Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, April 21st, 2026 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. My name is Donnell Wyche and I will be chairing tonight's meeting. For detailed information on meeting procedures, please review the full printed meeting agenda provided at each end of the dais. Uh we also have our packet which is available in Legistar. You can access it at a2gov.legistar.com. Go to the calendar link, uh select City Planning Commission and then find uh today's date, Tuesday, April 21st to access access our agenda and all of the attachments and links on it. Manager Kelly, would you please call the roll? Certainly. Uh starting with you, Mr. Wyche. I'm here. Hammersmith? Here. Lee? Here. Dish? Here. Mills? Here. Wetherbee? Here. Adams?

Here. Norton? Here. Basu Uni? Here. You have a quorum. Thank you, Manager Kelly. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. Any opposed, same sign. The motion carries. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the April 7th, 2026 meeting? Moved by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Wetherbee. Is there any discussion of the minutes? All those in favor of the motion, please say I. I. Any opposed? The motion carries. Next up are reports to the Planning Commission and written communications. We'll start with Councilmember Dish, if you're ready. I'm ready. Um there may have been consent agenda items uh that Ms. Kelly can fill you in on, but the very exciting major meeting item was the approval of the new DDA expansion and uh revenue share model which will benefit the entire city, but a lot of stuff is coming to Ward 1, so I'm pretty thrilled. Thank you, Councilmember Dish. Manager Kelly, do you have uh a report for us here? The manager's report. I do have a brief report which is to share that if the agenda item later in tonight's packet to update your calendar is approved that the uh meeting scheduled for April 28th, which was originally an Ordinance Revisions Committee meeting um that would be converted to a working session along with all of your ORC Ordinance Revision Committee placeholders to be converted to virtual working sessions for the full body. And the first one uh as I mentioned on April 28th would focus on the hub

implementation approach. So uh please uh keep that in mind um if you haven't already taken a look at that calendar item. And although we had an hour and a half for me to mention this to her, I failed to ask our new commissioner if she would be prepared to do a brief introduction, but you do have a new commissioner tonight and that is something important that also happened yesterday at the council meeting. [laughter]

Which was a final vote to uh replace Eli Abrams who uh gave us uh a a lead letting us know that they would be stepping down um to uh pursue um work-life balance and so forth. Uh but Sarah, would you please introduce yourself? Um sure. Let me make sure you can all hear me. Hi everyone. Um it is a pleasure and an honor to be here. My name is Sarah Bassiouni, pronouns she/her. Um in my day job, I'm a graduate student in epidemiology and I guess this is now one of my hobbies and yeah, really excited to do hopefully some really good work with all of you um and make this city even more of a wonderful shining space for everyone. Thank you. Thank you and welcome. That concludes the manager report for now. Thank you. Do we have any other commissioner officers or liaisons who have anything to report? Uh written communications are included in today's packet, which I already mentioned and that brings us to agenda item number six, public comment. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up for 3 minutes on issues not listed as a public hearing or dedicated public comment period. We'll first hear from those of you who are present with us in chambers, then we'll turn to remote participants. To speak remotely, press star nine if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-663-41226. City staff and will identify callers by the last two digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in chambers or online, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us at this time?

Hello. I feel nervous. [laughter] So uh strange to be on this side of the desk. Um hi, Eli Abrams, 927 Northwood Street. Uh so, good evening commissioners. Also, I can't believe Ken Garber is not here. I know. Sorry.

time I've ever been on this side. Okay. Um The last time I joined you all as a fellow commissioner, I didn't know that it was going to be my last time. So, here I am tonight to officially say farewell and to offer my gratitude and appreciation for the opportunity to spend my Tuesday evenings with this group of neighbors, colleagues, and friends for the past nearly seven years. On July 9th, 2019, I showed up for my first meeting. It was a working session held in the basement conference room of City Hall. Alex Milstein was the chair and the sole agenda item that evening was a PUD pre-petition conference for Veridian at County Farm. And I was even then also very nervous. Um Sarah Hammersmith was there too as a fellow rookie. It was our first meeting and Sarah Mills was there already a seasoned veteran. Since that time, it's been an honor and a privilege to serve on this commission reviewing site plans, implementing zoning changes, and helping to shape the future of land use and development here in Ann Arbor. And little did I know that an extra perk would be the distinct honor of being quoted in the headlines of our local newspaper multiple times. For example, quote, "It's like pulling teeth." End quote. Ann Arbor officials growing frustrated with developers on September 8th, 2022 regarding the Village of Ann Arbor. Well, I better hurry up. 3 minutes is Okay. And my personal favorite

Take your time.

quote, "Just anything but this." End quote. Drive-thru Taco Bell gets reluctant okay in Ann Arbor, October 4th, 2023. Some of my finest words, no doubt. But jokes aside, this role has been gratifying. It has also been tough, especially over the last couple of years as we worked on the comprehensive land use plan. And as you all intimately know, it has been at times exhausting, frustrating, and difficult. We've endured marathon meetings late into the night, sat through mean-spirited accusations and attacks on our characters, and struggled to counter a targeted campaign intended to spread misinformation about our intentions and the plan. Despite those challenges, I have always been and remain so grateful for this opportunity. I'm proud of the work we've done. I learned so much from staff, commissioners, petitioners, and maybe most importantly, the public.

[snorts] I feel deeply connected to this community in a way I didn't know was possible and I'm grateful to each and every person who's engaged the planning process over all these years. I have no formal training in planning, much like you. [laughter] Uh or community engagement or governance. I'm an architect and a professor and I spend most of my time either designing stuff or teaching students how to how to design stuff. [snorts] May I have another minute?

You can take your time. Thank you. But I was never taught in school how things actually get built. What an education to learn about the forces, current and historical, that shape what the built environment looks and feels like. To understand the significant downstream effects of both minor tweaks and major overhauls of our zoning ordinances. To grapple with decisions that will have real material effects on our city for decades to come. Despite this role being a volunteer one outside my training, it is easily one of the more meaningful experiences of my professional career. I hope [snorts] many more residents of Ann Arbor have the opportunity and the privilege to serve in the way that I did. It's bittersweet to step away from all of you and the commission, but I've comforted myself with the knowledge that I could always apply again in the future, like Julie. And I think fresh voices and perspectives are always a benefit to participatory deliberative decision-making. I look forward to to the chance to participate in community conversations about land use in new ways. Hello Neighbors for New Neighbors, wherever you are. And I have no doubt that I will continue to see you all inside these chambers or out there in the wild. A heartfelt thank you to each and every one of you. Thanks. Thank you.

[applause] [laughter and clears throat] All right. Is there anyone else in chambers who would like to address us at this time? Manager Kelly, do we have remote participants? Checking. Stay tuned. We have no hands raised. Great. I shall close the public comment and give us a moment to greet uh and say goodbye uh to Commissioner Abrams. So, we will resume our meeting at uh 7:15.

Now, everybody okay? Yep. That brings us to agenda item number seven, uh communication from commissioners. Is there any? We'll start with Commissioner Mills. So, when we took that little recess, uh you said greet, but I heard grief. Um and I was I uh yeah, I was getting teary because Commissioner Abrams, seriously, thank you for your service. Thank you for being uh a constant um presence of like really grappling with what is at the heart of the issue. I think that you really helped show like you're think you walked us through your thought process an awful lot and I think really told us where you were struggling and I think that that really helped very often elevate the conversation um about what was before us. It's not They're not all easy choices. Um and I I aspire to be as succinct and thoughtful at 9:00 at night or 10:00 or 11:00 at night as you have done. And so, thank you. I also was going back through my emails and once upon a time you in the transition to to chair give Randall, you wrote me a note and I it was such a class act. Anyway, I really appreciate you. And I'm so glad that I get to see you regularly. Commissioner Hammerschmidt. This is very bittersweet for me, too, because we were like a cohort. And I remember that that very first meeting very well. And similar to Commissioner Mills, I feel like I learned so much from you. The way that you would deliberate and ask questions were always so thoughtful

and with so much calmness and grace and poise. Um similarly, I think you and I are are more like frantic sometimes and like I just the way that you would approach things seemed just so classy and we're going to really miss you. And I'm sad I don't get to see you regularly at town hall, but maybe I'll just stop by. [laughter] Thank you so much for everything. [snorts] Thank you. Yes, I just want to also express thanks. Oh, I forgot to do that. That That's okay. Sorry. Commissioner Dish. Thank you. Whoops. [laughter]

Uh it is great that you go back to things that you said that you wish you hadn't said because that's the very thing that happened to me first when I started serving. And I love knowing that I was in good company of that quick learning curve, but you so often um were able to summarize a discussion in just a few words that would help me understand what we were trying to decide and I think that's Sarah has said the same thing and I really appreciate that and I will miss that skill. I wanted to learn it, but it's yours. [laughter]

Commissioner Lee. To your family, thank you for sharing us with us your family on Tuesday evenings. It is a lot of time and I echo everybody else here that we are really grateful for especially your analysis on quadplexes. You always went above and beyond when it came to saying, "Hey, I can actually utilize the professional judgment we have as far as setbacks, design, density." And so, this board will certainly miss your service and again a heartfelt to your family for sharing us with us you. Thank you. Commissioner Weatherby. So, I first saw your name when I was given your resume and said, "This is the person who's going to take your place on planning commission.

[laughter] And what do you think?" And I was like I read the resume, I was like, "Ooh, it's in good hands." [laughter]

And that was true. And so, you know, I think what you said is you have other opportunities and times come and go and you may be back here or you may find a different way to contribute. Obviously, you you have lots of ways already that you're contributing. So, just know that at some point you might see somebody else's resume and think, "Oh, well, that's a good That's a good person." And or you might be the person again in a different role or on the same role. So, we we look forward to seeing what you do in the future. Commissioner Nordgren. enjoy your Tuesday evenings [laughter]

again and I'll look forward to bumping into at the school and catching up. Well, Ellie, it has been my pleasure serving with you and a lot of that time serving in some capacity on the executive committee and learning from you about everything. So, just being able to lean over and ask questions and get a quick answer or I bring something up, air dropping it so that we could sort of figure it out and look at it together. And as I already communicated to you, it's super bittersweet um to have your departure from the table. Your expertise, your charm, your ability to capture the heart of what we what's before us and then translating it into plain language is something that I have appreciated and I'll stay in touch and we'll continue to collaborate in other ways, but I will miss your your presence um here at this table. The light that you bring to this table has been appreciated by me and I'm sure by others. This is a thankless task often. Um it takes a lot of work and effort because we all come prepared. We read the material. We um look at the site plans. We ask good questions. We sometimes have to deal with agreeable audience members and sometimes disagreeable audience members. And we have weathered that together and I have thoroughly enjoyed my five years of Tuesday nights hanging out with you as well as others at this table and um yeah, I'm just I'm just really grateful for you and I'm grateful for your presence in our community and I'm

grateful for the work that you've done at this table. It is important and it has impacted me. So, thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Adams. You were right about quads. [laughter]

Excellent. [snorts] Thank you. [laughter] Thanks, everyone. That brings us to agenda item number eight. I'll have to get my emotions together. Tears are trying to emerge. Manager Kelly, would you tell us about the next scheduled public hearings on our regular agenda? Yes. Uh so, for your May 5th meeting, [snorts]

you have 225 and 235 South Wagner Road. This is a rezoning petition for two residential parcels totaling .28 acres from the R1D single family residential district to R2A two family residential. Both lots are currently vacant. The applicant wishes to build two principal dwelling units per parcel. That is in Ward 5. Uh the second of which is the 700 North Main Street rezoning and area plan. This is an application to rezone a 52,000 square foot parcel from R4C multiple family dwelling to R4E, which is a different multiple family dwelling with conditions to enable future development of a six-story residential building with 64 apartments. The offered condition is a 75 foot maximum height limit and located in Ward 1. And finally, 3785 Varsity Drive, which is another rezoning with area plan rezoning request from M1 limited industrial to C2B business service district. The area plan is for a vacant 1.2 acre parcel and proposes the construction of 51 bedroom apartments across two buildings. The site has floodway and flood plain in the southern portion of the site and is located in Ward 4. Thank you, Manager Kelly. That takes us to agenda item number nine, unfinished business. There is none. And now to agenda 10A, regular business. 2080 South State Street. A0 or O. That's probably an I. So, I'm going to go with A O I 26-00 1. And if I only did two zeros, there are three. A proposed rezoning of a commercial lot from Township TWP Township O office zoning district. There is no proposed development. The lot is

1.199 acres. It's in Ward 4. Staff recommendation is approval. We do have a staff press Excuse me, a petitioner presentation. So, if the petitioners are here and want to come forward at this time, you have up to 10 minutes to address the commission and your lights will be there to your left and it starts with green. Countdown now. Yeah. You're welcome. Welcome.

not need 10 minutes. Um my name is Dan Whistler. I'm the president of Daniels and Zermack Associates. Um we're at 2080 South State Street. With me tonight is my business partner Seth Penchansky and his wife Hope Meadows. Um Seth and I are also principals of our architectural firm Daniels and Zermack Architects, which is a tenant within our building. Um and as you may know that our our firm built our building back in 1964. So, we've been many decades on this site. You may also be aware that six or seven years ago, I believe it was, the city attempted to um uh annex all of the township islands within the city boundaries um and our parcel was part of a grouping of Pittsfield Township parcels that was not accepted by the state even though our parcel had no reasons why it shouldn't have been, but it was lumped in with some maybe some other problematic parcels. Um so, about a year and a half, two years ago, we had a tenant that had a problem with our sanitary sewer blockage and then in attempting to clear that jam, they managed to damage our sewer which got us to the lucky job of having to dig up our sewer and repair that and then we identified that there was a dip in the sewer. So, we something I decided we would tear up the piping that went underneath our parking lot and knowing that eventually [snorts] we would it was inevitable that we would be annexed into the city at some point. We decided well, we might as well just keep going and extend our connection all the way to the city which we did. Um so, [clears throat] we are a township island as you know. As my understanding as a township island we're zoned agriculture or has at least has been since its inception for many many decades. I always always thought it'd be interesting to have a small herd of goats grazing in the front lawn.

We are actually requesting that you rezone us to office which is consistent with how we have been used and consistent with the zoning of the parcels to our north and to our south. So, with that that being said, we're probably here to answer any questions you have and we thank you for your consideration. Thank you. We'll have a staff presentation by planner Maureen Kokernak. Thank you. I don't have too much to add because that was a lovely presentation from the petitioner. I'll say just a few things. Again, there's no development proposed right now. This is one of several township islands along South State Street here. The parcels to the north and south are zoned office and then to the east is the University of Michigan golf course. No, that's to the west. Got my directions mixed up. The city of Ann Arbor comprehensive plan 2050 recommends transition land use category for this site which is characterized by a bundle of residential, commercial, and industrial employment spaces and office uses are supported by the plan for this site and are consistent with the surrounding zoning and the property meets the minimum lot area requirement and the lot with requirement and the annexation already went to city council at the April 6th meeting. The resolution was passed and so now that is going to go to the state once we get that township resolution. So, that process is already going. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now have a public hearing on this item. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to 3 minutes on this item. We'll first hear from those of you who are present with us in chambers and then to remote participants. To speak remotely, please please press star nine if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-663-41226.

City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please ensure you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in chambers or remote, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us on this item? Seeing none, Manager Kelly. Do we have remote participants or there are are there any? Great. Okay. So, I shall close the public hearing and read the proposed motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby waves Okay. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby waves the area plan requirement as provided in section 5.29.7.A and 5.29.7.B of the unified development code because no new construction is proposed and recommends that the mayor and city council approve the zoning of 2080 South State Street from TWP township to office O district. Move by Commissioner Hammersmith, seconded by Commissioner Lee. We are in discussion. Who would like to kick us off? Commissioner Hammersmith. I just have some kind of procedural questions, I guess. First, just based on this presentation. To staff first?

So, yeah. I don't actually have any questions for you guys, I don't think. Um is there a risk since however many years ago this was rejected by the state? Is that still a concern? Or do we feel good about it? I don't believe it's still a concern. Okay. And then my other question is was this did the petitioners initiate this rezoning? Because last time it seemed like a last time it seems that it was like a city initiated. Do they have to pay for that? Like are there fees for them to have to come to us? there are fees for annexations. If it's a city initiated, are there fees? No, this was petitioner initiated.

Right. But last time it was city initiated, it failed even though they wanted it. I'm just trying to dig into [laughter]

I I don't know. I'll have to ask Deputy Manager Kelly about the fees for city initiated annexations. Um I mean, of course there are hidden costs. There's staff time. There are all kinds of things. I'm not sure if when we forward things to the state if they charge the city a fee. I don't think so to process that if it is on behalf of a municipality and not owner initiated. The the I that you were trying to discern, Mr. Chair, is I for initiated. So, it's annexation owner initiated is actually built into the the ID. Um It has been told to me many times why the state rejected the cities batches of township islands. I think in some cases they just thought we were too ambitious. I think actually Mr. Leonard who'll be here later perhaps Mr. Leo would have some information about that. Do you happen to know more background, Alexis, why those were rejected? Um I recall that there was more than one reason. Different batches were rejected for a different reason. Each um each reason didn't seem super robust. It had to do with too many were being proposed at one time and then it was had to do with I should just say no. It was It was strange. It was weird. It was in the weeds. Very technical technicalities. And it was just clear that the approach that we were going to take wasn't looked upon favorably by the state and we came back to regroup. And regarding the fees, Deputy Manager Kelly is correct. I think we do we have done a handful of annexations every single year for 50 years, it seems. And we do charge

nominal fees and it's mostly related processing. The planning commission used to hold a public hearing. We definitely do hold the public hearing for the proposed rezoning action. City council also holds a public hearing. So, there's notice requirements, paperwork processing requirements. I think of all of our fee schedules, these are among the lowest fees and they are simply to mostly to reflect the public notice requirements. Thank you. Commissioner Lee. I was just going to say it's actually on the application or petition itself. It was $400 for anything less than 5 acres and I just think about fees related to scalability. Like what if a thousand people did this, etc. So, I think that's totally reasonable. For me, I support this. This is pretty consistent office. I thought about what kind of uses would go on this if it was redeveloped under this zoning. Again, everything is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Doesn't have any detrimental effects to health, safety, general welfare. So, I support it. I think this is pretty standard cut and dry. Thanks. Commissioner Mills. I was also just going to say this seems infinitely reasonable to me that it matches what's north and south. And I'm really sorry about your sewer issue. Like I'm sorry. Commissioner Lee again. Just quick question for staff. As it relates to the implementation of the comprehensive land use plan provided this goes into office like in 2 years time, will the petitioners probably go through a process by which there is a discussion whether this goes to transition or Yeah, it's so just asking the question also to make sure that the petitioners are also amply aware that there's a process happening. As it relates to implementation of the plan. I I think that that will totally depend on the direction that some of the zoning implementation takes whether it is consolidating and tweaking existing districts.

You know, it is one of the mixed use districts. Would there be a city initiated rezoning to harmonize mixed use under one banner? Of course, the petitioner could choose any district now that is consistent with the you know, broad interpretation of transition category. So, O does not give staff any concerns in terms of the future of the rezoning of parcels. I think that is the work of your upcoming working sessions. I wish that I could predict that. It would make our lives a little easier if I knew. I don't. Thank you. Just trying to make sure that we're set expectations, etc. O seems very consistent and supportive of that. Thanks. Anyone else? Seeing none, are we ready to vote? Manager Kelly, would you please call the roll? On the motion as presented, Bassani. Yes. Norton. Yes. Adams. Yes. [clears throat] Weatherbee. Yes. Mills. Yes. Fisch. Yes. Lee. Yes. Herrschmidt.

Yes. Warsh. Yes. That carries. Uh good luck. Thank you. That takes us to 10B, regular business, amendment to chapter 55, unified development code regarding bicycle parking. An ordinance to amend section 5.19.1, parking regulations, section 5.19.2, required parking, section 5.19.3, special parking districts, section 5.19.5, use of parking facilities, and section 5.19.7, design of bicycle parking facilities of chapter 55, unified development code of title five of the code of the city of Ann Arbor to modify sections to condense vehicular parking requirement tables, condense and update bike bicycle parking requirement tables, and to improve usability, design, and accessibility of bicycle parking facilities. Staff recommendation is approval. We have a staff presentation by planner Malene Cochran, and I will turn it over to you. All right. Thank you. I'm back to talk about bike parking. Um and I have some slides so that there's something for you to look at while I talk, um but it's also all in your memo and and staff reports. So, just as a little refresher, bike parking has been a long time in the making. It went to the ORC a couple of times. It went to planning commission a couple of times last November, um recommended for approval, passed first reading at city council, and then at second reading was referred back to you for some specific things um that council requested some specific further analysis. So, I will get into that in just a moment, but just as a reminder, um these are amendments proposed to section 5.19. Generally, um

a lot of the text is the same, so those are those condensed um parking requirement tables, increased requirements for multi-family developments, some clarifying language for location of bicycle parking, a reformatted design section to clarify requirements and make racks more user-friendly, um and additional language clarifying access requirements. Since um the recommendation of approval in November, staff has been working with applicants to get them ready for the changes um once they are approved. So, in those conversations that we had with applicants and potential applicants, um there were some other things that we wanted to clarify in this additional round. So, a few new things that are new to this version is just some more general organization and language updates, specifically um about class A bike parking, just to make sure that we're really clear about where it can be and racks that we like and things like that. Also includes updated options for alternative requirements for class A bicycle parking, so up to 50% can use a space-saving design, provided that the bicycle loading happens at or nearly at ground level. And some language that specifies required class A um bicycle parking spaces can be in garages for single and two-family units. Here are what the track changes look like. As a reminder, this is um there are six pages of this table currently in the code, and we're proposing to make it a lot simpler, condensing requirements. Same thing here, these are the special parking districts, so same thing, condensing um and simplifying for D1, D2, and TC1. And then a lot of reorganization, um a lot of red in the track changes for the design of bicycle parking facilities, so that it's just clear and

organized, um and then some updates kind of more specifically to this um bicycle parking dimensional standards table, so simplifying um and adding the oversized space, which was formerly called barrier-free, but to avoid um kind of any conflicts with the uh Americans with Disabilities Act, we are calling it oversized in this next iteration. Okay. Here is what council requested um further analysis on. In the November proposal for the amendments, there were a a decrease in class A residential requirements in the downtown. Um city council asked for that not to happen and to keep them maintain the existing requirements. So, right now the existing code is one space per 25 square feet of floor area. Previously, we had proposed one space per five units. Um we are now proposing one space for two units. That is approximately the same as one space for 2,500 square feet. There are some calculations um in your staff report, but just for consistency, we do everything else by units for residential, so it just to be simpler and it evens out to be about the same. Um currently, the code has no oversized parking requirement. Um the previously proposed did require oversized spaces um for all classes over a certain threshold. City council asked for us to increase the oversized parking requirements, so that's what we have done. In your current version of the proposed changes, um now 5% of required spaces for each class must be oversized. So, um generally, that means kind of there are some calculations in your staff report, but generally, that means um 80 units with a one per two unit requirement means that that's two and over then the over 80-ish units, if you're talking about residential, that's

when it would increase. So, generally, anything under 80 would require two oversized spaces in your class A, just as a frame of frame of reference. And then the last thing council asked us to look what look at was class B requirements and increasing them outside of the downtown area. Currently in the code, um there is class B requirement for primarily commercial uses, also some public and institutional office and industrial uses. In the previously proposed language in November, we required um class B for all uses except residential. And we are now proposing to require for all uses, including multi-family residential, um so that's over the four unit. In general, um class B requirements did increase. There are again, some numbers in your staff report, um but they did increase because we condensed um the table, so a lot of different particular uses had different requirements for class B, and so just by condensing and then requiring for all um commercial uses, for all office uses, things like that, that kind of generally increased class B requirements um across the city. And those are the big three changes. Thank you for the staff presentation. That takes us to a public hearing. This is an opportunity. I guess I have to do it even though no one is going to say anything. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to 3 minutes on one on this item. We will first hear from those of you who are present with us in chambers, then uh remote participants. To speak remotely, press star nine if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-663-41226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone or by name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please ensure you're in a quiet

area, mute any background noise. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? Do we have any remote participants now? Oh, we do. And would any of those remote participants like to speak? Excellent. We do have one remote participant. Adam Goodman, you have 3 minutes to address the planning commission. Hi. Adam Goodman, 400 Virginia Avenue. Um so, thanks for all the work um that that staff have done and and to the commission for addressing this topic yet again. [gasps]

Um I'm as some of you might know, bicycle parking is one of my favorite topics to get into the weeds of. I'm speaking to you tonight actually to request one small amendment to the proposed ordinance, and I I sent this in an email as well, but it got posted to Legistar sometime this afternoon, so I don't know if you all got a chance to see it yet. Um what I'm asking is in the proposed ordinance, in uh section 5.19.2, subsection seven, it would read a higher class of parking space may be used to provide bicycle or electric vehicle parking when more than one class is required by this session section. Uh that language is copied over from the current UDC. I would like you to add a clause to that that says class A bicycle parking spaces may not be used to provide required class B or C bicycle parking spaces. This is because uh class A bicycle parking spaces serve a fundamentally different purpose from B and C. Class A is secured bike parking. It is not accessible to the general public by definition. So, it's great for, say, people who live in a building, but people who want to come visit that building it class A bicycle parking does not help them. Um And I think that you know, given that we just saw a presentation saying that one of the items that this got sent back to you by city council for further consideration on is trying to is is that they wished to boost the requirement for class B bicycle parking. I think it's particularly important to emphasize this distinction and make sure that we are not allowing class A bike parking to be fungible with B or C in in either direction. Um That's the only significant concern I have for you tonight. Otherwise, I think this or

proposed ordinance is is very good. Maybe not perfect, but very good and I always say don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. So with that one amendment that I'm requesting, I would certainly like to see you all advance this tonight. Thank you again. Thank you. There is one other hand raised at this time. Alex Low, you have 3 minutes to address the planning commission. Hi, this is Alex Low, 2532 Boulevard. Um basically I want to say what he said about what Mr. Goodman said. Um A class B is an improvement over class C. Class A fits an entirely different use case. So we should allow class B to be used instead of class C. In fact, I would say we should encourage class B to be used instead of class C. But class A should be entirely separate. Thank you. Thank you. There are no further hands raised. Great. I will close the public hearing and read the motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the that the mayor and city council approve the amendments to chapter 55 unified development code section 5.19 to simplify and update the required parking tables and to make the design of bicycle parking facilities more user-friendly as proposed in the attached ordinance moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by councilmember Dish. We are in discussion. Who'd like to kick us off? We'll start with Commissioner Norton. Yeah, [clears throat] I just a question

for staff. Is there any reason that the proposed amendment um from the public commenters would be a bad idea? Um I can't think of I I can't think of a of one off the top of my head. Um I do agree that class B and I mean we have three different classes of bike parking for a reason. Um they serve different purposes. Class A is not accessible by the public. I think that's something that we discuss with petitioners as staff when we're looking at bicycle parking is we are recommending class C and class B if it's not there, things like that. Those are discussions that we have now. Um the the code does currently say that a higher class of parking space may be used. That is existing code language. That's not code language that we propose to change. So that's how it is now. Um If I thought about it more, maybe, but off the top of my head um No, I don't have a particular problem with it. Manager Kelly. I just wanted to point out that although uh I think there is like more accessibility for visitors to sites with B and C, it's not guaranteed to be accessible to the public. Um sites are you know, property owners are uh sometimes they restrict who is on their property. Uh sometimes there are other access controls to certain spaces where these might be located. Although they're supposed to be convenient, that doesn't necessarily mean anyone could use them. So I just wanted to uh point out that um we had this conversation in the first round in particular to think separately about Ah, time is up.

[laughter]

J- just to think separately about high demand areas and what is provided publicly within the right-of-way and as a public uh form of public infrastructure versus what is specific to the site. Thank you, Manager Kelly. Uh Commissioner Mills. Yeah, first of all, I'd like to commend staff for a very clear report. I like the table up front and then the rationale for each of the parts. Like good job. Um to this point I mean I I see B and C or sorry, to the point about uh the amendment. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. It's been a long day. It's all right. Finals grading time.

I'm here to give some assist. Thank you. Um to the point about B and C um not being of the same class as or obviously as A, I think that B and C are if not public, more visitor parking, visitor focused type parking. Doesn't mean that residents may not use it, but I think that that's how it's often perceived. And so I I appreciate the comment and I think that this makes tons of sense. Especially given that sometimes um when we count in unit like in apartment unit rooms as um as class A spots, I feel like that may mean no visitor parking potentially if everything is going over to class A. So

[gasps] I the only comment that I would have is whether we can actually be more succinct in what we mean on that. And I have class B spaces may be used when class C is required. So you want to offer that as an amendment? I would offer that as an amendment.

Is there a second? Seconded by Commissioner Adams as well as Lee and Dish, but I think we only need one. Can we move into discussion of this amendment? So Commissioner Mills, can you just restate it for our edification? Class B spaces may be used when class C is required. Okay. So that's our that's our amendment to the proposal that we're looking at. We'll go first to Commissioner Lee, then to Commissioner Norton. I'm supportive. All right. Now to Commissioner Norton. I I want to make a friendly amendment to the amendment. Okay. For for the sake

Hold on. Just for a pause. Staff, are you ready to catch I only got the first. Is there a second for the So we have So

The The first was So Mills moved, Adams seconded for the amendment. And now Norton comes with a friendly amendment to the amendment. For the sake of clarity, since this clause is dealing with both um vehicle parking and bicycle parking parking, I would separate it a little bit more so that it reads um a higher class of parking space may be used to provide strike bicycle or provide electric vehicle parking facilities when more than one class is required by this section, period. And then your amendment. Class B bicycle parking

Class B Class B bicycle parking may be used to in What did you used when class C is required.

Yeah. Okay, is that friendly to Adams and Mills? Yes. It is. Okay. Let me just make sure we're good. All right, so now we'll go back to staff. Yes, I think I was going to point out that yes, this is lumped in with electric vehicle parking. So I think that makes sense, but I would like to make a request that that this specific sentence, just because we've been reorganizing this, might make more sense in the specifics about class B, which is which would move it down to So let me just make sure before we do that. You're okay with Norton's amendment to strike where we currently were and you are now proposing that Mills amendment original amendment move from where we were to what you're about to tell us. Correct.

Okay. I just want to make sure we are all keeping track of where we are. That would move it to 5.19.7 D. Okay. Subsection uh two. Two. Is that uh acceptable to Adams and Mills? Adams says yes. Yes. Mills says yes. All right. So we have an amendment which was amended friendly and accepted by the original and we were just told where everything is going to go. Is everyone at the table up to date with where we are? Go ahead Commissioner Bassiouni. Um I would love just a quick recap.

Okay. I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Great. I'll ask staff to do that if you are able to and if you are not, we will muddy along. Okay. Recap of the proposed friendly amendments. So um in section 5.19.2 required parking A general uh seven is currently says a higher class of parking space may be used to provide um bicycle or electric vehicle parking facilities when more than one class is required by this section and that would just strike bicycle or so that it would just be a higher class of parking space may be used to provide electric vehicle parking facilities when more than one class is required by this section. Done. All right, we got a thumbs up for that. Everybody still on track? Okay. Moving to 5.19.7 .d subsection two. That's class B bicycle class B covered bicycle parking. Um I propose you know, add a C that would then say class B spaces may be used when class C is required. All right, we got a thumbs up. Anyone else for Commissioner Dish? That's not what I have in my notes.

[laughter]

Okay. I have after the Norton amendment to the amendment I have I have um class B bicycle parking or bicycle spaces. I believe it was bicycle parking may be used when class C is required. Commissioner Mills, do you remember what your wording was? I think that you are right that we were more explicit along the way. So, adding bicycle, yes. The question that is actually in my head and where you had suggested this go, um I understand which would be under class B, but I'm actually wondering if it fits better under class C. Because then you're reading about class C and you see class B may be used instead like Mhm. It seems a little bit more logical to me. All right, um Commissioner Adams, are you okay with that change? All right, great. Mr. Chair Uh so, we have just for my uh making sure I'm following

[laughter] Uh we have two amendments proposed. The first was to uh let class B spaces be used when class C is required in 5.19.7 D2 moved Mills seconded Adams. The second amendment from Norton is to uh adjust language in 5.19.2 A7 um where currently there's mixed language with bicycle and electric vehicle parking to differentiate those. Um I would uh prefer you just direct staff to differentiate it with intention instead of the word wordsmithing in case anything needs to be fixed later That's fine.

differently and I didn't hear a second for I didn't hear the seconder for that. Because it was friendly, I we just accepted it, but if you would like me to get a second, I will. Who would like to second Norton's? Lee seconds. [clears throat] Back to uh Commissioner Mills.

The only point of clarification that I would give Manager Kelly is that I think the first one they attributed to me, which is right. Um I think that we rather than D2, we just talked about D3 putting it in the class C section instead of the class B section. Yeah. Other comments? Uh Commissioner Hammerschmidt. I'm fine with you guys doing the wordsmithing. I'm just going The bolded words are those um defined somewhere and does it matter that we're saying parking space and then electric vehicle parking space? Like should that be tightened up maybe in your wordsmithing? Yes, the italics and the bolds and things like that will we will tighten up in our wordsmithing.

Thank you. All right, everyone's looking at their notes, so I think we're ready for a roll call vote on the amendment as or excuse me, on the motion as amended. [clears throat]

Up, Commissioner Mills. Oh, we do. I mean, yes, technically. Let's let's work we're going to accept them as one cuz it was friendly unless Manager Kelly wants us to vote on them independently. I would like independent votes. It also is it helps staff with minutes. Nope, you're fine. All right, let's uh start with Norton's um amendment first and can I do a voice a voice vote instead of a roll call? Uh I think that's fine. All right. Well, we're going to take the friendly amendment then the amendment and then back up that way. Is that okay? All right. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? The motion carries. Now, we'll take uh Commissioner Mills uh motion seconded by Commissioner Adams. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? The motion carries. And now, we'll take a roll call uh vote on the proposed motion as amended. This is why no one likes Robert's Rules of Order. Like Robert has been dead for a long time.

[laughter]

On the motion as amended as amended with the first amendment to allow substitution of class B spaces when C are required and a second amendment to direct staff to uh differentiate electrical and I'm sorry electric vehicle and bicycle parking uh in section 5.19 uh .7 . I'm sorry, 5.19 .2.8.7. Commissioner Weish. Yes. Commissioner Hammerschmidt.

Yes. Commissioner Lee. Yes. Councilmember Dish. Yes. Commissioner Mills. Yes. Commissioner Weatherby. Yes. Commissioner Adams. Yes. Commissioner Norton. Yes. Commissioner Vasta Uni. Yes. That carries. Great. I thought we had two votes. We only have one, we're good. Then that is approved. Thank you for that uh presentation and those changes. We're going to move now to 10C regular business amendment to chapter 55. Uh this is amendment to chapter 55 unified development code regarding exceptions to height limits for sustainable and affordable housing developments. Our proposal to amend section 5.18.4 exceptions to height limits and section 5.37.2 specific definitions to update the eligibility requirements for sustainable developments, provide alternatives for compliance and provide the standards for affordable housing and sustainable developments in the exception regulation section removing the definition section. Staff recommendation is approval. We'll start with a staff presentation by planner DeLeo. Thank you. You're welcome.

Please bear with me one second. Let me make sure Oh, look at that. Okay, let's get full screen here. Okay. Thank you. Um I will start off by saying the staff report looks a little bit odd. We are as a department and a city, we are playing around with um uh improving our documents for both um ADA uh and low visibility and ADA web ex I don't know if I have the right words, but um making our documents reader friendly, reader service friendly. Um

[clears throat]

tonight oops, that was not Tonight, we are bringing forth amendments to section 518.4 exception to height limits to require sustainable developments to be powered solely by electricity and to provide projects with an alternative for part of the solar collector surface requirement while maintaining the criteria for affordable housing developments and additional step backs and setbacks. The report um provides an evaluation of the section for how the projects are working and recommended revisions now that these provisions have been in place for over three years and it says seven, it should be six site plans have been have used the exceptions since they've been in place. Our recommended revisions also align the requirements with current expectations for sustainable developments and with the goals of the A20 plan. The staff report um I'm sorry, the exception to height limits, there are three paragraphs. We'll be focusing on one tonight, but for setting the stage, there are three exceptions that are offered. One is for paragraph A addresses certain architectural features. That's like gutters and soffits and so forth. Um they can extend um above the height limits. Paragraph B addresses sustainable and affordable developments and paragraph C addresses elevating buildings in the flood plain. Um Staff report goes through and um with a lot of background on an evaluation for the change and um a history of our timeline of premiums and exceptions. In brief, um we have first started offering premiums, which by definition were additional floor area um for certain amenities. We started that in 1966. 1994, we added residential uses where a premium use that gave additional

floor area. In 2009, that option greatly expanded to include many other um amenities, including affordable housing on top of the residential plus green buildings, historic preservation, public parking. Um Residential use um market rate was uh discontinued in 2019 and then all premium options were discontinued in 2023, but we That's when we introduced the exception to height limit for sustainable and affordable housing developments. This essentially carried forth some of the incentive for affordable housing and green buildings, although now we've called them sustainable developments. Um we had um I think it was the eight projects used the green building or affordable housing floor area premiums um in about a 10-year span and in about a 6-year span, we've had six projects use the exception to height limits. Five of them being sustainable developments and one was an affordable housing project. So, I think that we've concluded we've got equal or actually greater um results um seeing equal or more projects with our new program as compared to our old program. Um and now that we had those years and projects under our belt, we went to the ordinance revisions committee um uh talking about where can we improve, how is it working, and so on and so forth. We talked about several concepts um which are outlined in the staff report, but where we landed was the exception to height limits are successfully generating sustainable developments, um but some updates uh were warranted. The changes should be limited to just better align the award of a 30% increase in height with the current practice

of the proof site plans and the A2 strategies. Let me back up 1 second. Um Our current practice um is to offer a 30% height increase in all zoning districts for one of two reasons, when it's an affordable housing project, meaning it has 15% of the project um um is affordable or it can be a sustainable um it can have a sustainability component, which is defined as solar panels cover 60% of the surface of the project um and uh it has the capacity to be solely powered by electricity. There is a requirement. It's a one-to-one um 1 ft of height, 1 ft of setback or step back when you're above the normal height limit. Um and it's focused on that capacity to be solar, capacity to be sole solely powered by electricity. That was the focus. The expectation now is that all projects should be solely powered by electricity. And although we discussed a wide range of concepts at two different ORC meetings, where the committee landed was limited changes to better align the height increase with the current practice of being all-electric projects. Um any more substantial revision should be delayed and maybe best incorporated into the work of the forthcoming comprehensive plan implementation. So, tonight we have before you in a high-level paraphrased form, uh the current standards versus the proposed standards. And they are um maintaining the 30% increase in all districts. No change. We are essentially maintaining the affordable housing component, 15% of the projects, but we are proposing language that really um narrows down exactly how to calculate that, but the concept is not changing. For the sustainability component, uh we

are also we're proposing to keep the solar panels over 60% of the surface. Now, there is some nuance in how to do that, but this is the gist. Um and we are proposing to change it to be exclusively powered by electricity. And we are now offering a partial payment in lieu option. You'll still need to provide some solar panels over some of the some of the area, but there's a payment in lieu option for um a portion of it. And then just a little tweak to the one-to-one step back or setback above the normal height limit to be not just within, but in and within 300 ft of a residential district. Um I think with that um I will uh conclude the staff report um by saying you will see in the attached the attachment to the staff report, the draft ordinance. It is not There are no strikeouts because the the wording is that it is to be the current language is to be replaced with the language in the attachment. If um by nodding of heads or other comment, if that's a confusing format, it can easily be switched back to the more classic track changes version. Um I will say that staff um including the uh office of sustainability and innovation and the economic development director's office recommend that the proposed amendments be approved because they better align with the current expectations and the policy goals of the A2 carbon neutrality plan, which is the A20 plan. Um which calls for switching our appliances and other building systems from fossil fuel power to electric power. Thanks. Thank you, Planner De Leo. That will bring us to a public hearing. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up for 3 minutes on this item. We'll first hear from those of you who are present with us in chambers, then remote participants. To speak remotely, press star nine if on phone or use the raise

hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-663-41226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please ensure you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? Great. Manager Kelly, do we have remote participants? We do have one hand raised. Excellent. Goodman, you have 3 minutes to address Planning Commission. I'm Adam Goodman, 400 Virginia Avenue again. Um So, I I I think these changes are reasonable. Um I I don't really think there is an urgent problem to be solved here, to be honest. Um I I'd kind of rather that you were spending time talking about implementing the comp plan right now than this, but since it's before you, um might as well bring it forward. Uh It's um so, just to get into the specifics a bit, my understanding is that the current code, I mean, it's it's a bit confusingly written, but for the sustainability component, there is this clause that says that allows b- electric ready, but it says if complete electrification is not achievable at the time of initial construction. And my understanding is that the city has already been interpreting that as actually being a hard requirement for electrification unless the developer can produce a letter from DTE saying that it they cannot service this building. So, it is further my understanding that most or all of the developments that have

used this bonus have ended up being all-electric. So, uh um under the circumstances, I don't really have a problem with just clearing up the language to say all-electric, period. Uh it always struck me as a little weird to have solar panel coverage be a requirement that we are specifically enforcing on the tallest of our buildings um given that those are ones where roof area is relatively small compared to the total volume of the building. So, I see this as sort of flexibility from this payment in lieu option it is a positive change. And then finally, on the affordability side, I I know, you know, this is something that's working less well. Um one idea maybe to consider is why not allow developers to do both of these bonuses and and get like a 60% increase. And then we could see if the affordability bonus is actually something that uh developers would be willing to do if if if properly if if the incentive was out there. Um I do think that the city has a lot of experience with bad premium designs. So, I think it's actually fantastic that we you know, we created a policy that said we want to get um housing and we want to get all-electric buildings and we are getting that. I I I I just I don't want that to get lost in this conversation. This is a successful policy. It's great. Uh if we want to clarify and improve it, great. But we should celebrate that this is actually working. That's all. Thank you.

[snorts]

Thank you. There is one more hand raised, Adam Jiskiewicz. You have 3 minutes to address planning commission. Hi, this is Adam Jiskiewicz, 1430 Las Vegas Drive in the fourth ward. I agree with everything that Adam Goodman just said, except that I think if um we were to allow these two bonuses to stack, it should actually be a So, if if you have 130% of the height with one of the bonuses, and then you add another 30% to that 130%, it should actually give you 169% of the of the allowed height. So, that would actually be a 69% height bonus if if both bonuses were used. So, I think that would be quite appropriate. Thank you.

[snorts]

Thank you. There are no further hands raised. I shall close the public hearing and read the motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission hereby recommends that the mayor and city council approve amendments to chapter 55 Unified Development Code sections 5.18 and 5.37 related to exceptions to height limits to update the eligibility requirements for sustainable developments as proposed in the attached ordinance. Move by Council Member Dish, seconded by Commissioner Mills. We are in discussion. Who would like to kick us off? Manager Kelly would like to kick us off. I I just wanted to point out that we do have a guest, Mr. Giant, who's the city's economic development director, and Missy Stults, director of OSI, are here. I don't know if you We we could have incorporated them during staff comments, but just neglected to point that out. I'm not sure if you would like to hear their remarks, but they are available. All right. We'll see if anyone at the table wants to start or if they want to hear from Commissioner Adams. Well, we need someone to give us direction, and I can't do it. So, who would like to tell us what we want to do? Why don't we stay over with you, and then you tell us whether you want to speak or if you want to hear from the guests? I have no problem with these changes, and I'm inclined to support them tonight. That's all I wanted to say. Great. Thank you for that.

I'm only saying that because I had strong objections to these at ORC and again at the working session. I think staff did a good job of taking the feedback. These look clarifying, helpful. So, I'm good with these. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Dish. I would like to hear from our guests. [laughter] Um [clears throat] Do you have specific questions Yes, I do. I do. But you are not limited to my specific questions. Well, [laughter]

But I'm sure someone will impose a time limit on you. But I wanted to understand a little bit more about the decision to not require net zero, given that we are getting all electric. Um and there is a suggestion from our friend Ken Garber that I will want to put on the table, but I think rather than front load everything, we'd invite you to speak first. All right. Well, we'll start with Dr. Stults on the net zero question, and then if you have general comments after that, you can offer them, and then we'll hear from you, Mr. Giant. Yeah, I appreciate that. So, as we looked at this, we really tried to have as much parity as we could in the two systems. And so, focusing on all electric in the clarification that that's what we wanted explicitly, and then the solar on site or this payment in lieu of, we really want solar in the community. Right? We have a lot of goals around deployment of renewable energies. This allowed some of our largest buildings to be iconic and demonstrate that shared commitment. So, we did not go for net zero dot dot dot yet. So, I will say I have talked to Mr. Garber. I'm going to tee this up quickly. Joe and I are committed Director Giant and I are committed to through the comprehensive land use plan working with developers to figure out what else we can bring forward in the space. We have a lot of ideas how we can get much closer to the goal of net zero. Right now though, this is where we sort of landed as it's a good step. It is balanced. We feel really solid around it. I will kick it to Joe just to add anything I might have missed. Thank you all for considering it. Joe Giant, director of economic development. I think it's really a cool thing when sustainability and economic development can work on things together. Sometimes we can work at things Missy and I never disagree, but I know that sometimes OSI

and economic development can have different goals. We're trying to have encouraged more housing and trying to encourage more sustainable buildings by allowing taller buildings that are more sustainable. I just I think it just addresses a couple of our goals, and I think it's a smart amendment to consider. Um As as far as net zero, yeah, Missy's right. Dr. Stults, Director Stults, absolutely right. We want to take a more comprehensive look at how we can, you know, tie this more to performance and tie it less to just a technical requirement. That's something that will take a little bit more work, but we know that we do have developments coming in every single day, and we This is a fix that makes a lot more of them applicable to to this bonus. So, it's it's a small fix, a step in the right direction, and we are committed to moving more towards performance-based requirements in the future. I know that that can be a challenging thing from a from a zoning standpoint. So, we wanted to make sure that what we did here was was implementable, and thanks to the planning staff for helping us to achieve that. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Back to Council Member Dish. I think you can sit down for now. Yeah. Well, or you can stay. Mr. Garber had a [laughter] had a very specific point that he made that I mean, he did mention the net zero thing, but I'm really satisfied, delighted with both of your responses to that. But his specific point, and um I will just say it because I do not have the expertise to evaluate its veracity. But he suggests that the current language would permit dual gas electric space heating systems where um Okay, this isn't Let me just clean up his language. Okay, it would permit gas to kick in during colder than normal temperatures, not just when the power goes out. So, the In other words, the way this is worded does not fully He, in his view,

does not fully restrict gas, or the backup language is vague enough, capacious enough that a gas backup could kick in during colder than normal temperatures, not just when Oh oh [laughter] Oh my god. I'm afraid they're all lining up. Go ahead. Go ahead and finish your point.

goes out. [laughter] And so, is that true? It is definitely not my read of this, but Brett, do you want to take it? So, I can provide some additional information on that when it goes if it proceeds to City Council, but my understanding is that air conditioning is not life safety systems. Okay. But is heat? I do not believe heat is a life safety system, but life safety systems I think are defined by the building code. I think that they are fire suppression, emergency lighting. I do not think it includes air space heating. And so, I do not believe that's the case, but I'm happy to provide that clarification again just to verify that intention. So, if he is reading that that backup [snorts] power for power life safety systems would do that, I do not think that the building code classifies air conditioning as a basic life safety system. We can sit here and say that it should be or not, but I don't believe that the building code calls that.

Okay. Yeah, so so we are talking about do not include HVAC, and you will verify. Okay, in that case, I do not think that I need to read his amendment because I would prefer to wait for clarification. And it's really scary when the three of you all stand up. [laughter]

All right. Let's go I saw Sorry, Commissioner Mills, I saw Norton first, so I'll go Commissioner Norton, then to you. Yeah, I'm going to show my ignorance and ask for an explanation from Director Stults. The The other thing that Mr. Garber recommends is that we just make the requirement compliance with the IECC appendix CC. Could you explain what that means or what that would What the implication of that is? Yeah, so that's the zero code appendix where there's basically the equivalent of zero emissions coming off that site, but most of it is achieved through offsite offsets. And for us, we felt it was really, really important instead of having offsite offsets, meaning someone's building solar somewhere else or geothermal somewhere else, we want it in Ann Arbor. And so, we made the decision that we wanted 60% of the floor area for the solar collectors because we want our power here. We want at least 20% of that in the building powering part of that building. The other 40% if it cannot be achieved on site, let's say form-wise, you've got a building that's wide at the bottom, it narrows towards the top, they just don't have the space to do the full amount, they can make this payment in lieu to a fund that we're establishing through the sustainable energy utility that will build solar in Ann Arbor. And so for us, we really wanted to focus on getting renewables in our community, providing resilience in our community as opposed to having the offset. So, it was a trade-off. We could have gone for the zero code. We just felt like it was more important right now with our goals to bring it home. Thank you. I like those answers. All right. We're going to Mills, then to Lee, then to Bassini. My question was really about the payment in lieu and that this was I was curious that was not something that we discussed at ORC and I was curious if it was about practicality in some places. I mean, there's also a lot of competition for roof space sometimes or if it was as we heard on the affordable housing

side, sometimes it's helpful to have payment in lieu because you can leverage those dollars and I wasn't sure if it's a little bit of both or um A little bit of is the right answer and in this way we have the flexibility for developers to be able to develop things that fit within our urban form that align with what the public wants. We're not just mandating tall kind of symmetrical buildings. We're allowing things to be soft density, different shapes, different structures, which is important and Joe and I spent a lot of time thinking about of course our urban form and how we encourage development that the public will support, right? That fits the the look and the feel of our community. And so giving that flexibility means we still get the solar. Having the payment in lieu gives those developers the opportunity to really respond to the public in meaningful ways without sacrificing our sustainability goals. So, it gives them that flexibility and we'll be bringing the resolution similar to what happens on the affordable housing side. Council adopts an actual number, an equation and that's how we'll calculate. So, we'll know exactly what the contribution is to this sustainable energy fund we'll be creating. So, that all come when it goes to council. Great. Yes, Mr. Lenert. I have a few things to say. No, I [laughter] just I just wanted to bring that home with an example. You might remember the Southtown proposal that you recently saw in the original. Just just to contextualize the flexibility, that is a our our standard measures the building footprint. That building, I'm thinking the original one cuz I was more familiar with it, but it it had a rectangular podium with like a sort of a sinuous tower on top of it. The way the standard applies, it applies to the base. Applying 60% of that is going to be really challenging. So,

[clears throat]

from a planning and design perspective, I just wanted to emphasize with that example why that flexibility provides a lot of flexibility to designers. I think that's super smart. I think that even in this part of the code, we have a counterpart on the affordable housing side. So, I think it makes a lot of sense. So, good job. Good work. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. Commissioner Lee. Yeah, I wanted to address Mr. Garber's comments as well. Thank you to Mr. Garber. I'm sure he'll watch this later on for submitting the comments. One of the things that I I'm generally actually I'm supportive of the amendment as it's written currently. The reason I say that is I did do the back of napkin calculations that he cited there. The thing that I do want to clarify is that that is on a spreadsheet. Like that that is like the cap rate application, a capitalization rate applied to what we would expect to get. Now, there are uncertainties related to market lease up velocity, absorption and there are just a lot of uncertainties associated with that value increase. So, I think there this is a good step forward in addressing what we've kind of said is like, "Hey, this feels pretty disproportionate." We're seeing that as a result of this. I think that this is and we've said often times at this table how we would like to see more fully electrified buildings. Yet, there are specific requirements that there's some things that zoning cannot regulate such as utilities, for example. This is I think there's a larger question of like 169% of 180 ft in D1 is 300 ft. So, how high is too high? I think there's probably a larger discussion around form base in that respect. That being said, I find that this is a very balanced approach to this and that

the only thing that I just want to say is that that back of napkin is exactly that. It is a back of napkin and there is a there's a balancing factor as it relates to a developer making the decision to push a project forward based on all of the other risks that exist relate to financing, what's my takeout financing, what is my lease up velocity, what are market conditions. And so, while it is and I think it is blatantly disproportionate enough that it it merits action and I'm glad we're taking it. So, I'm supportive of this. I did want to directly speak to Mr. Garber's point, which is well taken. It feels disproportionate, but that you also don't want to push it to a point where it tests negatively on the other side that it you know, people stop taking this particular avenue. So, all that to say thank you again, Mr. Garber. I know you're probably listening for for all of your thoughtful comments associated with this. After having read it, I still am in support of this I think good reasonable step forward. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Bassini. Yes, so thank you to staff. This is clearly very well researched and well thought out. I'm generally in support. I did have a question/clarification note. Hopefully not too much of a knit, but on slide five, thank you for numbering. It makes it super helpful. Um there was the language solely versus exclusively. If you could pull up the slide just so we could re-reference it, I think I'm just curious what the difference is because to me solely and exclusively are interchangeable. So, I just want to know if they are in fact interchangeable here and just if there was any reason for that. And then also the in and within. Could you please explain why it changed to in and within versus I think it was just within. So, I'd love to hear that. Thank you.

Um of course. So, I cannot multitask under pressure. I'm going to bring up the I'm sharing the presentation. Sharing it. I'm going to again make it full screen. Okay, and we're going [clears throat] to go to five. This is Do not read deeper meaning into this. This is the gist. My you know, how I might verbally describe it, not not as written. So, therefore exclusively, solely, all electric in this context means exactly the same thing. Um the proposed the actual proposed language is All buildings in the development are all electric, meaning powered by electricity as the only source. So, here's a fourth.

[laughter]

As the only source of energy for all on-site space conditioning including heating and cooling, water heating, cooking appliances and clothes drying appliances. So, that's what the the actual proposed code language is. But again, in just conversation, we use these terms interchangeably. Thank you. Was there Did I miss another question? It's the in and Yeah. All right. So, we did not do a track changes version and here's a flaw of that. Um right now the language says for that one-to-one step back, it also it does not use the phrase one-to-one, but it does require 1 ft of additional step back for every foot of building height above the normal. Um so, that is a one-to-one ratio. And it right now it says when the it's within 300 ft of residential district. So, we have not had any issues whatsoever, but a better language is it's not just when the building is within 300 ft of residential, but also those in in an actual residential zoning district because the exception applies also in residential zoning districts. And the entire intention is you know, the community has some expectation when they look in the area height and placement chart of how tall a building can be. And we are giving an exception and allowing buildings to be a little bit taller. But we'd like because of that expectation, we'd like to mitigate it for shading purposes or just view visual purposes. The building would then need to be if you're going to get a 20 ft height bonus just for discussion purposes. If it's a 100 ft height limit and I pick a 100 only because it's a very round number. But and if you get a 20 ft if your building is 20 20 ft taller than normal, it's 1:20. So, someone could move that entire building back an additional 20 ft, the whole building back, or they could build the building where it normally is allowed based on the side or

rear setback. But above 100 ft, then you start stepping it in. And they could make it angled, they could make it entirely smaller, 20 ft smaller from the base. We're providing that flexibility, but we are trying to maintain um the the feel of the building um in its context. And right now it just says within. I do not want anyone to interpret that to mean, "Oh, I'm in a residential district, so I don't have to do that." Uh uh Commissioner Bassouni, can I ask clarifying question right where you are? Absolutely. Thank you. So um uh Planner DeLeo, I've been I've been stuck on that in uh on slide five. You can put it back up. Uh so again, we don't like Robert's Rules of Order and we don't like the Planning Commission writing text at the table. Uh but the width um in and is an addition which I think has a negative impact in the residential district. And the reason that I'm saying that is because it's not clear how the setbacks are going to be applied at the time of um the application. Meaning, if we have a completely solar uh residential development that meets the criteria to qualify for the height bonus of 30% in the R1C where the height um uh limit right now is 30 ft, that would allow them to go up to 45 ft. However, the one-to-one setback could be applied to the rear and side setback, not just the portion that is applied above the 30 ft. So that's the question is trying to understand what that looks like. So for a lot that's 75 ft um that would then

bring those side setbacks in from whatever our existing setbacks are, and you'll know this better than I do, but I think the minimum of the two sides is 10 ft and the rear is 30, at least in R1C. And so then with the additional 15, we would would it apply to both sides? So then we would see 25 ft setbacks on both sides in order to go to the 45. And that's the addition with this change. If we take out the end uh to this change, then it wouldn't have that demonstrative impact on the residential. I'd argue that there's no fun there's no functional change because uh that building in the R1C district that currently reads as when you're within 300 ft of a residential district, it's within 300 ft of a resi- its neighbor is residentially zoned.

So you're saying that this already applies inside that R1C, that this is not a new change. And if it's not a new change, then why are we adding the end? Uh I felt it was clearer. If the table disagrees, it can be struck. Okay. But if it it then it it what it it's saying right now, one could argue it doesn't matter what the existing zoning of the the one lot is.

Mhm. If it's within 300 ft of a residential district this step back or setback requirement applies. And ex- unless you are on a boundary of a residential district, that one lot is within three its neighbor if its neighbor is also R1C, it's going to apply. Okay. Uh that was a helpful clarification. I have um another question, but I want to uh make sure that Commissioner Bassouni uh that um excuse me, that you got your question answered. I believe so, yeah. Thank you. And

I'll mull it over, and if I have a follow-up, I'll let you know. Okay, so then I'll go to Hammersmith, and then uh Norton, you're after uh Dish. With your permission, can I Councilmember Dish's thing was also related to the Okay.

if if you want to yield the floor to Councilmember Dish, that is your prerogative. Just permission to read the slide. So, Commissioner Bassouni this was confusing. So uh we're going to read the left hand. Sustainability component, solar panels over 60% surface. Must have the capacity to be solely powered by electricity. Yeah, capacity is the operative word. And then what's changed is must be powered solely or exclusively by electricity. Okay. Thank you. I just went back to like eighth grade English. That's perfect. Thank you. [laughter]

Thank you. I still have you. It's back to Hammersmith, and then to you uh Commissioner Norton. All right, I wanted to go back to the backup energy sources. I have a question. I'm not proposing to change anything, but Dr. Stoltz, I would sort of like your interpretation of this. So I keep thinking about all of the empty parking lots that we have downtown, and if people are going to have to bring in new gas lines to provide this backup energy for life safety systems, this is a building code thing, I'm assuming. Is it Does the building code require it to be a gas line, or are batteries acceptable? Do you know? Oh, Mr. Leonard. Say I can also answer that. The building code actually defaults to diesel. Oh. It has to be a separate source of energy. However, they provide an exception where natural gas is available, and so it provides that as an alternative. But not a battery. Um I think the batteries are possible. They are evolving in the code. This is where Messi's going to know better than I am, but they are evolving in the code because of a lot of concerns about housing batteries inside buildings. Which now there's fire code, I think, that's like

Yes. Yeah. Yeah, we heard about that 2 weeks ago. Yeah, so absolutely possible to have backup batteries, but they have to be stored right now outside of the building. We have different battery technologies. The field is just evolving, and so because in this moment we're staying true and holding fidelity to the building code, that's why you see what you see. So what are your thoughts then on like this cuz this is say- No, I know. I want to hear that. Like this is basically saying like I mean, all of these multi-family buildings are have they're going to have to be gas lines. Or I mean Are you con- Are you concerned? Um am I concerned? Uh let me say

doesn't, you know, it's not going to Right. So this is where Director Jain and I were sort of alluding we are working on other things. We are pushing on other systems. You may recollect that we adopted a heating franchise that only goes uh to 2035. And in that franchise, that is the only time we have given DT permission to provide gas service to our community. We are very clear with developers, they should not assume there is a right to serve past that date. So we are working on lots of levers around this. I would say uh we're aware, and we're going to hold the code right now because we have to hold the code right now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Norton. Okay, I know you don't like wordsmithing from the table, but I'm going back to the in and within, and I'm still confused by what you I think I now understand what you're trying to do. So I want to make a suggestion see if what I'm suggesting is actually what you're trying to do. I think what you're trying to say is um Let me find it in the text here. Da da da every foot of building height above the normal height limit for the portion of the building above the height limit if a building is in a residential district or within 300 ft of a residential district. Is that what you're trying to say? I think saying it that way would be a lot more clear than saying in and within. Mhm. Which leaves me scratching my head, what does that mean? So I don't know if this is a friendly amendment or how does that work? I don't think it's um in the actual language cuz it was a a summary slide. So I don't think this is the precise

language of the Are you on slide five, or are you in the actual uh text changes? I'm in the actual text. You're in the text changes? Okay. So then you would be making a amendment. So you would need to um see if staff's okay with it, if you they want to take your direct language, or if they want to take direction from the table to fix it in the direction you Something something I'm okay with something like what I suggested, but to kind of separate those concepts.

we can get uh a read, then we'll decide whether we need to do a um a motion, and then get a second, and then discuss and vote it. But if you feel like you have the instruction I'm okay with it as long as Manager Kelly's okay with it. I was going to say I'm I feel I do understand the desire. If you would like to make a formal amendment, that is perfectly fine. If you just want to provide some direction um I'm fine with that either as well. On my honor, it will move forward to City Council with [laughter] with that Yeah, no, we we trust separated language.

you there. Um Manager Kelly, what would you like for the minutes? Would you like a motion? Uh I do like things to be documented. Great. Um Coun- uh Commissioner Norton, would you like to move what you proposed?

I would like to move a slide amendment to the language on paragraph um I'm in of the proposed amendment to section one para- uh B two B two. Um it's in the da da da da da da fourth line of the paragraph. So, it would read in part, "Portion of the building above the height limit for a building in a residential zoning district or within 300 ft of a residential zoning district." All right. Um seconded by Commissioner Mills. We are now discussing the proposed um uh or the moved amendment, seconded amendment. Any discussion? Oh, uh Commissioner Lee.

Yeah. Makes sense to me. Are we providing the direction for them or are we providing them specific wording? I'm suggesting that language got specific wording.

They for some reason that you need to tweak it, that's fine with me. Okay. I'm in support. Makes sense. Okay. Anyone else? Uh let's take a voice vote, which I believe is permissible here. Soon as Manager Kelly gives me a indication that they are ready. Uh Alexis, would you have the ability to restate the amendment as you understand it? I think you referenced the specific uh code section. Sure. In the proposed ordinance, um section 5184B2, in the fourth sentence fourth line, which says, "Portion of the building above the height limit in or within 300 ft of a residential district" would change to "portion of the building um in a residential district or within 300 ft of a residential district." Thank you so much. All those in favor say I. I. Any oppose? The motion carries.

[snorts]

Back to Commissioner Norton. I just want to state generally um I want to respond to a couple of the comments. I know we've heard some concern that this whole thing is a big giveaway for developers and it's kind of trading on we're getting lots more sustainable development proposals instead of affordable housing proposals. I get nervous when we start talking about kind of extracting things out of developers because we have the power to do that. I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it. Um I am worried that in some sense we're creating two incentives um and they are tending to favor doing sustainable development improvements instead of affordable housing improvements. I think the amendments that are being proposed are helping to start moving the right direction um to address that concern. I'm more heartened to hear that the staff is continuing to think through additional things that we can be doing to continue moving in the right direction. So, at the end of the day, these two provisions are working. They are providing We are getting folks proposing to do things that are taking advantage of them and providing additional affordable housing and sustainable development. So, I I want to just state with that thought process in mind, I'm in favor of of these proposals as amended and I look forward to additional changes we may make as we continue to up you know, implement the club to keep moving in the in the right direction. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Norton. Commissioner Bassiouni. Hello again. Uh yes, that is very helpful, very clarifying of that amendment. Um as we were talking about it, I realized I'm curious just the historical nature of the 300 ft. That's something I'm not as familiar with, so I'd love to hear a bit if this is an okay forum for that. Uh why 300 ft and why not another number? I was just looking at the UDC, it looks like it's mentioned about nine times. Um and I'm just curious how did we get to 300 ft? Staff, Mr. Leonard, Manager Kelly, who's answering this? Um I'll take a stab. Please jump in. Um It as you you basically concluded, it it's it's a number that is used repeatedly um for consistency purposes, that's really that is very helpful. Um it to it's easy much easier to apply. It is not a magic number. Um it but we do repeat it um repeat so, it's it's just much easier to apply and get in the rhythm of and it for expectation purposes. But it is not a magic number. We can have a separate comp conversation um about what is the right the right number. When you're talking about a residential district, um lots are in the 50 to 8 100 ft wide range. So, 300 ft is like is like three to six houses away and it someone has decided that feels about right. You're not as impacted by what's going on four or five or six houses away. You are very impacted by what's happening on the adjacent lot to you. The rhythm is about a block um in the downtown area. And so, I think this is some of the foundation of it, but it is

not magic, but that that's part of the foundation that you need to pick a number and that about a block away is the was deemed that's where the immediate effects sort of stop. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Yeah, I'm not sure if anyone else had anything to weigh in, but that's helpful. So, it sounds like there's not necessarily um a data point around set of studies or something. It was at some point in the past that was the number that was set upon and we've kind of continued that forward. Okay, thank you. But later, we're going to have a section called uh Commissioner Proposed Business and that has historically been a place where things someone learns at the table that they want to come back to could go onto a scratch pad of items and then we might put it on our work agenda or work schedule or we may schedule work session where we could address that. So, you don't have to give up your pursuit of the 300 number here with that answer. You can revisit it another time. Wonderful. Thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome. I wish someone would have told me that when I first sat the table. Had to learn that myself. Mr. Leonard and I back and forth. All right. Commissioner Norton. Um I'm sorry. What I forgot one other thing. To acknowledge the comments we got about stacking these requirements. If you do both of these, you can go up to some extra. I don't think the way these provisions are written, you can do that. Is that correct? Yeah, that was just a public comment that was saying comment. So, they should be stackable up to 69%.

Yeah, I'm not sure that I'm ready to go there cuz I don't get the sense that that's been thought through. But I would suggest maybe that's something for the staff to think through as you're working through additional changes, but I'm I wanted to acknowledge that comment, but say I'm not ready to support that at this point. Thank you. Other commissioners. Do you feel ready to vote? Excellent. I think we are voting on the motion as amended and it'll be a roll call vote. Bassiouni. Yes. Norton. Yes. Adams.

Yes. Wetherbee. Yes. Mills. Yes. Desch. Yes. Lee. Yes. Ames-Klein. Yes. Weish. Yes. That carries. Thank you, everyone. [snorts] That takes us to 11A, other business. Com- Commission Continuing Education Funds. Manager Kelly. [snorts]

Uh we have a small pot of funding that can be dedicated to continuing education by commissioners and uh that is extending until July 1st. So, the through the end of fiscal year 26. Um and just to offer uh that some uh commissioners have expressed interest, so wanted to open the floor to see who would like to utilize funds. I received one request from Commissioner Weish and I had uh some other inquiries, but it sounds like they can wait until the next fiscal year. So, this is just a last chance to let me know if you are interested in pursuing that pot of conditional continuing education funds. All right. Um Commissioner Bassiouni. Yes, I would also be interested. Let me know what information I believe um I was planning to email Manager Yes, Manager Leonard. Um but yes, I would love to be considered as well. Thank you. Yes, and per our discussion, I think that we can fit in most of what you want in the next fiscal year. So, for the time being um we'll consider that uh taking care of through future process or separate uh budget process. And anyone else for this fiscal year? Commissioner Lee. I'll express interest, but will defer to other folks that have not gotten support in the past. Thank you. Okay. What would you like support for? There's a Mish that building communities conference I think Mayish. Yes. Yes, that's what I was asking for funds for as well. The 2026 building Michigan communities conference BMCC. I think that's um

Yeah, but I can shoot you an email. Thank you. No, we actually have to vote on it tonight. Oh, okay. [laughter] Got it. did the commission has to allocate the funds. That's why we're Okay. And we can't do it via email. interested then we could support each of you at $250. Okay. Great. So, that would be the motion. Unless there's an additional party. Well, I will note that we did support Commissioner Lee in the past. So, you did want to defer if I don't remember the last time we uh supported it was the the Mackinac Island um Which was sometime ago. planner uh conference. That was the last thing I participated in.

[clears throat and laughter] I went to Grand Rapids. It was still during COVID. So, it wasn't as cushy. There you go. [laughter] All right. Uh Commissioner Norton, you were flirting with your fingers. I didn't know if that meant anything. I see. [snorts]

Yeah, that's fine with me. I don't have any objection and manage your kitty.

a proposed motion could be the planning commission [snorts] approves allocation of $250 each to support continuing education for Commissioners Waish and Lee to participate in the 2026 building communities conference for fiscal year 2026. Moved by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Council member Dish. We're in discussion. Are we ready to vote? I think we need to do a roll call vote or can we do a voice vote? Uh you can do a voice vote. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you, Manager Kelly. But, you're still here. Manager Kelly, on to 11B. 2026 City Planning Commission calendar review. Uh [snorts] yes. So, this was what I mentioned in my manager report that uh hm [clears throat] I believe this was also discussed at your uh working session meeting um related to the implementation um workup for the comp plan that there will be a greater intensity of meetings that are of interest to a wider body than just the ordinance revisions committee. And so, staff have updated your 2026 calendar to reflect a changeover of ORC which are those fourth Tuesday meeting dates to be virtual working sessions. We did consider to bring uh you potentially into chambers to allow you to take action on those days. There are many conflicts fourth Tuesdays with other boards and commissions. So, even though it is proposed to be virtual we do still recommend this. Um we could on a case-by-case basis further change some of those to be action meetings if necessary. Voting meetings. Okay. So, this would convert all remaining ORCs to working sessions on the fourth

uh Tuesday for the calendar year 2026. Council member Dish. Yeah, so it it converts all remaining ORCs to CPC working sessions. Correct.

Yes. I wanted to flag two Tuesdays. September 22nd is a city council meeting that is rescheduled due to a religious holiday. You all can function perfectly fine without me, but I just wanted you to know that. And November 24th is the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. Okay. What was the first date? I'm sorry. September 22nd. It's a city council member uh meeting that's being moved. [snorts]

Uh I think it's up to the will of the body if you want to strike both of those as no meeting dates or just the council conflict is an obvious one. I think the other one you flagged um council member because uh there's a lot of out-of- uh town travel during that period. So, it's up to the will of body if you'd like to

you remind us, can we do virtual meetings outside of the city of Ann Arbor? Uh you can stating your location. Okay. So, we could continue to meet even if because it's virtual as long as people share where they are. That's my understanding. I can um I could update by email if I get a different interpretation from our city attorney's office and we could uh update this action. So, we could leave them and then make an adjustment once we hear back from uh city attorney cuz if we have to change the 24th because too many people would be out of town, we could strike that one and then consider what to do with the 22nd at that time. Or would you like us The 22nd was likely an oversight on our part. I don't think it would be appropriate. We never uh have we really try not to have those be conflicting. Also for the public who may be interested in viewing both meetings, but certainly for a conflict of a member of your body. Okay. So, let's strike the 22nd and strike the 24th. It would be my proposals and then or excuse me. Sorry. Let's strike the 22nd for sure. And then we can either strike at the table the 24th or wait to hear back from the city attorney of whether or not uh the open meetings act in Michigan allows us to conduct a meeting uh virtually outside of our jurisdiction. Uh coun- uh Commissioner Norton. Can you speak a little more into your mic?

I need to turn it on. Okay, great. Thank you. I I'm just wondering if we should also consider striking the meeting that would be on December 22nd for the same reason. It's kind of It's not listed on on this. Oh, it's not Okay, I'm looking at my calendar. That's okay. You're looking ahead. Yeah. We will not be here. Okay. Never mind. Did anyone have a strong opinion about the 24th? Do you want to just strike it and then we restore it if the city attorney says it's okay? That way we don't have to come back to this if the city attorney says no, the open meetings act doesn't allow us to do that.

you may also run into I I mean it is a good point that there may also be staff outages and travel during that time. So, Yeah, let's strike maybe simplest to strike it.

All right. So, we're looking at striking September 22nd and November 24th. Is that everyone's understanding? Do we have concurrence? All right. Let's get a motion here. Is there anything else that we need to consider for this? Uh the planning commission approves the updated calendar to convert convert the ordinance revisions committee meetings to working sessions for the remainder of 2026 with the exception of September 22nd and November 24th, 2026. Moved by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Council member Dish. We had our discussion out of order. So, do we have any additional uh discussion? [snorts]

You well, cuz we discussed it during the staff presentation. Sorry. [laughter]

Uh uh coun- excuse me. Uh Commissioner Weatherbee. Uh I'm not sure where to put this cuz we haven't voted on it yet. But, uh I don't actually because I'm not on ORC, I don't have any of these on my calendar. So, I just wanted to note that if we do approve this that we all be given calendar invitations for it. Great. Anyone else? Looks like we can do a voice vote here. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? The motion carries. This takes us to agenda item number 12, a public comment on any issue. This is the second opportunity for individuals to speak up to 3 minutes on any issue. We will first hear from those of you who are present with us in chambers or those who are connected via remote um To speak remotely, press star nine if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and and enter meeting ID 977-663-41226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please uh move to a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present who would like to address us at this time? Seeing none. Do we still have remote participants and do and would they like to address us at this time? There is one hand raised. Adam Jiskets, you have 3 minutes to address the planning commission. Hi. Adam Jiskets, here 1430 Las Vegas Drive in the fourth ward. Um I I do agree that the um idea of allowing the sustainability and affordability bonuses to stack in some way, whether that's um

to 60% or to 69% however you decide to calculate that is probably something that's not that that should be considered separately from the changes that you were looking at but I do think that it's something that would be good to look at. I know that both sustainability and affordable housing are things that are very important to the community. And I do not at all agree with the idea that allowing a developer to gain additional height and density in exchange for community benefits in the form of sustainability or affordable housing are somehow a giveaway to that developer. I mean it's it's an exchange, right? They're doing something and they're doing something for the community and they're gaining a benefit from that. So um I think that it would be a good idea to consider the possibility of those things stacking or possibly a way that a developer could split the difference on those and do a partial of each and and still gain a 30% bonus while doing like 15% of each or you know something like that. So I think some consideration for stacking would be warranted for future consideration. Thank you. Thank you. There are no other hands raised. I shall close the public comments and that brings us to agenda item number 13. Commission proposed business. Is there any?

Commissioner Bassouney Um so I appreciate that staff has a lot of work on their plate. Um if you have time and our board and just want a fun little side adventure, I would love to learn where the 300 ft originated from or what the context is historically. Um I think that'll help me better understand as it comes up in other conversations why those numbers. Thank you. And then I had a small thing I wanted to flag for staff and I will follow up with the email. Um on the planning website, we currently list uh upcoming developments that have had to issue postcards. We link to the postcards and on most of the postcards, not all of them, is the stream project ID. However, we don't list the stream project ID in the description on the website. So then one has to go and search the address and stream is very precise around addresses, I have learned. So if you put in drive and the address is actually written DR, it won't find that location, which is disorienting for a user because you can see that it's there, you can see the postcard and you put in the address that you got. So I wonder if it would be possible and not a burden to staff to add the stream link for the project at the time the information is added to the website. No, that's that's not a problem. Okay, thank you. Oh, commission and then just for the public for whoever's watching this later, you can see everything that's coming to

the table in advance by just going to the planning website. There's a list, I think it's in reverse chronological order of petitions and those generally are generated by postcards to let you know that a development is been submitted. And so then that way you can look it up in the stream to see the site proposals and so I did that this week and there's like 25 things coming to the table in the next couple of weeks and months. Commissioner Leaf. [laughter]

I just [clears throat] wanted to give everybody a heads up that MDOT is planning a reconstruction project of North Main Street. Um this is from Huron Street up to the 14 ramps and on May 21st, there's a public open house from 5:30 to 7:30 and this is at the DDA office, 415 North 5th Avenue on the second floor. There are also going to be open studio drop-in sessions on May 19th and May 20th. And so please if you're interested, this is again in about a month from now, there will be open studio sessions as it relates to the reconfiguration of the North Main Street. And then just the planning is intended to be 20, I'm sorry, 2030 is the construction or later. So this is the planning phase where you can go voice your thoughts. Thank you. Any other commissioners? I will [snorts] entertain a motion to adjourn. Moved by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Mills. All those in favor say I. I. We are adjourned.