Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, welcome everyone to the Tuesday, April 28th, 2026 City Planning Commission work session. Because this is a work session, we will not be taking any votes in our discussion or through our agenda tonight. And with that, we will start with whether or not there is public comment. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to 3 minutes about an item not listed as a public hearing, but there are no public hearings, so that's anything on the agenda tonight. Please state your name and address for the record. And I think we only have one non-commissioner participant. So, we'll see if Mr. Rhodes wants to address us at this time. Mr. Rhodes, you can unmute and address the Planning Commission for up to 3 minutes. Hi everyone. I just wanted to comment about a couple of things. One is that I recently attended a meeting of the Old Westside Association. And there was a little discussion about the comprehensive plan. Not extensive, it wasn't the main focus of the meeting. Um, but there was an expectation a strong expectation that there will be engagement as part of the zoning process. And it's very important. They they a lot of people there felt like uh the petitions and comments from the historic districts were not really given great weight uh the first time around. And there's a strong expectation that things will happen during this process. So, um that's kind of the update from from that

meeting. The other thing I'd like like to comment of about is uh the Brett's April 28th memo regarding the plan. And I I do believe that with respect to the hub phase one, the the hub uh land use category um we we still need more of a collaborative effort rather than just a consultative approach with respect to historic districts. Historic districts were basically not allowed to really participate as historic districts the first time around. It's really, really important that that happen this time. Secondly, in terms of engagement, there's there's discussion of residents having public workshops. Public workshops to date have been more of a top-down sort of this is a presentation or a very constrained sort of process. And so, I'm wondering if we can get something that's more of a collaborative, more of an exchange, more of some sincere listening. Because if you think about it, the historic districts really don't have the benefit of transition. And so, you're going from something that's residential in in terms of what's built with historics, going right up against hub in in particularly where I live on First Street. And so, I I I

30 more seconds. I think that that's that's a problem. And I I'd like to see that addressed. Um, I do generally like the memorandum in terms of laying out things uh in terms of levels of engagement, but I really do believe there has to be more engagement. Um, or there's going to be a lot of grief. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Uh for those of you who have just joined us, we're in the public comment period of our agenda. There will be two. This is the first one. If you are interested in speaking up to 3 minutes on any issue and addressing the Planning Commission, please use the raise hand feature if you are on Zoom or star nine if you are connected by phone. City staff will identify you by the last three digits of your phone number or by your name or handle on Zoom, and then you will be permitted to speak for up to 3 minutes. Please go to a quiet area, mute any background sounds, and at the beginning of your comments, please state your name and address. Mr. Leonard, I am looking at the list. I don't see any hands raised. Do you see hands raised? I do not. We'll give it a moment invoking former Chair Lee. If you would like to address the Planning Commission before we start our deliberation, this is a great time to do that. Please use the raise hand feature on Zoom or star nine if on phone. Despite your plea, I still do not see any hands raised.

[laughter] Neither do I. All right, so with that, we'll move ahead in our agenda onto presentations, item number three. [snorts] What we have three lovely staff members with us tonight. Shall you cast lots for who will present to us or do you already know who's presenting? [laughter] Well, depending how you look at it, Planner DeLeo either won or lost. [laughter]

So, but I just want to set the stage as you as we discussed, we had presented a couple of options. There was a lot of residents around the second option, which started with the hub activity as part of that. Um, we heard from the commission you're interested in moving quickly. Thank you for accommodating the schedule change, which allows us to have these working sessions as well. Um, so in your packet, we've provided what we hope is fruitful detailed discussion of how we think that we can roll up our sleeves and get started on the hub work that you desire. So, I'm going to turn it over to Alexis to summarize that, and that's what we'll be what we'll be looking for any feedback. And you will see a couple of inflection points of potential engagement that if you see any preferences in that regard, we're happy to accommodate. Uh before we get there, Mr. Leonard, I did if we can take down the presentation just so we can all see each other for a moment. Thank you. Sorry. Um, I uh heard the city administrator in his presentation of the city budget to City Council two meetings ago indicated that there was consulting funds that were being allocated if the budget was approved to the Planning Department to help with the implementation of the plan. I in my reading of our material that we have, I haven't seen uh the placement of those consultants, and I just wondered if you're waiting for that allocation, and then once we make a decision, the work will be handed to the consultant, and then the consultant will hand it back to us in the same manner that they did for the incentives work that we did downtown, and then we would have opportunity to meet with the consultants to give them guidance on what we'd like to see, or if you had a different plan in mind, and whether or not you were

ready at this time to disclose either of those details. Yeah, sure. So, a little bit more clarity, I think I think the administrator is proposing about $300,000 in consultant assistance to help with the implementation of the comp plan potentially two in two subsequent years, so for a total of $600,000 or 650, I think, but over a 2-year period. Um, I haven't yet detailed how I envision we would use that consultant or not. To be clear, the steps that we are starting to talk to you about this this evening would envision us initiating some of that work now. So, not waiting until July 1st, which would be the earliest that those consultant that those dollars would be available if the budget is approved. Um, I I can say that at a minimum, internally we've talked that we see some opportunity probably for graphics both helping to illustrate potential zoning impacts, maybe even to help uh include graphics in our actual crafting of regulations to make sure that they're really accessible and understandable. Um, so that's definitely an area that we see that happening. Apart from that, I don't want to I don't want to turn off or or predict beyond that where in this process that we think that we will or will not use consultants. But to be clear, part of us getting started now is we'd like to just get some um make sure that we're thinking about this in the same way the commission is, so we can get started on the work immediately. Thank you, Mr. Leonard, for that clarification. And I'm not sure if the commission was aware of those funds or the potential of a consultant for the process. So, I just wanted to bring all those things to the fore. And I will turn it back over to whoever was starting the presentation that I asked to take down, and sorry for that interruption.

[snorts]

Uh okay. I will share the document for Alexis to get started here. So, please give me a thumbs up if you all can see the memo that's in your packet. Okay, great. I'll zoom in a little more. All right. We are we as staff are here tonight. Um Brett did very well. We have put together a proposed work plan and it is based off of that option two that we talked about last meeting. Um this is we envision this to be the first element actually of our engagement. This will be adopted by the planning commission and then posted. It will you know be our official work plan to follow. Of course, it can be amended and completely revised slash minorly tweaked as needed over time, but it is important to say what you're going to say what you're going to do and the order that you're going to do it and how much of it you're going to do. Um it starts with the hub category and so I will we'll go through it tonight. Um The the phase one these have the most details and it starts with the land use categories down on all three of them. Although the second and third phases don't have as much detail written in the work plan, there is a there can be a large element of copying and pasting. Um but the important things are that I will go over um setting the stage are the the order of the the phases that we that we envision and what is included in each phase um and the order the order of the phases. So um phase one would be the hub land use category. Broadly speaking, it would include the a data collection and analysis phase um

a concept development phase and then a drafting phase and then moving on to final amendments and adoption. Um it can be the text component can be done simultaneously as the map component or it can be done sequentially. Um and within those we feel that the data collection phase engagement level would be to inform. We will publish our results and post them talk about them. [clears throat]

The concept development phase which would include you know our conversations and our discussions about how many districts are needed 1 2 5 10 so on. The format of the standards, how do we want to regulate them? Right examples just pulling them are do we just regulating by FAR regulating by FAR and height regulating only by height so on and so forth. Um and then determining what regulation like elements area height and placement are pretty basic, but yes continue with regulating materials or not. Um yes continue with regulating some massing standards like for example our street walls and the offset of the top of the street wall maximum diagonal or not continuing with those. Um you know decide how we're going to go if it's we're going to do the text work and the map work simultaneously or concurrently. That level of engagement would generally be consulting. Um asking questions looking for help in making those decisions. Moving on to the drafting the text amendment phase text amendments zoning districts I should say contain three basic elements an intent statement the permitted uses and your dimensional standards. So literally writing those down. Um the engagement level would be involved. Um and we've listed some examples of what we mean by involving. Um and then the work plan moves on to drafting the zoning map um preparing those final text amendments for adoption. Our second phase would be the residential land use category. This is going to have the same flow and cadence as the hub, but tailored to that and you know the questions would be specific to that, but again a data collection and analysis phase developing a concept um component drafting a text amendment drafting the zoning map

changes and the adoption. Phase three developing the addressing the transition land use category. Same data collection concept drafting. Phase four would get into the use analysis. We would look at and review diagnose consolidate our uses where feasible. Because this is in phase four, it will have to take into account whatever work was done in phase [clears throat] one two and three. Um we will try to modernize add missing uses remove uses that are no longer relevant or applicable or that we would like to remove. But one example are data centers. Um you know we do have short term rentals. They probably can be more nuanced. I do believe our use tables talk about coal and coke manufacturing. Um I would submit that is possible for removal. We'll have a debate about that. Anyway, moving on to the you know drafting those text amendments and moving on to the adoption. Um Phase five would then be development standards and procedures. We will analyze our existing standards. There are letters not numbers. I can't tell you the total off the top of my head. But the standards aside from area height and placement which we will have already tackled in the three land use components would be parking landscaping screening and buffering streets and access stormwater management and soil erosion natural features signs outdoor lighting and fences. We will and our procedures include community participation design review the a variety of permits special exception uses site plan and area plan standards subdivision which includes plats and land division

rezoning which are map changes PUDs which include both the PUD zoning district development and the PUD site plans. We already have a section on amendments and modifications and then non-conformities. We will take stock of statutory requirements. Um what is mandatory inclusion based on the zoning enabling act what other applicable laws that we that we might have. I know one for example um a lot of our soil erosion controls come straight from the state. Um we'll develop concepts for those revisions prepare those draft amendments and go through the adoption phase. I will before turning it over to a real open discussion I will a couple things to that I like to mention um just publishing a work plan adopting and publishing a work plan is is an example of engagement and it's it's the inform level. Um I feel strongly that this will be this will be the start of our intention to continue in a transparent manner. We to it will should provide the assurance that you know we will get to all of the necessary elements that we need to get to to have a complete code. Um we are advertising in advance what type of engagement we are going to be doing for every phase. Um and we need a work plan to give to a consultant. Um Using that that budget allocation that's expected to come forth. Um a little bit adding on to what Brett had mentioned. Um I think we have decided this is a little bit more for debate. I think that using that consultant we would most likely do our data collection and analysis phases ourselves in house. Um and we where we would rely on a

consultant might be in the concept development components. Um they might be a valuable resource in offering up other concepts that have been tried and true in other communities that we don't even touch on that it would be new to us. Um and they might be able to help in drafting if not in so much the text, but they might be able to be a good resource in adding graphics as regulatory features um and so forth. But um Michelle and I propose to you this work plan and um we think that the discussion tonight should be to confirm the order of phases to speak at least at a high level about the the engagement concepts that are attached to each one at least particularly phases one and two. Um if there are any changes that would like to be made um and we'll send this to the next meeting formal meeting to be adopted. Then we'll post it and be off and running. Thank you Alexis. Um Any other comments from staff before we check in with the commission on what we've received? Uh one small comment I'll mention I should have mentioned too that you know as part of this throughout the whole process start to finish we'll be tracking and sharing our data posting our drafts posting our data um and sharing the overall progress on plan implementation um for this and all of the other pieces that are in the comp plan that are not necessarily UDC related items. Okay. All right, we'll start with uh Commissioner Adams or Commissioner Adams. Sorry. Thanks Alexis for the presentation and thanks for

putting this together. This is great. Um I like two items of feedback. Um I think uh one an item that I'll call foreshadowing. Um and then a question for staff. So, um in terms of feedback on the memo, I think I would put a placeholder in the residential and transition sections for public engagement as a TBD item. Cuz I think when I read it, I saw kind of a map out for the public engagement for hub. I didn't I don't think I saw it for these other two, which is fine. Because I don't think we're in a position right now to say necessarily what it can be or should be. But I do want to have a placeholder in there so that nobody reads the document and goes, "Oh, planning commission's going to um move through those other two categories without doing any public engagement." I just don't want to read that way. Um For sure. The um the the other piece of feedback, which is maybe more of a discussion item um for the commission, we've we've batted around the idea of doing a baseline a baseline engagement program of postcards to the entire city with a QR code and a link, sort of a a basic notice that would go out to residential households saying um that this process is underway. Here's where you get more information. Here's where you sign up for updates, that type of thing. Um we don't necessarily have to we can't make a decision on that tonight. But I think for the next full meeting, I I'd like to consider that as part of this work plan that we ought to be recommending to council and staff to budget for that and and execute that. Because I think that would start the process the right way of informing you of informing the community that execution's underway and if they folks want to keep track of things, this is how they they should do it. Um and it avoids anyone making the argument later

on that they weren't aware that we didn't try to make sure that they were on notice of the fact that we were moving through the execution phase. Just as just to set the table. Um the foreshadowing item is I really want to try to build commissioner consensus for transition moving ahead of residential in the in the order of priorities. And I don't want to necessarily we can't resolve that tonight. But at the next meeting, I'm going to make a motion to do that. And this is also letting staff know that if there are reasons we shouldn't do that, um to um you know, assemble assemble your arguments so that we can fully consider the issue and and make a choice. Um I think I've made my views on this clear that I think hub, transition, and then residential last should be the the order of business. Um given that I think transition has more opportunity for housing units um than residential and is less sensitive from a from you know, politics and engagement point of view. And then finally, this is a question. Um I just want to confirm that this is being set up as a three-year or less execution plan. What I mean by that is um it it was this set up with the goal of meeting our three-year um implementation timing um or was it set up with um kind of as its own thing and the the timing will be whatever timing? It was set up as its own It was set up time agnostic. Um whatever it is. Uh we our priority in being a resource to you was these are the basic and this is the basic questions that need to be basic tasks that need to be done. And um some of the So, then some of the schedule though it depends on um you know, are some things doing going concurrently or or sequentially? Example, text amendments and zoning

changes. Zoning map changes. Um some of it does influence by how much engagement um we want to add add or subtract for each phase. Um So, but our goal was just in helping you develop this work plan was these are the these are the minimum tasks that need to be checked off in order to complete the job. We would as staff, we'd look to you a little bit to help with the scheduling and timing. And you know, how much time do you want to devote to each task? How robust do you want it to be? Got it. I think from where I sit, and this is just my own feedback, I think the work plan in here has to not be time agnostic. And what I mean by that is not I don't need you to have a crystal ball. You know, there's lots of things that can happen. Deadlines can slip. Deadlines can accelerate. Um work can get added that's unforeseen. Stuff can take longer than we anticipate. There's all kinds of things that can happen over three-year um project. But given that we have an implementation matrix that speaks in terms of a three-year target for completion, I think we have to build the work plan around that as our target. And if there are tasks in here that we can see from the outset are things that we expect are going to create a tension or a problem or a risk to that timing, I think we we owe it to ourselves from just a process discipline perspective to identify those items and either, you know, make hard decisions on what to cut now or find a way to streamline them or escalate to city council for additional resources and consultants. Um because I think setting you know, laying out a plan that we're that we're um going to present to the public as a form of engagement that is not at least loosely mapped to our three-year timeline, I think is an invitation for some problems. So, I I and I also don't want

to give staff bad guidance on and not bad guidance, that's sort of a crude way of putting it. I don't want there to be a mismatch between what our timing is and what our plan is. I don't want staff marching to a plan that doesn't map back to my three-year time horizon. Because that's not moving towards a deadline and that's not faithfully executing our our implementation matrix. So, at that I will stop. And uh just to um add a caveat before we go to you uh Commissioner Norton, when you said my three-year uh timeline, you were referring to the implementations um timeline [clears throat] that is in the comprehensive land use uh document that we've adopted. You are not imposing your own timeline on this. Well, I people are listening. Uh the press is present. I want to make sure that um it's clear that you are referring to things we have already adopted. So, this is not new. This is not your invention. Mr. Leonard, did you want to add a caveat before we went to um uh Commissioner Norton? Yeah. No, thank you for one, I just I was going to make the same point that that three years was uh something identified in the plan. So, that I just wanted to draw that same attention. But two, I also want to point out that there are components of this that are in the plan that have longer horizon. For example, the development review standards is a four to six-year horizon. Um so, there are so, there are goals. Um and I and I don't think this needs to be said, but I'm going to say it anyhow. Um part of it's going to depend on you, right? When we come to you and say "How many districts do you envision? How How it depends how quickly you will be able to come to that decision." Uh when we come to you with uh options about whether or not you want to keep uh design considerations or not, it will depend on how quickly we're able to get that direction. So,

um so, but I agree with you. I can understand the desire for timing. We can do a better job of starting to make it not time agnostic once we are in alignment that these are the general steps that we want to proceed with. Great. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. Commissioner Norton. All right. Thank you. Um thank you to the staff for working this up. This is helpful and a good start. Um I had two main comments. The first one was going to be the same thing that um Commissioner Adams just ended with. I wasn't sure why transition wasn't second. Um and I'm inclined to think that that that sequence makes sense. But I'm also open if the staff have some reason why they were um putting residential second. So, I just wanted to put that on the table. Um The second thing I want to bring up bring up is a bit trickier. I'm really scratching my head here. I was going to say noodling, but I said scratching my head. Um I'm having a hard time thinking through how we're going to deal with some of these major changes without getting to some of the key um design standards and processes at the same time. Um and not putting them off to year four or five after having made all of these preliminary changes. So, I'm wondering and we you already have kind of baked in some basic considerations like FARs and setbacks and such. But wouldn't we also want to worry about parking and landscape and streets and stormwater when we're talking about the hub? Um I to my mind, that goes hand in hand. So, I'm wondering if um if the staff might think about it makes more sense to me to focus on hub and do all of the things you want to do with the hub first and work through those key design standards and maybe some of the processes. And then we can go to transition and

we'll already have worked through some of the standards while dealing with the hub, but we could carry them forward. So, that we're kind of I know I know someone said it at one of our last meetings. Uh maybe it was Commissioner Adams, um we can't do it all at once. I recognize that, but I'm a little bit nervous about setting a setting aside all of the design standards and procedures to years four and five after if we're making all of these substantial changes into the use characterizations and stuff. So so I guess I'll just if there's some way to figure out those standards and how they apply within the hub, I think we should be dealing with that at the same time that we're thinking about what the uses are that go in the hub and those kinds of things. That would be a thought I wanted to put on the table and see if others had thoughts to respond to. Thank you. Uh-huh. Uh Mr. Leonard. Yeah, I I just I totally appreciate that, but I just I just want to be honest. The more we try to do it all at once, the less likely it will be to meet that three-year timeframe. Um you [clears throat] know, as as you know, we looked at you know, generally just to set the stage. I appreciate the conversation from Commissioner Adams about residential or transition. Last time we had this discussion, we had a lot of feedback on option two, so that's what we went with. Um it sounds like that was option two with an asterisk, and that's that's fine. We can do that. Um but I I do want to be clear that it is um I don't want to say it's impossible, but the way of the construct of our ordinance is parking and natural features are in distinct sections. When we start if you want to look at for example, natural resource protection as it relates to hub, I just want to be honest, it might be very difficult for the commission and the public to be disciplined to only consider how we're amending natural resources as it relates to hub because it applies to natural resources across the city. We don't have a landmark tree section for hub and a landmark tree

section for residential. We have a landmark tree section, and so my observation is if you want to move quickly, you are going to have to and we as a city are going to have to put some things aside in order to move more quickly on other facets of it. Alternatively, we could do it all at once, contrary to what Commissioner Adams had indicated. Um communities have done that. They have said, "We're going to draft a new ordinance and do it all at once." Um that is a different work plan than this board has been discussing thus far. So I there's no right or wrong. I'm not I don't I don't respond to that to say that you're wrong. I just my experiences is that the more you try to bring those uh in a parallel fashion with the hub, you're just going to be adding some complexities that I would say that it's going to start challenging your desired timeframes. Okay, thank you, Mr. Leonard. Uh Commissioner Norton, did you have a follow-up before we go to Commissioner Weatherby? Um yeah, no, I I totally understand the that position. I'm just I'm processing. I understand that um all of these standards are not unique to each district, but I think we might be thinking about them differently across the different kinds of districts. I guess I just wanted to put that on the table and ask everybody to think about that and and figure out what's the best way to proceed. So I I'll just kind of put it that way for you know. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Weatherby. So I think um I guess this is a time where I can put this on the table. One of the things that I see if we look to saving saving residential to last is a continuation of a long-standing policies that single-family homes are

sacrosanct, are what we should at all costs make sure that we know what we're doing before we apply anything to single-family homes, that we care more about single-family homes in some way than we do about other districts. And so I just want to be a little careful that we um you know, there's a lot of single-family homes in transition. There's a lot of people who live in residential areas in transition, a lot of people who live in residential uh in residences in hub, and sort of by kind of keeping residential as like the last one, I've I worry that we are sending a signal that it is still the most important, that it is still single-family homes are better, more important, and I'm doing air quotes for anyone who can't see me, um than than other types of housing. And I just want to be really cognizant of that, you know, that if you if you live in a single-family home and you come to more meetings, that somehow you are more important than anyone who lives in a residence anywhere else in the city or and perhaps it's the reverse. Perhaps we're saying that it's more important for residences in hub, more important for residents in transition, but I just I just want us to all be really aware that to me when I say when I hear we're saving, you know, we want to do residential last um because we think it's more important to do more outreach or more that that that is implying something that I'm not sure we want to imply. And so I just want to put that out there because that's kind of how I'm hearing it, and I I don't think that's probably how it's intended, but

um I just want to be aware. Or I want us to all be aware of that. Oh, thank you for that, um Commissioner Weatherby. Council Member Dish. Thank you. I'm really glad that that you put it that way, uh Commissioner Weatherby, because I would really love to take not very much time, not a long philosophical discussion, but just a moment to articulate the principles we are using to set the order. And maybe that isn't a good idea, because maybe there's no way that can be a short conversation, and so if there is no way that can be a short conversation, we should probably not do it. Um but I would just state the ones that I feel like I've heard, and they are different. They point us in different directions. I think we've talked about um working from what is closest to the existing map, and so is easiest. And nothing's going to be easy, but um I've heard working or valuing what's most likely to open the most new housing opportunity. Um I've heard a concern that um

[clears throat]

we uh filling in the gap that this that our three new use categories open up um with our current zoning. So and what I mean by that is um TC1 is a pretty good match for the category of hub. I don't know what is a good match for the category of transition because transition has cats, dogs, and peas in it. So I'm not really sure which of our existing categories closely map to it. And I've heard that we don't have anything for residential, for the for the low-density residential, or I don't know, where never doesn't have that name anymore, but low-rise residential is what we initially called it. We don't have any equivalent for that. So that should be something that happens sooner rather than later. I don't know if anybody wants to pursue this line of argument, um or add ones. I don't know if it's even helpful to put those on the table because they might all be in our discussion, and they all point to different firsts and seconds and thirds. So maybe that doesn't help, but that yeah, thanks. Okay. Uh before we go to you, Commissioner Norton, unless you're responding directly to Council Member Dish, I want to see if anybody uh wanted to respond, but you unmuted, so I assume that means you're responding directly to Council Member Dish. I I was going to just respond to her. I I agree with the things she put out that hub is the most closest to what we already have in it. Though that and along with the opportunity to generate the largest number of housing opportunities quickly through that system are the two compelling things to me. I was not viewing it as we're backing off because we've heard lots of complaints from residential residents, and we want to um deal with them last. That's not how I

was interpreting it um to Council Commissioner Weatherby's concerns. Um and it also seems to me that once we work through hub, it may become very apparent that we want to switch the order at that point and go to residents next or transition, but just in terms of kind of thinking through the opportunity to affect change that could yield housing opportunities quickly, it seems to me it's going from hub to transition, sequencing it that way makes the most sense. So that was my thinking to to respond to Commissioner um Dish's thoughts. Commissioner Adams, thank you, Commissioner Norton. Yeah, that's more or less where my head's at. So the plans the plan itself states that hub has the highest housing potential um and then um we've we've had some public feedback that I think is relatively persuasive um along with just looking at the map there are some pockets of transition that that feel high value in terms of um potential housing creation. Um and I think I've been beating the drum for a year over the fact that we know from other cities that the potential for housing creation in established low-density residential is it's limited. It's limited by lots of things that are out of our control. We can allow it with zoning changes, but uh the fact of the matter is we know from Portland and other cities that were in in Houston even that we're just not going to see that many units created in residential. So that's one side of the of the formula one side of the equation is how how much housing am I going to get? Um then on and I've referenced the fact a few times that residential feels um you know, sensitive. That's not a value judgment on my part that it's an

area the city that uh we're we're getting preferential treatment. It relates back to kind of a process sequencing like a like a hard question on an exam that I'd rather save for the end if I've got more time to spend on it um to do more public engagement I might do that. Um if I don't then we'll try to stay on track but moving the lowest housing potential potentially most politically sensitive category first. When I say politically sensitive we had two council resolutions that imposed on us mid-process changes to residential. And I'm taking notice of that fact as a commissioner and saying to myself, well that seems to be where there's tension in the system. I'm not expressing a personal value judgment on that. I'm just saying I'm going to my vote my preference is to put that one last cuz it just has less housing potential in it and it potentially could be more complicated to execute. It's that simple for me. Uh thank you Commissioner Adams. Any other commissioners on this item? And including you uh Commissioner Weatherby if you want to come back in.

[clears throat]

Well, I had a I did have if I may I did have a question uh for staff. So if we talk about a 3-year time frame for within that is that uh what do we think the actual time frame of like actionable change for say hub versus the 3-year I don't think there's I mean are are we just saying like I would imagine that hub it will be close to a year if not I mean that we are talking within that 3-year time frame I won't speak for anybody. Uh what what do we see as like a time frame for actionable change that would allow for like more development in hub within the next 2 years versus more development in residential within the next 3 years or something along those lines. Like what is the actual if this all if we're shooting for this all to be implementable in 3 years what do we see as our possible timelines throughout? Um I will do my best to answer in my normal way slightly circuitous. So on the one hand I think that your 1-year you know, like I think that's a reasonable that I think that's kind of reality for creating a new zoning district from start to finish or districts from start to finish. So um just take any one of the three categories and I think it's a full 12 months and I say this because 1 to

months prep yourself get your data analysis presented at a meeting then a lot of time developing your concept. That's where the bulk of your engagement is going to come. And then you write it down and then we're talking 3 to 4 months alone and then skip ahead 3 to 4 months alone on the adoption process. You need a public hearing at the planning commission. Then you need to go to council and it takes two meetings a month apart um and then you know, then there's also agenda lead time. Now um you can speed things up by a having more staff doing it. You can speed things up by having like two teams working on two different districts at the same time. But I I do think 1 year or 12 months is just honestly the reality and if you were going to speed it up you you can't shave that much time off because of the public engagement and just the public notice public hearing. Now in terms of hub, right? So um this will come out in during our data analysis, but the D1 district and the D2 districts have no floor area ratio limits right now. So it is literally impossible to upzone them in that regard. The TC1 district does not have an FAR max. Again, it is literally impossible to upzone it. What they are they so they are regulated by height and some building massing. I do not we are not going to somehow magically unlock a ton of development potential in the hub. What we will be doing is maybe simplifying making it a little bit easier to design but you know, maybe making it cheaper if we remove some design or massing standards if maybe but uh the reality is like we're

not going to be unlocking anything. There's nothing magical there. The the future of the future hub will look a lot like D1, D2, and TC1 now. So even after all this work is done um I think I've made my point. Even after all of the hub work is done because those underlying districts have no maximum FAR right now. There's we're not really unlocking it. There will not be the sea change. There will be a sea change with residential for sure. And I don't have as good of a grasp on transition. Thank you. Go ahead. Yeah, I was just going to ask if you wanted to follow up. Um before we leave this point um and thanks uh Planner DeLeo Alexis on just what you said about the um limitation of unlocking more uh upzoning capacity in uh D1, D2, and TC1. So I wonder if you still are committed to a 1-year on the hub if all it is is just moving those districts into a new uh category cuz it would feel to me if we're not making significant changes there, those are maybe just text amendments to collapse those uh three into a one and then we sort of rough out the edges that I think you uniquely uh can see because you're you work in the TC1 a lot and it was the um district that you I guess helped um pioneer. So you're probably most intimate with it uh in terms of understanding how it works and with developers and so forth. So before I say a second question, I'll just pause with that first one just to get um just a read. I'm not committing you to something. So you know, nothing's being um recorded except for what the press records.

[laughter]

May I ask a question before you Uh I think you're just talking about a couple months because um honestly um because you know, you're going to want to work spend a moment but spend a moment sort of means a month on an intense statement. And then you know, you're going to want to spend a moment on which you know, it's you know, it's just taking one. Well, which one? And then I do think there are there's going to be some needs to be there some discussions on you know, yeah like continue with massing standards material standards or not. Um and then they do vary in their notions of height and what is height and like you know, it's going to take a meeting to decide that. And then there's going to be the um uh but then the hub spot on the future land use map um does completely overlap D1, D2, and TC1. But um you're going to need to spend some time on the map to really line up the other districts that it is um over top of as well and take those things into consideration for you know, what non-conformities you might be creating or not. Um so of that 12 months, you know, um and then just due to process may maybe eight or 10 months at the fastest. Government is not designed to move lightning fast. We can be become more efficient, but in all honesty nobody wants us to be able to change these things overnight because we do value public participation and community involvement and at least community informing. Yeah, I mean our our process is demanding. I don't think I I think there's um something that anybody at the table is saying, "Oh, we want to get around. Our process demands of this."

I acknowledge that, but I'm just saying [laughter]

because of that, it's not like I can condense it to 2 months. Sure. Yeah, I mean I um I I have a question for when it's my turn to talk, which will reveal, you know, like, let's see kind of thing cuz I I live in the world of possibility. I was having dinner tonight with some residents up the street from my place of employment, and I told them what I did for a living, and she said, "Oh, you're an optimist." And I said, "Yes, I'm an eternal optimist. So, it's even worse than that." Commissioner Adams. Yeah, and and just to clarify my own comments about the the potential of HUB. I I that that point that you made, Alexis, makes total sense about how we're not necessarily unlocking very much in areas that are already zoned D1, D2, or TC1. My impression was always, and again, I'm I'm basing that on the words of the plan where it talks about the fact that HUB has the highest potential. My My impression of that, as we were working through the land use map, was that there were expansions to where like I'm just looking at the downtown area. There's some red on our map that's HUB. That's not at least I don't Well, I'd have to look at the actual zoning map, but my understanding is we pushed some of those boundaries out. We've modified some things. And also, some of the rules associated with TC1 are um just from comments that you and and Brett and others have made over the last year and a half or so, that some of those TC1 rules are restrictive on purpose, and that under whatever we end up doing for HUB, they might end up not being so restrictive. And that So, it's not it to to your point, it's not that I understand it to be sort of up-zoning. It's it's more land use reform that will enable more higher density housing in more areas of the city than it does

today. That's my impression, anyway. Great. Uh anyone else to Commissioner Weatherbee and Commission Council Member Decius' discussion on um residential in its order before we take up any additional topics. Bassouni or Lee, haven't heard from you all tonight yet. Hello. Welcome. Okay. Um to your point, I I concur with you, um uh Commissioner Weatherbee. I definitely don't want to signal that um residential is in some kind of special uh state and should be treated effectively with um a I'm being careful with my words tonight. Uh with certain um light touch. Um and I think we may see residential be addressed because we do still have a petition. So, unless the staff reject the petition and it doesn't come to our table, um and the petitioner withdraws that petition, um we're going to see some changes to residential potentially because they'll come with a staff recommendation. We will make a recommendation to Council, and Council will uh either take it up or send it back. So, I think that's going to happen concurrently un- unless um it's been withdrawn, and I don't know whether the Community Land Trust's petition has been withdrawn. So, um Mr. Leonard is shaking his head no, but Michelle and Alexis are giving nothing on their faces right now to indicate anything. Go ahead, Mr. Leonard.

[laughter] It has not been [clears throat] withdrawn. We have a a meeting a a schedule with the applicant. We want to understand a little bit more of their intentions to see um what our recommended approach is to them. Um but just to get off topic slightly, um I wanted to preview that um based on this experience and all the work that is ahead for this commission, I do intend to bring to you an amendment that would no longer allow any applicant to seek a text amendment um to the city. Um so, um we're talking about, you know, the desire to keep things moving.

It wouldn't be a moratorium. It'd be a proposed amendment that would limit the initiation of text amendments to anything you as the Planning Commission direct or City Council directs or staff. Um it would take away the ability for any individual petitioner to pay a fee and mandate it be incorporated or prioritized somehow into our work program. Can I ask a a follow-up to that? Yeah, of course. I got off topic, so you might as well. Existing Existing applications would be granted.

exempt. Yeah, cuz they they're already in. So, this is to prevent additional text amendments. So, Zoning is prospective. Right. So, the the club is Excuse me, I'm I Boy, that's a a quote that I'm not going to do tonight. Uh the comprehensive land use plan is passed, and in it um uh there was a clear indication from Council to do up to triplexes in residential. So, you're saying if I as a property owner today come and ask for that, I would be denied if this amendment that we present is adopted. This is why I'm asking. You You would be able to seek rezoning of your property to any district you desire. Okay.

However, you would not be able to submit an application that says, "I would like to recraft the R1C into R34." Okay. So, so rezonings will be permitted. So, if I'm in office and I want to go to TC1, I can still bring those. Those will be submitted. But a citizen or a petitioner-led text amendment, which does exist in our UDC, is being amended in perpetuity or for a time certain. I will be proposing it in perpetuity, but you will have the opportunity to recommend that to the Council.

Okay. Okay, this is good. Thank you for those clarifications, and I'm I'm sure there these questions existed in the public as well. Um oh, Michelle. I just wanted to to what Brett said. I think part of this is as we're working on a work plan and planning to rewrite our zoning ordinance, um if other amendments are coming in that might divert us from that, we would sort of lose con- control of our work you know, our work plan. And so, we want to stay focused on this. Okay. No, and and and so, I was bringing it up to Commissioner Weatherbee's point, which is we are actually going to see residential in the next period of time because it's going to come to us as a petition as a text amendment. So, I think that is happening of its own inertia. And so, we'll get to see it debated and then decide how we want to prioritize it as it comes to our table. Um I had a just a process question. Uh Alexis and Planner DeLeo, when you were giving your presentation, you indicated that this presentation included the tasks, and it was, in my hearing, absolute. These are the tasks in order to accomplish these things. And so, I wondered if the Commission disagreed with staff's assessments of the tasks, uh how would staff want to receive that direction? So, do we wait until it's before us at a regular meeting when it's being proposed, and we mock it up, or do would you prefer us to uh signal to you in a work session like today, "Hey, uh thanks for all these things. Can you get rid of these things, these things, and these things when you bring it to us

for our consideration to be adopted, noticed, and then um move forward." So, I I would appreciate some guidance just so that we're giving you direction in the way that you would find to be helpful. Um I I would say like yes. So, I would say um No, but knowing that this isn't this can rightfully be a very iterative process. But we are posing to you a five-phase work plan in a certain order. Um It's my opinion that the components within um I mean, this is it's very basic. It was written to be very basic, but the components within do some data collection, develop, write, adopt. I I don't see much room, but the um much room there, but um the engagement notions that are in there, you know, you know, that could be subject um But what I But tonight would be appropriate if the Commission I am not currently hearing a resounding agree- consensus on flipping phase two and three. But tonight would be the night, I think, to be to flip if desired, to make it very clear, and then when this comes before the the Commission at a regular meeting for just adoption by resolution. There does not need to be a public hearing for that, but something something formal, some sort of formal vote that says we have decided that this is going to be our approach. And then after that, um And then I would just say, so but because, you know, we're starting in phase one. I think that phase one for sure, maybe phase two, you know, can be the the most solidified, but then after it is just adopted. At any time, if the commission would

like to someone would like to say, I'd like to revisit the phases. I'd like to adjust the engagement. I would like to change, you know, change the order now. Just simply mention it, discuss it. Pass another resolution. We'll update and then carry on as according to whatever it's done. Before I let my colleagues jump in and thank you cuz now everyone's ready. Um I do want to um pause and reflect for just one second. I throughout the comp plan uh process, I it was my impression that staff appreciated hearing uh shifts in direction and intentionality uh earlier in the process because it actually directs your work. And um in my conversation with staff recently, um I heard that um it can be hard sometimes to divine what we mean as we are working through things. So, clear instructions are are super helpful. So, me hearing, and I just want to reflect back what I heard to um uh check in to make sure I'm hearing correctly. You say, hey, we adopt this work plan and then you start marshaling resources to execute that work plan. And then we come a meeting later, which would be maybe 2 weeks cuz it have to be a regular meeting and say, stop. We don't want these four things anymore. We just want these two things. It's been my experience through the comprehensive land use process that that has been less than desirable. I think it depends on scale. Um if in the in the hypothetical realm, Thank you [laughter] for

living in my hypothetical. But if this is if this is say adopted and it's um It basically depends on scale of the change that you want and what point in the process. Um if what the thing that you don't want anymore is in phase three or four or five, Yeah. Okay.

It's easier to deal with because it's a future activity. Right. Yes, but if I am neck deep in phase 1A and you would like to change phase 1A, uh you know, obviously it can be done, but then but now we're at compromising resources, we're compromising the schedule and the timeline. Okay. So, as much upfront direction to to set the work plan

At least in the next immediate phase. I also envision as part of the normal process, maybe as we're approaching the end of any phase, doing a check-in and saying, okay, we're are you know, do we want to change the next phase before we kick it off? Okay. All right. Mr. Leonard, did you want to weigh in just on staff and then I'll pull in our commissioner so you don't have to wait till the point is lost and then you have to come back. Yeah, thank you. I want to make sure I want to make sure I wasn't that I was or I wasn't hearing something in your question, um Chair Waite. Um if there was some like we what we've done at as the city's planning department is we've given you steps that we think um we don't think. These are the ways that we would conduct what we believe to be an effective process in order to get to the to the goal of implementing this. Um if there are things in here that are not valuable to you, you would we would welcome you to say like, I don't I don't care about examples from other communities or I don't care about um whether or not, you know, we adjust the height or not. We'll take that feedback. Um I would say that would be beneficial for us. I want to be clear. We're going to take some of our professional um our professional experience and we might still do some of these things in formulating our recommendations to you, but if you don't care about some of these things that you don't think they're important for you to make the decision, I would be grateful to hear that from you earlier, not later. Um I I want to be clear though that even if you if you just determine that, I don't really care about reviewing what the existing dimensional standards are for the districts, I might very well find that that's necessary for me to formulate eventually

what's going to be my recommendation to you. So, um so I think that's a little bit I was hearing something a little bit different than I think what uh Alexis was responding to, which was more like, hey, a work plan's going to lay out steps. We can always revisit it. I don't envision every time we if you come to us and say, hey, there's another piece of data that we haven't talked about that I would like, I do not envision revising your work plan to do that as long as it's we're still in the hub as the top priority and working through it. But the again, the the corollary to that is if there's something in here that you don't care about, tell us now. I we will make the determination, nope, we've heard from the planning commission, that's not important for them to make their determination. We can then determine to what level we we want to do it for our own sake as opposed to for your sake. Okay. And I think um the what I was trying to make sure I was hearing was when Alexis presented the proposal, the the it was absolute. These are the tasks. At and almost like a period at the end. Like, these are the tasks in order to do this in our professional opinion. So, when we hear when I hear something like that, it feels like a much heavier lift to come and say, oh, you're the planning experts, but I disagree with all these things that you have put in here. And now we, you know, where do we go from there? And this is the the mix of is this our plan or our implementation, that is to say the commission, or is this a staff-led and then the commission is giving advice and counsel to staff. And I think what I just heard you say is you're going to do what you think is um prudent for you to execute your job as the

planning manager for the city of Ann Arbor. And you are asking the planning commission uh based on the work product that you've produced to give your us, excuse me, to give you our feedback and direction on that work product um and you will at your discretion um agree, disagree, include, exclude because you still have obligations. And I think what would be helpful for me, and and I don't want to speak for the table, but for me, Can you give me an example of like I'm just I'm having a hard time

No, not yet. Not yet. I know. I just want to stay in the the hypothetical before I get into I have an example, but I want to hear from other people before I share mine. But um uh I think what is missing is for for me at the table is what I do not know. And what I uh do not know as an example is how many petitions are you working on right now? And what percent of your FTE is going to be diverted from the petitions to this effort? And what I do not know is when I ask for a change because I I would slightly disagree with Alexis and say, I did hear the table say uh switch two and three, move uh transition up above residential. But in her articulation, she heard it differently. So, we will find out which which which it is at the table tonight um and give that direction to you. So, I I just would like a little bit more disclosure because sometimes we give a direction and it just goes into what feels like a black box and then it comes back to us and then I'm like, oh, that's not what I thought that was going to produce. And so if there's some way for us again, me to to see like, oh, yeah, we're we're working on these things at 50% FTE. And so cuz we've got 15 petitions that we're also bringing to your your table and that is taking the bulk of our time. And so this is why this is taking a little bit of time. So, I'll get to a specific case as we hear from the other commissioners, but that that's sort of where I'm living right now. All right, you were unmuted so I didn't know if you were going to say anymore, but all right, we'll we'll go around the clock now. I have a Commissioner Adams,

Lee, Norton, and Bassiouni in that order. So, on the steps, um you know, is there anything on here that that jumped out at me as a something I'd push back on. I wrestled with that. And I think where I landed, and this gets back to my question about the 3-year timeline and and whether this proposal was built to meet it or not. And what prefer and what I feel most comfortable doing is asking staff to go back over it between this meeting and next meeting and come back and say we're comfortable that this is a 3-year plan. We can't There are There again, there are always things that come up. Like I I definitely heard Brett, your point about well, if we decide to do a district as one, two, or six, that that necessarily drives a level of work that can blow a timeline. We can adjust things as we go and and we'll take feedback as we move. But there are what I what I'd hope for is as you go through every one of these steps that you've outlined, if there's anything in there that feels like, well, that that one might take 2 months. So, maybe that's a to be determined or maybe let's strip that one out or maybe this one's a redundant or a duplicative step. Um I don't have the training or the expertise to go through the list and say definitively I know better than any of you on how to do this work. What I feel most comfortable with is you looking at and saying, we think that this is a 3-year plan. Um again, I I I hear you that we we just don't know, but um if it's a 3-year plan, then um the steps in it I can live with. Thank you, Commissioner Adams. Commissioner Lee. Uh yeah, thank you. Uh I guess I wanted to also clarify where I stood. Um I do also think that phase two and three should be switched. Just want to make

sure that my point is clear in that respect. I also uh on section two A, for example, phase one, uh determine number of districts. I thought we had kind of discussed that already. Um I don't mean to uh repeat or be repetitive on other commissioners' points, but um I thought the idea was to try to simplify. I know in the past we've talked about TC1, TC2, TC uh right? Like what do those look like? But the idea was to try to simplify zones. That's where the concept, at least in my head, um my recollection was regarding like the self-adjusting regulations as it relates to height, kind of like tapering down as you're further away from residential, um etc. So, um I hope that clarifies kind of at least my my position on those things to give you a kind of at least uh feedback. And then also uh I I do uh agree to the extent that like we'd love to hear understand kind of yeah, like the wherewithal required. Um and then that means like the organizational kind of like wherewithal required to um execute these because uh like how long does do these things take on a realistic kind of time basis? Would be great to have an understanding of just uh okay, how long does the development of this hub concept like in your estimation kind of take? And so, just those some some level of yeah, the the thought processes as it relates to planning out timelines, I think will be helpful in the long run just to gauge kind of what this looks like overall. Um I personally think that's going to be helpful. So, to summarize kind of my points, um would like to see phase two and three switched again. So, hub transition, resi. I think of it from like what's the most effective um and transformational as it relates to delivering housing units. Um and then with respect to yeah, just that two A, determine the number of districts

needed. I'm not sure that that's necessarily a step that's required cuz I thought we were already going with singular. And then putting kind of like in brackets time estimated time so that we can I think there has to be some level of accountability of like saying, hey, we should hold ourselves accountable to some kind of a timetable. So, uh that's my feedback. Thank you. And thanks, Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Norton. Um I I know just [clears throat] a couple points. Um I thought the other thing I wanted to say about why it might make sense to do transition before residential um I'm thinking in terms of trying to cultivate um meaningful transit systems and the chicken and egg problem and um the need to have higher populations to really beef up the transit systems that might we might get there quicker if we're dealing with hub and then transition and then residential. So, just another reason to think about that. Um I think the steps that the staff have laid out for the process to do this for the hub make perfect sense. Um I definitely see them as not a fixed in stone. It's a work plan. Um it necessarily will be iterative and we might get in the middle of something and realize, oh shoot, we need to deal with this first. So, I see it as having some baked-in flexibility that will need to be there just to to make the process work, but I think the sequence of steps that have been laid out um are sensible to me. I'm not so troubled about um Commissioner Lee's concern about the one, two, or three districts. I think it's worth putting that on the table and saying, just to confirm, can we do this in one district or is there some compelling reason to rethink that? I think that's a worthwhile exercise to go through. I would like to add maybe put on the table one additional step and I'm looking at um excuse me, step um let's see, three draft zoning district text amendments

and right now the three steps are develop intent statement, develop permitted use tables, and C, develop dimensional standards. I wonder, again, I'll throw this out for the table to consider might that at least be a place where we could say, let's do Planner Delio's reality check. Are there any um design standards or other processes that we should be worried about now that are unique to hub that really would make sense to deal with now? And that could be like a 5-minute exercise. If it turns out that no, there's nothing popping up here that we need to worry about, then let's go ahead and put it off till later in the work plan. So, I just I don't want to just presume that we're not going to think about things when they really maybe something comes up that we really do need to think about them. But I would be satisfied if we just have a reality check um task in there that when I hope that makes sense what I'm trying to say. So, I kind of put that on the table something to contemplate. And then the one thing I would not want to lose to Mr. Leonard's request I'm not seeing anything in here that I think we should jettison. The one thing I definitely want to keep is the break the code exercise. I think that would be a really um successful really helpful thing for us to engage. So, please don't jettison that. Yeah, I definitely want to keep that. Um those are my following thoughts.

[clears throat]

Commissioner Norton. Commissioner Bassiouni. Um yeah, hi everyone. So, first of all, as always, thank you to staff for your time and your efforts in putting this together. Um it's very helpful to kind of read through it and see what you're thinking and what is important to your side of this process. Um I think similar to Commissioner Lee, I just wanted to share some of my thoughts where I am currently. Um and I think one big thing is just I'm sure I'm not alone in this, but fundamentally like my preference is to get started so that we can stay um in line with what is in the comprehensive plan around that 1 to 3-year time frame. And as I mentioned, I'm sure from what I've been hearing, I'm not alone there. So, that's um good. Um and I think one thing that I do worry about is that that 12 to 36-month timeline is going to fly by if we don't have a crisp and clear timeline. And I appreciate that this was initially drafted as more time agnostic. I think that that can make sense. Um but I would love to see some more specific timeline estimates understanding that there may need to be some like estimates for buffer as as we've mentioned. Um but just having a timeline that we can see clearly and then hold ourselves accountable to um because yeah, the time is time is fast. Um I also wanted to share that yeah, personally, I think for the order, I think going from hub or transition first um to either hub or transition, but having residential as third makes the most sense based on both density um as well as just the sheer amount of work potentially that might be part of it. And then regarding the postcards, um both in terms of um people who have sent in communications as well as some of the folks who've mentioned tonight, I think their reasoning makes sense, especially in terms of preempting any potential misinformation, disinformation, um and just providing a centralized forum

for people to seek out. I think that is a really good idea, especially um as we go through each of these phases um and thinking that if we're doing this within the first year just for hub alone, we're about to go into the summer. There are a lot of people who move away for the summer or come in in the fall. And so, I think having some information shared through these postcards to residents will help start that process of informing people where they can find the information um that is reputable, reliable, and um up to date. So, I think that's great. And then one small thing, the break the code could I was like, ooh, should it be like decode the code? But I'm not sure if that uh is quite as as catchy as break the code. Um I think that could be a really fun exercise. So, I'm I'm looking forward to it if we end up doing that. Thank you. Any other commissioners and then I'll jump in. It would just be you, Commissioner Weatherbee or Dish. Go ahead. [laughter] No, I want you to go first, but I would like to jump in after you go. Oh, sure. Um yeah, so just to answer um Mr. Leonard's question of an example. So, um I would go if I'm looking at phase one uh point two, the hub concept, I think planner DeLeo has already articulated, you know, there's no upzoning here. So, the the steps of the number of districts, the comp plan says one it's on page 117. B, what's the format standards? We've already heard it's already the far has already been removed. And so those districts D1 and D2 and TC1 are governed by height. I do believe in placement already. And so and we have a lot of work that we've already done in those districts. I think it's just going to be what planner DeLeo said. How does hub a butt or

interact with what is either going to be transition or resident the new residential categories. And so because of the timing of those things, I feel like that on the map we're going to just need some some time to sort of look at that and I trust staff will have a process for us to say, okay, here's how hub's going to come down and this is the first place it's going to touch um a residential and so should transition be here or is transition already here to transition it into that next category. So, that that all just seemed like really straightforward and it felt like we could under that section almost get rid of that whole number two and jump down into the engagement part where we draft the new zoning through text amendment and then do a break the code to see the things that we don't know, which you know, we had our first TC1 come in the 777 project or what is it called Southtown not South Arbor and or something one of the Souths where the the block was too long. And so then we I know we spent a lot of time on that and then they came back with a text amendment to to sort of clean that up. So, I feel like that like we could move that along in a way that at least in what I heard from Alexis tonight wouldn't take a full year. You know, we might be able to shave a few months. I heard a full quarter off of that. So, we could potentially get that all keyed up in 8 months. 8 to 10. I know you said 10. I'm an optimist. I'll live on the 8 side of your 8 to 10 range. So, so that's a that's a

um an example and so um but if I heard correctly that these are the steps it feels then very presumptuous of me to say, oh, let's get rid of all these things if you have already looked at this and have determined that these are the steps. And I think the conversation tonight reveals that maybe it's a little bit more immutable than I thought. Like that we could actually have a conversation about what's here and make adjustments for the sake of being able to move something along. And I feel like hub is an opportunity for us to basically get our feet wet for how we implement the comp plan and understand what we don't yet know. And I think we have to do something to get started with that. Go ahead, Mr. Learner. You've been on and off mute.

[laughter]

Uh yeah, so thank you for so thank you for that. So, I would just I I I just want to I guess disagree with what you're saying. I think you just gave an example of how Arbor South was involved and I think that was indicative that we need to take time and we need to actually spend time not only crafting the district, doing our best to anticipate what's going to work, what's not going to work. And when we don't, that's indicative of how how we won't be able to reach our goals if we're not spending the time to develop concepts and testing them. I heard Commissioner Lee for example say that well, from his perspective the decisions made it should be one district. That's fine if Commissioner Lee if that's your if that's the commission's perspective, one of the things that would be helpful for us from staff perspective is that the three base districts that you've been talking about have three different height limits. They have different design requirements. They also have different uses. So, one of the things that we're going to need from you is which one of those would you if you you know, which ones should we take what lessons from? If you can do that quickly, great. My experience and my advice is that sometimes that might take longer than you think. We're an hour and a half here and we have we're not making any decisions and we're having a lot of discussion about things of [snorts] not nearly the consequence about what is the height we're going to put into the hub district and which uses are we going to include and which uses are we not going to include. And then for example with eliminating the hub concept so the kind of feedback that would be helpful to me and my colleagues is you are that's taking away the engagement that we were going to do with the public about what hub is. So, do you envision moving that somewhere else or just eliminating it? So, those are some of the the things that would be helpful for us to glean from you so that once we get going on whatever plan is whether you take our sort of

professional advice or not, we we have a good course of action so that we can be faithful to a schedule. We can be faithful to a time frame. Yeah, and of course we're going to take your professional opinion. That that's the collaborative process [laughter]

that we do here. We've done it all through the time I've been at the table. I think um the the I want to be clear that when you say the a public engagement it would be that you are adding additional public engagement. So, everything we do is in public. Everything that we do engages the public. Every opportunity that we get together to talk, it is in public. We do not actually have opportunities to talk outside of the public space. So, that is full public engagement. And so, what you are what I'm hearing is you are proposing additional public engagement. And so, those types of things I think should be articulated in a way that for me would be helpful to say this is in addition to regular meetings, work sessions, public hearings and public comment periods. So, that we know what we're adding, what is being added to the process. Because then that helps the would help me as a member of the commission and I imagine the commission to say, oh, you know, we're in a hub which is taking TC1 and D1 and and and D2 which has had a lot of interaction as a as a district already and we are now moving it in this direction. So, like but in this process we are adding additional public engagement as we come to this because D2 has a height limit of what? 60 feet if I'm right off the top of my head. And so, we if we move that into hub and we take the the D1 as the new height limit, now

here's how that's going to impact nearby properties because now something can go up to 180 feet is the cap without the density bonuses for height. So, so yeah, so like and and I think that has to be externalized if you will, if you would permit me to say it that way because some of us at the table are holding that information. You certainly hold that. I know Alexis does. Every time we talk, she's like, okay, I hear you Donnell, but do you know about this cuz this thing is going to cause this problem here. And that if that can be externalized in what we are looking at. Like what you just said, which is of the three districts, which height limit are we going to take? That that's just something that you that's your that's you being the planning manager. You know these things. And so, you can easily just bring that to the fore and I just think it it just needs to be in the material that we're looking at because then it informs us. So, then we're not making statements or making requests that are unrealistic. And that goes to my earlier point about of course we're going to take your professional opinion because you are the the planning staff of the city of Ann Arbor. See, it just I just want to be clear. That's what that's what this is intended to do. We are giving you external engagement opportunities that are above and beyond. And and that was done because of things we heard at this table, right? We heard from the commissioner saying, I want you to be thinking about engagement. We've I want you to be thinking about recommendations. So, that's what that's the intention of this that's that's why you saw the detail in phase one, not because we don't intend to do it in phase two through 26, but because

we heard loud and clear that that was an opportunity that that was an inflection point that you as the commission wanted to be mindful of as we move forward with that. And so, that I just again, I know we're not we're not modifying with that. I think that's an example. So, as part of this, that's the kind of feedback that would be helpful. If you don't think number two is going to be particularly helpful to you, you think that that's just oh, that's a 5-minute conversation. Great. not there we we do not have that. We do not have a 5-minute conversation.

Yeah, yeah. I don't anticipate [laughter] that. But but then I think what what's helpful to us then is if you're going to if we're going to minimize that aspect, do you want to do you want to insert that wider engagement with residents somewhere else? Cuz that's where we thought was the opportunity to do it. So, that's that's my only point.

Yeah, and I think I think this is good. And Michelle, if it's okay, I just want to conclude this part before I go to you. So, so one of the things I would say, Mr. Leonard, is there's a lot of I I hear a conflation sometimes of things. And I've I've actually said this to some commissioners because commissioners will make comments at the table that the public will pick up as if the commission voted on it. And we did not. We just had a conversation. Um I said something at the table where uh at a uh consultant meeting I asked about a a a pocket park that has nothing on it. It's literally just a match like a stamp of land. And I was like, is it possible for us to create an opportunity zone? And someone in the public created an entire narrative of us uh divesting of public land to give it away to developers from that comment. And I was like, uh A, I don't have that kind of power. Uh

[laughter]

That's just not how this body works. It was a comment at a work session. Uh you have to vote as a city to remove public land from a public designation. Like that That's not something a single commissioner can wield. And so, I want to be careful when we say uh what we've heard because we're not asking for votes on this. So, yes, I heard Commissioner Norton say, I want more I want additional engagement than the normal process. I also heard uh Commissioner Hammersmith say, I want postcards. But in neither case did the commission take a vote and say, in this process, we are going to do X and Y. But then it gets brought back to us as oh, I heard this. And then if we say, oh, well, do we need this in addition? Or can we label this as an addition? Then it it it comes through differently. And I I just think it would be helpful for us as we go through this process together that we as a body figure out how we want to do this. I think it's very easy to say, uh yeah, let's let's make a motion that we're going to at each phase add an additional public engagement step. And this is the cost, this is the time, this is the process of how this is going to go. So that when we're seeing it on a work plan, as a commission, we know, yes, I've agreed to that. I we voted on that. And I had my opportunity to speak on that. But when it comes through as these two individuals, then and we didn't have a robust conversation at the table, then it feels like we're changing something that we previously said. And I have certainly heard from the public um things that

individual commissioners have said and they're feeling about how the process has gone. And it's being taken as a full commitment, like a pledge. Um and I just want to be careful with that because we do actually have a process for how we do those things. And and that's just my like individual um opinion here, but I I just want to state it because we're here at the work session and this is where we talk about these things. All right. Uh with that, Michelle, and then Commissioner Norton. Um uh I do want to clarify then in the work plan, everything that's proposed is above and beyond because there are really no requirements. With a text amendment, you do have to hold a public hearing by law. But everything that we are proposing is so that the only conversations we're having are not in a public forum where there's not two-way exchange, right? We have Both sides have found planning commission set up frustrating, right? They talk at us and then we talk amongst ourselves. And these sessions that are proposed are meant for more one-on-one um conversations, for structured activity, um for information sharing both ways. So, um we have we have proposed additional engagement um from what we've learned from the comp plan. Um Because I would say as a community engagement specialist trained that way that our public meetings wouldn't really count as as engagement because we we're not conversing. Um we are speaking at each other. Um and so, [clears throat] this is meant to do more than what's required, which is just to hold a public hearing, but also stay within our desired time frame and learn from the public.

Yeah, so with that, I would just say on the work plan as presented, if it's just noted that these are additional, they're outside of the normal process. And so, when we come to the regular meeting, then we can vote whether we want to keep them, remove them, or modify them so that we see what the cost is. And if um Commissioner Lee's recommendation of the uh bracketed time cost or estimate could be put in there, I think that would be helpful because then we can say, oh, adding this adds 6 weeks to our timeline because we have to notice it, we have to host it, we have to collect the information from it, we have to process it, and then we have to take the next step. So that we are we're getting a full cost of it as opposed to, hey, this thing is here and then we just checked it off. I just think it would help us. It would help me. Um I don't want to speak for the table cuz the table can speak for herself. Commissioner Norton. Yeah, I'll just just a couple quick things. I I share your frustration, Chairman Waechter, um people seem to be taking things we say in our dialogue and then presenting it as if the council or the commission had decided to do something. I don't really see anything around that. I don't want to feel cobbled in what we say in our in our discussions because then we can't have good discussions, which we need to have if we're going to work through all of this. So, I guess that you know, ask the public to please not take statements made out of context or paint them out to be more than what they are. And please let us engage with each other as we try and noodle through these problems. Um that's the first point. The second point is I'm Now I'm going to put on my hat as a planning professor. Planners realized a long time ago that the minimal forms of engagement that the zoning planning and zoning enabling acts provide is really minimal and it's um it's not enough when you're dealing with difficult issues. Um so, I'm totally on board with identifying things in the work plan as

additional engagement beyond the minimal required by the by the planning and zoning laws that we're working under. I also think it's entirely appropriate, which the staff has done, to not uniformly say we're going to have public meetings for everything, that we have different versions of engagement to that relate to the kinds of things we're doing. And I'm I'm comfortable with We already heard one public comment that somebody wants more than what's been proposed. I'm pretty comfortable with the levels of engagement that have been specified um in this proposed work plan. And that would then become, if we can all agree on that, when this comes up before the full commission, um Mr. Waechter, that'll be the that'll be our opportunity to vote and then that will become the act of the full commission. Um I'm not trying I'm very mindful that we are anxious to move deliberately because we're dealing with the crisis and we need to move on it. But I also want to make sure that we don't stumble so badly in our haste that it drags itself out because we've just drummed up so much controversy. So, and and for all of those other reasons. So, I think if we can do it right, if we can get the right kinds of additional public engagement for the right kinds of issues, in the long run we'll move more expeditiously because we've solved the problems up front before they became major headaches. At least that's my hope. So, um so, I'm on board with the what with the what the staff have laid out in terms of the kinds of engagement they're proposing for the different steps. I think they're appropriate. Thank you. Yeah. Uh Council member Dietz. Thank you. Um I just wanted to very briefly say that I um also would like to see us move from hub to transition. Um And I want to do that because I think that

whereas if even 1/3 of the parcels that are currently zoned residential um made their single fam- their current single family homes into triplexes, that would be a huge gain. I don't think we're going to see that much based on So, I understand that on paper we are unlocking a lot of potential. We will be unlocking a lot of potential when we when uh residential is rezoned. There's just nothing in anything that I've read or or seen happen that suggests that we're going to see much many new units produced by that piece. So, I am eager to move to transition. Um I'm also puzzled by or I just was curious to know um whether it's not whether the idea of a floating residential zone is not still possible. And whether that would be as time-consuming as actually mapping a residential zone because it it is a little bit concerning to me that we do have this um proposal from the Community Land Trust whose work I think we'd like to find a way to support. And um then my final thing would be to say that So, I hope I'm not being confusing. I want to go from hub to transition. I am curious about is there any way we can deal with the gap that we have around the residential? And thirdly, um I can see us sending out a universal postcard, although I'd like to know the cost of that.

Um but I'm assuming that no matter what we do at the outset, we will always have to send the mandatory postcard for the areas that are being specifically rezoned. And so, I am a little bit concerned about um essentially, that would be costing the city a double mailing. And um I think that no matter what we do, we are always going to get people saying that they didn't hear about this and that it has been done behind their backs and it hasn't been done democratically. And so, um I'm all for broad publishing of of what we're up to, but I'm just a little concerned not to involve us in having to send two full rounds of postcards. Um so, that's it. Uh Michelle, are you going to tell us how much it cost to send a postcard? I'm just going to let you know we heard that request and it it's in the engagement handout. It's in the packet. Um I please don't quote me. It It's in there. I think it might be around 14 to 20,000, something like that, but we did do that research and that's in the handout. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Councilmember District, do you want to follow up on that? Okay. Uh Commissioner Weatherby Um just in case there's no there's a question, I one of the reasons that I would like to see uh residential next is um I have spent almost a decade doing the R4C, which would be in transition, and I don't think transition's going to be easy. I think we will spend most of our time on transition because I don't think I actually think residential is much more simple than transition is going to be. I don't think we even have a very good handle on what transition is

going to be. And so, I think um in the interest of kind of moving things along, if we're looking at a 3-year timeline, we're not going to see a lot of gains in 3 years regardless of like we aren't doing this for a 3-year payoff. This That is It's not what I'm doing it for, and I hope nobody else is considering this for a 3-year payoff because this is we're talking a 30, 40, 50-year payoff in many places because that's what we're working with now, and we saw what happened in the 70s, 60s and 70s when we did make a lot of changes, and then it stopped development almost entirely for a very long period of time. So, I am um looking at kind of what we can do, and I think residential is actually not as complicated as transition, but if we want to spend a lot of time on transition in the middle, then I mean, I'm fine with that. I'm I just think it's going to be and maybe it's just a little PTSD from the R4C committee, but

[laughter]

um I think it's going to be a lot, and and I think I don't think we're going to see a lot of gains in a 1-year or 2-year period from any of these. Um I think, you know, whether we do one first or the other isn't really going to change kind of the number of units in the future. I think this is going to be a long, drawn-out process. I think developers and landowners and it's going to take a long time to get used to our new regulations and to figure it out, and so, I don't think that switching them one way or the other is going to be a big change on the number of units being built within a year or two time, but um but just for the record, I I think residential is easier, and I'd like to move it up, but I'm also fine with having transition because I I don't think it's going to change the outcome of number of units much at all in a 3-year period. Thank you, Commissioner Weatherby. Any other commissioners? Oh, sorry, Mr. Lerner. I didn't see your hand was blended into your bookshelf.

[laughter] No worries. Thank you. Um

Yeah. Um uh Commissioner District, to your question about a floating residential, um of course, the answer is it depends. I just want to be clear. E- This board could recommend a a 1-hour change that all R1, R2 districts eliminate uh or modify minimum lot size requirements per dwelling lot size requirements and provide an expanded use of uses to whatever your heart's desire. That could be a public hearing at Planning Commission, public hearing at City Council, and that would have that impact. I think to do a floating district as I as I would envision it would involve engagement, and it would take longer. You would want to consult with uh different neighborhoods, with different people. You probably want to do a similar break the code to make sure that what we were doing we don't end up with an R1 south kind of thing where we weren't crafting in such ways that it was a barrier to getting the type of housing that we are looking for. So, um so, it's an unanswerable question, but I I don't think a floating residential district is going to be quick if done well. Thank you. And I don't think I said for the record, but I also agreed to do um a transition right after hub. Um but I say that with the caveat I I really agree with you uh Commissioner Weatherby about picking up residential. Um I think just um but I think we're going to get that uh with the next amendment that's coming from the um Community Land Trust. So, I think we're we're going to see it sooner than uh year three. I think it it may show up in year one.

[laughter]

Uh because it it's an active petition. All right. Uh any final uh uh feedback to staff on this work plan? Seeing none, uh we will turn to our last uh public comment period before we end our work session. If you'd like to speak, you can uh in Zoom use the raise hand feature, or on phone use star nine, though I don't think anyone's connected via phone. Uh you will have up to 3 minutes to address the Planning Commission on any item on this agenda or otherwise. Uh please move to a quiet uh area and mute any background noise, and at the beginning of your comments, please state your name and address. Mr. Lerner, I see two hands raised. I agree. Timothy Rhodes, you can unmute and address the Planning Commission for up to 3 minutes. Hi, thank you. Tim Rhodes, 448 South First Street. Um this has been a great discussion tonight. Um uh just a few comments. One is I noticed in the entire discussion not a single word was mentioned about the historic districts and the um hostility that the problem that exists with what's going on with the land use plan versus uh historic districts. So, that um for all I know, I could have a building that's 180 ft two blocks, well, actually one block away from me. Um so, there is a lot of anxiety, and there is a huge uh engagement deficit. Huge. Um when I went to the uh West Old West Side um meeting

the other day, I was one of the young guys. I'm 67 years old. I was There were so many people there that just feel shut out by what you all are doing. They don't feel like they have a voice. They don't have the energy. The ageism that's going on where you're just discounting the concerns of these people, and they feel like they've done so much by uh these petitions and comments to you all, and they don't feel like uh they're really being heard and responded to in any meaningful way. So, I would just encourage you to not shortchange engagement. There is a absolutely huge engagement deficit. Um the other comment I would have is with respect to how we proceed with um, hub and and whether we include phase fives phase five items with respect to the hub analysis. I think it's critical that we look at storm water. Um, it's just not sensible to put hub designation and uh, on parcels that are in floodways. I feel very strongly we we we shouldn't go three years into the process and then say, "Oh, now it's time for us to think about storm water." That's that's just absolutely silly. Uh, we we need to have some consideration for storm water and um, pretty much right now. And the and then the third thing I'd like to say is that I would uh, very much

suggest that if there is a concept out there that we are going to have some sort of differentiation within hub, uh, for example, maintaining sort of a D1 D2 approach with respect to height, that could relieve some anxiety uh, that people have particularly when hub goes right up against uh, an area that is currently R4C and R4C sometimes is residential, sometimes it's uh, transition, sometimes it's hub. Um, so there's a lot of anxiety

Sorry, It's okay. You were talking and Mr. Leonard said it, but you didn't hear. But thank you for your comments. Good enough. Thank you. Yep. [clears throat]

Kirk Westfall, you can unmute and address the planning commission for up to 3 minutes. Hi, Kirk Westfall, 3505 Charter Place. Um, enjoyed the discussion tonight. Um, I appreciate the uh, movement seeming to go toward tackling hub and transition. Um, I I would I guess challenge the commission to think about treating them um, the same, observing that obviously transition will taper. Um, and just maybe think approaching it from a assumption of simplicity. Uh, and and and pushing on any attempt to divide it. If if if it needs to be separate, um, I think that's great. I think there potentially ways of handling it as a single district while, you know, observing the the notion that it's going to taper toward residential. Um, and perhaps handling things like, you know, we have the street wall heights in D1, we have materials regulations. All the areas that perhaps one could foresee wanting to be walkable, for example, in the next 50 years, you'd probably want some, you know, uh, build two lines and and street wall and transparency and so on. Not everywhere, but you know, I I I I do think if we're taking the long view, there's going to be a role for some overlays, but in terms of height, um, I mean, a lot of you you guys spend a lot of time on TC1 and D1 for that matter. They seem to be

working. TC1 in my view is only challenged by the the kinds of roads it was applied along. Um, that, you know, very few developers want to saddle right up next to. Hopefully that will be addressed um, sometime soon. But uh, I think there's a I think what you've laid out with the comp plan, um, uh, challenges everybody to think about this, you know, as simply as possible unless some things come up where it makes sense to divide uh, divide hub and transition. Um, at least for the transition areas immediately adjacent to hub areas. The the kind of far-flung transition is another 30 more seconds. is another story. Um, and I would also echo a couple of commissioners asked for a more fine-grained schedule. I think that's something that has shifted in my view in a negative way since I was on commission is that it used to be kind of a a month by month um, schedule which can change, but at least having that mapped out in a more fine-grained fashion would be would be helpful. Thanks a lot for your time. Thank you. Gaurav Kulkarni, you can unmute and address the planning commission for up to 3 minutes. Hi, uh, Gaurav Kulkarni, 139 Ashley Mews Drive.

[clears throat]

Uh, thanks for the discussion today. Um, had some thoughts around uh, public engagement. Um, so feels very important that we listen to residents. Um, I've been to a bunch of our sort of public engagement sessions. Um, one thing that feels also important with that is sort of who shows up to those um, and finding ways to include more and more folks. Um, when I've come to public engagement sessions, there's a lot of familiar faces and um, there are a lot of ways in which public engagement what it does is further entrench power, uh, further entrench privilege um, because of who can show up. Um, and can therefore uh, override our democratic processes um, and so as we think about, you know, what does public engagement look like, I really want to challenge us to be creative around including more and more folks. Um, we talked about postcards. Um, what does it look like to be able to hear more from our unhoused residents for instance? Um, how are we going to reach people who aren't able to make um, the kind of sessions that that are usually held. Uh, how can we go to where the people are rather than asking people to take time out of their day to come to uh, the planning staff. Um, and so yeah, I just wanted to make sure when we try to solicit feedback from residents that we're not hearing from the same voices over and over again, but making sure that uh, I mean, including my own. Um, but that we're hearing from the people who don't get to hear uh, that don't get their voice um, shared as much and uh, yeah. Thanks for all that you do. Uh, that's it for me. Thank you. Will Leaf, you can unmute and address the planning commission for up to 3 minutes.

Hello. Uh, I'd like to thank the commissioners and staff for the thoughtful discussion. Um, I'd like to just draw a distinction and I think there's a distinction between public engagement, which is very critical, and dead time or bureaucratic delay. And both are possible. And I think there's a potential for this process to go really well and for there to be a lot of public engagement and very little dead time. One way to minimize dead time would be to think about what the next tangible step is and I would argue that the next step in this long process is going to be drafting initial districts that then the public can react to. So in that process of drafting districts, staff is certainly going to review existing zoning designations, review permitted uses, review dimensional standards, uh, consider the hub goals. All of that's going to need to get done. And also the hub concept is going to need to be determined. Will the FAR be in the Will we reintroduce an FAR? I hope not. But will we have a height limit? All those things are going to be necessarily done when drafting that first draft. When you have that first draft, the public can then react to it and give feedback to it. If you delay that step three waiting for an infrastructure report, waiting for whatever for months, those are months that are no longer available for public engagement. So any sort of rezoning map change is going to take into consideration infrastructure later. You don't need to wait for an infrastructure report to design the district itself. So my main point is that we can actually have more engagement if we move with deliberate

urgency, meaning not rushed, not panicked, but just intelligently. And I think the next step is drafting those zoning districts and that could be done in May. Adding a row to the permitted use Sorry, a column to the permitted use table and a row to the area height and placement table and any other additional development standards doesn't take hundreds of hours. Community is way smaller than Ann Arbor creating zoning districts. And the sooner you get that minimal initial draft in, then you can start public engagement. So delay does not equal engagement and we can

30 more seconds. And we can get more engagement if we start focusing on the next tangible step, which is drafting new a new zoning district for the hub category. Thank you all. Thank you. Mr. Leonard, I don't see any additional hands. Uh [sighs] nor do I. So with that, friends, I will adjourn our work session. Have a lovely evening and we'll see you in person soon.