Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah.

Excellent. Well, let's uh get rolling. Uh good evening everyone. Uh my name is Daniel White and I'll be chairing tonight's meeting. Uh welcome to the April 14th, 2026 work session meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. Uh this meeting is being recorded and will be available online. I don't actually know where uh for future viewing. Uh since this is a work session, no formal decisions will be made this evening. So we have uh tonight's agenda in front of us and right now 2 4 6 8 I think we would be okay. Um I was going to just communicate uh that we were going to be limiting uh public comment to 30 minutes at the beginning of the meeting and then there would be more uh public comment available uh at the end of the meeting. So if you are interested in addressing uh the planning commission uh would you please raise your hand so that staff uh can identify you and that will help us uh as we make our way. And so, uh, with that, Mr. Leonard, uh, could you invite the public commenters to address the planning commission for up to 3 minutes? Um, since we're on Zoom, you just use the raise hand feature. Staff will uh call you based on your name. And at the beginning of your uh comments, please state your name and address. And then um everyone has 3 minutes uh to address us. So please mute any background sounds or noise so that we may hear you clearly. And with that, Mr. Leonard

and star 9 to raise your hand if you join the Zoom via phone instead of Zoom. That is correct. We do have a caller. I do apologize for not mentioning star 9. So uh we will take the first 10 uh commenters for up to 30 minutes or whichever it is 10 or 30 minutes uh before we move into our main presentation. Great. Thank you Shannon Laauo. You have three minutes to address the planning commission.

Um hello all. Uh thank you for uh being here and all the work we've done leading up to this point. I want to share my support for the Adams proposal um that was put forward a couple weeks ago. I think it's the most high yield and highest impact um solution or implementation that we have so far uh that's going to really maximize housing um development in those transition areas. I I don't see the solutions currently laid out by the staff level as as effective and a lot of the discussion around floating residential actually puts us a step back from what we laid out already in the comprehensive plan. Um I also want to support or voice my support for the uh text amendment um submitted by the community land trust. Um I am really excited to see that and just it's a direct implementation of the comprehensive plan and being able to allow tri up to triplexes um into yeah all of Ann Arbor. Um yeah, thank you. Thank you,

Adam Juskevich. You can unmute and address the planning commission for 3 minutes.

Hi, this is Adam Juskegevich calling from the West Stadium neighborhood in the fourth ward of Ann Arbor, 14:30 Las Vegas Drive. Um, I would also like to reiterate my support for Commissioner Adams proposal. um to address the hub and um the halo transition. Although I think halo is kind of a loaded term in Ann Arbor considering the former design of the um and short-lived halo around the big house. Um but I would like to support that. Um, and I would also like to I I do like a few things about the idea of the um floating residential in that it would um allow for some um additional density in residential. What I don't like about it is the fact that it's um floating. Uh, I don't I don't like that it would be something that um residents would and property owners would need to um do a petition to reszone their property to that. I think that it was very clear in the comprehensive land use plan that residential areas and really all of the city will have at least um triplexes by right. Um, and so I think that the community land trust text amendment actually um addresses the same issue that the floating residential addresses in that it allows for kind of releasing density in the residential areas of the city um and allows for up to triplexes by right. I like that it does that without touching the um more controversial

aspects such as setbacks, um minimum lot sizes and so on. Um I think that um having it just set a floor for um three units in um low intensity and medium intensity residential zones is a good way of kind of a stop gap to fix residential and allow us to move on quickly to hub and the hub adjacent transition areas. Um, so please take that up as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you. And if you're just joining tonight's meeting, uh, we're in the public comment uh, period. If you'd like to address the planning commission for up to 3 minutes, please use the raise hand feature. If on Zoom, if you have called into the meeting, please use star 9 to raise your hand. City staff will identify um commenters either by their name or the last three digits of their phone number. And just for everyone who may have joined late, we're just taking the first 10 or 30 minutes of uh public comment so that we have enough time to get to our presentation and agenda. There will be a second time to speak after our uh discussion. Back to you, Mr. Leonard. Eric Ivansich, you have three minutes to address the planning commission.

Hi, my name is Eric Ivansich and I'm calling from the third ward. I know you want to get down to business, so I'll try to keep my comments brief. First of all, thank you for your incredible work in getting the comprehensive land use plan adopted by city council. I'm sure it must also be daunting that there's a lot more work ahead in implementing it. I want to encourage you to move forward with an implementation plan such as the one proposed by Commissioner Daniel Adams. After such a lengthy and often contentious planning process, it's important that we now focus on clear, decisive action, especially given the urgent need for more housing in our community. Additionally, I strongly support taking immediate action by approving the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust text amendment to allow three units by right citywide as called for in our comprehensive land use plan. This is a practical near-term step that avoids getting bogged down in more complex and potentially divisive questions like setbacks and minimum lot sizes while still enabling real progress. It would also allow the community land trusts to begin building homes for essential workers right away. Thank you again for working to address our housing crisis and good night.

Thank you. Tom Stolberg, you have three minutes to address the planning commission.

Thank you. Um, first thing I'd like to address would be short-term rentals. These would be non-principal residents short-term rentals. uh the renters commission calls for moratorum on those uh in terms of new licenses for those and I completely agree with them. So hopefully you can address that immediately uh and recommend to council because it's going to be council who's going to have to pass that. Um the threat and the uncertainty uh is very large from short-term rentals. We prefer to have long-term dwelling units. Secondly, the places that you left without a land use category need to be addressed immediately. Those residents deserve to know what land use category they're in. They've been left residential or transition. That is not a formal land use category. you're making all kinds of decisions about transition, maybe sooner than later, and they don't even know if they're in transition. Next, I'd like to address the idea that the comprehensive plan land use plan stripped out a lot of the details. It was a political more than planning decision. A lot more details really belong in a comprehensive plan than are there. But one of the things that was said was, "Don't worry, the details will come later. We'll do a neighborhood level review. It'll take a long time." Well, we're seeing that that's not necessarily going to happen. Uh we don't know. You have to make some decisions this evening and you're not going to vote this evening, but you're starting that process. I think you need to honor what was told to the people and uh not rush things. Also, in terms of the uh text amendment that was proposed, I think it's absolutely uh deceitful for anybody

to say that it's simple. It just merely does this. It's narrow. No, this is sweeping. It would take every lot and make it capable of having at least three units on it for good or for bad. And those units are not necessarily affordable. They could be very expensive. They could be very large. You know, under the current uh categories, height limits, etc. Real easily though, you could make it completely dependent upon affordable housing. The page 74 that was included in there, cross out the language that was added and put instead additional units, not to exceed a total of three units are 30 more seconds

are permitted if they are affordable. You don't get more units than you currently are allowed unless they're affordable. Or you could go page 89 and just say something like what they do there. And the unit limits to this chapter might be increased up to three if the following conditions are met. And the following condition would be the additional units have to be affordable housing. So if we want to support the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust, let's make this for affordable housing, not a text amendment that will be expensive housing. Thank you.

Thank you. caller with a phone number ending with 009. You can press star six to unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes.

Hi, my name is Tim Rhodess. I live at 448 South First Street, Ann Arbor. Um, when we last spoke about a month ago about the next step, um, I thought about the various comments from commissioners about the next step and the idea that even though we were going to have more detail and look at things parcel by parcel and block by block, um, that neighborhoods shouldn't have a veto. And I appreciate that concept. But if we think about the the comprehensive land use plan and how it was adopted, it was adopted based on a rubric considering existing zoning, proximity to transportation, and a strong desire for increased housing density as well as the opinions of urban planning students and academics. It did not give much weight to neighborhood organizations or consider well the local concerns related to flooding, traffic and other impacts. Now is the time to fix some of those omissions in the exist in the uh land use plan drafting process. This isn't again not calling for a neighborhood veto, but it is a reminder that the public was promised that we would be involved in the zoning process in a detailed way block by block and even parcel by parcel. And that kind of analysis would would call into question whether we should really have hub designation for parcels that are in the floodway less than a block from my house or whether we should consider more carefully the impact to historic districts. if you have highrises abuing the historic district and other concerns

such as if we ever get a train going north and south, why would we want to destroy uh the historic train station on Ashley Street? There are a lot of things, a lot of considerations that really are local. And I hope that whatever you do isn't just checking boxes in terms of public engagement, but authentic public engagement to really get the input of neighborhoods as you proceed forward. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Alex Low. You can unmute and you have three up to three minutes. Evening. This is Alex Low. I am a uh a resident, a uh a taxpayer, and a voter. um which is only uh actually that relevant to me because uh someone was um in a previous communication was bringing up uh how residents, taxpayers and uh and voters um uh don't agree with comprehensive plan which I mean that that's that's true. I don't fully agree with uh with it. I think it should go uh uh uh go much further which actually brings me also to my reluctant support of both the uh the Adams amend Adams proposal and the uh CLT uh a amendment. These do at best the bare minimum but it that they are the best options that have been brought to the table so far. Thank you. Thank you.

Call out with the phone number ending with 556. You can press star six to unmute and address the planning commission for up to 3 minutes.

Good evening Ralph McKe fifth ward. I'm speaking tonight Ray the A2 CLT petition for a text amendment. This petition illustrates, despite the lip service given here to affordability, the links that builders of actual affordable housing have to go to clear obstacles and it contrasts with the red carpet treatment for big developers. Let's review. The land trust requested relatively minor rule changes so it could build affordable duplexes on lots. They have said no, wait until the club's done. You affirmed that denial. So did the ZBA. Contrast that with your approval of the dean reszoning R4 to D1. way before the club was done saying the draft made that area hub and hub contained D2 and D1. You ignored the fact that nothing near them is D1 height. So at most D2 would have been appropriate. The dean should have been required to do a PUD which would have given 30 affordable units. So much for actual affordable housing. Give the big boys what they ask for ASAP. The club says you support land trust but all you've done so far is say no. I don't know, Sarah Loren, and I don't know what you staff or commissioners have discussed with her, but after the club was done, did she ask you to change the rules in exchange for affordability requirements? If so, what was your response? Don't bother us. We're still busy. It's difficult to enforce affordability. Am I getting warm? So, she or someone she discussed this with came up with the petition. It's a good idea except for two problems. It allows multiple big upscale houses on a lot, and it will incentivize upscale builders to outbid the land trust on lots. So, it's a bit of a Trojan horse. All you have to do is add an affordability qualifier. A duplex or triplex pro project has to have X affordable and/or workforce housing. You give the land trust and similar builders a head start, allowing them to buy lots with less competition. You should also recommend you using millage funds to loan the land trust funds to buy lots. Then you sunset the affordability qualifier once you're

done grappling with how to deentivize the Bigfoot triplexes. It strikes me that those constantly harping on the McMansion problems don't really want to restrict it with lot coverage or F restrictions. You'd rather have that issued live to use in your campaigning. Sort of like Trump did with immigration. And don't say we don't have time. You made time for the SI resort, Jeff Hoffman, Southtown, the Klein lot buyers, and the dean. Your failure so far to come up with a viable path forward for the land trust is shameful. If you don't help them now using an affordability qualifier, your hypocrisy will be front and center and no one should listen to you about affordability ever again.

We'll need a name for you. How about neolibertarian? Thank you very much. Thank you. Will Leaf, you can unmute and you have up to three minutes to address the planning commission.

Hi, this is Will Leaf from 528 North State and uh I also support the Adams resolution. I like that it sets a clear next step for what to do, which is to create new zoning districts to start to implement um hub and parts of transition. Uh I want to talk about something that I think hasn't been talked about very much, which is another advantage. Um, I think it's going to be very helpful to start with a baseline of uh zoning rules that allow the types of housing you want to allow or mixed uses that you want to allow without forbidding detached homes and without being overly restrictive um to uses that are already there. Um, so the Adams resolution calls for basing as a starting point. Sony changes proposed by Jonathan Lavine and I for um hub and transition. And the reason we did that and we wrote those changes is because we saw in the TC1 process that it's very possible to provide very burdensome regulations for uses that are already there. And I think if you don't provide that guidance, it's possible that the first draft that comes back will have rules for hub and transition that ban detached homes explicitly or uh ban them implicitly with transparency requirements and rules that make every first floor be 15 ft tall and 60% transparent. And I would really avoid that because that's going to create a lot of very justifiable homeowner outrage. And I think you can avoid that by saying we're trying to permit more people to live in the city. We're not trying to interfere with people's uh home expansion projects. If they have a new relative coming into their home or somebody aging in place or a new child, um you're not trying to interfere with that. You're trying to allow more. So that's an extra perk I think uh of the Adams resolution. Also, it calls for

meetings to discuss different aspects of the zoning districts. And I think that's a really good way to do it because then you can get really good public input. If you say, "We're going to be talking about permitted uses at this meeting." And you tell everybody, I mean, I like the idea of a postcard. I'd tell the whole city that it's happening. Engage the public as much as possible and get them in front of decision makers sharing their views. I think that's more effective than doing an off-site um I mean you can have a good off-site engagement session but I think it's very important that people feel heard and saying we're talking about this issue then 30 more seconds

um is a good way of doing that in my opinion and I just think that yeah we need the people of Ann Arbor to be informed and making the decisions together but that doesn't mean delay start the engagement process now um so that's it thank you thank Thank you, Sarah Lorent. You have up to three minutes to address the planning commission.

Hello. Uh, thanks for taking my call. Um, as some of you have already mentioned, the Community Land Trust submitted a petition recently. Um, this comes largely from the concerns of our home buyers. Uh we are building 26 homes this year and half of those homes are constrained um to ADUs of 600 or 800 square ft and um the unfinished basement has to be part of that square footage. Uh some of these folks have uh families or are hoping to start families um and they would like a little bit more elbow room um you know the same size as the other homes we're building just above uh 1,200 square ft. So they've asked us to explore any and all options to make those homes a little larger. Uh we attempted to do that last year with an ADU amendment and it just was not quite the the right fit to do that uh through the ADU zoning. Um, so we were exploring other options and with the new comprehensive plan and the possibility of three units, uh, that could immediately, um, if if adopted soon, that could solve our problems with the ADUs on our current homes, the 13 of the 26, and it could open up some really interesting options to create more affordability on other land in the future. So, I'm looking forward to the discussion on this to see if this is a possibility in the near future. Um, I'm also interested in hearing more about the floating district that was mentioned in the staff report. Um, and working with everyone to find a solution. Um, I'd love to hear um how long this petition might take to be uh considered and in comparison with um the full residential uh rewrite at some

point in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Loner. I don't see any additional hands. Is that your concurrence? Yes.

Uh so if you'd like to speak um and address the planning commission at this time, uh we still have about 9 minutes in this 30 minute window uh to hear from public commenters for up to 3 minutes a piece. Otherwise, your next opportunity to speak will be after uh we finish our discussion. So, please raise your hand. If you're on Zoom or if you are connected to the call uh via your phone, please press star 9 to raise your hand and then city staff will identify you and allow you to speak. Please move to a quiet area back any u mute any background noise and state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Mr. or Mrs. Phone, you have up to 3 minutes to address the planning commission. You can press star six PJ phone. Press star six to unmute and you can have up to three minutes to address the planning commission. PJ phone to call there. Go ahead. We can hear you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Um hi. Uh my name is Priscilla and I am a resident of Orchard Street. I'm in Ward 5. Um and uh my neighborhood has just become aware of um that our street Orchard Street has become uh now has the potential become a uh commercial artery. Um the north side is of the street is now cons going to be considered a transition zone allowing high-rise buildings, commercial and non-hazardous industrial use. Um the other side of the street is now a residential zone allowing three-story buildings with no height limits. Um Orchard Street was formerly designated as an R1D which limits height to 30. Um so we are as a a community we are asking that uh the street which is a a residential neighborhood of sort of mixed income levels um be remain as a residential street. It's a very narrow street. If there's any industrial things or anything coming through here, I don't know if they'd have to actually have a parking lot as part of their lot because there is very limited um street parking and there's no parking on one side because of the narrowness of the street. We're also asking that there be more communication about these things happening. It's sort of by default that we found out about this. Um we're glad that we heard about the meeting today but we um and I think this has been um mentioned earlier as well is that many people are looking for more communication about what is happening. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, one more call for public commenters before we hear from Commissioner Norton. If you'd like to speak and you're on Zoom, please use the raised hand feature. If you're connected via phone, please use star9. For anyone who is connected while you decide whether you want to speak, um we do have the ability for everyone to subscribe to the planning commission's meetings and agenda via the city's A2GV delivery system. So, you can go to the church uh excuse me, the city's website, not the church's website. You can see where my mine is. And um go to the uh planning department and on there there should be a link where you can subscribe uh to the A2 gov delivery and then you can select the city planning commission. And when our meeting agendas are finalized on Fridays before 5:00 p.m. each time before a meeting, you'll get an email notification. I'm subscribed to it and that's how I get notifications as well. So

uh last lastly, you had mentioned uh the videos uh all recordings of meetings are posted to the city's online calendar. It can be found uh on the city's website uh wherever you search uh for agenda materials and minutes. You'll also find links to the video and another sort of opportunity for that is uh uh CTN Ann Arbor uh has a YouTube channel and you can often find meetings at that location as well.

All right, Mr. Leonard, I do not see any other participants who have raised their hand. So with that, I will close the public comment and um uh Commissioner Norton asked for a few minutes and not Professor Timed minutes to uh to make a comment and um so I will turn it over to Commissioner Norton before we get into our presentation from staff. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair W. Um, I missed the Ann Arbor Planning Commission meeting when the commission adopted the comprehensive plan because of a work conflict I couldn't schedule. And then I missed again for the working session on planning because of my own scheduling goof. So I I wanted to take a minute to say some things that I would have said at those meetings that I had the opportunity to do. So mainly I want to respond to several claims we heard repeatedly throughout the planning process which we're starting to hear again. First, we heard repeatedly that the planning process we undertook was undemocratic among other things. But we don't live in a New England town small enough to call a meeting together with all the residents to fit into a small town hall. Like most of the country, we rely on representative democracy. We expect our city council members to be both followers of their constituent wishes, but we also want them to take the time and effort to educate themselves and provide leadership on difficult policy decisions. And under Michigan's planning and zoning enabling laws, the land's plan is the city council's plan. City council has the authority and the responsibility to guide its development and council is expected to follow its goals and principles once adopted. The role of the planning commission is to provide analysis and advice to aid that process, not to make policies itself or an isolation of city council that would be binding on city council. So the way the comprehensive lings plan played out in Ann Arbor was entirely democratic and exactly how it should have played out. Our city council was elected on a policy agenda that recognized the housing troubles we're in. The council directed the planning commission to do a comprehensive land use plan update and to focus especially on those housing troubles. Planning staff and the CPC provided extensive and varied opportunities for public input. And indeed, both the city council and the planning commission made multiple modifications to multiple drafts of the plan to reconcile as best we could all of the competing concerns. consent of the govern doesn't mean that every individual citizen or every neighborhood gets a veto power over any policy they

might be adopted that they don't like. And the fact that we weren't able to craft a plan that fully satisfies everyone doesn't mean the process was undemocratic or corrupt or that council commission members weren't listening. It just means that the challenges we're facing are really complex and uncertain and they implicate really important goals that are in tension with one another. So there's just no clear and easy way to navigate through those conflicts. That leads to my second point. We heard repeatedly that there was too much uncertainty and that we should proceed only with policies that we were contemplating only if they we were absolutely certain that they would achieve the goals we're trying to reach. We also had a number of presentations suggesting that computing technology and systems analysis methods available today could deliver that certainty. But it has never been possible to address meaningfully the kinds of complex problems we're confronting with complete and absolute certainty that the policy levers we're pulling will achieve exactly and only the kinds of outcomes we're aiming for. And with due respect the to the systems engineers I'm quite confident that such analyses simply are not as straightforward or robust or certain as they were presented to be. That includes AI by the way which I'm struggling with my with my own students. Um but a little aside there. Um, my third point and final, we heard repeatedly that the planning commission was convinced too simplistically and correctly that upzoning all the residential neighborhoods would solve all of the city's housing troubles by affording suitable affordable housing. We also heard that there were other ways to do this, much better ways, notably by supporting the community land trust and by providing more publicly subsidized housing. But in all of our del deliberations, I never heard any planning commissioner or staff suggest that allowing more density in the city, including in the neighborhoods, was the one and only silver bullet solution to solving the city's housing problems. Everyone recognizes that allowing more density is necessary, but it's not by itself sufficient. Everyone recognizes

that we need to undertake multiple efforts through multiple policy changes and coordinate them as best we can to have any success, including supporting nonprofit efforts and providing publicly subsidized affordable housing along with allowing for private market development. Indeed, we need more private developed private market rate housing because that's always been the main mechanism to provide housing in Ann Arbor and throughout the rest of the country. Recognizing the role that private market plays is not supply side economics. It's just acknowledging that a substantial reason for our limited housing supply relative to demand is that we have limited housing supply because our zoning regulations limit the possibility of developing new housing. And we should all recognize that even leaning on the ACLT, the Community Land Trust, will require reszonings to allow increased density, including within neighborhoods, for them to have a place where they can actually build more affordable homes. And we should finally recognize that while we should continue to support providing publicly subsidized housing like we do, we should also contemplate carefully and fully the local tax implications of doing substantially more than we're currently doing. Again, I'll repeat, there's a an important role for the private market to play here. So, I fully recognize and appreciate the apprehensions of raised by folks who are concerned about the changes that are coming. I know change can be scary and unwelcome, but I also fully recognize and appreciate the concerns of residents who are being pushed out of Ann Arbor because of limited options and the folks who would like to move here but just can't afford to do so. Doing nothing doesn't mean that things won't change. It just means things will continue to change in ways that leave us ultimately worse off. I think the plan does a good job of laying out the balance we need to strike as we move forward with the zoning changes coming next. That change is going to be challenging and we do need to move with some urgency because of the housing crisis we're in. But we also need to do some due diligence and make sure that in our haste to ease up

on housing constraints, we don't make mistakes or create new problems that we will all come to regret later. even the folks who move in. I'm thinking specifically here of the need to ensure we're adapting adequately to climate change which we cannot avoid. It's coming. It's on the way and that implicates things like natural features and storm water management. We don't need to start from scratch. The city's already done a lot of analysis on these issues and and is completing more this summer that we can pick up and work with quickly. So, we do need to move with urgency, but we need to move with deliberate urgency. Um, the way to do that is through a public engagement strategy which we asked the staff to produce and we're going to talk about tonight. I really hope the public will engage us constructively and in good faith so that we can figure out the best way to move forward. Some of the things we can address, I think pretty quickly because we did debate them extensively through the planning process. Other things we'll need to slow down and take some more care and make sure we could get good public feedback. And that's what I'm hoping that we can figure out how to do tonight in future meetings. Thank you to my well my apologies to my planning commissioner fellows for not making the meetings that I missed and thank you for bearing with me tonight to let me say a few words. Thank you chair w.

You are welcome. Thank you commissioner Norton. So we will move uh straight into our presentation tonight which will be led by planner Bennett. Uh generally in these meetings planner Bennett asks that we call planner Bennett Michelle. So I will allow planner Bennett to affirm that if that is the place uh for our conversation tonight and with that you are in charge of the start of this presentation.

Okay. Thank you chair wh um yes I will go by planner Bennett or Michelle. Some of you all can't help yourself um with with planner Bennett and I'm I have gotten used to it. Um, okay. I'm going to share my screen here so we can go over the materials that are in your packet. Is everyone seeing uh a memo that says UDC background in response to planning commission questions? Okay. I would like to spend the majority of the time that we have left discussing all of the options that were provided today by staff, but I do think we need to touch on these two documents briefly. So I will give a highle overview, ask if there's any questions and then I will move on to the options. This memo here is primarily to address some of the questions that arose in our last meeting. Um so there were some questions about um the city's experience with moratoriums. Um there were some questions here about um our past zoning efforts and to see how long those took and what the steps were for those. So we have discussed here uh TC1 was kind of our last big amendment um at a large scale. So we broke those down into the different steps with the types of meetings that were held and the duration of those. Um there was questions about uh our recommendations which are the options that will be provided uh about infrastructure capacity which the studies are still ongoing with our engineering staff and systems planning staff. Um I believe they are going to council at the end of this month to talk about some of the results but that their studies will not be complete until June.

Um and so we will be somewhat dependent on that as well. Um there were questions about development activity. So we've listed here um what our active site plans are, where they fall, whether they're in hub, transition or residential. Um, in the last month or so since the last meeting, I uh and Brett and Alexis, we've all met with Minneapolis, Charlottesville, Virginia, um, Grand Rapids, Austin, Texas, and I have since talked to Kalamazoo. They didn't make it in time to get in this packet, but I have some updates from them as well. We're asking them about their process, how they went about this. I looked at their um zoning, their overlays, their future land use categories. Some of it was internet research, but most of it was interviews with their planners as well. And then lastly here, what the roles could be of how we approach this, whether we want to go through the OC or continue as an entire body. And then some of our standards that we would like to make sure are also a part of the update. So, I bring these up just because as we're talking about options, some of these things may come up and so we can refer back to this document. But again, this is just um this is background for tonight's conversation. I'll go to the engagement one and then I'll pause and see if there's any questions. Um we have heard um from many that um our engagement has been insufficient. Um there is a feeling by some that we are putting off the details um until people are too tired to engage with this process. And so I um was formerly a community engagement specialist at the city. And so um I put this together.

This is a variation of the International Association of Public Participation. They are a global nonprofit. They're pioneers in this area. And this is um how we are trained up when I was on the fourth floor. Um so there are some descriptions here about what sort of each of these tail um these steps entail. Um and so just briefly in form is an very important it's an essential part of engagement. We cannot be having conversations with the public when we do this all day every day and have degrees in this topic and discuss these topics and they're brand new to the field, right? We have to be able to inform people about the processes um the content so that we can have productive conversations. And so I added that to every stage of this because in an iterative process as things change as we learn more information we need to be constantly including inform in any stage of engagement. And so you can see here consult involve collaborate. These are brief descriptions of what those mean. Um and I have talked about here what some methods are of engagement for each one of these. Um and I think more most importantly when we go on to the options you will see at each step we state what we think would be a full moderate or light engagement. And so that refers to this graphic here. Um light engagement in this form would be just consult. And that's just we're taking options to you and we are listening to your feedback. Moderate would be doing at least two of these steps where we are consulting but we are consulting more frequently. We're working directly with the public to ask about their concerns and their preferences and ensuring those are considered. Collaborating would be a

step further would be allowing them to also develop alternatives, identify preferred solutions and it can continue to go around, right? Because once we get to maybe what our final is, we would go back and consult again. Did we get this right? So um when you looked uh at the options that we provided when we refer to light, moderate or full engagement, we are referring to this cycle and there are more details here if you would like to see what we mean by those. Are there any questions about the background or the engagement handout before we talk about the options? And I can't see all of you on my one screen, but

Commissioner Hammer Smith, thank you. Um, and thank you, Michelle, for well, thanks to all of staff for all this work and thanks for reminding me and all of us that you are community engagement specialists at the city. Quick questions before we move on. Um, the Charlottesville example. I'm curious. Um, who sued them? Um, good question, Brett. You were on that call with me. I I think it was a group of citizens.

Um, and it was regarding infrastructure studies. Um, I can always get more details from them. There were lawsuits in three out of the four people that we talked to. Yeah. So, did did that impact their resoning or was it was it was it it delayed it for a significant period of time, but now they have after after the resolution of that legal action, they have completed their zoning. um they have not um based on our conversation, they've not realized sort of any infill development in their neighborhoods subsequent to that resoning yet. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Council member Dish,

if this can be a quick answer and if not we can postpone it, but um Michelle, how do you see the um let's see, consult, inform, collaborate. Whoops, I'm sort of not Did I get those in the right order? um mapping onto the work that we've already done with the comprehensive land use plan engagement.

Yeah, that that's a good question and um I'll be honest, when we were talking to other cities, there was quite a spectrum. There are people that believe that a lot of the engagement has already been done during the comprehensive plan and now they've moved on to the more technical side and it is more a question of informing residents of the progress that is being made and more educational. Um there were also some other ideas we learned about how cities engaged with the public on this. Um, so when I wrote about this, I did think of the comprehensive plan as as one pretty substantial step in our engagement because we spent about a year and a half doing that. I not saying I think that it's over. Um, I think that it depends here and this is what's towards the end of when to apply what levels. And so I think we've heard pretty clearly that people are most concerned about what happens to their neighbor on their street in their neighborhood. And so my our recommendations here are the closer you get to someone's home, the more engagement should be done. Um and so we can say here that would be full residential or I'm sorry for residential full engagement. And so in that sense, I think it would be writing a draft, going to the public, consulting, hearing what their concerns are, and continuing to work on that draft with them um together. I, and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, I felt like as we got further away, maybe with something like a hub where it's already sort of like a self-contained shopping center, my impression was that there was a lot less concern. Um, and that that could be a lighter engagement. Certainly, I did I think I added these are all subject to change as things come up and the public

may, you know, feel differently then we can adjust as we go. Um, but it's generally I think the closer you get to someone's home, the more engagement that you would do, including all of those. Did that answer your question? It it did, but it raised another one, which is Oh, can we pause on the the secondary one or can you just Yeah, it's just how close are we getting to a home with a text amendment? Okay, thank you, Council Member Dish. Uh, we'll go to uh Commissioner Norton, then to Weatherbeck. That's the order I have you on my screen. Is that correct how you all raised your hands? Okay.

Um I think Yeah. Um I just want to point out because now we're starting to hear um I first of all let me say I think we're headed in the right direction to really think through where are the places we need to do more full engagement and where have we really hammered issues out through the planning process and can do somewhat less. Um I agree that a lot of the concerns we're hearing are from neighborhood residents who are quite concerned about how their neighbors would change. I want to push back though a little bit on now some of the some of the comments we're hearing that there were promises made that we were going to do a parcel by parcel, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood assessment. I don't recall hearing that. I never I know I never asserted that. Um I definitely think we need to engage with the public about how to deal with these difficult questions. But I want to I want to go back to the point I keep making is if we give everybody a veto power over anything that can happen anywhere close to them, nothing is going to change. So, we need to approach this in a really constructive, thoughtful way, but not in a way that's just going to collapse everything down. So, I guess I'm going to put that statement on the record, too. Thank you.

I think I can I respond. Uh, yes, but then I was going to Commissioner Weatherbe. Sorry. Go ahead, Michelle. Go ahead.

Oh, okay. Um, I think when we say parcel by parcel analysis, if we're going to be making map amendments, that needs to happen. And, um, I would generally expect that that was staff that was doing that. Not to say that we wouldn't can't share that information, but I I guess in the comments I heard today that was interpreted as like that was some sort of engagement exercise. That's just the necessary work that would have to be done. If we were going to make map amendments, we'd have to look at every parcel. Thank you for that clarification. Uh Coun, uh Commissioner Weatherbe, about to promote you to council member. Uh, I just wanted to and while I don't disagree about the transition or hub being the engagement, I also really feel strongly that homes are places where people live and that single family homes should not be the primary like the people who are important or the people who live in residential areas should not be the ones who are considered more. There are many people who live in transition areas. There are many people who live in hub areas and those might be in single family homes. Those might be in condos. Those might be in apartments. and uh just that I don't want this process from my perspective to be like only driven by the concerns of people who live in single family homes because I think that is part of what we're working against is the primacy of people who live in single family homes and I I think we need to always recognize that people live throughout the city in multiple kinds of housing. So, I'm just

going to throw that out there. Thank you, Commissioner Weatherbe. Back to you, Michelle. Um, it seems like I'm good to move on then to the options. Yes. Okay. Um, so, can we just I'm sorry. Can we assume that as a commission we have read these options? Okay, great. I just want to make sure that's out there so that we know that we've looked at them. Um, so that we don't have to rehash them. Um, and so we know how we want to talk about them.

Um, I was going to go through them, but I am happy to just I suppose how should we structure this then? I can I'll just give you a little background. So option one is um I guess staff's preferred option. Option two is us exploring um what Commissioner Adams put forth and option three is another u variation um a slight variation to option one um and I don't know if we want to open up discussions should we open them up just first to option one and discuss those or option two option three I I fear if we just open it up totally that it might be completely unstructured that I was planning to go through each one and discuss and ask questions but

yeah I if if it's okay I think um from the table what we discussed at our last meeting we obviously heard some uh suggestions um like um Adam's memo but we also heard a conversation between Commissioner Mills and Commissioner Lee um about whether there were other opportunities within the city and Then in between that conversation, the community land trusts submitted their um text amendment uh which is different. And I think if the if the uh table, even though we're in boxes on a screen, uh would permit, I I think it might be um helpful to understand the impact of the text amendment on our conversation because it's not technically, and this is where I need correction, a reszoning because it would keep the existing zones in place, it would just amend them to permit different things. And I I wonder and especially since we have Planner Deo here, who is in my opinion our UDC expert um and I I think staff concurs um to speak to us about this text amendment assuming planner Dio has had a time an opportunity to review it. So with the the table's permission, that's where I'd like to start and then we can I think that'll inform options 1, two, or three. But I'm open before we ask planner DO to start uh to hear from any other commissioner who uh does not concur or wants to say something else. Go ahead. Uh Commissioner Mills.

Uh I think it's um it's not that I don't concur. I just want to double down that I would love to better understand how the tax amendment um that the community land trust is proposing may be similar or different to what is envisioned by the floating residential zoning cuz um I have an idea in my mind but I'm curious how staff is thinking about this. So

thank you for that clarification commissioner Mills. Does anyone else have a clarification like that? Otherwise, we'll go to planner dio if planner dio is willing uh to answer that question I pos. All right, I don't see any hands or objections. Planner Deo,

I'm going to have to have my colleagues um um Michelle and planning manager Leonard um refresh on what does the text amendment say? Um because the devil is in the details with that one. I can stall and say the floating residential um would be we would write um it would be like the beginning of the TC1 process which I think the table is has some some memories of and we would write a residential district that accomplishes the goals of um or at least gets most of the way to accomplishing some of the goals that we're looking for with the comp plan. um you know multiple units in one building, whether they be duplexes, triplexes, so on so forth. Um what is the minimum lot area? What are the standards and so forth and it would be like on the books, so to speak. And then that way anyone who is interested in reszoning their lot, we do not have to reinvent the wheel every single time. we can reszone to that established district and they can use all the benefits of that district but and then everyone is using a common base point um if if you will um that is what the floating zone would be. It would be a district that has permitted uses. It has a minimum watt area or or not if that's what we choose. It has certain setbacks. It has certain height restriction and then anyone could apply for it. it would be consistent with the comprehensive plan if they're in the correct category and um it would not be having to to ask the questions of what is the right lot size to reszone you two and so on. Um Brett has his hand up.

Yep. Go ahead, Mr. Wonder.

Yeah, thanks. So I think they would be I so there they would be very different products. Um the proposed amendment from the community land trust is to simply add up to three dwelling units in every R1 R2 uh district R3 district for that matter. Um, they also propose uh some slight adjustments to minimum building building spacing, but it would be a text amendment. So, that would technically not be a reasonzoning. It would be akin to how the city allowed accessory dwelling units. It would be something that we are uh applying a text changes to existing zoning districts across the city. Um, it would be applying those same uses to all of the uh same lot dimensions, setbacks, area require area minimums that exist in all of those districts today. So, if you were in an R1A and you have a Alexis helped me at 20,000 foot lot minimum, you would have to have a 20,000 foot lot. Um, in the R1E you could have a 5,000 foot lot minimum. or 4,000

4,000.

So a a question that we will we will evaluate when we provide a recommendation to you is right now all of those districts for example are crafted with minimum lot sizes. So how does this apply to that? Are we simply now requiring three units in an R1A to have a 60,000t lot? If not, we would have to make other lot size adjustments to say that now you can have three units on a minimum 20,000. So, so those are all things that we can do, but it would be applying it would be trying to get to that solution across uh at least seven zoning districts. All right. It would not be any reasonzzoning. It would be a text amendment. Technically would not require any postcard mailings because it is no specific geographic changes. Um now the floating residential zone is envisioned as a singular tool that might have application in R1A areas, R1E areas, R2A areas and R2B areas. And it is going it is envisioned or how I envision it is it's going to provide those three units but it's also going to start approaching some of the other standards that were discussed through the plan. What do we mean by three stories? What setbacks are the setbacks going to change? Um are there going to be different setback requirements if it's a three-unit building or if it's a single unit building? Are we going to be encouraging more lot divisions? So, it is what what I envision it is a quick pass wi with engagement but to create create a district that we can have available because right now absent the the community land trust or some other

action we have no zoning district for example now that provides up to three units as its cap. We don't have that on the books. And so by creating this district, I think it's an opportunity for us to create it. I think because of a lot of I think that there is a lot of fear about change. I think there's fear about change in transition areas and in residential areas to Commissioner Weatherbee's point. Um, people do live all across the city, but I think that having that as a tool is going to frankly be a little bit of an insurance policy for the planning commission and the city council to also be supportive of changes in these neighborhoods that are consistent with the plan rather than facing perhaps uh I would like to do a duplex or I'd like to do a triplex so I would like to reszone this to R4C or I'd like to reszone it to R4E which we really haven't calibrated those districts. to be limited to three units or to what have you. And so, so I think the outcome in short would be similar. The benefit of the community land trust is that it is text amendments. It would provide a blunt application of more units, but it's not I don't sit here and suggest that it's going to be as simple as just changing the use table. are going to be other area height placement things that will have to just be adjusted to make sure that it's possible or clear at least. The floating residential district I think provides us an opportunity that we have a tool on the books that people can access. It's been vetted. It hopefully will have very broad applicability across the city and after we do some additional work on other areas, we're going to have a little bit of body of knowledge about how that's working and how it's not working as we go forward.

Thank you, Mr. Leonard. Uh, Council Member Dish,

thank you very much. I wanted to ask a couple of follow-up questions. Um, I know that one of the purposes of the floating zone is to get, as you just said, really information about how uh, it works and then what more needs to be done for to make the changes that we want to make. But in the memo um, you did note or somebody wrote on page seven, the proposed zoning amendment could likely address many of the same questions. So, I wanted to know what you thought of that because you you present them as as more different. And um I wanted to ask so right now if a developer wants to build a triplex or triplex, I don't know what part of the country I come from and how I'm supposed to say that. um is is the response okay um sure we'll have to reszone you to re R4 and make some modifications to R4 or or do we say sorry we don't have a a thing for you yet you have to wait um and then I just wondered about lot maximums

okay so there were three questions uh in that uh one what was uh is the text amendment and the floating district really different commissioner dish I just want to it's more I mean it's probably new can you get the same information can you get similar information out of doing the text amendment as you imagine the floating district would give you and then what happens if we get a proposal if we don't go ahead with either and lot maximums are those addressed

okay planner Dio just jump in as you and Mr. Leonard need to so that you can answer these questions. I I don't need to call on you all.

So I I Commissioner Dish I I I think I just said that I think that they are different. They could get at the same things but I think it's depends on how how much we dive into them. Again I just adding three units to those uses. I think we will have to make other adjustments to make sure it's clear how it relates to a minimum lot size. For example, now if you have a 10,000 square foot lot with a with a 5,000 foot lot minimum, we will allow you to build two homes there. We will have to figure out how do we extend the same to multiple units in that location. Maybe we just leave it the same that in order to do a duplex. You could do a duplex there as long as you had double the minimum lot size. We could get into that. I think that by doing a floating residential, it frankly gives us it creates more potential avenues for debate discussion. It also gives us more of a blank slate to really reimagine what we want, such as maybe maximum lot size, which none of our existing districts have currently.

Okay. Uh, council member Dish, are you good with that response?

I don't know how to inter because we should go on. Yes. I mean, it's just that we heard so much in the correspondence tonight about open field for developers and I was trying to

get at what non-action means for that. So I I think I missed. Just to be clear, if we go through the community land trust and we successfully answer those questions and those zoning changes are are made, then yes, that eliminates a step for develop for somebody to be able to move more quickly to build a duplex or triplex on their property. I I just want to be clear, a floating district requires an additional zoning. As to your question about what do we do, that's going to be sort of up to the city. when we get an when if you get an application today because our plan says, "Hey, I have this R1C lot and it's a single family, but the plan supports a triplex. I want to build a triplex. I would like to zone it for R4C." R4C has a minimum 2500 foot or 2175 foot. Alexis, correct me if I'm wrong, but unless unless that comes in like as a conditional zoning, which I don't think we want to do, we have to decide is that okay cuz that could allow three, it could allow 12 depending on what that zoning is. So, we don't really have that district. So, so I if the community land trust satisfies all we want, it explores all of the aspects of that, then that is the faster way. Then that changes 60 60% of all the parcels in the city, it changes their development potential based on that text amendment. If we want to explore other facets of it, then I think maybe starting a new makes more sense. And the floating district again gives us a tool where you could say, "No, we don't think R4C is appropriate. We think this floating district is appropriate for what you have in mind."

Okay. Thank you, uh, Council Member Dish. We'll go to, uh, Commissioner Norton, then Weatherbe, and then I have a clarifying question while we're in this, um, space.

I I have a comment and then a clarifying question. So this what we're already starting to talk about is making it clear these are issues that we probably do want to engage the public not on a what can happen in my next door but these all have different implications for how they can play out across the city and and that's worth some deliberation. Um I do want to ask for clarification. Manager Leonard, in the plan, the terminologies use triplex and duplex, which I take to mean a triplex is a single structure that has three units in it. Um, but I think people are envisioning building three separate units on a lot, which to my mind is something different. So, I want to I want to know how the staff deals with that terminology and if um and if in the land trust language it's it's three family unit, but it sounds to me like that would still be like a triplex which is a connected building, not necessarily three separate units. So, that's the first question. And then the second question is again, you may need to ask legal counsel this, but my understanding is that under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, we are not authorized to tell somebody you can only build if it's an affordable unit. that's inclusionary zoning and we can't do that. So, some of the comments we're getting that you should demand that anything gets built as an affordable unit, we can't actually do under state law and and if you want to have if you want to defer to that and have our city attorney come in and clarify for us, that would be really helpful to know um as we figure out how to go forward. Um so, thank you. Those are questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Norton. Go ahead. up. I I think if we want to provide the full I read the plan to want that it supports a full the fullest diversity of housing supply and configuration. To that end, I think a triplex is different than three individual units on a property, but I think we should pursue allowing both. I mean this is we want to find the opportunity to provide a variety of situations configurations that speak to a new market desires and yeah let me let me clarify the question I wasn't saying I'm not disagreeing with you on that I'm saying if if we use the word triplex it would likely be interpreted to mean

a single structure with three units so if we are encomp if we're considering and want to allow three separal units we should make it really clear in the language we're using that that's what we're talking about and not not lump that under the concept triplex. That was the point I was trying to make. Let me just give you a very brief insight into the weeds of zoning. We have people come in with a duplex that are two separate homes connected by a retaining wall. They might share a they they pour a single foundation wall and there is a 10-ft separation between those things. Yes, I agree with you. We're going to have to be figure out what those definitions are. But even when we define them, zoning is always an imperfect tool.

Thank you, Mr. Leonard. Uh, Commissioner Weatherbe, and then I have a a question. So, I just want to clarify. Okay. So when we talk about the community land trust resolution or or amendment or whatever that is we may call it that but it is open and a it would be open and available to anyone with any configuration that matched what was in that. Correct. So be any property zoned R1, R2 or R3. Okay. Just wanted to confirm that.

Great. And then um as we make our way, can we narrow our questions to singular and then let staff ask because I think sometimes the stacked questions can be hard to keep track of. I'm trying to keep my notes of what we're uh discussing. So I think um in that vein, I want to stay with um uh Commissioner Norton's question about uh units versus um lots. So, I heard you say something about minimum lot sizes applying to lots, but isn't it the case that minimum lot sizes, is it units or lots that the minimum lot size applies to? I think that's the question.

We have both. Answer this one. Go ahead. Uh, planner Dia.

Sure. Um uh we currently regulate we have a minimum lot size in each zoning district and we have a minimum lot area per dwelling unit. So we um and then the use table talks about what uses and we separate single family is a use two family is a use. Multiple family by definition means three or more units in the same building. that is a use. So the minimum lot area is just how big of a lot do you need to unlock your potential and um for discussion purposes. We we can talk about the R2A district. I think it's be a quick analysis. It the R2A district is 5,000 square foot minimum lot area. If you're below that, you are non-conforming. You've got to go to the non-conforming section of the code. Follow those rules. If you have if you have that amount of land area, 5,000 ft², the next column of the area height and placement chart says the minimum lot area per unit is 2,500 square ft. So on your lot, you can have two dwelling units. If you go to the use table, the permitted uses are single family and two family. So you're allowed to have two units. by the uses. You can have two single family homes or you can have one duplex. By definition, it's one building with two units in it. If you were to have a 7,500 square foot lot, it's more than 5,000. It's conforming. You do the math, you can have three units on it. Um and you so you can have if you can do the geometry then you can have three single families or you can have one single family and two duplexes and then you can keep going and so on and so

forth. Um I'm not familiar with the so the details about the community land trust. This is the things that we'd have to um and we do this for every single district. I should say in our single family districts we there's a minimum lot area. What do you need to unlock your potential? Then there is a minimum lot area per dwelling unit. It's the same. So you can have two buildings, two homes in a single family district right now today. The thing is you have to double your lot area every single time to get that. Nothing you can do will ever get you a duplex because in the permitted use table, duplexes, two families not allowed, but you can have lots of single family homes. I'm not sure what the CLT the exact wording is because there is a it would have we would have to address both. How many units per building with that text amendment? And then how many how many um what's the minimum lot area per unit? If the CLT amendment proposed just asks for um more buildings per per lot. Well, we we already allow that. If they're asking for more, if they're asking to allow two family and or multif family, three family on the same lot. Okay, that's but that only addresses the building type. That does not address the minimum lot area per unit. I'll stop there, but um I think that we we do both because that gets at what is the cadence down the street? What is the minimum lot area minimum lot area just down the street? What is your does your neighborhood look like? small lots or big lots and then though what kinds of buildings do we allow in that district?

Okay, thank you for that. Um in my reading of the text amendment um in their petition, they don't change the minimum lot area per unit. They don't address it at all. Uh they just we probably want to talk to I mean getting we probably want to talk to them about that. I'm not sure if that that and that's where the there was a public comment about um it's not quite as s as simple and straightforward as they think. Right.

Well, I mean they may address it. I mean I I I would need you to look at the red lines because they take the UDC, they take the table and then they just red line through it to address what they're trying to permit. And I think that brings me to my next question which is the difference. This goes back to Commissioner um uh Dish's comment which was what's the big difference between the two? I think one thing that I read is if we took up the community land trust text amendment because it's not a reszoning it would then permit the uses of duplex and triplex by right but the floating zoning district would have to be reszoned which would then require a petition for anybody who wanted to do that and I think for me that is a big difference because that changes the amount of work that the table would even see because if the c if we read and understand the policy of council correctly to permit duplexes and triplexes by right citywide which was something they have said and championed then um processing that in a byite fashion and then we just change the use tables or deal with the minimum lots as you all have been um elucidating us uh in this conversation. that is um substantially different than creating a new district that then if I wanted to put a triplex on my parcel which is 9,275ish square ft um I'd have to come in for a

reasonzoning and so then that has that's increased cost that's time and that's additional work for planning staff and I looked at your petitions page today and there was a dozen things that are not even in engage that are just at the postcard level. So I just I I feel like that's a material difference. And so I guess I'm not making um I'm not asking a question so much as I'm just sort of trying to clarify that I think that is the big difference for me between the floating and the text amendment approach. And I saw heads shaking at least Michelle and Brett's uh as I was speaking that that my understanding is correct. and then I'll go to Brett and then uh to you Commissioner Mills.

I agree with that 100%. Okay. The the idea of the floating district was um approaching the proactive reasonzoning of residential later in the process. The alternative would be to not create a floating district, create that new residential district and reszone everything to it. So that would that would achieve that similar goal. It's a lot more step that we're we got to define the parcels, we got a notice, etc. So, thank you, uh, Commissioner Mills.

Yeah, thanks. I mean, my two cents worth is that I read the floating district as kind of the trial balloon, like test something out, see how it works, and uh and also try to make it in some ways simpler, but I think that then takes a lot more time. And so the in my mind the way that um that these ideas could meld is that this is the kind of the the the intent behind the CLT proposal is sort of the and it is the process of like figuring out how to limit it. I I'll just say the thing that gives me most pause in addition to the how do we deal with um how many dwelling units on a lot of any size and that's what I read in the proposal is I first of all I like the elegance of just doing the thing that we said we were going to do which is expand the kinds of housing units in the residential areas like that is in the residential um districts map I don't know remember which one is called districts and so but you know what I mean um and so I think that that is excellent rather than calling it ADU. The thing that I think it and I like the simplicity of not changing setbacks. I think that the I think that the lot area is a trick. But even more so, what I heard um even in the comment is that these are anticipated being modestly sized units. And it a broad change could actually lead to a not modestlysized triplex. It could be an 18-bedroom triplex. And I think that's exactly the thing that um could set this back this entire plan back. And so thinking about whether

there is either lot combination requirements if you do that through you lot area per dwelling unit or you do it through maximum building sizes. I think that there's a couple of different ways of doing that. And I I'm curious if that is what staff thinks about that possibility of like of of putting of a of um whether we do the text amendment that includes some of those protections that I think we know are coming in the future. the the list of things that we said we would do in that residential um the residential district um versus doing it as kind of the the floating zone because I feel like that's what you're trying to get like if there were more things that you could put into a an in a text amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Link. I am I am interested in exploring how we allow duplexes and triplex broadly across the city so that they get built and ideally so that we get a range of unit sizes and costs. I share I don't I don't I'm not going to call it a concern of yours. I am fearful that we will not do that with a more blunt zoning change. On the flip side, on the flip side, this is how we gatekeep and can get in trouble sometimes when we get a little too cutesy trying to achieve these goals. And so, um, does that mean we don't try? I I fully admit I think that there's a balance there. But um I came out of the plan process hearing that there was some desire to explore some of those tools for that outcome. I think I think the previous ADU amendment by the community land trust is an example of that. Right? One of the reasons we limited the unit sizes is because we wanted to limit the unit sizes. We wanted them to be smaller units. Um, it doesn't mean that they're going to be uber affordable, but I still contest that an 800 foot unit is generally going to be more affordable than a 1,600 foot unit. That doesn't take into account the land trust. It doesn't take into account uh cooperatives. Um, I I feel the same tension. I think I think generally there's probably more opportunity for success akin to TC1 to sort of start a new and see what those levers might be. And the other piece of it I just I just want to I don't want to lose sight of a lot of the other

communities that have done the same thing, they get duplexes because the building code still switches for three units. And I think this is something that Commissioner Abrams was, you know, really strong on through this process. Whether it's three or four, that's going to be a barrier. So, one of the things I think we also need to do if if we want three units, we're going to have to be really thoughtful about the regulations that we apply. So, it's possible. Uh, Commissioner Norton,

I want to just build off of that and go back to my earlier comment. I don't think that we can, as some public commenters were saying, you should only allow this if you declare they can only be affordable units. I don't think we can do that and and I'll I'll ask Steph to comment on that. But we can do what Mr. Leonard just pointed out, which is say, well, you can do three units, but they can only have a floor space of so many square feet or something that's calibrated to make sure they're not the big monstrous that we don't open the door to the kinds of multiple huge units that we're fearful of and that the neighbors are fearful of. So my my point I'm heading to now is if if indeed we want to do something that's broad, you know, that follows the spirit of what the plan calls for in terms of allowing multiple units, that's a credible thing to be exploring. I don't think it's quite as simple as what the land trust has put forward, but I would hope that working carefully with staff, they could figure out how to make it get to where we're all trying to get to in a way that isn't disruptive to the neighborhoods like the neighbors are fearing. And that probably needs some kind of public engagement. I'm not sure. I think it does need some kind of public engagement. One of the things we need to figure out is calibrating that. I mean, that's what we were trying to start off with tonight is what's the right calibration for the different kinds of things we can do in terms of public engagement so that we don't blow things up from the very start and then end up in worse place than what we would be. Um, so I'm I'm not making promises here. I'm just trying to say let's be deliberative. Let's be deliberative in our urgency um to address these problems in a way that's going to be most likely to yield the best outcome. And maybe limiting the structure size of a of a three family unit on a on a lot might be one way to do that. Thank you,

Commissioner Adams. I don't want to sidetrack. We've been talking a lot about the community land trusts proposal. I I I had some thoughts about the options, but I didn't want to jump in front of anybody else and and derail that part of the conversation. So, I'll put my hand down and see if anybody else has comments there before I make mine.

Okay, I do, but let's hear from anyone else. Commissioner Hammer, Lee, Abrams, Weatherbe. So I guess my question uh before we move on because part of why I wanted to start with this is because it was option one. It was staff recommendation on the floating and then I wanted to contrast that cuz Mr. Leonard also included the text amendment from the uh CLT uh here as an alternative. Uh but uh to Commissioner Norton's last comment about the um sort of maximize uh maximum limits which we don't have. Um I wonder if in your thinking, Commissioner Norton, you would apply that to single family homes as well cuz currently there is no maximum for a size of a single family home. As a matter of fact, one of the things I wanted to say in our discussion last week was um in R2B with the special use exception for the sorority, a single family home could build a 24,000 ft single family home on that site and instead of a parking lot, put a 16car garage there and it would be permitted by right and it wouldn't come to our table and they could cut down every single solitary tree on that property. So, like I do want to make sure we are hearing Commissioner Weatherbee's comment that single family homes are not the only housing type in our city, but we continue to prefer them over everything else. And all of our regulations are for non-s single family homes because they don't come to the table. They don't have to do sight plan. they

they just can submit a a proposal to the manager, the planning manager and as long as their height set back and placement fits, uh they are permitted. And we are now discussing um lots of rules for housing types that we have for 3 years said we want to have, but now we are about to restrict them in significant ways. in ways that we will not apply simultaneously to single family homes. And I I just can't sit here and not comment about that. Um I'm glad that Commissioner Weatherbe spoke up. So I'm not the only person who's saying there are other kinds of housing types in this community. Um, but I do want to note that now you're talking about restricting triplexes, but you didn't say in the same breath, let's also now restrict single family homes. Um, and I think that's unfortunate for this conversation.

Well, I think what you're pointing out to, there's so much in this code that needs to be revisited in its entirety, including the issues that you're raising. And the point I was trying to make was we should be putting ideas on the table and shooting at them and probing them. And so your response is entirely appropriate and and well taken. Um I just want us to have that conversation and get stuff out on the table and think it through and think through all of the other implications of the way the code is structured that create the perversities that you're pointing out that we should take the opportunity to fix as well. Mr. So, Leonard, you were going to say something and then we'll go back to Commissioner Adams.

Uh, I think Commissioner Norton had posed like a question about affordable requirements and um I am also not going to say that I'm the city attorney or I am going to also say that I am not the city attorney. Um, however, I will say that we have used regulations in the past to incentivize affordable units. One of the ways we've done that is by providing an increase in development potential over what otherwise would be permissible by just from a a market perspective. Um I think that this plan envisions uh new regulations that are going to be opening up that opportunity. So I don't I am honestly less concerned um about exploring those conversations from a policy perspect or a legal perspective speaking for myself now because it's not as if I I would be more concerned if we allowed three units and we said oh actually we're going to change it. The only way you get three units is if they are affordable. That I think gets more into like an inclusionary uh zoning kind of framework. So I do think the possibility is there. I think the bigger policy questions is do we want to do that or again do we want to provide the flexibility for a a wide variety of housing across the city.

Thank you Commissioner Adams. Um, so I I think personally I have a couple goals to get I don't know what our upcoming agendas look like, but before we leave the month of April, I think I'd really like to have decision from us about the sequencing, right? Um, and then also settle on a rough process to execute that sequence so that we're on track to meet our 1 to threeyear timing in the implementation matrix. to me that's crucial to get done hopefully in the next few weeks. We can't do it tonight, but um I think the staff analysis here is really really good and I appreciate laying out the options the way that they have. The the peer city analysis, one of the key things I took away from that was that a lot of cities are are doing this work um at this scale and they're doing it in and around three years. It supports the proposition that two to four years is is kind of the the ballpark of of how long this process should take. It also to me supports the proposition that what I'm going to call discretionary public engagement, so public engagement beyond what the law requires, beyond what we do in the ordinary course, is not standard practice. Um, with there's been comments tonight about public engagement and and for me, I separate public engagement into what we have to do and then things like focus groups and town halls and other things that are that are supplemental. And for me, I would have to have a reason to to do those things. Um, some some aspect of the plan that we need to clarify that would benefit from public engagement. That's a policy objective or a process legitimacy objective that we can identify because I just, you know, again, after going through three years of work on the plan, that plan should be sufficient to support action. And if it's not, I think we need to be specific about why it's not before committing to doing, you know, discretionary public engagement. Because to re to reiterate it, just so

my comments are not misconstrued, I'm not saying we're not going to do public engagement. I'm saying we are doing it. We have to do a lot of it anyway. It's what do we do extra that uh we want to do and why? That's that's kind of the critical question for me. Um, the other thing I took away from the staff memo on the timing is it it didn't seem to matter how long a city took uh in terms of the results that they got. Um, iteration here is I think inevitable and I think Commissioner Mills, you may have mentioned it relative to the floating district. Um, I think we should expect to have to iterate. We should expect that some of the changes that we do right out of the gate are going to require tweaks. And I don't think that's a reason to move slower. I think it's a reason to get zoning into the field so that we can start that process of iterating sooner. That's again my comment should not be misconstrued as an as you know damn the torpedoes. Uh we should proceed with caution but um I don't want to set the standard of let's not miss let's not misstep at all. There's going to be some of that. We saw that with TC1 and the process that went into TC TC1, my recollection is took longer than one to three years in terms of start to finish and it it didn't necessarily mean we wouldn't have to iterate. We had to um so process only buys us so much here and I think I I want I think it's important for us to be cognizant of that. Um on the options you my you know the memo that I submitted I think provides a pathway forward. I'm still hopeful that a majority of of the commissioners will vote to support it when the time comes. Among the options that staff has proposed, it's not the only path forward. I'm pretty opposed to options one and three. Um, we have a legislatively set policy imperative to prioritize reforms that maximize housing. And the plan that we drafted says hub is that district. Hub is where the action is. So, I don't

support starting our resoning work with the least impactful in terms of units uh category. Um that and I and I don't support starting it with the most politically sensitive one, which is residential. So, I think there's an argument to be made about whether it's transition or hub and in what sequence, but I really want to backload residential. Um, one of the reasons for that we just saw with Woodbury Gardens and one of our public comments tonight, one of the written public comments pointed out the fact that that the 300 units associated with that project are likely larger than the units we're going to get from the residential category once it's fully implemented after many years of development. So, that's just one project in a transition or hub zone that can deliver that kind of impact for the city. So that's again going back to to impact. I think hub and transition are really where I want to start off in in whatever sequence the commission deems to be appropriate. I think the other problem with starting off with residential and especially with floating is I think it puts the three-year timeline at immediate risk. I think when we we I don't want to lead off the process with the most complex, most politically sensitive category. And when I get to that category, I want to know how much time I have left because that allows me to to maybe have a different conversation around discretionary public engagement. If we have 18 months left after doing hub and transition and we say, "All right, we've moved quickly. That's gone well. We want to do some additional stuff here because we have the budget in terms of time and the calories." That's a different conversation to me than having it now. And it when we're when I'm staring out at a huge amount of work and I've got one to three years to do it and I want to do it with deliberate speed. Having a conversation about supplemental discretionary public engagement and additional process to me doesn't doesn't feel like the right time. I want to have that when I know how much time I've got left to do to tackle residential

planner Bennett. I think all of the options that staff put forward we are comfortable with and so certainly starting with hub is an option. Um what's what's written there though are a few caveats right is we still um have not received the findings of of our infrastructure studies. So it is possible based on geography that we would have to break up hub right there's nine distinct areas. It doesn't necessarily mean all nine of them could be service. We we just don't know yet. So there is a fear that we would have to break those up and attack them differently based on geography of the city and infrastructure capacity. With residential that is less of a concern. Um and then secondly, our plan does not just only say to increase supply. It says to increase variety as well. And so we have zones already that permit denser type of housing. What we don't really have is something that easily allows duplex and triplex and quadplex and these smaller units that are meant to also fit into single family neighborhoods and provide that that missing middle, right? What's going going to come in hub and transition may not be missing middle. And so it is supply, but it is also variety. Um and and you are right. I will say in our conversations with the other cities, they've they have been keeping track of it and it is a much slower turnover, right? When you go from one to two unit, one to three units, right? It's I think they were all saying as they're tracking it, it's about 2% that they've seen. So, it would yield a smaller a much smaller number potentially, but it would increase a type of unit that we don't have a ton of.

Can you clarify for me when you say easy because resonings don't seem easy to me but that staff's recommendation is to create a floating district that a petitioner like myself to take my single family dwelling and create a triplex out of it would have to come for a reasonzoning and then if I'm doing a resoning would I be required to do site plan and if I'm required to do site plan do I have to go through the whole list that you showed us at our last work session and then am I subject to the same 280 days that I'm I'm just trying I'm not being contrarian. I'm just trying to understand what what we're thinking of when we hear the word easy.

Yeah. So, we still set a threshold. I'll jump in. Michelle or Alexis had anything. Um, no sight plan would be required for a triplex. don't require sight plans for triplex. You would not have to do a site plan. The reasoning um typically I think I would echo Michelle's character characteristic of them being easy. Typically when we are doing isolated resonings in existing areas, they tend to go pretty easily. Um right now they're single family. Um the thought is I I would envision them if we've created some district framework that meets our our goals for that then that would be similarly I think the challenge to you as a property owner again today is absent that what would you what would your options be to pursue that? Well, right. We have nothing other than the text amendment from the CLT, which if we took that up, that wouldn't require a reszoning. That would just be a text amendment in terms of permitting that by right district.

So long so long as we've also accommodated the lot size, the minimum lot size for your dwelling. But I would I would suspect when you get into the petition, if it's actually going to come to the table, which I think um Miss Loren asked how long that petition would take to get to the table, that if if they're submitting that as a petition, we're going to hear that no matter what.

We are going to either vote in favor or against it as a recommendation to council and then it's going to go to council for its ultimate decision. So, in terms of maybe even contrasting it between the floating district, I don't think that's correct because it's going to come to our table no matter what. Um, and but we just don't have a sense of when it's going to come because you have to evaluate it, make sure it complies with the law. I imagine that's when you're going to deal with some of the minimum lot in the minimum lot area. And so there might be revisions back and forth before it comes with your recommendation for approval or rejection and then it's going to go through that process, right?

Yeah. Okay. I think that's a good overview.

Okay. Go ahead, Planner Deo. You look like you want to say something and then I'll go to Commissioner Adams. Um I I was just going to point out that um the CLT amendment is essentially asking you to make the residential land use category that doing the work that they ask and to make it right. Um and so this would um the process will not be nearly as simple and easy. The questions that we will have to go back and forth to get it right will take a lot of time and what it will but what at the end it will have the effect of is we will have the residential land use category that is recommended by the comp plan and we won't even have to reszone we won't even have to reszone it will the by default the R1 R2 and R4 districts will become our residential categories they will be flattened they will become identical and we will be doing so we will be doing options three. Option three, the um floating zone, the floating residential, which is not necessarily the this is not the only answer. The floating residential would mean that you have control about where the about what targeted areas of the city um should be. If the district is created and I will just and I will say that the process that must be followed, we establish the process by in creating the floating residential district. If we do this, we can also address the process. Do you need a site plan? Do you not? Do you need citizen participation or community participation or do you not? So, we can make it much easier. we we can address a lot of the concerns, but I I um I I do feel compelled to point out that fulfilling the CLT amendment will be creating the residential land use category and it will be implemented

without any reasoning full stop. So I just so that I understand you and I I have uh Commissioner Adams and Dish in the queue. uh you're telegraphing to us your approach to the text amendment. You're saying in order for the text amendment to move through your evaluation process, you're going to effectively evaluate it in the way that you just described. Well, if you probably Okay.

Right. From my understanding, what they're asking for is to flatten all of the districts and allow these particular things. Yeah. I don't I don't know what you mean by flatten. And so it I think earlier you indicated that you haven't had a chance to look at the whole thing,

but I trust that the petition's going to have the same um evaluation process that you do for any petition that comes. And so as a part of you evaluating that petition against the current UDC, you may make recommendations that will effectively create a new residential zone even though that's not what they're asking for. And so what I want to clarify here is that you're telegraphing how your process works because it's a petition. So you're going to have to do that no matter what to get it to our table unless they withdraw the petition I think is my ultimate question there. Is that correct?

Yeah. What I'm saying I am telegraphing the amount of work necessary to close all of the loopholes that have been that will be introduced. Okay. No, I think that I think that's fair to understand that you have a process for how you evaluate petitions and the work that you'll have to do to evaluate this petition is tantamount to creating a new residential uh district because you're concerned about uh loopholes and other things that the text the petition may not have considered that you consider when you look at petitions.

Is that fair? Okay, great. Uh Michelle, you're off mute. I didn't know if you wanted to say anything before I go to the commissioners. Okay, great. Commissioner Adams, then Dish, then Hammer Schmidt. Thank you.

Two quick comments. Um, I'm not totally following why the consideration of the CLT text amendment is tantamount to option three or option one. And I'm basing that not on any particular expertise I have relative to zoning law because I have none. Um, it's it's more that I'm comparing what they've done, which is a text amendment, to the steps that are outlined in the staff memo, which talk about lots of things that I don't have to do to just say yes to what they've proposed. Now granted, I think I can understand why we need to run due diligence on what they've proposed, but I think if there's a if there's a constraint around and I'm thinking holistically here about our process where we said no to their ADU amendment, I' I'd almost rather go back and reconsider that if the choice I'm being that I'm facing with is say no to the CLT and sequence this the way that we that we think is appropriate. without consideration of of what they want and do their ADU amendment versus get dogwalked into doing the most politically sensitive hardest to do category first because we have sort of a a resource issue in terms of how much work we can do at any given time. If there's a res if there's a resource issue associated with it, I think that's got to get sharpened and maybe escalated to council because that we really should have a free hand here to say, well, we think this is first, this is second, this is third, and have a free hand to say yes or no to the CLT proposal and have the resources to tackle tackle both. We really should be able to do that. If that means if if the honest answer is we do not have the resources and it it doing what they are proposing here with the text amendment is tantamount to doing residential first then I I'd be supportive of going back and reconsidering that ADU issue again because that that isn't the direction I

want to go and I I don't want to link the two things together with respect to infrastructure the point that Michelle made and I used Michelle instead of planner Bennett um the my understanding is that infrastruure ructure report is is we're we're going to get that in two months. We're going to see that in June. So to me, that doesn't feel like a reason why hub has to wait. We're going to get that we're if we make a decision on this at the end of this month, we're going to have barely started the work on hub before we get that report. So unless there's something I'm missing, I don't view that as a as another reason to sort of change our thinking on sequence. So, you made comments, but did you have a question that you wanted staff to respond to before I move on? No.

Thank you, Commissioner Adams. Commissioner D,

thank you. I I think I need clarification because there must be something there's either something that I do understand or something that I don't. But on on my reading of the CLT memo, they ask to allow three units in R1 through R3. They allow they ask to allow two family, three family, and townhouse in R1 to R3. And on page seven where they're redlinining the table that Brett showed us that that Mr. Leonard showed us that has the minimum lot areas and minimum minimum lot area per building. They they do not change those. So what they are at it's this is not simply a matter of due diligence or process. um what they are asking for requires a pretty big amount of detail that their proposal may or at least their what they do to the table doesn't address it. Maybe there is something in their memo that I'm not understanding that they feel they've done to address that. So, I think the idea that are we being thorough in reviewing this or is staff telling us the steps that it would take to do what they're asking for and what I've heard more than once from staff is it would be easier to do this fresh than to do this within the constraints of our existing UDC. It's actually not simple to just make it or it looks more constraining. And then by flattening it means that anybody can do this anywhere. And that is what we're hearing concern

about from the public. So I'm I'm just I'm trying not to jump to conclusions, but I'm feeling like this text amendment isn't what we wish, which is a quick way to get the floating zone. You started by saying um you needed clarification, but I don't know that you framed it as a question. Um

the clarification that I would like is they are asking is what they are asking for possible in the way that they outline it because I see them asking for allowing two family, three family and townhouse dwellings in R1 to R3 and I do not see them addressing the problem of minimum lot area per building on page seven which is where they have that particular table that we were shown recently. All right. So, Mr. Leonard or Planner Dio before we go on to Commissioner Hammer Schmidt and Lee.

Yeah. So, they I want to be clear, they do they address lot areas uh in their proposed edits. They basically say I know the UDC says minimum lot areas in these districts, but they won't apply. And I don't if you ask if if I'm presenting you the recommendation right now, I would not advise that you adopt a code that says ignore other portions of the code. Um there's a couple I I just want to be clear. I think Alexis laid out a process. I think the timing of this is really um beneficial in a way and really challenging in a way. we we could I we could turn this around quickly to the planning commission and say, "Yeah, we don't advise this kind of language that says ignore provisions of the code." Um, and our recommendation is denial. And then you you can make whatever recommendation you want and city council can make whatever action they want. Or we could try and work with them to them or we could work with you to try and develop a district that's going to get the outcomes that we desire as a community. and they we might not want that framework to be um requiring modifications to R1A and R1B and R1C and R1D and R1E and R2A and R2B. We might not see the need for seven different districts across the city. That is one of the things that this plan calls for is a simplification of that framework. So yes, undoubtedly the fastest path without requiring reszoning to any properties would be to change all the text, fix the minimum lot sizes. Um there's no reasonzoning that is I think there's

been several references to that is waiting into the waters that people are have raised a lot of concern for. Likewise that same water is being wed into if we start a new with a new district. So I think that that is equal. Okay. Thank you. So to to Commissioner Dish's question, they do address lots lot area. It is a an exception from the lot requirements. Um at face value, I would not advise the city adopt that. All right, Commissioner Hammershmid. And then Commissioner Lee. Thank you. Um, and since this is a working session, I'm operating under the assumption that we're trying to wrap up, I guess, soon because it's almost nine. So, to that end,

yeah, we're we're usually at two hours. Mr. Leonard and I exchanged no fewer than 12 emails given the public comment about this might be slightly longer.

I can we are we're we're going to land the plane and then have another opportunity for public comment. So, go ahead. But my my question sort of in that vein to staff given um Commissioner Norton's comment at the beginning about like how like hopefully we're going to come to some sort of decision tonight about like what order to do it in which I don't think is happening and then Commissioner Adams point about like it would be great to figure something out by the end of the month. Do you have a plan for us to to do that? Like does that seem possible given what you're hearing in this discussion right now? And then I do have a comment that'll might just muddy everything. I don't know.

I don't hear unonymity from you. So by the end of the month seems challenging to me but we are here because we want to get started. I'm not like I don't want to like we tried to provide several options here. Um we want to we want to get moving. Uh so having all the it doesn't feel possible to me to have all the questions and prioritization done by the end of this month. Um but we are here I we we I tried to address all the questions that came up. I tried to give you all the information. It's complex. There's no right way or wrong way. Um, having some direction out of this meeting, frankly, even without a vote, helps us to start putting our resources into, okay, this is what we're hearing. So, this is how we're going to start moving forward.

And then based on like reflections from tonight, I don't even know what we're giving you, but what like when would be the next opportunity, you think, for us to discuss this as a group to sort of keep this ball moving?

I mean, we can set our own agenda. So, if we want to put it on our regular agenda for the next regular meeting, just like we did for the comp plan, we can put an agenda item about our uh implementation strategy and we can have it as a standing um uh agenda item until staff feels um sufficiently informed about what we'd like to do. And then we also set our work agenda. So we can in a regular meeting or a work session uh look at our staff our work agenda and rep prioritize it to uh implement what we would like to implement.

Yeah, I saw something like taking the fourth Thursday. If I could just just for just for immediate horizon uh for your 421 meeting, you've got one uh resoning application, you have bike parking amendments are coming back to you after they were rejected by the city council and you have some proposed amendments to our height bonus um that staff has been working on based on some of the conversation that we've heard at the table over the last couple of years. Um, we could add something to that. And to your last point you were getting to, we could also put on that agenda, uh, we put this information in the background memo, we can convert the OC schedule to working session meetings and just get those on your calendar, uh, for the remainder of the year. And that would give another opportunity yet by the end of this month on the 28th. And I think we would just want to to your point, Commissioner Hammer Schmidt, we want to pay attention to the working sessions versus regular sessions, especially if we need to vote. So today, no one could propose a plan for us to consider because we're in a working session. But if we were at a regular meeting, someone could propose and then we would have a motion, a second discussion, and then a vote. And then that would give direction. Of course, staff is listening. Staff is collecting what we're saying and it's informing what they're doing, but we can also take very deliberative um action. And so, we just want to pay attention to the kind of meeting that we have these conversations in because if we have this conversation in another working session, then you're now four weeks out from today before you would be in a regular session to give a deliberative uh kind of decision. So just

okay. Although my two cents, I'm not sure that we would be ready to like make a decision next week, but I don't know. Um, okay. My comment and then I'll turn it over to Commissioner Lee. Um, I'm I think I'm more agnostic on the order as I am about the process. And I think regardless of what is started with hub or residential or transition or however we do it or floating or whatever I I think it'd be really important to start whatever engagement process we think makes sense sooner rather than later. I think um you know we we got a lot of heat valid or not um for the engagement process the first time and I just like I think it's really important to me that there is a lot of transparency as early as possible about what could be happening particularly in residential and transition. Um, I think Michelle said this earlier or something about like sort of rebuilding trust um with the city. Um, and you know, we hear a lot of comments, but we hear from a lot of the same people. Um, and if we have to I I think I asked Brett and my like what do you want to hear about um like the cost of postcards for the because I have no idea like what this would cost but um it is just like it it is very important to me that we do as much as we can do so that we can stop getting the criticism of like I had no idea this was happening. Um, so I I I'm at this point agnostic with where we start, but I think like that particular process. I would love to make sure that we have it like really buttoned up.

Before we move on for this, can I ask a clarifying question, which is what do you mean? So everything that we do is public. It is completely noticed. So, are you talking about additional engagement or are you just wanting to recommend that we spend 14 to 15,000 or make a request to council for 14 to 15,000 to say we are now implementing the comp plan and we will be doing that via our meetings. So it'll either be our regular meetings or additional meetings and you shall subscribe to this email so that you receive the notifications. I think it might be the closer to the latter. Um I I don't know. Again, I don't think like a I I don't know. Um I just I feel like something missed the first go round. And I would love actually to hear from Michelle since she is the community engagement specialist and hear her thoughts. But um since we're moving into reszonings um and you know I don't think we ever promised to do like a parcel by parcel like look necessarily either although I know that's part of the process but like you know like meeting with individual people but like I just want to make sure and there's just a lot of angst around this um that could impact potentially like from you know an elected official perspective our ability to implement this comp plan at all. So, I just want to make sure that people feel heard and that they're aware of what's going on and that this doesn't isn't like an huge blowback.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Hammershmid. Commissioner Lee, and then uh Planner Bennett. Well, if Michelle wants to actually respond to that, I'll You've been waiting, so that would be up to you. No, no, no. I'll I'll yield the floor to Michelle. Um I don't I don't think you'll love this response. I think we can always improve and we should take what we've learned and improve. But I just just to set expectation, I don't know if you'll ever not hear that we didn't do enough engagement. I don't think any engagement specialist anywhere has ever ever heard that. So you should expect that that will continue to come our way.

Okay. That doesn't that doesn't negate what I said, but I hear you. And I agree that I think there's room for improvement. It's not to say we shouldn't do more, but just throwing that out there, Commissioner Lee.

Thank you. First off, I just want to thank staff for doing all the research related to all of the other cities. That was actually very helpful to see that they've done quite similar things, right? It's um not that revolutionary to get rid of uh parking minimums or um expanding single family uh to include multiple residential. Thanks for that. I'll make this short. I after thinking about this my I would be supportive of moving forward with hub first. Um I think it makes sense to me. Um we went through a long engagement process with TC1. It creates eight, you know, it looks like it's about an eight-month process. So my recommendation would be to probably look at like OC right for the actual like I want to better understand I have a question I wanted to clarify I would like to move forward and prioritize hub let me be unequivocal in that um what does the actual process look like of do you would you come up with text that says this is hub and then go through that one of the and and that that's The question I want to ask is like do you write like a new paragraph because it's intended to be D1 D2 TC1 right like those are kind of the three and I'm thinking about the process by which we segmented stadium wash uh uh sta stadium Plymouth uh state and Eisenhower um what like would you would OC and staff come up with basically hey here's kind of the amalgamation of the text that would place kind of like D1 D2 or would it be we add this we reszone it and then we redact D1 D2 do you kind of understand where what I'm asking of like the specific steps that would be required for the implementation of hub

M actually I'm going to put um Alexis on the spot Alexis could you so talk just briefly like maybe within a couple of minutes here. Um what were the sort of big steps in our approach to TC1 to establish that district and have you put any thought into how we would approach it for hub which I know the answer to the second question.

Um so we approached the TC1 district almost as a floating zone to be honest. We crafted the district. It went on the books and then and now we did craft it with geography in mind. Um and then then we went about reszoning it. That is a viable approach here. We will have to make that decision. There are two ways to approach it. Approach it almost like a floating zone. Craft the district, put it in the UDC. Mhm.

At that very moment, we'll have 35 districts then and then we can um uh reszone whatever geographies we would like and follow that up with a text amendment to remove to delete the whatever districts we have replaced in entirety. We have also preceded to do it all in one go. the A2D2 project when we reszoned downtown, created D1 and created D2. Um that was both a text amendment and a reasonzoning approved at the same night at council. You know, that was a big effort. Uh but that part of that package was it was adding D1 and D2 and all of the overlay districts into the ordinance. Also included a section in the ordinance that says and these districts are now deleted. and it included it as zoning map change. Um, in the absence of infrastructure capacity with that unknown, I think I would recommend it as a I think I would recommend approaching it as like more the floating zone style. Craft the district.

Yep. And then see where it's appropriate to then reszone. Um, but it does mean you're going to have to live with a period of time where you have a lot of zoning. That is also not necessarily my final decision. That's my that's my um an quick analysis on the fly. There really is it's it's a matter of priorities. It's a matter of risk tolerance or or time tolerance. It's a matter of um you know resource and resource aotment as well. Got it. Thank you. Um, are you still Commissioner Lee? Oh, sorry, Mr. Winner.

I'm sorry. I just want to add one more thing, Commissioner Lee, to your question. I I don't I don't know if Alexis got here. Alexis, correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual mechanics were we started looking at some of the other zoning districts that we had as building blocks. We looked at other zoning districts that other communities had.

We then, in that case, we were working with some city council direction. We started crafting an intent statement based on some of that direction. Then we started in our case I don't recall that we found a lot of external examples of zoning districts that seemed to be perfect to what we were doing. So we did a lot of synthesis frankly of our some of our commercial districts and our D1 and our D2 districts and we so the actual process of creating that district I mean I think Alexis did a good overview of that process but I would say that we spent a lot of time um taking multiple examples and starting to mesh them into what became the TC1 district. Got it.

Yeah. I super great. We did we started like sort of from scratch. We started with a blank piece of paper for TC-1. And we just started, well, how can you zone? You can you can um you can zone by overlay. You can zone with a traditional district. We can take one of our existing districts and morph it. We could create a third district. And we narrowed it down by then. You know, we we I worked we all worked it as a small group. And we made those decisions. We said, "No, we're not going to do an overlay district. No, we're not going to do this." Okay, now let's do this. Great. Now what do we we have our marching orders now we cherrypicked from existing districts because we chose that we we started with a blank piece of paper and we chipped away.

Gotcha. That that that's helpful. Um I wanted to make where after having thought through this um for and here's something that I also would love to see uh go in parallel. I like the concept of break the code, right? Like getting feedback from folks who would really go through implementation even with TC1, right? Like we had that frontage requirements of 250 feet for example, right? There are things that sound good, right, when you're writing the code and then there's actual implementation of like, okay, this is what's going to happen when I have to build this thing. So I I like the idea of running tracks in parallel. uh getting feedback um from my standpoint just given the the 16 months that we've spent uh because TC1 was eight months of crafting and then eight months of resoning that that's what at least the memo um indicates. So just given that kind of a timeline um I think it's important that we set very clear kind of like time expectations for ourselves um and I would be in support of effectively um I'm supporting Commissioner Adams's proposal after having thought through this uh simply because I in thinking through like what small changes again like I think I was the one that said hey like are there small text changes that could be widespread. I think I I asked that question the last time around. Um I think we have to try breaking those uh like break the code, right? What would happen? Can should is that possible without altering other portions, right? like we and and that does require some level of iteration um in order to make again I think we talked about like Woodberry Gardens 300 units right proposed or something along those lines that that's a hundred you know if a 100 single family homes transition to triplexes that would be about the same kind of impact from a housing unit I also understand the concern about like wanting to have diverse housing types right like developers look at having different multiple price points things of that nature try to try to mitigate

risk so um some some things we can't necessarily affectuate uh via policy. The things that we can control um would be what's the most impactful. My conclusion after the last kind of like several weeks of deliberations would be to move forward in prioritizing hub. So uh thank you. Thanks Commissioner Lee. Uh any other commissioners on uh the three Oh, Commissioner Abrams. How are

Hi. Um, I'm not going to be here to vote, so I am relatively quiet this evening, but I thought I would just I may as well just let you all know what I would do. Um, and I also, I think, am in support of tackling hub first. And um I think even just the discussion tonight surfaces all the everything will be complex, but the conversation tonight I think surfaced a lot of the nuanced complexity around the questions around the the residential district and the establishment of a new residential land use district and whether we're how many there are and and even um I also had the same thoughts that Alexis was sharing when I looked at the CLT memo which was that it's really compelling and interesting and thoughtprovoking, but it's incomplete, I think. And so, um, it would essentially, yeah, like require the creation of the floating residential. And, um, I think what Commissioner Adam shared about comparing Woodbury Gardens to a decade of increased housing development in in the neighborhood. So, um I wish we could do everything at once, but since we have to prioritize, I would be in support of prioritizing hub. Thanks. Thank you. I was just going to go around the horn and see if anyone wanted to say something along those lines. We'll start with you, Commissioner Mills, because you're in my center square.

Um I think I share that sentiment. I also though would I think that there are ways that the CRLT proposal um could have some additional uh thoughts through in terms of the minimum dwelling units per square foot kind of standard that might apply um that I think or a maximum building area that is tiered to how many dwelling units. Actually, the thing the the vision that comes into my mind is the graphic that I've shared multiple times that also applies a 2500 foot maximum to a single family dwelling. I know that has anyway I I think that there's some protections that could be in place that could make that a good solid floating zone, but I I think that we should spend our time together first tackling hub.

Thank you, Commissioner Mills. Commissioner Norton.

Um, I'm understand the Community Land Trust's desire to move quickly because they've got folks waiting and I would love to try and figure out how to help them, but I don't want to open the door to create a whole bunch of monsters in the process of doing that that we didn't think through. And I mainly am just trying to get us to think things through. Um, so having said that, I'm I'm lining up too. It just makes so much sense to start with hub um, for all of the reasons that have been laid out. And so I'm I'm leaning that way. Um it would be helpful I think um comm planner Bennett you gave us a really nice graphic of the different kinds of engagement things at different levels but I and I read it fairly quickly honestly but it would be helpful to have some ideas of what kinds of activities would be involved in the more engaged does that mean a public workshop what what would that entail and may maybe that was there and I just missed that but as we move forward with what are the things that we can move on quickly and we don't need to do much more discretionary engagement as as commissioner Adams referred to it and where we do decide we do want to do some more direct community engagement, what are the kinds of activities that would encompass and what you know what would that take. So I'm a little a little bit more um guidance on what that would involve would be helpful but uh in the scheme of things I'm I'm inclined to think that the the options that are focusing on hub first probably makes a lot of sense.

Thank you Commissioner Norton. Council member Dish,

I would also like to start with hub and I am wondering why option two, no not why, wondering if option two um could have as the second thing to do a floating residential rather than a mapped residential and would it I understand that as staff presented option two, it was doing the bookends of transition and and moving to transition. I don't know if floating residential serves that same purpose or not, but um I'm I am totally persuaded for starting to hub with hub. I had thought that we would have a more systematic discussion of our priorities and I think one of the reasons why there seems like a little bit of a lack of clarity around where we're going although I do think that that we are landing on hub first which makes a lot of sense but I think why it may sound like we're a little bit all over the place is that we have it systematically nailed down. It seems like we've got two things that we care about. Um, we do want to go to the most bang for the buck and get something on the map that will give us meaningful density and good control over what this what what this thing is going to look like when it's no longer TC1 and and you know than these random things but rather hub but it also sounds like there is a need to address the lack of option for someone who wants to build on an existing R1. And we have a lot of thoughts about how anything that you build in a residential neighborhood now, whether it's one unit

or three, should be. We have a lot of thoughts about that because we want to encourage as much as we can modestly sized rather than Bigfoot, which is something that council has said about a million times. So I would like to which doesn't mean that it's either triplex or Bigfoot. I think there is a concern about Bigfooting because it just raises the price of housing. So I am not at all thinking that only for triplexes would I be thinking about maximum um lot or building sizes. I don't quite well anyway whatever. I don't have to know how to do that. But so I, you know, I would love to hear from staff if option two could be tweaked to put residential floating as the second. Not that I'm trying to commit us to the second, but I do think that that is the purpose is for us to have a long-term plan. So, but I'm with UNHUB first.

Okay. Can I hold your question on option two till I do my roll call and then I will come back to you before we finish. Is that okay? Thank you. Um, Commissioner Hammer Schmidt, sorry. Uh, Commissioner Weatherbe, you're at the bottom here, so I'm just moving around. So, you saw me.

I'm not ready to commit one way or another, but I think I would lean towards hub first at this point. Um, but I really don't want to wait on any sort of engagement that residential resoning is coming until we're done with hub and transition and see how much time we have left. Like I really think that that engagement needs to be meaningful. And I think that we the sooner we start that even if we don't reszone residential for two years, like I I just want to start that like it is coming. By the way, we did a comp plan and now here you go. But I I think with the discussion tonight, starting with hub will create the least amount of angst. Thank you, Commissioner Hammer Schmidt. Commissioner Weatherby.

All right. So, I'm going to be a contrarian here. Um I don't I don't know, but I feel like starting with hubs sounds easy. sounds like, "Oh, we'll get a lot of housing. We'll start with hub. It'll be easy. No one will object." But the hub areas are really dis diverse. They um this is similar to me and I was not involved in the TC1 zone resoning similar to me with to TC1 and it took a long time and they were very complicated and it was very and we haven't gotten a lot from that. And so I think it's easy to say, "Oh, we'll get, you know, 300 units." But will we? Because I'm not sure we will because the implications are that that this is going to be big bang for the buck. And I'm just not sure about that because we haven't seen that with TC1. And I don't know for some of these areas if it's going to be zoned in a in a way that's wildly different than what could be built now. And so I think the kind of um and we haven't talked about a lot of the issues with residential. We've heard about a lot of the issues. I think we were very clear that we would have up to three units and that might be an easier place to start with because we have already actually talked about that. Um, I've also, you know, we've heard from developers that big projects are going to be really hard to do in the next few years because the university is literally sucking up all the construction um sort of ability in the area. And so we may be able to get a lot of smaller projects done in the next few years that maybe won't be done as the university is going to have two large housing

projects. Well, one and a half large housing projects. So, I just I'm I'm just not sure. I don't know that hub is going to give us is going to be as easy as we want, is going to give us what we want. Um, and I commiserate with staff who's going to have to uh set this all up and to work with it and to um make it happen. And so I would defer a little bit to staff. I know everybody wants to go really fast. I remember when we were working on the R4C, there was a long period of time where we didn't get much done and then a lot happened. And so, you know, it takes a long time and I know we don't want it to take a long time, but I think we do run the risk as these other areas have seen of endless lawsuits where we have to stop and and I think, you know, we've been very clear in this process about the three units. So, I I'm not sure that we I don't I don't know. I'm I I don't have a I'm glad we're not voting this week, but um I just think that I don't know that hub is as easy as people seem to think.

Thank you, Commissioner Ratherby. Commissioner Adams, I didn't want to overlook you like I accidentally overlooked Commissioner Hammershmid when I went around the table and asked everyone's opinion and I am still apologetic for that. Commissioner Hammer Schmidt. Uh hub first, transition second, residential third. That's my preference.

Great. Um for my part, I um I would like to do uh hub first. I think the community land trust is coming as a petition unless they withdraw it. So, we will see that. Um whether staff recommends it, according Mr. Leonard said as it is today, he wouldn't recommend it. Um that's not a decision. I know he's just talking with us about what he has on the table. So, I'm not committing you to that. Um so, I think that's going to happen and it's just going to happen in its course of time like every petition that comes to our table. So, uh, having hub, uh, come first, then transition, and then residential is, um, my preference. I do want to, um, just note a couple things, um, before we go back to Commissioner Dishious and then end this discussion and go to our, uh, last public comment. One, Commissioner Hammer, you asked at the beginning about the Charlottesville um, zoning. They were sued by residents. they were sued because in Virginia you're supposed to submit your planning uh documents to the state um and then the state has uh things that they are supposed to review and they felt like the city did not do that and it was actually around traffic um but um and so it was to the Virginia Department of Transportation that it was supposed to be submitted to. The judge then um vacated the whole planning and for a period of time they had repealed their old planning and they had implemented their new and then the judge vacated it. And so for about a few days or weeks they had no zoning which is exactly what I have been advocating for just unzoning everything. So that was really exciting.

and then um the city uh attorney didn't file a paper and so that caused some issues and then um they settled with the residents. They submitted it uh in um to the Virginia uh Department of Transportation got a reading and then the all the parties uh dismissed in October of 2025. Mr. Leonard, were you going to correct something that I misspoke? I was just going no nothing was wrong but actually Charlottesville actually contacted the state and the state says it said actually nobody does that don't bother. So but it was still in the statute and that was the pre that was the the precipitous for that lawsuit. Um and then I do want to note that the Woodbury Gardens is coming back to our table. Um they just redid their uh postcards I think in March cuz it's on our planning page and I just looked at their new filing and they're looking at 352 units. It's a infill and it's going to be TC1 with conditions. So, um I just wanted to just sort of reaffirm um that there is um some opportunity for housing, especially infilled housing uh that is uh coming uh before us uh in the TC1. So, um I've really appreciated our conversation uh tonight. I I've learned some things. I've taken some notes on the things that I learned especially around the minimum lots and the minimum lot areas. This is why planner delo will always reign as the the sort of the purveyor of the udc in my mind. And then I think I also heard just as I'm chairing the meeting, I've heard two commissioners in particular, Norton and

Hammer Smith ask for um more engagement than is required. And we have not yet defined what that more engagement than is required is. And I wonder um how the commission can either serve you or create space so that you can give us more guidance. You don't have to answer me now, but I'm happy to talk to you via email or to follow up with you to just see what are the the tools and resources that you would um want to see that um don't exist so that we can at least get them before the commission and we can begin to talk about it as opposed to it just being open-ended uh in our deliberation. Commissioner uh Dish or Council Member Dish asked a question about option two and why not going uh to the floating district as the second part? That was a question to staff. Uh Commissioner Dish, do you still want that question answered tonight uh in this deliberation?

Tonight. Did you say tonight or no? Not tonight. Okay, great. So, we're not voting. So, great. So, uh, would any other than Mr. Leonard, any other commissioners have anything to say that they didn't get a chance to say that they want to say before we transition? Going once, going twice, three times. All right, Mr. Leonard, and then we'll go to public comment.

Um, so, uh, no action is taken by any of you, but I really grateful for the conversation. What I am hearing from the majority of commissioners is a desire to start on hub first. I think one of the things that we can do is we can start um early in the conversation. I think Commissioner Norton asked for some illustrative examples of what are some of the techniques that might fall into some of the categories of some of what those engagements are. One of the things that we can work to bring back to you um as soon as possible is what would starting with hub look like and what are some of the potential engagement tools that might fall into those categories and then you can sh um to the extent I'm reading this room correctly. Um your focus can start being on delving into that question that's been raised about what is adequate, what is desired, what are some of those things. um and we can start having those discussions maybe in a more productive manner over uh starting with the hub district rather than having so many moving parts at once. So, um just telegraphing that's kind of my int my intention to move forward after this. I'm going to reserve the right for Michelle and Alexis to corner me in the office and tell me how stupid I am, but that's where I'm leaning right now. So, I think um unless the hopefully we don't get this tornado um that's what you'll be seeing next to us is some thoughts about how we move forward with that, what that timing looks like, and then we'll present to you some options about what that engagement might look like.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. All right. So, with that, uh I think I asked Mr. owner to put the community land trusts um petition on the agenda. So, but that was just as a reference point so that everybody could have it um here because it was submitted via comments and communication at our last meeting cuz usually we don't see a petition before it gets to our table. So that takes us now to agenda item number uh five which is public comments. Um we still have by my count uh roughly 20 let's see 10 participants. Oh look four people have their hands up already. So uh five I will stop counting as they add themselves to it. So this is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on any issue. uh before the planning commission um uh to speak uh if on Zoom just use the raise hand feature. If using your phone, please press star 9. City staff will identify callers by their name if on Zoom or by the last three digits of their phone number if on phone. Um when you go to speak, please mute any background noise uh so that we can hear you and move to a quiet area. And at the beginning of your comments, please state your name and address. Uh, Mr. Leonard, would you uh get us going?

Mark Scurbo, you can unmute and adjust the planning commission for up to 3 minutes.

Hello, Mark Skurbo, 2017 Fair Street. Um, we started the comp plan rewrite process, I think originally in 2019 and it was delayed and then we restarted that process in basically the end of 2023. So we have been doing comprehensive planning efforts and public engagement and thinking and planning for multiple years now and we have paused the plan. We like we we are over a year late from our original projections and have spent thousands of dollars on extra consultant time to do additional public engagement to do additional conversation um around these ideas. And in that time there have been real people um not not imaginary people but like real neighbors who serve us in hospitals who serve us in our schools in our libraries and those are real people who have had to move out of their homes and out of the city because they can't afford the rising rent. um people who have been displaced from their homes and probably into their cars um and worse onto the street. When I think about housing and when I think about people like there are specific people I think of who are constantly facing tradeoffs, financial trade-offs when their health insurance premiums go up of can they afford to stay where they are? Can they do they have enough money to fix their cars that might be falling apart? People are making real trade-offs about their safety because they can't afford rising rent. And so when you think about um monsters you might be creating with reszoning that is too fast or slap dash, I would just ask that you think about and perhaps specifically define what is the harm,

the real harm that you're afraid of when you consider uh a zoning change or consider an ordinance change. um and keep those real people in mind who are being displaced every month, every year while you continue to deliberate. Um I guess onto the details. Yes, I'm also in favor of starting with hub because it seems like it's going to provide the most housing options uh immediately. Um the community land trust text amendment I think you should also take up and pass. 30 more seconds.

Thank you. Um we often say don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and I think that chamele text amendment is exactly that. It doesn't fix every issue with our residential category. It is not uh addressing every single detail but it works quickly to allow a little bit more housing while you do some other work. Uh and that little bit more housing is specific individuals who are able to stay in our city. Thank you.

Thank you. David States, you can unmute and address the planning commission for up to three minutes. David states, 2254 Belmont Road. Um I'm not a lawyer, but listening to the discussion tonight, there do seem to be elements of the U community land trust proposal that are using the text amendment mechanism to do an end run around notification and process requirements and reszoning when in fact the proposal appears to be substantially reszoning many properties. I would uh concur with uh councelor um Adams that the experience in Austin, Texas with which I'm quite familiar is that increasing housing overall makes housing more affordable for everyone. Um and market rate housing is a solution to affordable housing. Um I would also say that uh there will be if you go implementing the community land trust uh text amendment mechanism there will be many agrieved land owners who uh do seek legal recourse and you risk tying the whole process up in the courts. Thank you. And that's it.

Thank you. Adam Juscovich, you can unmute and address the planning commission for three minutes.

Hi, Adam Juskevich, 1430 Las Vegas Drive. I'd like to build on top of Mark Scarbo's comments that um you should be considering the harms done by changes that you made um I that you make. I think you also need to consider harms done by the that that we have seen done by the status quo and that are continuing to be done by the status quo. Um and I think that that needs to be a central part of what we what we look at moving forward. And I think that that the comprehensive land use plan um does indeed center that um that the status quo is broken and we need to move past it. Um I think that um the community land trust proposal um I think it it basically does four things, right? And um the first one is is fairly straightforward. It just it simply changes the names of R1 and R2. And there's a bunch of there's a bunch of changes around that that are basically saying instead of single family residential, it's low inensity residential. Instead of two family residential, it's medium intensity residential. So like that's that's kind of the first thing that it does. Um which doesn't really change um change much except names. Um, it also adds a new three family residential use, right? So, there's single family, two family, multif family. It adds a three family in between that and it says that multif family is four or more, right? So, that's that's fairly straightforward. It adds that use into um the low intensity, medium intensity

um and so on. Um, and then really the the meat of it is the the last two things that it does. Um, one is um a fairly straightforward change to essentially change the building spacing to 6 ft instead of um twice the side setback um within a parcel. Um so like we I think the minimum um side setback that we have is like is 3 ft. So twice that is 6 ft. And so it basically sets 30 more seconds

to what would be the minimum. And then the fourth thing that it does is um is on page 10 of the of the document. In no case shall this determination permit fewer than three dwelling units on a lot. So it sets a floor. Um if if the per area dwelling units per area allows more than three units, you can still do that. But what it does is it sets a floor. And I think that that's consistent with what the comprehensive land use plan says, which is that there are three units per parcel. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, Leaf, you can unmute and address the planning commission for three minutes.

Hi there. Um, I was uh involved in the TC-1 project when it got started many years ago and I'd like to share some notes from that process that I think are relevant now. Um, for one, it was very slow and the staff uh document talks about that. I think uh I mean it was at least 5 years. Um, and then also the end product was way too impractically strict to have any building realized. And then it took multiple rounds of amendments over years to chisel away at those rules until anything could get built. And now you've um as you've seen with the Woodbury Gardens resoning, it's still not flexible enough to allow the Woodbury Gardens project of like an infill 350 unit building on a transit corridor. So do not use the TC1 process as a model would be my advice. It's been painful to watch that process and many of you saw it as well. So, we need a different model. And the Adams resolution does that different model by starting with a simple baseline and asking for justifications for those extra barriers to new housing. And instead of dithering, it starts the engagement process right away by saying, "We're going to talk about different issues within the district and solicit public feedback." So, please don't let option two in the staff memo serve as a substitute for the Adams resolution because the Adams resolution has really important process elements that are going to prevent the problems of that TC1 process. So, that's my first point is that please look at the Adams resolution, look at option two, and think about which one's going to be in the better interest of the city. And I think you will find the Adams resolution is as for the CLT amendment. um it was put forward by the planning manager that because it would put a floor on the

number of units allowed per lot that that would be saying to ignore the rest of the code. That actually doesn't make sense because throughout the code there are floors to formulas. For example, there's the front setback which is set by the average of nearby established front building lines but not to exceed 40 ft. There's a cap on the formula. The TC1 height limit is a formula. It goes up and it goes down, but there's a floor of I believe it's three stories. Actually, no, I think it might be 55 feet. So, a floor or a cap to a formula doesn't mean that anything ignored

in the code. So, I really appreciate staff um preparing the different options. I know we're all doing our best to advance the interest of the city. Um, but I think it is worth being critical in distinguishing the Adams resolution from option two and to avoid all the mistakes made in the last 10 years of the TC1 process and doing it better this time. Thank you. Thank you.

Tom Stolberg, you can unmute and address the planning commission for three minutes.

Thank you. Uh, I want to address um, Commissioner Norton's question about the legality of requiring uh, affordable housing. Uh, yes, it is legal, but I will of course let you verify that with your city attorney. The key is that uh, let's say you're starting with single family zoning, that first single family one isn't required to be affordable, but if you want to go up to three, the additional ones would have to be affordable. That kind of language would be legal. Uh, and it's pretty easy to do and we actually already do that in our code in a couple different places, that type of thing. Um, if you are going to go with the, uh, community land trust, uh, I do like Commissioner Adams concept of they want to build. Now, can you go back to the ADU revision and look at that again and see if that's uh, the most appropriate way to go? If not, if you are going to entertain doing it with uh the text amendment, the text amendment is problematic in so many different ways. Uh again, it is not just something simple. Uh for example, you're creating Bigfoot triplex opportunities. And if we're trying to avoid Bigfoots, this is just another Bigfoot generator. Also, the CLT will get outbid on lots because the extra yield that you'll be granting to lots all over town uh will be much more uh attractive to somebody who wants to do Bigfoot expensive triplexes uh and can outbid the community land trust. So, they may see their uh well dry up pretty quickly. Uh unintended consequences, always look out for those. Uh in terms of the other callers talking about uh the individuals, uh yeah, I've been spending the last 10 years talking about individuals and affordable housing. Um if you want to look at them, stop doing resonings to uh categories with conditions and do PUDs instead. Number one way uh you can get over 50 units at the Woodbury Gardens. You could

have got 30 at the Dean Southtown, 30 uh lower town over 90. So, we've always had the opportunity to house those people. Bang for our buck is to uh to do it right the first time. Um, so I also look at the uh community land trust possibility as something that might be a short-term possibility since you're starting with hub. If we want to help the community land trust and do something that would uh essentially be replaced when uh we did say floating residential afterwards uh there's an opportunity to do that again uh to do that there but again 30 more seconds

I stress that to do it right we need to make it only that the extra units above what the current standard is would be affordable otherwise you're going to get bigfoot expensive units and the community land trust will will be out of business because they won't be able to buy the next round of lots, but they'll okay get they'll get a couple in now. But, uh, a couple dozen, excuse me. Uh, so please do it with diligence. Thank you. Thank you,

Greg Matthews. You can unmute and address the planning commission for three minutes.

Good evening, Greg Matthews, Brooklyn Avenue. Um, thanks for meeting tonight. Thanks for this discussion. As others have said, there's a real urgency to implementing the comprehensive plan and our community has waited a really long time for relief from the rapidly rising cost of housing. The number of homeless individuals and families is surging. So, I was really encouraged by your discussion tonight. I can tell that you all are sensitive to the toll that this crisis is exacting on our community. So, sincerely, thank you for wanting to do this right and to do it with a sense of urgency. Um, thanks to staff for digging into other cities experiences and hearing about lawsuits that have occurred. I will say that uh, not that I'm an expert in this, but I would fully expect a lawsuit almost no matter what you do. I mean, I think you obviously need to be on the right side of the law. That is what you will do. Um, but I would not make yourselves timid about the actions that you take in order to avoid a lawsuit. I would expect a lawsuit uh no matter what. I also want to register my support for the A2 CLT text amendment. You're going to have to vote on this one way or another regardless of the order of the new zoning district. So, it's not like we could do a floating residential district instead of this. I think we have to uh answer this petition. So, um, you know, have the legal review of that and and please try to find a way to make it work. I mean, let's let's allow affordable housing. This is a suggestion to allow affordable housing in exactly the way that the comprehensive plan suggests. Uh, and probably the questions that had the most engagement with the public were on three units instead of one. Uh, same height limit or or threetory height limits, right? So, this is something the community is ready for. Um,

so I just heard something novel to me, which is the idea of a Bigfoot triplex. The problem with Bigfoots that we're all complaining about is that single family housing can be expanded to the greatest extent of the bulk controls, and that superersizes the price of the housing per family or per household. Uh, a triplex would divide that cost into three essentially. uh the land cost would be shared across three households and that's why the community land trust wants this kind of change and uh of course we can't control who buys property. We can't favor particular buyers in our zoning process. So um yeah I look forward to the CLT tax amendment coming forward and hope you all are able to find a way to make that work.

Thanks so much for all your work. Thank you. Jerka Lattis, you have three minutes to address the planning commission.

Good evening. This is Jük Lattis call from the first ward. Um, I just wanted to express support for CLT proposed text amendment as written. It is far from the end result we need, but it is a small and reasonable first step. I would encourage everyone to actually read the text of the proposal. It contains zero changes that would affect neighboring parcels. It literally just allows the construction of three kitchens and three front doors instead of one. The comp plan unequivocally states that triplexes will be permitted by right citywide regardless of lot size. And we've already had years of engagement on this particular question. There is no reason to delay this simple and straightforward change. Creating a new phantom zoning district that no one can actually use without jumping through ridiculous hoops is not the way forward. Give council the opportunity to finally repeal single family zoning. We can save the drawn out debates on setbacks and heights and minimum lot sizes for after hub and transition areas are done. Frivolous lawsuits will be filed no matter what, and the sooner they are filed, the sooner they can be dismissed. Thank you again for your ongoing dedication and tireless work.

Thank you, Mr. Leonard. You and I see that there are no additional hands raised. We are once again on the same wavelength. But let's invoke Chair Lee and count one, two, three. I shall close the public comment and adjourn our meeting. Thank you all. Have a lovely night.