at least the side of it and I think Exonometrics look like it's a actually a nicely built looking house. Constructed, yes, I have no doubt actually the GC will do a very good job. Um operated u yeah kind of this is where I give it kind of a 6 out of 10. Maintain and I think reasonable people would probably disagree on this particular point. Could it be operated in a manner that's compatible? So gave it a 7 out of 10. And then the next point is will be consistent with the general character of neighborhood population density design scale and bulk intensity character of activity. Again I think this is where we have reasonable disagreement on what that is. I gave it a five out of 10 will not be detrimental to the use peaceful enjoyment economic value of the development of the neighboring property. Um I gave this kind of a lower score given the fact that we do have uh folks that are really speaking out against this and I do think that there should be more collaboration done with the residents to talk about what kind of mitigation can they expect. right the arbor vites or the screening hey there is mitigation in terms of noise v visibility I do think that there's a lot of really great things that are being done at the property but I can't reasonably say that this won't be necessarily not detrimental to the neighbors and so I give it a pretty low grade and then will not have a detrimental effect on the natural environment the reason that I asked that question about the existing condition is because there is embodied carbon within that structure you are demolishing it and then obviously we're introd introducing new new um construction to it. U I gave it kind of a lower uh grade as well just given the fact that there are 47 trees I think landmarks I think that's what I heard. I did see a total of I think 50 and change total trees kind of being cut down but also there's mitigation funds 23,000 and change uh also being contributed. So all of that

to say um I I I actually am a little again still a little bit torn u on this particular one but I did want to articulate the rationale and give also the applicant uh the due credit of the amount of work that it takes to get to this place. Um it is a wellthoughtout in terms of site plan. Obviously there is detrimental effects uh or there could be I can't say definitively there won't be detrimental effects to the neighborhood and I think that's the criteria that I'm going off of. Um, I'm inclined to, if pushed to a vote, I'm inclined to vote no on this one right now. Um, but I would like to give the petitioner some time to work with residents to talk about how to properly kind of mitigate uh negative impacts or the detrimental impacts to economic value, things of that nature. So, that's where I stand currently. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Lee. I'm going to use the discretion of the chair, ask the petitioner come up. Let's have a conversation about this so we can figure out where we go from here. So, who wants to come and talk with me for a bit? It's all right. You're all nice. You're you're all friendly. There's no hostility from the table towards you. We're happy to to just have a conversation. But we also need the engineer to come up cuz we're going to ask you for some stuff. So, let's talk about the parking. Could we cut it in half? Two ADA spots. Um,

two snow, one EV, house director, cook. I think you're getting there. Can we get to 10? Can get to eight. How about 12? I We only need What's our What's our uh ratio for Eevee? For residential, it's 90. We're just having a conversation, everybody. We're just having a conversation. Okay. Okay. You just have to make sure the neighbors will not get mad with me because they wanted me to get more parking on site. Okay.

Sure. I I don't think we can address the that part. I'm I'm trying to stay constrained to the site and and where you are. Uh help us understand why no solar, why no geothermal uh in this project at all.

One geothermal was our first option to look at it. Unfortunately, to try to save all the trees and to meet the ADA requirements and everything else, the house ended up where it was and we could not come up with a geothermal system that had any reliability whatsoever to put into it. We've investigated it. I've got projects in Tennessee with it. I've got projects in Texas with that same system. And right now you would almost had to put a gun to my head to recommend that recommend anybody put it in because of all the ongoing maintenance and cost problems we're having with that. So that was our first option to look at that. That's why we came up with this VRF system which is mostly electric for it. But we look at the assembly the amount of the cold and when you can do all that it we the numbers were so close that we couldn't really make sense of it. We have a,000 amp service on this house. That's pretty much typical for any sorarity that that I've been involved with. I've gone up to 1,200. If we tried to go more and do electric everywhere, including a kitchen, and I will tell you, I've built in San Jose. I have got an electric kitchen in North Carolina. I would never put that in my house. The gas is way more efficient. We get it the food cooked quicker. that that one's going to be hard to pass this table, but I appreciate your uh experience. Um, what about solar? If it's a 20 uh 23,000 ft uh facility, that's a lot of solar uh that could uh do that. And I'm I manage a building that's 28,000 square ft that has a southern exposure. And so we would be able to run our entire uh building including our heating and cooling uh if we could get solar on our roof. So why not solar?

Well, we had that option and we looked at it and then my question was what do we do with it with the power and then I was under the the um assumption and I believe I was told that we're going to have to have batteries on site to store it. And I was not I'm thinking I'm not going to have my daughter live in a building that has a bunch of batteries. Your daughter makes a lot of decisions for you. Yeah. Okay. So, I I know that was the reason was concern. All right. Uh, anything else I can ask before I turn to you all to see what you all like to do?

Okay. Manager Kelly, I I think we're good. Thank you so much. I would just like to say I don't feel like there is a real strong coalescence around specific conditions that I'm hearing. I think there's sort of general dissatisfaction and so I think it may be if you would like to identify deficiencies from the findings um either have someone aggregate it yourself as the chair from what you heard or if you would like to do a final round of just the specific to the deficiencies from the findings and then ask the applicant if they would like to address them or have a determination tonight. Okay, that sounds like a plan for me. I was going to move in that direction by asking the table what they wanted to do, but I appreciate uh your guidance. I'll start with you. Um, Commissioner Nordon,

sorry to dug this out. I'm looking at the site plan that you submitted and I'm I think I'm seeing Is this a question to the petitioner? A question to the petitioner. Okay. So, if you all can come back. Uh, Commissioner Norton has a question for you. Come back. There are you're getting your steps in pages. Looks to me like you are showing several different alternative layouts. Several of which that would put the structure closer to the road that I'm guessing you abandoned. Is that So this is the site plan that we got in our packet. C43. Yep. C43. I can speak to that a little bit.

Then C42. Sorry, I can speak to that a little bit. Yes, those are the two alternative analyses that are required by the city. These were um um plans that we initially tried and either the grading didn't work and also more importantly it impacted the natural features to a much greater extent. We weren't able to save as many trees because you have so much parking. But if you reduced your parking, you could move the building forward and not impact so many trees. Correct. This plan also doesn't provide for turnaround for fire truck and trash truck. Which the city is telling you need to have?

Absolutely. Or they're telling you we would really like to see you have that. Yeah. Trash trucks cannot back out onto the city streets. That's right in the city's code. They have to have a place on site to turn around.

So, we're mixing things. So if it was a lower um occupancy, then you wouldn't have to have the the pickup of the trash. And this was the same issue that we had with the Robinson Brothers project on Scio Church, 75 town houses. They wanted to have individual carts, but uh Waste Management said no, you had to have uh two screened um dumpsters on the site. And that was how they wanted to do it. And this is just a defic from my point of view. This is just a deficiency that uh impacts our housing and it makes our housing costs actually more expensive. Okay. I'm sorry to make you come back up. Thank you.

Okay. So, uh what are the things that we've articulated? Um Commissioner Mills uh started us off with parking and the maximum scale and I've subsequently done a little bit of BSNA looking at square footages. That's their property tax. That's the property tax. It's not a euphemism for something else.

Who does the thing? Um, it looks like 707. You folks are in the neighborhood. So 707 Oxford seems like the biggest one. It's the the F gamma is 16,93 ft. Just like that's the biggest that's the largest building that I could find in that area. Um, so this is 36 38% larger. Um, yeah. And so that that would be about the scale and again the parking is on natural features.

Yep. All right. Um Commissioner Dish, you were um concerned about the occupancy of the development. You wanted to know what the previous occupancy of the fraternities that were there. Uh so that you would have an opportunity to compare scale. And you mentioned one other thing which I did not write down but I had in my head.

So the the deficiencies in the um sorry the deficiencies in the analysis for me are number one consistent with the general object objectives of the comprehensive plan and that's for me where parking falls.

Okay. um and where the concerns about the demolition of the building falls fall. Um and then number three is where we bring up the design scale and bulk of this building compared to existing ones. And thank you Commissioner Mills for doing research and math at the table. Um, and then yeah, I think that that Oh, right. And then the environment or natural features. That's where um and this actually overlaps a little bit with the comprehensive plan um because of the sustainability goals of the comprehensive plan. But uh so I think that the lack of solar and the um you know we are urging people to speak with our consultants who can help people understand how to achieve greener buildings early in the process and I haven't heard any evidence that that was done. So for me, number five is a concern because there's no attempt to offset the energy usage of this building. Um, so

thank you, Commissioner Dish. Uh, Commissioner Norton, you uh have articulated concerns around the placement of the building. Is there anything else that if we were going to ask for some reconsideration, I would ask get rid of some of the parking that you have and see if you can use that space to get the building to situate the building to save more trees and give a little bit more space, move the building a little bit forward on the lot that way. I would also ask I I'm still just trying to wrap my head around why a fire truck needs to be able to turn around on the property itself. Um for the same reason that the garbage truck can't back up,

but a fire truck can't back up on out into the streets. It It's probably a a safety issue. We need to revisit our fire. Oh, no, no. I I I want to put that on my work on our work plan to have a conversation with the fire marshall about this. But Commissioner Lee, this is determined by the number of inhabitants, right? Yeah. So, they have to put fire truck clos kind of dancing around the question of do we does do we need to accommodate a structure that would house this many students? But that's really what this is boiling down to. Does it need to be as large as it is? And I'm really grappling with mission is we're trying to provide opportunities for more housing. That's consistent with the plan.

That is, but we're trying to do it in ways that don't undermine things like protecting tree canopy and create storm water problems because that's climate adaptation. That's consistent with the plan. But we have to recognize that uh individual property owners can clear cut their entire trees. We have to recognize that there's a property owner here who owns the property who has a lot he or she could do on this property outside of what is being requested and we need to be reasonable in evaluating these standards that we're working with that are really pretty fuzzy

and hard to hard to evaluate. Um so I'm I'm grappling. I I wish there was some way to get rid of some of the parking and tweak the design to see if it could minimize some of the impacts that the neighbors are concerned about. That's that's what I would prefer. Thank you, Commissioner Norton. Commissioner Lee,

my advice um as I'm looking at the SEU uh application, I would say please focus on uh working with the neighbors about the detrimental to the use, peaceful, enjoyment, economic value of the neighboring properties. I would absolutely try to focus on the detrimental effect on natural environment and really kind of work through okay are get a letter from DT right say hey like we have actually exhausted some of the opportunities in this particular area that said I mean I personally think it's kind of a nice looking building that's from my standpoint so um but I would say that those two are the two kind of areas where it's not scoring in a way that would push it towards um a favorable adjudication on Thank you, Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Weatherby,

I think uh maybe reducing parking and more sustainability, but I have maybe fewer reservations than many of you. So,

all right. Uh for myself, it's the parking. Um I think if you could uh reduce that parking, we we did a little um chair's discretion. You you got down to 12. I want you to get to eight. And then if you work in with Commissioner Norton, uh that might work. But um our planning manager suggested to ask you what your thoughts are about that if you want to take our consideration and come back. I don't think that would necessitate well I guess if you move the building they would have to do a new site plan and if they remove the parking they would have to do a new site plan and both of those things would start the whole clock over. Am I correct? Right. If there's no decision tonight, then they they remain in review, active review.

Excellent. So then they can send everything back as a revision. Allow the applicant to go back to the drawing board to consider. If they would not like a decision tonight, for example, then they would resubmit to us when they are ready with new plans. Those will be routed for new round of reviews and discussions with staff about how modified plans from those in front of you in the packet tonight. But it wouldn't be a complete restart where they'd have to start back at the beginning.

There's already an understanding of what the flood plane is on the site. There's already an understanding of the soil conditions. There's already trees. I'm specifically um concerned about that because there's a lot of cost in development and I want the neighbors to understand that that to get to this process I mean our average time from um application to decision is 280 days uh across this and that is at that's time and that's money uh for somebody. And so we want to be very cognizant here to both hear your concerns, but also make sure that we're not becoming ownorous for developers who would like to build in the community. I don't know who you are, but I haven't asked you to come up yet. Oh, I did. I asked you uh what your thoughts were. So, introduce yourself and tell us what your thoughts are and then uh we will move from there.

I I appreciate it. My name is Ron Natus. Um I'm an attorney from Farmington Hills and I'm representing the the applicant. Um I I um I just wanted to say a couple of things about this question which is what our thoughts are and the biggest thought is um there's a school year that's going to start in a year from September and uh construction schedules and so we are desperate to get something moving forward and obviously we're here we we need a yes so we can't move forward and so um if if there are um significant issues that we can address. Um I I I we are willing to do that and if you table it tonight, we can come back. Um not our first choice by a long stretch. I can assure you. I mean I I just would just s one general comment which is that you know I I and I'm sympathetic to all of the comments. I get all the the the the concerns. Uh but at the end of the day, we it's a sorority that needs to go somewhere and we are putting a lot of people in this house trying to maximize that space. And a couple of ideas here, which is that the the the um floor plan of the current house isn't really much different. I think it's about 8,000 ft² and ours is about well 7,800 ft². So, we're not really taking up a lot more space on the lot. We are going up a we are going up one more story. you're getting more square footage total, but if you look at the if you look at the um the elevations, what we've done is purposely gone down so that we aren't um higher than any of the other houses. We are within the the the framework of what these other houses are in terms of height relative to neighbors. And in fact, on on on one of the sides, if you look at the the design, you see that you're only actually seeing the the top part of the house. and and we have

designed all of this um these buffers um and and perhaps we haven't um adequately u presented that to you tonight to be able to convince I don't think I don't think we've had any concern with the height um of the development talking about the scale talking about the number but that's the square footage over those multiple years well I I don't want to get into a back and forth with you I think you gave me the answer that I needed which was uh you're open to a postponement Is that correct? I I didn't hear what you said that you are open to a postponement of this decision. You don't want us to decide tonight. Uh I think that's a fair a fair statement.

Okay, great. That's what I needed to know. Planner Kelly, can you advise us? Is that just a motion that a commissioner makes to table this? Uh the planning commission could make a motion to table the 805 Oxford uh you know proposal uh and to a date uncertain. Okay. All right. Sorry by uh Commissioner Mills. Do we have a second? Seconded by Commissioner Hammersmith. Do we have a discussion of the pro motion to table? Commissioner Nordon, I just want to point out I think if we rather this is on the motion to

the motion to table to table. That's what we're talking about. Okay.

Um that I'm in favor of tableabling. I want to point out that if we read our requirements for this development really strictly will not have a detrimental effect on natural the environment will not be detrimental to the use peaceful enjoyment economic of the property value. I think the way the applicant filled out the SE project wasn't really it was a very um fluffy response that wasn't really critical or accurate. I think there are a lot of concerns here to be addressed and I think if anything we would have more strength in turning this down than we would approving it given the terminology in our code. So I'm really would encourage I totally get the cost and the trouble that this is for the applicant and and understand that. But there's some valid concerns being raised here about the the fit in the setting and the natural features that I think could be done better that would make it much easier for us to approve this project following our own standards. So that's why I think tableabling it is a perfect thing to do.

Um just to clarify, we have a motion to postpone to a date uncertain, not to table it. Sorry. Right. Okay. Thank you. Just just so that uh those of us who are wonky are getting uh the right wonk. Other commissioners. Well, we got to have fun tonight, friends. This is, you know, it's been two and a half hours of this conversation. So, all right. Um, can I do this as a v a voice vote or do I need to do a roll call vote? Uh, it could be a voice vote.

Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? The motion carries. Thank you. Uh, I'm going to, uh, recess us for 5 minutes. We'll return at 9:31 and then I can take your questions.

exciting. Let's uh return to our meeting and I'll call us back to order. It's uh 9:36. Um with that takes us up to uh 10B regular business 414 South Main Street, Ashley Muse. This is R EZ260001. A petition to amend the supplemental regulations of the Ashley Muse planned unit development PUD. Proposed changes would allow all permitted uses in the D1 downtown core district in the high-rise portion of the site. No changes are proposed to the site plan or low-rise town houses permitted uses. The PUD and the site plan were originally approved in 1999. Staff's recommendation is approval. We'll start with a 10-minute up to a 10-minute presentation from the petitioner and then a staff presentation. We will have a public hearing. I'll read the motion and then the planning commission will have its discussion. Welcome.

Thank you very much. Good evening. Uh my name is Scott Monzelle. I'm an attorney of council with Dver Eb is just going to take this off the screen so that it's not something else. Sorry about that. That's okay.

I guess I can talk while she's doing that. 301 North Main Street, Sweet 100. Uh with me also is Steve Calabat. He's one of the owners of the site. And uh before starting uh I just want to recognize uh council uh member Dish's uh reference to the national champions. Uh as having a undergrad law degree from U of M. I wore my best maze and blue tie. So fun night last night. Um uh so I'm representing 414 South Main Street LLC. They own two condominium units. Uh the ground floor is unit one and the floors 2 through 7 are unit two. um in what's affectionately called the high-rise portion of the Ashley Muse PUD. Uh this is a request to amend the supplemental regulations which were originally adopted in 1999 to update the uses that are permitted in those two units to add the D1 uses um which would effectively extend uh the D1 uses one property to the south of where the current line between D1 and this PUD start. Um the goal is pretty simple. They want this building to be similar to the other buildings in the main street corridor as far as the uses that are permitted so that it can remain competitive into the future. Um, as you noted, there's no changes to the site plan. Um, there's no changes proposed to the site at all. This is simply a text amendment uh regarding the supplemental regulations. Um the D1 uh zoning categories immediately to the north, the gas station and then William Street and then extending to the north. Uh on all the other sides of the site are D2. Um originally when this was proposed in the late '9s, uh the city plans called for a high-rise or a higher density on the

north end of the site and uh transitioning to the uh more residential neighborhoods to the south. And that's exactly the way the plan um worked and has been developed. Um it was consistent with the 19 all the plans the city plans in the 1990s um and was approved by city council. It was originally a PUD because there were three zoning categories that composed that site. Uh the developer wanted to do a mixeduse development with underground parking. Um the PUD uh zoning was the only district that would allow for those kind of uses. So that's how it uh proceeded. Um the PUD, the original PUD did um provide the city with certain benefits. They wanted mixed use uh type uses. They wanted high quality of design, pedestrian orientation, uh a affordable units that were actually on the site and the Muse, the Ashley Muse walkway connector. Those were all um benefits of the PUD at the time and they have of course have been achieved by the successful completion of that entire site. But um times have changed since 1999. Um the original PUB in this office building contemplated uh DTE uses in the entire building um for DTE and its unregulated subsidiaries. Um, I can remember talking to Paul Potter, the the president of Syndicico, uh, because I actually worked on this way back then, and I said, "Paul, you know, uh, of course DT is always going to be in that building forever and ever and ever with its thousands of employees, but you know, one North Main has some residential uses. Why don't we stick in there that maybe multifamily residential uses would also be appropriate?" It was almost an afterthought, uh, but it made it into the original PUD in 1999. So, uh, fast

forward to 2020, we have CO DTE basically vacated the site and concluded that it no longer needed any of the office workers there and they put the site up, the condo parts up for sale. Um the LLC purchased the the vacant space uh in late 2021 or so um with the idea of uh taking advantage of the multifamily residential um use allowed in there and they've converted into um a successful multifamily residential um development. Uh but even back then they were concerned about the long-term viability of that particular building. And so you may remember back in 2022 we actually came and started the process of this same process asking to extend uh the uses in the 1999 PUD to uh recognize the change in the city's policies, the changing office environment, what have you. um in order to keep that building competitive into the future. Um and so here we are today. It took a quite a while for us to get in front of you formally, but basically again the goal is simply to extend the add the D1 uses uh into the unit 2, which is floors 2 through 7. add the D1 uses minus residential which was a recommendation of the staff um on the ground floor so that it remains non-residential but pedestrianoriented um and so uh the goal is again to enhance the flexibility of that building uh to keep it competitive into the future. Um the this request would meet the current land use elements in the downtown plan

and it would also be consistent with the 2050 master plan uh amendments that have been working its way through the city process. Um and we believe it meets the standard for uh for a text amendment. Um the change we think would promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the city and be consistent with all of the adopted plans of the city. Um so we look forward to having a discussion with you about that and um thank you for your time. Thank you. We'll turn now to planner Maline Cochran uh for a staff presentation.

Thank you. Um I just have a few more things to say. the applicant did a good job of outlining the process. And you have seen this a few times when they came in 2022 and then paused um until the UDC was updated for PUDS for owners to be able to propose changes to their own units rather than everybody having to do it. Um and they did come before you for the required preud conference in December of 2025. So this is to allow permitted all permitted uses of the D1 just in the high-rise portion of the site. Um the applicant mentioned that the supplemental regulations have already been amended a few times to add additional uses. Um and the surrounding areas are zoned D1 and D2. So the permitted uses for those districts are appropriate for this area. Um they are proposing these changes on the second through 7th floors. And then staff has proposed simplifying the language for the requirements on the first floor which is also owned by the applicant. Right now in the supplemental regulations they are very long um and complicated and refer to different areas of the first floor. Um so staff is proposing to simplify for interpretation to just be all permitted D1 uses except for residential to keep activated uses on the first floor. Other than that, um I'll reiterate that staff does not believe that the proposed changes would negatively impact the original findings that established this district. The site would still be developed with a mix of retail, residential, and office uses in downtown and would retain the strong architectural design, pedestrian orientation, and limited vehicular access. Um there are a few other minor staff proposed changes um that align with updates to the unified development code. So, striking parking requirements since there's no longer a minimum in the high-rise. And then also some number changes for references to code chapters.

And that's it for me.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll turn now to 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 with us in chambers. Then we'll 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, dial 877-8535247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by their name if they're on Zoom. You will 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 present in chambers who would like to address us on this item? Manager Kelly, do we have any remote participants?

Uh, no. None with their hands raised. Great. I will close the public hearing and read the motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the mayor and the city council approve the amendments to the Ashley Muse 414 South Main Street plan unit development supplemental regulations. Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Council Member Dish. We are in discussion. Who would like to kick us off? Are we ready to vote? Um, okay. Uh, Commissioner Lee would like to kick us off.

Yeah. Just a quick question. And I did see that there was a redaction in section G of the supplemental regulations and it has to do with the redaction of the parking space requirement. I and I just wanted to make sure that that was intended to mirror the no minimum parking requirement. Is that correct? Is there any practical considerations as a result of that? I just wanted to ask. Not really. believe the site has an underground parking structure with 120 spaces. They own 95, so the elimination of the parking requirement won't really affect them. They already have adequate parking.

Okay, gotcha. Cool. All right, sounds good. Um, I think that's pretty much about it. I mean, we've talked about this at Nauseium, I think, previously. So, Commissioner Norton, I just have a technical question for staff. Can I show this to you? This map that you gave us in the packet has We can't hear you. Uh, Commissioner, I'm looking at the map that was in the packet with the aerial image of the zoning and the low-rise condominiums are highlighted as if that's the project that's being affected, but it's actually the high tower, right? Or am I missing something? Yeah, that's um a mistake in the map. Um, so the the tower should have been

the full parcel is the whole PUD. Um the one that's included in the staff report has the entire but yes that is um just to point that out that's an incorrect dimension. Okay. I just wanted to clarify. Are we ready to vote? Nope. Commissioner Lee.

Um just by way of questions what do you plan to do on the ground floor? And the reason I ask is practically speaking I understand the rational. please come up and um I'm I'm only thinking because there are specific you know uh this is an important corridor there are specific references to keeping it activated and I understand the rationale behind it and that's great just would just like to hear practically what you going to do

Steven Calibat uh part of the develop developer owned property here um largely to keep it as retail and and office more or less the way it is now and uh you know there's a there's a there's a a lobby an elevator lobby and some retail and we've that's more or less it I think you know so yeah whatever whatever uses that we can use in D1 would be great you know to minus the the residential component as as we talked about.

Gotcha. Sounds good. Thank you. Um my hope my hope is that you continue to keep it vibrant activated so that pedestrians feel um great to and safe to walk past it. Thank you. I'm not going to ask again. Any additional comments from commissioners? Manager Kelly, would you call the role on the motion as presented? We w yes. Hammer, yes. Mills, yes. Lee, yes. Dish, yes. Weatherbe, yes. And Norton, yes. That carries.

Good luck. Thank you. That takes us to 10 C South Town site plan for planning commission approval 1601 South State Street SP25-000028. A proposed site plan for a 215,500 ft 8story residential building. Approval of this site plan will replace a previously approved site plan for a comparable development mass with a redesigned tower above the podium. Elimination of the commercial uses on the first floor. Reconfiguration of site access and increased number of dwelling units from 216 to 289. The site is 1.7 acres zoned C1A/R with conditions. Staff recommendation is approval. We'll first hear from the petitioner, then a staff presentation from planner dio with a dedicated public comment period. I'll read the motion and then the planning commission will have its discussion. Welcome.

Good evening. Good evening.

All right. Good evening. My name is Jason Van Reinor for Natervel. We are the uh civil engineers, planners, surveyors for this project. Um I'm also joined tonight by several members of the development team and the ownership group. And we're all here tonight to answer any questions you may have about the project. I'm sorry. Just make sure we can see this. All right. No problem. I'll restart. Can fix your time.

Perfect. Sorry about that. Uh we appreciate the opportunity to be before you tonight uh requesting site plan approval for the south project. Um over the past six months, we've been working closely with the city staff on and other various departments to refine and revamp the site plan into something that we believe is more viable and better positioned for success in today's market. Um, as noted in the planning staff report, the proposed site plan complies with all applicable ordinance requirements and conditions of the previously approved resoning. And therefore, we do believe that it it meets the criteria for site plan approval. Uh, with that, I'd like to turn the remaining time over to Heidi Posher with 4M Real Estate Development, uh, the owner and developer of the project. Heidi will walk you through uh some key updates that we've made to the plan um since the previous approval.

Thanks, Jason. Let's see. How do we Yeah,

the first slide shows uh the difference of the um the first site plan that was approved previously and the uh the revised plan proposal. Um the the biggest change to the to the um to the overall concept is uh more stacking and more uniform uh creation of units. Um we found that the original site plan had a couple of issues. One was it just wasn't penciling very well. Uh it was beautiful building. Um but just in terms of once we got into the pragmatics of costing um it there there were a number of issues that were going to be difficult. So, one of the major changes that we made to the building design is to uh create a more um a replicable unit size, better stacking, and um we actually shrunk down the footprint of the building uh to create extra space for the micro grid. Uh which I know is a a topic that we discussed quite a bit um I think a couple years ago. we were mostly focused on the fueling of the micro grid and the the energy uh you the fuel usage and we never really got into the um the layout of the micro grid the equipment or how it was going to be placed on the site. Um so uh in in retrospect once we decided to uh really take a look at re reconceptualizing the design for better construction efficiency and cost efficiency um it made sense to also take a look at um how we were going to lay out the uh the micro grid. thinking ahead to AHJ commentary and approvals, um it just made more sense to bring the whole planning the site plan back into that process and to uh to make sure everybody

was on the same page. So that's what we've done. Um there was pretty good um comparison of um how uh density is impacted um I'm sorry intensity of use is impacted um traffic actually goes down uh which it which I think is probably helpful. Um the uh the number of units that we were able to bring into the um into the development actually increased too. So that again in terms of constructibility and cost efficiency is a big improvement in this um in this new plan. Um the biggest change uh other than just the the the footprint of the building is the separate area for the micro grid. Um there is a smaller internal um inside the building uh layout for the micro grid that is houses mostly computer equipment. None of the uh large scale um production equipment for the energy system is inside. It's now all outside. And if you recall from the from the first go around in terms of uh looking at the micro grid that was um batteries, it is fuel cells. Uh there's carbon capture system uh which takes up quite a bit of space. There's also extensive geothermal uh which doesn't really um have require much above ground space just the manifolds and the connections to the building HVAC system. Um but those are but those are uh part of this um layout as well. Um very sustainable project as you know. I'm obviously not going to read this to you uh but there are um some very green uh sustainability features in terms of

the uh storm water management. The micro grid itself uh has just a ton of sustainability features. um not only just in terms of uh the equipment that's used but just philosophically how the HVAC components of the um the building so the mechanical systems of the building are marrying up with the micro grid in terms of its energy production um will be using substantially less uh source energy. So in this case that's gas and um but the important thing is that um and we've kind of already gone through that. I'm happy to answer u questions about that again, but just in terms of the overall use of energy, it'll be substantially less. And then we made some enhancements to the bicycle parking uh which is kind of in advance of what the city is planning on doing officially or or has uh voted to do officially. Um but I think we got a little more assertive with our our bike packing as well. Um I think the rest of these uh drawings are just reference in in order to help with question answering as and if needed. Uh but other than that um that's that's kind of the overview of how things have changed in this u in the site plan.

Thank you so much. We'll turn to planner Dio for a staff presentation. Thank you all. You can have a seat until we call you back.

Uh thank you very much. I think the team did a fantastic job with the great overview. So, I'll try to be extra um concise for um um clarity. This is the Southtown site plan for planning commission approval located at 1601 South State Street. Um and for some details, the building is about uh uh 230 230,000 square feet. It's eight stories would contain 289 apartments, 41 um uh parking parking space park. Yeah. The site is also about 1.7 acres. It is zoned as mentioned C1A/R with conditions. Um it the site um was granted a v a variance which runs with the land. So it is still applicable to the proposed project. The variance is regarding the floor area ratio and what is or is not included. Um including the variance the site meet the proposed site plan meets all of the applicable development standards such as area height and placement and all the required procedures and so forth. Staff is recommending approval and I'm happy to as well answer any follow-up questions or elaborate on more specific details.

Thank you. Planner DO, we'll now have a dedicated public comment period. 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 with us in chambers, then remotely. Uh then we will hear from 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. City staff 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 mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in person or remote, 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 item? Thank you, Chair Wang Garber again, 28 Hville Court. Um, I back this project strongly the first time around because of the sustainability features, the self-sufficient micro grid powered by solar panels, battery and fuel cells um and the pledge of negative carbon emissions. This was unique and remains unique in terms philosophically um you know to date with possible exception of Vidian. Well actually Vidian is pretty impeccable in terms of sustainability as well. Um but the petitioner you know now I'm going into area I'm really not qualified to talk about which is legal. the petitioner um Southtown by 4M filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 27th. You probably know um claims of $35

million by banks and other creditors. Um apparently the secured creditors are allowing the project to go forward for now. Um I'm not privy to those discussions, but it's again based on my limited knowledge, an asset liquidation seems like a possibility at some point. Um, now the zoning goes with the property, but the development agreement does not. That's owner specific, right? Again, I'm not on solid ground here. Um, so if ownership changes, then the development agreement gets thrown out, I think. um and the renewable natural gas, the fuel cells, the hydrogen, the carbon capture, the carbon credits, the annual report to the city, all that could go away. I think um these I'm just raising the question. Um the development agreement amendment includes very detailed requirements for the petitioner in terms of disclosure and action. Um it's not practical, I imagine, to add them to the zoning conditions. Um so that's my worry. That's one of my worries that um there will be a change of ownership and that the city will lose all leverage to um uh require the already voluntary commitment of the petitioner into in sustainability. Also, the former architect of the plan has to the press expressed doubts about the viability of the um micro grid to actually power the entire project. Um again, I'm not don't have the expertise to judge that independently, but the micro grid could plausibly struggle to meet a whole variety of demands on this site. Um the lights, appliances, and heat pumps are just the start. Um, assuming a solid

oxide fuel cell system, we'll probably need temperatures exceeding 600 degrees. Oops, I'm running out of time, but there's a bunch of concerns about the um possible um Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garin, and thank you for respecting the time. I appreciate that. Do we have anyone else in chambers who'd like to address us on this item? Seeing none, Manager Kelly, do we have remote participants who would like to address us? We do. Luis Vasquez, you have three minutes to address the planning commission.

Yes. Thank you. Uh Luis Vasquez, 909 Barton Drive. Uh for all the reasons uh for mentioned by Mr. Garber, I'm in full agreement with all the stipulations uh addressed by Mr. Garber in this uh in this instance and agree wholeheartedly and uh wish that uh the um planning commission accordingly um uh vote accordingly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vasquez.

I don't there are no other hands raised at this time. Mr. Chair, I will close the dedicated public comment period and read the proposed motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby approves the Southtown site plan version 3 dated February 23rd, 2026. Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Mills, excuse me, Commission Commissioner Lee. Oh, we're punchy tonight, friends. Um, who would like to kick us off? It was Mills and Lee. If if you didn't get that, manager Kelly. Okay, Commissioner Lee.

Thank you. Uh, let me ask this with staff. Um, does the development agreement continue with the petitioners specifically or with the land itself? The development agreement is associated with the site plan. So if the site plan is sold, which may not be the correct term, but if the developer who owns the site plan sells it, the the successors um also inherit the development agreement. The uh variances do run with the land. Development agreements one run with a insight plan particular project and can be reassigned or sold. Um but if if it's an entirely new site plan then you you start over.

Got it. Thank you. And then more of a clerical question. Um does this it appears that your recommendation of approval is based on the fact that this is complying with all statutes. Is this a byite versus uh I I recall that we've done variances on this with specific conditions, but I'd like to better understand whether this is a byite approval or a an amendment of variances that require um discretion.

Uh it is a byite approval. The property is zoned C1A/R with conditions and so it need only to comply with the standards of the C1AR district plus the adopted statement of conditions. that that ordinance is in the staff report. I don't have it at the top of my head. Um which it does. Um and that also runs with the land. So if this particular project were to go away for whatever reason or expire um it it has to comply with C1AR plus the sub the development agreement and conditions.

Not the development agreement because that went with the old site plan. We're talking about in worst case scenario. Yeah. It would have to apply with the conditional zoning statement of conditions.

Got it. Thank you. Just to clarify, this really is saying increasing dwelling units from 216 to 289 and elimination of commercial uses on the ground floor, reconfiguration of site access and tower above the podium. So, just as a point of clarification, thank you. Uh just a a quick uh question before I hear from other commissioners. Uh the micro grid however is in the conditions and that is with the land not with the site plan or is it with the site plan not the land?

Um the um it is with the it does run with the land. The um conditional the conditions that run with the land are that it has to be powered by a on-site micro grid and that it has to be less than 100 100 ft tall or less. Okay. uh does the wattage of it or the output of the micro grid is that in the conditions as well and it it's going to get to my question later but I just want to understand it technically now um I'm I'm going to pull it up okay thank you uh planner dio while planner dio looks for that and answers me later which other commissioners commissioner dish please and then commissioner meals

also a question so if does this vote restart the time clock on site plan approval. Okay. Yes, it does. And that's for 3 years. Yes, it is. I do have the conditions now or I can wait if you don't mind waiting. Uh, Commissioner Mills.

Well, it's all connected. So either way, um the question that I was going to ask is if the development agreement, so the development, the most recent development agreement effectively just gives more meat teeth, I don't know, specificity to the um the conditions that I mean that's how I read it. But if that is running with the site plan, is it problem mata? Like we don't have a development agreement before us. So how does that work? Like does that make sense? Does my question make sense? I don't know that I saw

Yeah. So I've opened up all of the um documents necessary, but it's late tonight. It'll take me forever to read them. Nevertheless, um I will um I can definitely follow up specifically to um to see if the the and look at the development agreement about it exact language if it um if there is the boilerplate language about revised site plans. And if there is not, I'll work with I can work with the city attorney's office uh because I do understand that's all of our intent. And the development agreement though is an agreement between the city council and the developer. So if it if work needs to be done and there's not the boilerplate language in it, um we can send that second amendment to the city um we can send the second amendment to city council still yet.

Okay. I think um I mean maybe it would be helpful to go back to the question about commissioner that commissioner white asked about like what is actually in the condition and then that contrasts nicely potentially with what is in the development agreement. Um and I will look for that boilerplate language maybe while your first question is getting an answered. Yeah. Well, I I want to make sure that other commissioners uh get a chance to speak before I take time up. Commissioner Weatherby, you okay? Commissioner Hammer Schmidt, who I neglected to check in with uh during the very first uh one. It was an oversight on my part, and I do apologize to you for that.

Yeah, fine. I told you not to not to talk. I know, but I felt bad. Okay. Okay. Great. Commissioner Norton. Okay. All right. So, I have a bunch of questions for staff and then maybe one or two for the petitioner just so that I can understand how this micro grid works in um relationship to this new development or this uh new proposal of housing. But it we'll start with the answer to my original question, please. Thank you.

Sure. The conditional zoning statement of conditions has uh actually four conditions. A the maximum height shall be 100 ft. Um and that is reduced from uh no height limit. Um the maximum number of vehicle parking spaces for residential use on the property shall be 0.25 per dwelling unit or one per four dwelling units. The principal use of the property shall be multif family residential and no more than 30% of the dwelling units may be short-term rentals. That is the third condition. And the fourth is development on the property shall be powered by a micro grid with continuous operation of a minimum 60% less carbon intensity CI than the franchise provider of electricity for the city parenthesis. The target for development on the property is 75% less CI uh close parenthesis. Developers shall provide a report to the city upon request that confirms compliance with this requirement. And so those are the four conditions that do run with the land that are subject to any development on the property until an ordinance has been amended to change something of that nature. The development agreement um the first amendment to the Southtown development agreement um does um you know it contains over let's see over 26 paragraphs because it's more like a first amendment and restatement. um contains over uh 25 probably half of them are boilerplate. That's based on my experience. Um things specific to this one are addressed in pro are probably addressed in P22 uh are actually starting in P21

uh for about 10 times or 10 paragraphs. I'll just briefly paraphrase, but um they they talk about installing the fuel cells on the property and the first date of service is January 2035. Um a talks about after what happens after January 2035. Um talks about incorporating carbon capture technology as soon as it's available. Um there's caveats. Um, and it says, "By January 31st of each year, provide the city with annual sustainability performance reports that contain a lot of very specific information." Um, and I believe um that this is sort of speaking to there was a plan for um evolving technologies and being able to keep up and also sort of addressing making sure that the latest technologies are being used. Um, so that would be specific to the southtown project proposed by 4M. But overall, any development on this land does have to have a micro grid that operates at that specified level

which is 60% of uh DT or the prevailing carrier uh for the units. Yeah, the plan apparently was the plan is and the design should operate at 75% less but the zone requirement is 60% less.

Okay. Um, I'm going to go back to you, Commissioner Mills, before I go through my questions. No. Okay. So, um, staff first, planner dio, uh, can you, uh, walk me through or walk us through how this revised site, uh, configuration, including the required micro grid along the east side, if I'm correct, of uh, the site and its screening wall, complies with the dimensional standards of the C1A/R with conditional zoning. Um, and I'm I'm asking this because when we first saw this, the there was less housing. So, there was 216 and I don't believe we've seen a resizing of the m the micro grid, but we're adding more units. Um, I think about what's that 10 20 30% more units almost. Uh so will the micro grid fit within the um the current setbacks uh in the screening requirements as far as you know

um well I did it's been a minute but I did look at um all dimensions and um I can get you the required dimensions of the C1 ASHR which I 10 ft is minimum 10 is is required 11 is what we see here. Yeah. Um I do believe that screen wall is 10 ft. Okay. So if the micro grid has to be resized to um you know manage the 289 units, how does that work inside this approval? I believe the micro grid has already been resized. If it needs to be resized further, um their their engineers will have to come up with something.

And then uh can you just walk me through what that looks like? Is that does that happen at the time of construction? Uh if they had to do it and then it's just handled administratively or does it come back because it might encroach on setbacks?

Um it would be handled it all depends on how they would have how they would be addressing that hypothetical situation because I do believe it's already been resized. Um but it would be handled in the manner that's prescribed in um that table 5.29. 29-1 of the UDC which talks which prescribes what development activities require what level of approval. There are um you can move um a building or a wall or add a fence um but up to a certain point. Uh do you remember Lockwood? They had to come back because

that was that was a plan unit development that for discussion purposes said your minimum or your maximum setback is 10 ft and they built the building at 9 ft. there was no wiggle room. Okay, there. This is a conventional zoning district. Um, and they can move the building around within the parameters of the zoning district. And if they can't, then you deal with that as prescribed in the code. But generally, that will be happened on an administrative side. It won't come back to the table for adjustments.

It it again, it depends on how they're going to address this. The reason why it's back before you tonight um and not an a planning man site plan for planning manager approval is ultimately this building moved more than the 10 ft that we could handle in the administrative level. So maybe the response would be that the grid gets taller. Okay. Cuz I cuz I know nothing about micro grids. Sure. But if it needs but if it needs to get wider well it it depends on how many feet wider, right? But it would have to stay with inside the the it has to meet it has to meet zoning.

Okay. And then um because the micro grid stays with the land uh if uh 4M doesn't take this project forward in completion and a someone else purchased the land they would then have the requirement to install a micro grid. they'd have to maintain it according to the uh conditions that have been approved for this zoning or they could request a reszoning. And if they request a reszoning, it's likely that we might be at a point where the map is clearer and R1, sorry, R C1A, thank you uh Commissioner Weatherb might not exist, which means this could be in transition, this could be in hub and its uses could change uh dramatically. So the whole STR would have to could potentially go away cuz it could be a hotel.

Exactly. Yes. Okay. All right. Any other uh commissioner questions and comments? I have more, but I'm pausing. Commissioner Lee, um just on the development agreement, uh has has everything been complied with um so far to date?

Uh yes, but there have been very little triggered development. The development agreements generally have three checkpoints. Yeah. um that is things that need to be complied with uh prior to issue of any building of any permits and the first permit is um usually a grading permit and they haven't aside from demolition they haven't really started construction. The other checkpoints are prior to the first um uh building permit structural per and then it's certificate of occupancy. Um so yes, they are in still in they are in compliance. I say that with a little caveat that that we haven't hit most of the checkpoints.

Gotcha. I'll clarify the reason for asking that question. This is also kind of murky territory for me. Generally, I'm only looking at the UDC and saying, "How does this comply with the UDC?" Um, I'm only bringing up the development agreement because I am looking up this property, etc. Looks like they may be behind on property taxes. I'm looking at the site and it looks like they haven't been paid. a part of the development agreement stipulates I think that they're supposed to be paying kind of all you know amounts due to the city. This is again kind of a gray area for me. I'm really not sure how to necessarily approach this one but I just want to clarify that you know and and again our administrative role here is to look at the UDC and how we apply it to this proposed site plan. I'm trying to narrow my scope to that. these other things. I'm hesitating to say like is it relevant to the matter at our administrative role at hand. I'm wondering if the development agreement is within our purview to uh ask about about whether those things comply or not and whether it's relevant to our uh adjudication of whether it complies with the UDC. So that that's the reason kind of for me asking about the development agreement. I don't know the answer that we're just I'm just this is slightly in kind of a a interesting gray territory that I'm not sure about. So just can I clarify question? Thanks

that you are you asking that because the development agreement is not being properly enforced or actuated that that impacts our decision at the table. Is that the question that you're going towards?

Yes. I'm specifically referring to section P19. It says in addition to like developer agrees um in addition to any other remedy set forth in the agreement in law or equity if developer fails to make timely or full payments that the city has set forth elsewhere blah blah blah. A lot of different words here. I'm just wondering if there is a uh if if there's a violation of that particular element in the development agreement. Yeah, I'm really just asking the question. I'm not sure. Manager Kelly,

uh I would not take that into consideration tonight. That is an agreement, as was stated earlier with council. Um generally, we don't even u bring those full form to the planning commission because we don't want to advertise that you would be really influencing a lot of the terms unless they're voluntarily offered or part of a PUD or something of that nature. So, I think it may be um you know, interesting things to look into or consider, but they're primarily outside of the scope of this body in this decision. It would be that would be my advice is to set aside I mean, if you're trying to figure out if uh they are uh I mean I mean they're they're coming here in good faith to amend the site plan. I don't think unless you have a reason to think that there's something misrepresented in the site plan or ability to or that something's been, you know, not reviewed properly, I would stick to those

items. Is that helpful? Yes, that is. Yep. Again, my general always sense is to only defer to the UDC and there's no real references to that. Thank you. Uh, I have a couple more questions. Did you have something, Commissioner Norton?

Well, I just want to clarify. I'm hearing that the staff has reviewed the site plan, has found that it completely complies with the requirements that we are supposed to use to approve the site plan. And I'm not hearing anything from staff to tell us that there's a reason to deny this and it's a byite approval. So, we shouldn't really even be talking about the financial status of the practitioner or the development agreement. That's not uh that's not in our purview. So I guess I would say why I would call the question

well I I have questions about the zoning. So my mine are not about the development agreement. So So uh my next question is if the required uh micro grid was not ultimately installed as represented would the approved site plan still be in conformance with the site's zoning conditions? It would not be.

Okay. And then who makes that? That's a administrative staff decision because it doesn't go online till 2035. So could the building be built without the micro grid actually installed um to conform and then who would be the arbiter of that decision? Um my understanding is the micro grid is not delayed until 2035. It's something to do with a very specific technology that's not currently available, but that is coming. Okay. That they need to switch over to that technology by that by 2035. But on day one,

the the micro grid needs to go in with the project um as part of the zoning and it needs to remain um meeting the that 60% less than the franchise utility. The development agreement talks about m much more finer detail um that I cannot answer. Sure. No. And and we want to stay away from the development agreement. I just want to ask about the

I think there um for this table we use for our purposes we use the development agreement to sort of lock down promises um and that that don't show up on the site plan things very specific. You know, it is not a requirement, for example, it's not a requirement of the UDC to be an all-electric building, but if a developer promises, it's shouldn't really be attached to the zoning. That's not a land use thing, but that is a promise. And so, we we use the development agreement to lock down promises or off-site things, monetary parkland contributions or easements that need to be dedicated and so forth. um then the attorney's office takes over and there's a lot of boilerplate language and things get added and all the legal ease. But um I uh I do think that we can talk about um the promises that are made and that but we talk about them in more general terms that development will address those things. Tonight this developer and this project they are not proposing to change any of those those elements. Those will continue to run with the land. I believe from their perspective, this site plan is just is a little bit more of a refinement of the original one. It does have to come back to you because the parameters changed beyond the thresholds of a site plan for planning manager, but they are not really in my opinion seeking to change the fundamental nature. It's still supposed to be with all their um original sustainability features and their micro grid, but I think it had more to do with the actual construction and the shape. The Zshape didn't work very well, so they changed it to a C. But also the footprint got smaller because the micro grid got bigger and it changed the setbacks.

Okay. Um, Commissioner Norton, you said something about calling the question. Did you actually want to call the question? Because I have to take that up as chair, even though I have one more question. So, no, you can ask your question. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Uh, and this is for the petitioner and I don't know which of the two of you want to answer it. Are there any elements of the required micro goat system that depend on future approvals, third-party infrastructure or unresolved implementation details that are not reflected in the site uh plan revision that you submitted and that we are reviewing tonight?

Y so the the uh the design of the micro grid is a compliance with the most recent uh building code that was just approved about a year ago. So I I think your question might allude to some things that would get into the way of uh approvals by things like by people or entities like the AHJ. All of those have been considered in the design of the micro grid. Um whether it's capacity, which um you didn't ask this question, but as a side note, I will tell you there's more than enough capacity to power the building. Um

I didn't ask that question cuz I didn't. Yeah, because I that wasn't the question that I was interested in. I was asking a different question, but thank you. But it seemed like that that was maybe floating around. So, I just it was just not by you, but just threw that in there. Um, anything that you would need to pull a permit successfully per uh publish adopted in in effect rules based on building code has been considered and addressed in that design. Okay. and staff concurs. Okay, excellent. Those are my questions. Do we have any other questions at the table?

Commissioner Lee, just a comment. Um, in looking at just making sure the development summary and comparison, I just want to reiterate this is a byite approval. So, um, I'm inclined to support it. Thank you. All right, manager Kelly, would you please call the role? On the motion as presented, Commissioner Norton, yes. Weatherbe, yes. Dish, yes. Lee, yes. Mills, yes. Hammer Schmidt, yes. And yes, that carries.

It carries. Thank you. That takes us to 10D, regular business, 2700 Fuller Road, reszoning for city council approval. REZ26003, a proposed annexation and reszoning of a 6,534 ft vacant lot from Ann Arbor Charter Township TWWP to City of Ann Arbor PL zoning district. There is no proposed development and this is in war 2. Staff recommendation is approval. There is no petitioner presentation. though we will go straight to a staff presentation by planner dileo

guys the petitioners

um thank you um in a way I am sort of the petitioner um sort of um and I'm presenting the staff report tonight on behalf of my colleague Emma Burgerer who um for staff efficiency purposes and late night purposes um I drew a short straw um the city of Ann Arbor is the petitioner here parks has purchased this property at 2700 Fuller Road. Um uh last year an annexation petition was sent forward straight through to city council. We can do that in this case because there is uh something in state law that says under certain conditions such as when it's publicly owned and it's vacant and it's surrounded by certain things, then the annexation can happen by resolution. Um and that went forward to the city council on fe in February of this year and is now currently at the state boundary commission as normally occurs. So tonight we are just asking to zone it. Um and we are proposing the PL zoning district. Um, I do want to mention I understand that the former owner was here tonight for a bit and had was asking about um how to go about a small memorial plaque and we have put them or we will be putting them in touch with the appropriate parks staff. Um, and I am uh here and available to answer some further questions um if if needed.

Thank you, Planner Deo. We will now have 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 with us in chambers, 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 9776341226. City staff 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 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 present in chambers who'd like to address us on this item? Manager Kelly, is there anyone remotely who would like to address us on this item?

There are no hands raising. We shall close the public hearing and I will read the motion. The proposed motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve the PL public land zoning of 2,700 Fuller Road, which has been annexed into the city. Moved by Commissioner Hammer and Commissioner Lee. Who would like to kick us off in discussion? Oh, Commissioner Dish. Council member Dish. Either one. Um, I just have I I just would like staff to remind us of the difference between a nature area and a park.

Um, that's a very good question. I I do both are owned by our city parks department and I do believe it's the way it is managed. I think um perhaps not the end definition, but a nature area is um um it does contain a lot of natural features and is maintained as a nature area, I believe, whereas a park is more groomed lawn and structures such as a a pool or a golf course or a playground structure, equipment, and so forth. Thank you, Planner Dio. Commissioner Lee, I support this. Also, I'm sorry I made the screen a little worse. I don't know what I was supposed to click, but I apologize.

Any other comments? Are we ready to vote? Manager Kelly, would you please call the role on the motion as presented? Commissioner Norton, yes. Weatherby, yes. Dish, yes. Lee, yes. Mills, yes. Clamber Schmidt, yes.

Yes. That carries. Thank you. Uh 11A is our next agenda item. There is none. Uh for other business, and that brings us to our last public comment of the evening. This is a second opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on any issue. We'll first hear from those of you who are present with us, then remote participants. To speak remotely, please press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last two digits of your 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, whether in person or online, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who would like to address us at this time?

Thanks again. I'll be real brief.

Um, thank you everyone on the commission for um, your diligence as always in um, reviewing the documentation, listening to the public, responding to concerns, making uh, considered judgments. Um, so the 805, um, I'm forgetting the street. Oxford. Thank you. Yeah, I thought that was a great discussion and I'm hoping they come back with a a better project. Um, just going back to where I started in the first public comment. I I I don't know if this matters to you. I'd like to see the sustainability reviews um reinstated. If that does matter for you, maybe that's something you could make an inquiry into. Um, other than that, thank you again for your volunteer service.

Thank you, Mr. Gar. Do we have remote participants who'd like to address us at this time? We do. Luis Vasquez, you have three minutes to address the planning commission.

Hi, thank you. Um, Luis Vasquez uh 909 Barton Drive uh 43 48105 and uh the Ann Arbor uh area code. Um yes uh thank you for all of your thoughtful consideration on all elements of business tonight. you um have demonstrated uh your public service to uh a great extent and um I would only hope that uh you know on the other end of all of this that we all end up with uh uh the a public that is educated in um our our uh our system uh how else can it be described um there there are no words uh but yes uh thank you um for your leadership uh in all of this uh with the uh the the CLUP and Now, uh, of course, um, uh, the reasoning that needs to happen in our community, uh, thank you for your time. Really, uh, it's it is much appreciated and good night. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dasquez.

There are no other hands raised. I shall close the public comment and take us to agenda item number 13 commissioner proposed business. Is there any I would just like to flag uh since my colleagues have not uh under this section um I think we would benefit from a conversation with either the fire or m marshall um or the um waste management uh team uh because this issue reoccurs at the table that we see developments that are configured in ways that are challenging to us and I I think like Vian had a a concern uh that was articulated around this as well if my memory serves. And so, um, I think it would just be helpful for us. And I wonder if that could be, um, uh, if that could happen during one of our work sessions where we are short of an agenda item, uh, to see and maybe we take them one at a time so that we don't uh, overload cuz maybe there's a lot of conversation that we need uh, to have around the impact of these items. And I'm happy to I have, you know, we could query the table for any questions in advance that we could give to staff. I think we've done that in advance. Like when we had uh Jennifer Hall come to talk about affordable housing, we asked if the commission had any questions so that we could give uh to them. And I know we do that with the CIP as well. When Kayla comes, we have questions in advance so that they know what we want to talk about. Um, so if the table is amendable and agreeable to that, I think that would be meaningful for us. Certainly would be for me, but I want to speak for all of you as I tried to earlier and you all gave me uh eyes. Okay, great. Uh, Commissioner Mills,

I'm also going back to Mr. Garber's comment really early at the very first um public comment opportunity about OSI's review and kind of what that is. Um, I think I'm just curious again kind of what they are reviewing and again tailor I think having it be tailored to where there is some discretion probably is most appropriate and like but I'm just curious about what's happening and or something that some maybe commissioner Dish brought up about OSI staff being a resource or somebody being a resource and like understanding if that's something that we ought to be advertising towards developers who don't necessarily undergo OSI review. So just better understanding what the current status is.

Yeah, we've had um many sort of back and forths with OSI and they've had staff that have changed as well and each of those departures or additions is a new opportunity for us to talk with them and say what makes most sense, how can we uh fit you in a way that values your time and also is impactful to the process. So, as it stands right now, OSI is invited to all of the presubmitt meetings which are required with applicants for site plans. And that uh included 805 Oxford. It included u you know probably everything that was on your agenda tonight that would have merited a presubmittal meeting. And so they listen to the applicant's development proposal. really try to understand where the opportunities are and then they reach out with an email inviting them to a separate OSI plus developer specific meeting. The planning is invited to attend. Um they provide a preliminary assessment of where they think opportunity areas are. They give uh information on incentives that uh the petitioner may or may not be aware of. And they do offer to be a resource and sounding board. they offer to assist in ways that they're available to do. Sometimes that is wellreceived by the developer. They set up the meeting and um they you know may or may not have new information that they were not aware of previously and you know they take it and do something with it. Some applicants say thank you for inviting me to the meeting. um I know what is possible on my site and um I can't spare the the time you know I can't spare to pay people to sit in a meeting so I'd rather just do this over email so there are mixed responses but that we are doing on all development whether it's by write or you know it's it's pretty much anything with this presubmittal and then they

really are focusing their reviews to plan unit development um the the sustainability proposals for height bonuses. They were very involved with Miss De Leo for the item that's on your next agenda related to the sustainability um height uh com uh sustainability component affordability component. So we have tried to be a little more surgical with their involvement and um those those conversations are ongoing. So, but they don't invest in a deep um evaluation against A204 by right projects for your table. What we do now is we ask applicants to please provide us with a sustainability statement and based on what we receive from the applicant uh that is included into the text of the staff report. So that was also um I believe part of the economic development resolution suite that was handed down to request that we incorporate that and that is how we are trying to do that. It's not always perfect but I I don't think that OSI has been you know disinvited or disinvolved. They're just it looks a little different and that's fine.

Okay. Uh Commissioner Weatherbe, I'm sorry.

Can I just add to that? I think um if I recall correctly that we asked that those no longer be added to our packets because we couldn't they included things that we couldn't make determinations about and so it seemed like kind of a waste of everyone's time. Um, so I think we need to be mindful a little bit, but I I do agree that as people have changed and personnel has changed and time has moved on, maybe we now decide that they are helpful. But um I think that there was some concern. I remember um Mr. Leonard being like, well, you you asked us not to have those and then you asked us to put them in and then you asked us not to put them in and now we may be asking them to be included again. And

okay, uh I had one other uh request that I wanted to flag, but let's hear from uh council member Dish first.

No, I just wanted to affirm that what you just described, Miss Kelly, is I think consistent with what we were hoping for because it it isn't it does seem like not the best use of staff time to go into this extensive review. And then we read through the stream and it says, well, they're not doing they're not giving us the moon and the stars, which we cannot require. And so, you know, that was hard for us to read it and not know what to do with it. So, I think this is very great. It's it's really great to know that OSI is always there at the beginning that there is an offer made that people are actively choosing not to follow that up. Well, that's fine sometimes, right? But so when we have a proposal that comes and there is clearly not any tapping of any existing expertise in this city around how you manage the sorts of projects that are consistent with the comp plan when that is a that is an element of the the um special exception use application. That's really useful information to have.

Thank you council member Dish. uh manager Cully and I can follow up with uh manager uh Leonard as well. I think it may be helpful for us to meet with our attorney in the next 6 months uh at an opportunity that is convenient for them uh for us just to sort of review some things. I'm thinking specifically around our uh deliberations uh tonight around the SEU and I know those don't come up very often. I was looking through the table. I was going to put you on the spot planner dio to say how many there are but there are a lot because it's depending on what it is and where it is. So um some churches are permitted in some zones but are special use in others. Uh so like an office it's there but residential be a use or a daycare center. And so we've only seen a handful of those at least in my time at the table a drive-thru. And so I just think it might be uh advantageous for us to just sort of review that and what the standard pro process uh would be for how we deliberate uh with developers uh who are coming under those criteria so that it it's consistent fair uh how we treat those developments that come to the table. So it's like in the next 6 months

I think maybe there would be an opportunity to put uh maybe a close session at the end of your annual organizational meeting which has to happen by July I think. Yep. So um that's coming up surprisingly soon. Yeah. So I just wanted to and you'll have to have a organizational things coming up that I think could be a natural fit. So I will ask Mr. Frost if uh he can it would be great to solicit your areas of um your fuzzy areas, your your special questions that we could send over for that as well.

Yes, I would appreciate that. Anything else from anyone else? All right, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. Moved by Council Member Dish, seconded by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? We are journed. Thank you.