Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

My dad used to work.

All right. I am told we can resume our meeting. So, I will call us back to order. And I believe I was on agenda item number five, report city um uh reports uh to the planning commission and written communications. And we were going to start with you, council member Dish, if you're ready.

I am so ready. And I wanted to report that I think the only thing of significant interest, but there may have been consent agenda items with MC, which Mick Kelly often keeps track of better than I do, is that the council approved the Wagner resoning, which was um actually similar to the one that's tonight. Um uh a resoning of 28 acres to permit two duplexes. And so um that's really great. I'm glad that got approved. Um, this was from our March 3rd meeting. There's a note on the UDC storm water. Oh, wait.

Yeah, we did the changes for the UDC storm water. What needs to be approved by the wash county um what's his name? Resources. Yeah. And then also the changes so that all the terms that we use to talk about solid waste are consistent. I won't give you the list. [laughter] Thank you, Council Member Dish. Manager Kelly, do you have a report for us?

I do, which is to let you know that uh by the planning commission request, we have set up an opportunity for you to have a close session with the city attorney related to special exception uses at the beginning of your next [clears throat] regular session on 519. uh a discussion item on the comprehensive plan implementation will also appear on that agenda uh presentation by manager Leonard [snorts] and this will be a pretty packed agenda so we encourage any petition questions to be shared in advance so that staff can address them efficiently and I would note that that is something that would always be useful to us and you're welcome to do on any agenda and finally that your working session Your virtual working session on May 12th will include a Q&A with the fire marshal, Mr. Michael Redmond, regarding fire code interactions with site plan reviews. This was also by request of the commission. We did try to get uh solid waste staff on that same agenda, but there was a conflict with the main development review uh person. So, we'll try and cover that as best we can as planning staff, but we thought it may be useful enough to have the uh discussion with the fire marshal.

Thank you, manager Kelly. Do any other commissioner officers or committee leaison have anything to report at this time? Commissioner Nord,

just that um planner Benon and I attended the last storm water advisory group meeting. They're just they're making progress. I don't think there's really anything to report right now. Anyone else? Uh, just want to note that I think uh, Commissioner Lee and I are still scheduled to attend the building um, Michigan Communities Conference up in Lancing uh, next Tuesday and Wednesday. All right. So, with that, that'll take us to agenda item number six, public comment. So this is an opportunity for individuals to speak for up to three minutes on any issue that is not listed as a public hearing or a dedicated public comment period. So if you want to talk specifically about the Wagner project, wait till it comes to the agenda. Don't use this time. We'll first hear from those of you who are present in chambers. Then we'll turn to remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 87785355247 and enter meeting ID 9776341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of your phone number or by name. For Zoom users, you'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background uh noise. At the beginning of your comments, please state your name and address for all participants whether uh here in chambers or on Zoom. Is there anyone present who'd like to address us at this time? [snorts] Seeing none, manager Kelly, do we have remote participants?

There are no hands raised. So, I shall close the public hearing and go on to agenda item number seven, communication from commissioners. Is there any? Seeing none, we'll go on to agenda item number eight, public hearing scheduled for the next business meeting. Manager Kelly,

at your 519 meeting, there are two public hearings and one dedicated public comment item. The first public hearing is 805 Oxford Road site plan and special exception used for city planning commission approval. This is a returning item. This is a proposal to construct a three-story approximately 23,500T sorority with 47 beds and a surface parking lot with eight spaces. The parcel is zoned R2B and it includes a special exception use application required for sororities in the R2B district. It's in W 2. The second public hearing is for 850 Green Hills Drive for the Green Hill School. That is a special exception use and site plan for planning commission approval. It's a request to amend the existing special exception approval for a 545 student private school to increase that student body to 750 students and also has a proposed site plan to construct two additions totaling 16,665 square ft and includes also uh paving a fire access road around the building. The site is 30.5 acres zoned R1B and located also in W 2. And finally, uh you will see a project which may be familiar to some of you which is the return of village of Ann Arbor site plan for planning commission approval main address 1710 Duvarin but includes u many other addresses. It's a site plan on 78 acres for 616 multif family units, 136 forale attached town homes and 480 rental apartments ranging from 1 to three bedrooms. A 10 acre portion of the site's former landfill area will remain undeveloped open space with remediation occurring concurrent with the development. There is planned access via

Duvarin uh road, Pontiac Trail, and an internal connection to Leslie Park. It's zoned R4A and located in W1. Thank you, Manager Kelly. That takes us to agenda item number nine, unfinished business. There is none. On to agenda item 10A, regular business 225 and 235, South Wagner Road reszoning, RE Z26- 0005. A petition to reszone two residential parcels totaling. 28 acres from R1D single family resident to R2A two family residential. Both lots are currently vacant. The applicant wishes to build two principal dwellings per parcel. It's in Ward 5. Staff recommendation is approval. We'll start with a We will not start with that. I will go to uh Manager Kelly. Manager Kelly. Uh, I just wanted to note that although we did reach out to this applicant and uh request a presentation and presence at tonight's meeting, um, there was no response, unfortunately. So, I'm not sure.

Sorry, I'm here. Okay. Okay. That's new to me. That's great. Sorry.

Yeah, that was I'm representing the organization. Okay, there there we are. Okay, great. So, uh we'll start with a petitioner presentation uh from the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust. You can come up and uh assuming their material is on the computer, they have what they need to present. No, there is nothing there. So, we will find out. Oh, all right. Shall we allow you to talk to manager Kelly for just a moment so that we can get ourselves uh together here? So, we'll just take a a two-minute um break so that you all can have a combo about what you might need.

All right. Thank you all for uh rolling with us tonight. I appreciate uh your patience. I think we're ready now uh to hear from the uh Ann Arbor Community Land Trust. And so we'll start with a petitioner presentation. That's 10 minutes. Uh that'll be followed by a staff presentation. Then we will have a public hearing on this matter and then the planning commission will have its deliberation. So with that, uh good evening.

Good evening. Um sorry about that, Snafu. I uh I'm not sure exactly what happened there, but um at any rate, um the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust exists to uh help us put people in houses here in Ann Arbor. These are the people who work in Ann Arbor, nurses, teachers, librarians, lab techs, things like that that can no longer afford to live in town here. Uh we started with uh this vision of of uh finding u properties that we could utilize to uh basically increase the density of uh and allow u families who who were being priced out of our community to have a place that they could afford. Uh the city has uh been able to help us with various uh creative ways to finance these to make sure that people can uh can afford to to purchase them. They go forward in perpetuity. Um and so that the people who buy these houses will own and be able to buy into our community and um that when they go to sell, they will realize a gain on their investment, but it won't be sort of the rampant runups uh that we see in Ann Arbor frequently because we want to keep these affordable long term as well. Um, we've had hundreds of applicants uh looking for these homes. Um, these are people that we meet every day in our travels around Ann Arbor. And uh, as a builder, um, I have watched uh, prices absolutely spiral. Uh, you know, things that when I started out uh, building custom homes and things like that, if you had $500,000, I could build you a great home. And these days, it barely gets you a starter home with a production company, you know. And so, uh, we're really looking to combat that because I've seen what happens in other communities when, uh, the people who actually make the communities run can no longer afford to live there and it becomes a sort of like stratified area that, uh, that it no longer really represents our country very well, you know, let alone really even what our city's moray are. Um, so um, this is our

first uh, well, it's actually not our first, but these are our first group of homes that we're um, starting to build in this fashion. Um I uh was at some of the meetings where the people who did get these were awarded their um home sites and I can tell you that they were absolutely elated. Uh these are people who never thought they would have to they would be able to have their dream of living in a place in Ann Arbor that they own. So um as [clears throat] a an aside, I um I once owned these two properties. Um I bought them for $25,000. um the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust uh um asked me to um purchase them. I had an offer on the table from another party at the time. They asked me to uh to sell it to them instead. Um and I sold each parcel for 40,000 which is, you know, considerably lower than what you can get most parcels for in Ann Arbor. Um I am sub have subsequently joined the board of the organization. I believe strongly in what they're doing. Um, and I know that from my own personal experience living here, uh, that these are the type of things that really matter about the people that you meet in the community around you every day. So, I guess that's all I have to say.

Except you want to introduce yourself, Doug Selby. Yeah. [laughter] Did I not do that? Sorry. You You didn't. I was going to ask you to do that at the end, but I'm sorry. That's all right. All right. Well, thank you so much. We'll call you back. Uh, if we have questions, we'll turn now to Oh, can I make one additional point? these still

the footprint of each of these units so you know the two homes is 11 and some square feet 1110 ft I think for both units um which I can tell you for from building homes is a very average footprint for a a home in Ann Arbor one home so uh we don't think we're really maxing out the lots in any sense or making them you know bigger than what you would um see normally being built in Ann Arbor so that's just one small point I wanted to make thank you great thank you so much we'll now turn to planner Melen Cochran who will give us our staff presentation.

Thank you. Um so I'd like to clarify this is just the reasoning. Um there are no actual buildings be being proposed right now and these will not require site plan. They'll go [clears throat] through building permits. So this is just a resoning right now and it is proposed to reszone from R1D single family to R2A 2 family. In total the parcels are2 acres. There's two of them and they both front South Wagner Road right across the street from Scio Township. The parcels are currently vacant and have always been vacant and the applicant is seeking the resoning to build two principal dwelling units per parcel. Um this is the city of Ann Arbor comprehensive plan 2050 designates these parcels as residential future land use category which recommends up to three units per parcel. So in general, the plan recommends higher density across the city and encourages a variety of housing types as well as emphasizing affordability. The R2A zoning does support the density proposed. The location is near major transit corridors and their existing um commercial buildings are appropriate for additional density and the development will have minimal impact on its neighbors. There are Ann Arbor area transit authority bus stops within about a quarter mile of these parcels. They're also near public open space. Um and staff does recommend approval. Thanks.

Thank you for your presentation. We'll now have a public hearing and then after the public hearing uh the planning commission will have its uh deliberation. This is an opportunity for individuals both present and online to speak for up to three minutes on this item. We'll first hear from those of you who are present in chambers with us. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please ensure you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, rather whether in chambers or remote, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to speak at this time? Yes, you can just come straight on up. Uh you've got three lights and a timer there. Uh, the green light says you're good to go. The yellow light is about 30 seconds and you should wrap up. And the red light says please stop and seat the floor.

My name is Brian Alvarez, 215 South Wagner Road. And I um I disagree with the opinion that this is going to be a low impact uh site for neighbors. Me and my neighbors are actually here represented today. My prime first of all, I grew up in Ann Arbor. Uh born and raised. I also am a recipient of section 8 housing. I understand how valuable housing is in our community, especially for our, you know, workers. There was a time where I couldn't afford to live in Ann Arbor and I worked in, you know, I lived in Ipsy and I just bust down here. So, um, the majority of our concerns relates to the the the acre size. It was cited that uh this was a 2.8 acre size, and that's actually both lot sites. If you go to them, they're combined 2.8, 8, which means one lot is.138 acres. Uh there's no parking available. There's also no limits to how many residents can be in this according to my understanding and the the meeting that we had with Miss Loren. Um so we have a we have a lot of concerns about that. Um, the parking, uh, like I said, it's it's it's not going to be able to hold too many parking spots at all. It I mean, I I encourage people to look at this. Everywhere around this area is a single family home. You're doubling our neighbors by approving this. I mean, this is already going to be a project that's, you know, in the works. That's fine, but I am against the resoning for sure. Um, um, we have tax allocation concerns. this tax that are going to be uh paid for by these residents are going back to pay the loan and not going back into our city. I encourage everybody to uh you know just figure out if I'm I'm false, but this is the information that I've collected and me and my wife uh who's

not able to be here. Um yeah, again this is single family homes and everywhere we fought we fought this before with the city of trying to um put high densities in what is conventionally a single area single family home. So it just changes the characteristics doubles our neighbors. Um there's concerns about the transparency of this organization. Uh the sale of the lots um as mentioned before by Doug Selby, he bought them for $2500. Um they were first sold each lot was sold for $9,000 and I don't know who bought them. I do have records here but I don't know the the entities. $25,000 paid for these lots and then they were sold to uh Ann Arbor uh the com the the board A2 CLT for um for $80,000. There's not transparency in this project. I just I don't have a lot of faith in it. And a lot of the notes that were taken from the the meeting are inaccurate or misleading, especially the ones about the neighbors wanting sidewalks. We totally disagreed with that. So, thank you for your time and I encourage you to not approve this. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yep. Come right on up. [clears throat] And if you don't mind, uh, try speaking into the mic because it does the recording as well. we can hear you, but sometimes the recording needs a little boost.

Yeah, sure. Hi everyone. My name is Andrew CR. I'm a resident at 249 South Wagner Road along with my wife. Um I just want to echo Brian's comments. I think the board should reconsider the um approval recommendation. Um you know, I again I I also agree with the the um general mission of the organization of the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust. I'm very supportive of it. I was very excited when I saw that they were going to be developing on that lot. Um, my main issue is with the uh reszoning to multi-family homes. Um, again, if you were to see this in person, you would be shocked [laughter] at um trying to to fit uh what amounts to two condominiums into this space. Um, and I think it might be at odds with some of the goals of the organization broadly to encourage long-term residents of Ann Arbor, which is something that I I deeply support. Um, and I I just think that single family homes, which are the same structure throughout our neighborhood, throughout the area, um, would invite people to actually um, live there for for a much longer period of time, um, raise their kids there. um as it's currently laid out, uh four dwelling units in that space plus parking, um it just doesn't seem to me to to really allow for um the type of family building that um the land trust would like to promote. Um and then lastly, I just want to add a note about the construction plans. Um I just don't think that we've been given as residents uh clear indication of those construction plans. Um, uh, Brian's wife had noted in communications around, uh, concerns with runoff. Um, there's a, uh, pronounced slope to the property. I'm also concerned, uh, both of our houses are on downward edges of that slope. Um, so that in in addition to the fact that Wagner Road is a heavily traffked major

road, um, it just we don't feel that the the land trust has given us enough information on how they're going to mitigate the risks um, associated with that construction as well as a timeline for construction. We do not have a uh current example other than the um the artist rendering that Doug had put up um of what this could look like in practice because none none of the uh homes have been built yet. That's about it for me. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else present who'd like to speak at this time? Manager Kelly, do we have remote participants?

We do. Adam Juskevich, you have three minutes to address the planning commission.

Hi, my name is Adam Juskevich, 1430 Las Vegas Drive. Um, I support the Community Land Trust, um, and their mission to provide housing for, um, essential workers in our community. And I support this development on Wagner Road. Um as our comprehensive land use plan says um regarding the residential land use category um the primary use is single family duplexes and triplexes permitted by right with additional building types allowed where consistent with neighborhood form and scale. This is entirely consistent with the residential neighborhood form and scale. Um duplexes and triplexes don't need to be huge buildings. Um, in fact, these um these particular developments would be within the scale of what would be allowed as a single family house. Um, so adding more people into a neighborhood, more neighbors in a neighborhood is entirely consistent with what we're trying to do in Ann Arbor to provide more housing, which will make housing more affordable throughout the city. And I completely support this. Um, and I also support the uh proposed change to R1 and R2 zoning by the community land trust to make these kinds of things by right throughout R1 and R2. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one other hand raised which is phone number ending in 534. You have three minutes to address the planning commission. Good evening. This is Tom Stalberg calling from 1202 Traver Street in the heart of Lower Town. I'd like to call uh in support of this resoning. Uh, I've been a longtime supporter of the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust, but want to remind people that there was a TIFF approved for specific lots and this these two lots were included uh with that TIFF approval. Also want to make a comment about the size of the lots. They're under 7,500 square ft. If we were reszoning from R1D to R2A and they were 7,500 ft² or larger, it would be possible to have three units on each of these lots. Given the lot size, as long as I'm correct, there was a caller who bought something different, but if I'm reading it correctly, the lot sizes would limit it to two units per lot. The goal of the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust is to build modestsized homes that fit within the scale of the neighborhood. Generally, when you do a resoning, uh they have a by right to build something different than that. But there's been a lot of representations made by the community land trust to the city and to the county and getting the tiff approval of the type of homes that they're going to build. So ordinarily, I'd be hesitant to just say here's by right because then the the R2A rights could say they could build anything. They could build something huge. But I think we have some limits uh built into the system here with that brownfield tip, not brownfield, but the tiff approval.

[snorts] I want to remind people that this is not the only thing going for attainably priced home ownership. with some other programs, other opportunities for affordable housing that's rental. But in terms of indefinite long-term housing for ownerships, uh we really need this type of thing to succeed. This is at the front end. There's a couple dozen lots that are included in this first batch that have been approved with the the TIFF. Uh I believe some do not need resonings, but apparently these do given the lot size. So I hope that you'll approve this. Uh I do have that one concern that I mentioned about, you know, the buy right because you're not tied to specific site plan here, but I feel that those are concerns are mitigated by the other approvals and representations that have been made. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Stalber. There are no other hands raised. Mr. Chair,

thank you, Manager Kelly. I'll close the public hearing and read the motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the mayor and city council approve the reszoning of 225 and 235 South Wagner Road from R1D single family dwelling district to R2A two family dwelling district. Moved by Commissioner Hammershmid, seconded by Commissioner Dish. We are in discussion and I think Commissioner Dish wanted to go first. Well, now I'm not so sure, but since I had my hand up, I will. Um, I actually wanted to ask Mr. Selby one question of clarification. When you said, "Yeah, you can come up since I'm asking you." Um, and we want people to hear what you say. [laughter] Um, when you said that, um, it would be each of the duplexes would be 1,110 square ft.

I can't say it's that exact number, but it's right around,00 ft² just just north of that. So each of the duplexes would be that. And so it's like 575 square ft per something like that. That's all I wanted to understand. if it was each or I I could I just needed to unpack whether you meant that it was four times, 1100 or two times 1100. And um yeah, the the entire reason for this reasonzoning is that the second unit could then have 800 square f feet, which allows us to have a second bedroom, which is what people really need for uh for their kids. So they would both have two bedrooms. These are two one would have three and the other one would have two.

One would have three and one would have two. Okay, that's great. All right. Yeah. Oh, thank you for clarifying that. That's super helpful. Thank you, Council Member Dish. Any other commissioners? Actually had a little more than that. That was just my question for Mr. Selby. But here's since you have the floor, we'll let you continue and then we'll go to Commissioner Mills. Yeah. So, I just I wanted to respond to a couple of the comments. Um I first of all I wanted to clarify that there is parking allowed on Wagner Street. Yes. No. No. So Oh well I guess I should have asked Mr. Salvi [laughter] where where people will park. May I ask you another question?

There are a there is a garage for each unit and then there is an outdoor parking spot for each unit. So in the picture there were the garages. So then then there's a turnaround spot for each of them. So there would be, you know, a place for a car outside and a car in the garage.

Okay. Thank you very much. So we have that clarified. Um so I I don't think that it is that there is no room for parking. It sounds like there's room for parking. Um I wanted to mention that um a a project like this will very likely be simply legal once the comprehensive land use plan is implemented. Now, I don't know that for sure because we haven't yet talked about minimum lot um size per building and those things are to come. But this is very much the kind of housing that the comprehensive land use plan aims to encourage. Um, and it's what's hardest to get because single family homes are a better deal for developers typically to build. And in this case, because the land is cheaper and because the community land trust has the housing tiff, um, they're able to do this. Now, the tax impacts of a housing tiff are that the property taxes paid on these units, it is true, will not go to the city right away, but will go to reimburse eligible expenses to the developer. Um, and when those eligible expenses are recouped [clears throat] by the developer, the property tax that the city receives will be a considerable increase over what these parcels are generating now, which is not very high because there's nothing on them. So, they are just land. Um, so, uh, in terms of the the qu, uh, I would imagine that there are limits on how many people can live in these homes.

I believe that was raised as a concern. So, um, I'm going to kick that to staff and leave some more answers or questions or or comments up to everyone else. And so staff, please, what would be the limit on how many people can live in these homes? Uh, the way that we regulate occupancy for the zoning district would be a maximum of four unrelated people in one dwelling unit. Thank you, Commissioner Mills.

So, thank you. Um, and thank you, Commissioner Dish, for starting to answer one of the questions that I had, which is about the TIFF associated with it. I'm curious, um, and I don't know if this is a you question, if this is a staff question, about whether that is specific to the community land. It sounds like it's for a number of parcels, including this one, but presumably it's not something that runs with the land that another land owner it would be able to um use. Do we know? That would be a question for the applicant. We're just reviewing the resoning, so we don't look at their financing.

Okay. Do you happen to know that about how the TIF works? if the rules on the tiff are that it's only for the community land trust or that if this property were for to be sold that a future developer would be able to also use claim the tiff credits. No, my understanding is that uh they can sell the property but it's still in the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust. So that that's that affordability component stays with the property in perpetuity. Okay. This is really complicated stuff. I know. My understanding [laughter] is that the the and and I could be wrong on this, but my understanding is that the land trust owns the land. Yeah. The person buys the building.

Okay, got it. I'm I'm curious though about um because I've been on planning commission a while. Sometimes projects don't work out, right? And and land can get sold, right? And I'm just curious if this land if the land itself were sold to someone else who now can build a duplex, not necessarily the plans that you showed because that's we're talking about the resoning, not the building. I'm curious if if someone else could build a duplex that doesn't look like that that has that's larger that so long as it meets the zoning if they are also eligible for TIFF. [snorts]

No, I don't believe that is the case at all. Okay. So, uh, you know, the tiff doesn't run with the land as much as it runs with the project and the and the community land trust that owns that land. Okay. Super. Um, yes. And, um, yeah, I believe that there was two reasonings on right down the street in the 300 block right recently, too. So, it's not like this is an unusual thing.

Yeah. And I I appreciated that. Thanks. And usually we don't deal with the tip side, but it's important in my mind in part because I think it's true that this is going to come up I think when we work on resonings in other areas about uh a duplex could have six bedrooms each and that that plays very differently. Now the reason in part that this is unlikely to have six and sorry these aren't questions for you so you don't feel like you need to stand. Um, the reason that I think that's unlikely here is that the parcel is pretty small and because of the setbacks, it's pretty hamstrung in terms of where it can go. And actually, I think um, my reading of the staff report, and this is a comment, but I want staff to double check me. The front setbacks are the same. So it in its current it can it looks like current zoning and future zoning that we're taking up is 25 ft. Um side setbacks uh the minimum total of two sides is 6 ft. So I think though in the R2A it needs to be 5 ft on each side. So 10 feet now of additional green you know green space between buildings rather than a combined six feet. Um, and the rear setbacks are larger. So, currently somebody could build a very a big single family home all the way up to 20 feet. So, I think that and that's hamstringing kind of what is on that property. And am I reading that right in staff particularly the side stuff?

Yes. Okay. So you so um so I think that the setbacks actually are meaning that there could be less building on that space in resoning than what is currently allowed. And I also get the comment and this is this is going to come up again and again which is why I'm hammering on it is like uh this parcel is just barely big enough for the duplexes. other parcels could allow for a lot more and so you could imagine sixbedroom duplexes and that that is a different character. [gasps] Um yeah,

no sorry uh this time is uh reserved for Commissioner Mills and if Commissioner Mills would like to ask you a question, Commissioner Mills may but sorry. Um I'm I'm curious if you if understanding this if I got something wrong. So if there is something just about the unrelated people the community land trust uh would not allow for people to be renting these out. So you wouldn't have four unrelated people and if they want to sell them that's fine but we are looking for people who are gainfully employed in Ann Arbor and have a family situation going on.

Awesome. And actually, so additional protection in this particular place and uh one of the things that we need to keep in mind when we're reszoning other things is that they could be sold to somebody who doesn't have those stipulations. And so like that's why when we resone something, it runs with the land. Um and so it's not necessarily today's applicant. It could be someone that they sell on. And again, this is a the fact that there's a tiff actually suggests to me that there's an additional relationship going on with the city that gives me a little bit more comfort that this is not going to change hands. But otherwise, I think this is something that we'll want to consider. It's a greater level of protection than it stays as single family homes.

Yeah. Great. Thank you. Um, okay. So, that's how I feel like in terms of how much would be built. I really appreciate your comments about what the public comment uh the the participation meeting and so um I pulled it up here. I what it says is discussion of the lack of sidewalks on Wagner. Some residents felt they were not necessary and some would like to have sidewalks. I don't know if that so um no one wanted to pay directly for sidewalks. So, um I'm curious, uh and and actually I see your names of the folks that are here recorded on here. So, you are two, three, presumably three of the maybe of the six people that were recorded there. Um I'm curious it uh which um what part of that is inaccurate from your perspective if that's and it's okay for me to ask them.

I mean you have already asked them so for me that's okay would not work but we shall do this uh briefly please. Yes very briefly. So that is it's not represented by our neighbors. we actually are the the neighbors that live on that block and we were against this. So, it's not a representation of what we said in that meeting. It's inaccurate as some of the other comments are misleading. So, okay. Thank you. Yeah, I was just um yeah, there's there were a number of folks that attended. So, I was curious about that and this is one of the uh we don't have this happen very often that people pull this up. So, I'm not sure what to make of that to be really honest. Um those are my comments. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. Commissioner Lee,

thank you. Um, first off to the folks that came to speak, thank you for It's not easy to come here, um, make your way here. So, just wanted to thank you for coming here. Um, to the petitioner, just a question to talk about runoffs, um, as it relates to some of the designs as it relates to storm water. Um, lead us through your thinking around that. I I I know this because I I paid for the original topographic survey and had gone through, you know, the clearing the property of invasives and so forth, but um it does go down quite a bit to Wagner Road. So, it's kind of a big hill there. At the bottom there's a pretty wide flat spot and the um project encompasses uh kind of cutting out that spot where people would enter the garage and that so that uh so that we're basically cutting the foundations into the hill. Um there is a storm drain there. So presumably there would be a grate that goes to the storm drain.

Gotcha. Almost like a bio swale in essence or something like that. Yeah, that's kind of how I was planning is to be a little collection area that would go into the storm drain. Okay, got it. Thank you. Um and then uh just asking about timeline. I know some of the residents asked that they did not have a real good visibility into the timeline of things. Um can you I wish I had better visibility myself and all of us do. It's uh you know kind of getting these projects off the ground as frequently something as complicated as this too in terms of all the different entities is is uh difficult but I I'm we're hoping soon. I mean we're hoping in the next you know we break ground in the next four or five months. Yeah. Got it. Uh thank you. And then from after groundbreaking what is your kind of um estimation of timeline?

We did a lot of looking into how to make these affordable. It turned out that hiring Norfolk Homes to do them um they had been doing affordable homes in Jackson and other communities around here. Sure. Uh they have a whole process around it um is pretty good. So um you know they're 4 months and I don't think anybody can beat that. Got it. All right. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lee. Uh we'll hear from uh Commissioner Hammer Schmidt. Thank you.

I just want to make sure with staff that I'm understanding this. This is just a resoning. I am trying very hard to pretend like I didn't even see that picture because we're talking about reszoning the property, not anything about what's going to go on it. This is just a resoning. Yes. Okay. Yeah. So, regardless for me um I think that this is perfectly appropriate based on the comprehensive plan that we just passed um and our goals for the city. So, while I hope that that is what happens, um, and that the community land trust can build what they would like to build, um, we are talking about that in perpetuity until unless it gets resoned again, um, we would be able to allow a duplex. And I think Commissioner Mills laid it out like they can't be big, like they are constrained. So, I think for me, like mostly because of the comprehensive plan, like this feels like something that we that's a no-brainer. So, I'll be supporting this.

Thank you, Commissioner Hammershmid. Commissioner Adams,

just to echo those comments, um, and maybe elaborate a bit. So, the question before us tonight is whether we should reszone the property and I have a six-factor legal standard for that that's focused entirely on whether the zoning category that I'm about to that I'm being asked to change to is appropriate. It doesn't ask me to make any judgments about the project, the developer, anything like that. I'm just being asked this narrow question, six factors. does the resoning do these things? And for that reason, um, and again, I want to thank all of you for coming out and and sharing your views. A lot of that I can't really take into account when I look at that cuz I'm just looking I'm just looking at that legal change, right? Um, so I think R2A zoning is appropriate for the site. It's appropriate because the comprehensive plan says it's appropriate. Um, I also think, you know, I have duplexes near my house that are on small lots, all under two ten of an acre. Um, and they work they work just fine. Um, so I'll be supporting this tonight.

Thank you, Commissioner Adams. We'll hear from Commissioner Lee again. Uh just as a procedural clarification as this is a resoning it would be we would vote on it if the recommendation would advance the city council and there would be two hearings. Is that correct staff? Okay. So just from a timeline clarification standpoint we are an advising body on this particular matter. Um this advances to city council for two readings and so um just wanted to make sure that that was clear for everybody including Mr. Selby and the Annand Trust. So, um, that's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Lee, Commissioner Norton, or Weatherbe. All right. Are we ready to vote? Okay. Manager Kelly, would you please call the role on the motion as presented? Norton, yes. Adams, yes. Weather, yes. Mills, yes. Dish, yes. Lee, yes. Hammer Schmidt. Yes. Yes. That carries unanimously.

Thank you. Good luck. That takes us to 10B, regular business, 700 North Main Street. 700 North Main Street, reszoning and area plan, REZ26-002. an application to reszone a 52,000q ft parcel from R4C multiple family dwelling to R4E multiple family dwelling with conditions to enable future development of a six-story residential building with 64 apartments. The offer the offered condition is a 70 foot 75 ft height maximum. This is in ward 1 and staff recommends approval. We'll start with a petitioner presentation. Um, so you all can come up. You'll have 10 minutes. Uh, Mr. Moore, you've been here before, but you have a green light when you're good to go, yellow when you should wrap it up, and red when you should stop. After your presentation, we'll hear from planner DEO, and then we'll have a public hearing, and then the planning commission will have its discussion. Welcome.

Good evening. Um, my name is Brad Moore with Jay Bradley Moore and Associates Architects. I'm the associate architect on this project. Um I'm here tonight with the uh [clears throat] lead architect and the civil engineer uh who will take out part of this presentation. I'm going to start with just a brief summary. Um, Trowbridge uh Homes has a previous project approved on this site which was luxury town homes pushing a million dollars and they have since decided that it's a a better uh community benefit to pursue something has been called missing mill housing. I'm I'm sure Mr. Selby understands that market. but uh build apartments that are somewhere between 480 and 1,000 square ft that are much more attainable to workforce housing in Ann Arbor. Um [clears throat] these uh dwellings would be rental and they would sit on top of partially subterranean parking. This this is a hilly site. So the building would be pushed into the site uh pushing the garage levels largely below grade. Um and so um we we have a a reasonzoning before you and I and I know it's just a resoning. It's not a site plan, but we have begun crafting a potential building for the site, which we presented at our community uh engagement meeting to show how we would use the zoning. And uh we believe that a 75 ft height cap uh gives the community some comfort that we're not going to build um a high-rise because there is no height limit inherent in the in the R4 zoning. And and I believe there's been other recent projects where that 75 ft cap has been acceptable as a cap in in the R4E uh zoning. Um the site is such that the [clears throat] north end is encumbered by flood plane and floodway which requires us to shift the mass of the building towards the south side of the site. It happens to be the narrow pinch point of the site because the property

lines on the east and west aren't parallel. they can converge and therefore we need a variance on setbacks and that's why um um Alexis Cleo has told us that we need to come here first get the resoning then get the variance and then get the site plan. So I will let our civil engineer Brian come up and talk a little bit about the site and the flood planes and um access to Main Street and then um Mr. Bogart will come up and talk about some concept sketches we've been doing. Hello, I'm Brian Msker from uh um from Group and how come does this go up on the TV?

I'm inquiring about it right now. U Mr. Cherry can pause the time if you would like. Please do. Oh, it's on the screen. Oh, there it is. Okay. Um. Oh.

Okay. Well, you can gain uh some idea of the amount of relief there is uh between uh the slope there. U the difference between the first driveway and the second driveway is is one story. So, we got a basement and then we got a first floor uh garage. And that and that's and that takes up most of that space. Um and then we have a site. This is a previously approved site, so it's a little further developed than most sites. And u but we'll skip that. Uh um if we look on the south side, the south is south is to the right. South is to the right and north is to the left. We got the the two entrances. We have a an entrance man entrance here on the near that near um this the entrance here. Same thing and then we have an entrance um up there. We have a traffic study we we conducted. Uh it was a multimotal uh um traffic study and um it was a very low impact uh and the impact of the right-of-way drive operations is expected to have a negligible impact on the adjacent road network. Additional traffic 4 a.m. 8:00 p.m. on 4th AB and Summit Street intersection need to be accommodated and with the existing roadway. Let's see. And just a brief uh discussion on the flood plane. Uh the reason the building like uh like

Brad said is so wedged over in the corner is due to the flood plane and the flood way. The black two lines uh down the down the middle of the page are the current floodway and flood plane. Um and then the red line is a developed flood plane pre previously proposed and the flood plane is in about 6 months it will be will move um down to the proposed area. Uh the um Melissa Mcernney has been I've been in touch with her and she um uh she agrees. Uh but you can see how that flood plane uh really pushes you pushes it to the back and [snorts] the flood way uh won't change. Um so that is uh that that's the end of my presentation and I thank you very much.

Thank you. [clears throat]

Good evening. My name is Alex Pogarts. and the architect with the petitioner. Uh we as has as has been mentioned already, we have a proposal and our design for 64 units in the project and four stories of residential construction with two floors of parking below that. The units sizes are uh primarily 912 square feet for the [sighs] for the um one-bedroom units and we have um eight studio units within the building which as well those units are under 600 ft. Uh we have um made an effort to retain the building under the maximum height. We have uh we our floor area ratio on this proposal that we've put together today is uh 156% whereas 200% floor area ratio is allowed so we're below the floor ratio. We are um frankly very excited about the building. We we look forward to um the opportunity to uh bring our final drawings in for approval if this is advanced further on zoning. We have made an effort to uh commit to materials that we long and enduring to the exterior of the of the property and we have given respect to our neighbors to the east by not having any terraces off the units off to the back to those residences so it does allow them to retain their privacy and we will have a rooftop terrace on on the building and a few balconies forward. So in really brief that is the concept of our building. I would be happy to answer any questions the members might have.

Great. Thank you. We'll call you back up if we do. With that we'll turn to the staff presentation from planner DO when you are ready.

Thank you very much. Um uh before you tonight is the 700 North Main Street reszoning and area plan. 700 North Main Street is a vacant uh 5200 square foot site. It's about an acre and a quarter. It is currently zoned R4C and it is within the floodplane management overlay district. As uh noted tonight, the petitioner requests resoning from to R4E and offers a voluntary condition to limit the maximum height permitted to 75 ft. The resoning is accompanied by an area plan that demonstrates a six-story residential building with 60some apartments in it and two parking garage levels. Area plans are required with an amendment to the zoning map unless a site plan is proposed uh to immediately develop the land. Um area plans show that the permitted uses and show the permitted uses and the permitted development consistent with the proposed zoning designation will be compatible with the city's adopted plans and policies. they remain valid um uh until replaced by an approved plat or site plan or three years. This contemplated development is similar as mentioned to a previously approved site plan for a building of about the same size but with about half as many units. This resoning will enable more dwelling units, although each would be smaller than the previously approved ones, within the same building as previously approved because of the significant difference in minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards between the R4 C and E districts. The R4C district yields a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre, while the R4E district yields a maximum density of 75 dwelling units per acre. The petition for resoning, which is in

the packet, um requests the resoning for increased density to develop multiple family residential on the site, provide more housing opportunities. It is supported and recommended by the comprehensive plan 2050 and the goals for affordable housing, housing diversity and transit oriented housing. The comp plan designates the transition category for the future land use of this site. BAT is a category intended to be a mixeduse area with a flexible blend of residential, commercial, and industrial spaces supporting moderate to higher density housing to enhance walkability, encourage transit use, and strengthen commercial activity within key nodes and corridors. Um, a comparison chart is provided in the the zoning ordinance in the staff report of the zoning of some of the zoning requirements between the existing R4C and the proposed R4E. Staff report covers the differences in lot area, lot area, per dwelling unit, um, height, front setback, side step setback, and so forth. Um and um close to wrapping it up. This resoning uh has been reviewed uh by a variety of staff departments of our development review team, there are no outstanding issues or comments related to the pro proposed resoning. I would only add in addition to uh Mr. Bisner's um presentation on the flood plane, the flood plane lines are changing because of the um uh burm and burm opening um and Allen Creek into the Hiron River. Um that and that that has done, but it does take a while to remap the flood planes, but the it's that is why the flood plane maps are being redone and that's why the flood way and the flood plane are moving. It's because of the burm opening project that was done. a couple years ago. Staff recommends approval of the

proposed resoning to R4E with conditions.

Thank you, Planner Deo. I will read the No, I won't. I will uh go to the public hearing and then we will read the motion. I do apologize uh everyone. I have no excuse for that oversight. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three me minutes on this item. We'll first hear from those of you who are present in chambers with us. Then we'll turn to remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in chambers or remote, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us on this issue or item?

Yes. Come right up. [snorts] Good evening. Good evening.

My name is Curtis Davis. I am the current president of the uh North Central Neighborhood Association. Um, this association was uh founded as the North Central Property Owners Association in 1958 and [clears throat] this was to fight an urbal renewal plan that would have displaced more than 500 uh families and 400 of them being black families. It later led to the opposition and to the destructive Packard and Beaks bypass project. And under longtime president Letty Wickcliffe, the association worked with mayors, city council members, and the planning commission and U [snorts] ofM professor James Choffers architecture design team. and joining many hands, a neighborhood developed master plan accelerated the revitalization of the boardedup train station into the Gandandy Dancer, [snorts] the removal of a long-standing junkyard, uh, and the co-designing of what is now Wheeler Park, the [snorts] establishment of Casey's Tavern, and the hilltop development of Wickliff Place. These legacy seeds have served to nurture a vibrant, inclusive, and forward-looking community when, [snorts] in Professor Choffer's words, everyone is welcomed. Uh, with this submission, we want to stress that we are not expecting the city to drastically uh, alter the site plans for 700 North Main Street. We [snorts] do note, however, that the proposed construction height of 75 ft for this project is an anomaly. uh based on the steep drop in elevation occurring in that location. And should this building height set a precedent, uh many parts of the Kerry Town residential neighborhood would be adversely affected. And since the current building height limit in the residential neighborhood is three stories, a more appropriate approach would be allowing

only modest building height increases in a case-bycase basis. Uh we encourage the planning commission to take this into account when they review future development projects on North Fourth and North Fifth Avenue. It is important also to remember that the local architect Peter Peter Pollock said about the difference between the downtown area in which buildings dominate our near downtown neighborhood featuring small yards, vernacular houses under a canopy of mature private and urban and public trees. Uh, urban planning should not ignore or minimize the importance of a tree canopy that provides shade, clean air, and noise reduction from the downtown urban area. These features are critical for the ecological health of the city of Ann Arbor. And I might just add that the area in Ward 1 in Kerry Town is the ideal area uh for mixed use. Uh, it is an attractive area that most individuals want to live in.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address us on this item? Manager Kelly, do we have remote participants? There is currently one hand raised. Adam just you have three minutes to address the planning commission.

Hi, Adam Juskevich here. 1430 Las Vegas Drive. Um I one of the things that I think is really interesting about this is that we're seeing um developers proposing things that are um they're stepping back from kind of the the very high end of the market and proposing some smaller units. Um and I think this is exactly what we expect to see as we have more housing supply in our city. um that some of these um these buildings are um we're we're we're seeing more supply come online and we're seeing softening of rents and I think this is great. This is exactly what we want to see with providing more housing in the city. Um I think that mid-rise developments kind of on the edge of a downtown are um what we would like to see. Um, I do think that as we get as we get further away from Main Street, it's probably appropriate to step those down, but right on Main Street, I think that this is an appropriate development. So, I encourage you to approve this. Thank you.

Thank you. There are no further hands raised. Mr. Chair,

I shall close the public hearing and read the proposed motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the mayor and city council approve the resoning of 700 North Main Street from R4C multi-family dwelling to R4E multifamily dwelling with conditions adopting and incorporating a conditional zoning statement of conditions and the near north area plan for a future development of multifamily residential use. Moved by Commissioner Weatherbe, seconded by Commissioner Lee. We're in discussion. Who would like to kick us off? We'll start with Commissioner Nordon.

Just a question for staff. This is a little bit nerdy. I'm still trying to figure out why the flood plane would be getting smaller and even smaller than the flood way. And I'm looking at the image that the petitioner put on and I'm thinking maybe that's because the flood I'm sorry. Commissioner Norton, can you please speak into your

I'm looking at the map that the petitioner prepared for showing us the location of the floodway and the flood plane. The flood plane is typically larger than the floodway. The floodway is where is where there's moving water. But here the flood plane would shrink to be smaller than the floodway. Is that because the floodway is in the pipe under the ground? Is that what's going on? I'm just trying to figure out.

It also [clears throat] It also has something to do and we I can follow up with our flood plane coordinator um Melissa Meny. It has something to do with one of them is just mapped. It's on the map and the other is based on elevation and um there are specific procedures for remapping each one of them and I think that only one of them is being done. Um and then beyond that I would have to follow up. Oh, so maybe it's just a I would have to follow map amendments just getting caught up with what the changes they made. Yeah, they they don't have additional information on the flood way right now, but they that flood plane uh that's an elevation that follows a a contour all the way around.

Okay. And that's being changed because they opened up, right? They opened up the pressure on the on the flood. And that floodway is going to move down that hill just a little bit. It will eventually be remapped. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Adams.

Um, so I understand this is another straight resoning request. There's an area plan, but we're not we're not approving that tonight. We're just in a resoning posture. So, the same analysis as before apply um changing conditions. This whole um this whole corridor and I think uh even several parcels adjacent to this are changing. Um, I've been waiting for this parcel to change for some time. Um, 123 West Summit is kind of Kitty Corner. That's an Ann Housing Commission owned site that's standing ready to be developed. 721 North Main Street. That's a blighted property across the street that the city is exploring how to remediate and redevelop. The comp plan that we just passed recommends upzoning for this parcel. This resoning request is consistent with that. Um, and this resoning enables the construction of um, highdensity housing right along a transit corridor where we have traffic congestion every single day going in and out of town. So, I support.

Thank you, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner Weatherbe, then Commissioner Dish. Yeah, I realize this is just a resoning, so this is a little premature, but um this to me right now is the worst case scenario where there used to be housing, the housing was removed, and then there's been nothing for a really long time, more than a decade. And so I am happy to approve anything that will get more housing back there because um as our commenter said, it's a great place to live. There's so much there and there's parks and there's restaurants and there is great people and it's having it be empty and those houses gone is really the worst case scenario. So hopefully we can have more building and more people who can live there and enjoy it. Uh just like all the people who do live there and um I I think it's I'm hoping it gets built. I'm hoping something gets built. I've seen a lot of these go through and nothing's been built.

[laughter] So hopefully this one's the charm. Thank you, Commissioner Weatherbe. Council member Dish.

Yeah. Um I I don't think that it is inappropriate to address concerns about how a project will affect the surrounding neighborhood when folks who come and comment bring that up. Even though it I mean obviously we don't want to be talking about pictures as if they were site plans because that's not what they are. Um, but I think it's it's it's good to respond as much as we can to concerns that people raise. Well, no concerns that I understand have been raised about this project. I really appreciated um the history of the Northeast Area Association.

North Central. Thank you. I should know that you are my ward. Um, I would love it if you wouldn't mind sharing that your remarks. So that um I have definitely read about the project that was opposed and I thought you put so wonderfully what a vibrant um part of town that area is. So, if I'm understanding, I heard a concern that this project would set a precedent and it's really the comp plan that will determine what happens in that area. So, this one particular reasonzoning isn't going to drive further decisions, but there definitely is a force that's driving decisions. And I know that you that neighbors have concerns about that. Um, in my view, this is there is a there was a proposed project for this site which would have brought, as Mr. Juskevich said, more of what we have seen a lot of, which is housing that's not very economically accessible. And so this resoning facilitates housing that will be more accessible to a wider range of people. And so I'm feeling like I am getting an A or B choice. There was one thing that was approved and now there's another thing that is proposed. And that seems way more consistent with what I'm hearing a lot of voices in the community asking for. and that um it's just great to have a few developers showing that it can be done because I hear a lot about how difficult it is to achieve this kind of housing at construction costs being what they are and land costs being what they are. So I

think this is an example I I hope it in a way I hope it does set a precedent at least for aiming for missing middle housing. So uh I support this resoning and I think that um we have had a very good explanation of the zoning is rene is clearly necessary to achieve the proposed increase in density which is desirable which fits in with recent projects in the neighborhood and is not out of scale with projects in Kerry Town which are adjacent. It will be advantageous to the city to have um more people living in a place with great walkability. Um and of course this particular location more than meets the convenience and service requirements of potential users and occupants. It's one of the best places to live in this city and I am glad it is in Ward One. Um the question that I have I know is going to be raised by someone else and so I'm going to allow that to happen.

[laughter]

Thank you, Council Member Dish. Other commissioners, Commissioner Mills, I feel like there's something that I may be raising or maybe this is something that she was referring to. Okay, great. Awesome. I was like, I don't know what I'm um I was going to say. Um no, I do. Um I think it I think the way that you put this, Commissioner Dish, about having the AB choice. I was on planning commission when we talked about the site for the um that was the site plan that was already approved and again we don't know what we don't have a building we see some rendering but uh there's lots of things that can change once as with the previous proposal once something is reszoned um there are you know like so long as you are within the requirements that is something that you're allowed to do so I often think about what could be built based on the zoning classification and again what those setbacks are. I think the fact that there is a condition that is willingly offered by the developer for a height limit is appropriate because I don't think that we've had to this is transition. It's around it's surrounded by transition actually. All of all of that Kerry Town area is transition. It's not residential. So I was looking to the comp plan to see what we said and it is between low and highrise to transition. um uh let's see what when adjacent to established residential and hub categories but this this is actually surrounded by transition categories and so I don't think it's setting a precedent because actually this is my comment to staff is at some point soon um we will be reconsidering all of the zoning in transition reszoning this tonight will

for this until that time. But there's nothing I mean we would imagine would we imagine that when we reszone parcels that have conditions on them or even those that may be the PUB make your own zoning district kind of thing those there's not a stipulation or a reason to not reszone those to whatever we decide ought to be the the transition category. Is that right? Um well I will say I will answer this way. Um um the we have the legislative ability to change the zoning map. By we I mean the planning commission is a recommending body and the city council makes those ordinance amendments. The zoning map is a part of the zoning ordinance the chapter 55. Um, we do not have to when talking about a resoning and a widespread resoning. We don't have to maintain existing PUDS or conditional zoning districts. We can choose to because that is our legislative prerogative. I think when the time comes, we might um analyze each one on a case-byase basis to see if we would like to keep it if it but um I can't yet answer your question about there's no reason to or not to. I can just clarify that we can and we don't have to and we will cross that bridge when we get there.

Okay. Super be because one of the things that's in my mind is should it be a D district instead, right? Like a D2 kind of thing which um maybe in terms of uses are more in keeping with what is imagined in transition or at least right that that it's more mixed use than what an an R category is. Um, so I don't think that this is precedent setting because I don't think that that that this will would be carried on in a lot of of transition which either gives comfort or discomfort. I recognize like um these are a lot of the conversations that we'll have here. Um I think that this one is appropriate for this particular site for this reasonzoning for all of the reasons that colleagues mentioned. Um yeah, thank you. Uh, excuse me. Uh, Commissioner Mills, Commissioner Hammer Schmidt,

thank you. This is sort of picking up off of that. I was going to ask a very similar question that you asked of staff and I just want to make sure that I understand now what Mio's answer means. So, say we resone this, we recommend resoning tonight. Um, and then in, you know, three I was going to say three months.

I know. And then in a number of months, um, we look at the transition zoning category and we're sort of looking. So are is what you said like we could leave this as R4 E like there there are like but that's a choice instead of just sort of trying to streamline everything. So we could have like parcels throughout the city that are like remnants of this old of these of these current soon to be old zoning categories. Uh, I don't think I would recommend that. Mhm. Um but it's a choice is what but it is but it is a choice. Um

okay you know speaking to that very briefly speaking to that issue I think that um for a zoning that a conditional zoning where it's um a height restriction or some something of that nature um the whatever new zoning is in place would probably take care of that issue. if it's a PUD with a very specific mix of uses or a very specific development requirement, maybe we would want to keep that um because that's extra special and that would not be covered by the district. So that's when I say we can um we can I'm not saying we should or could but that's why I also say case by case basis. It sort of depends on what are the conditions, what is the underlying district and what are the benefits that that was giving us and would that be replicated or not? Because my question was going to be before you like said that and like blew my mind. Um we reszone this or we recommend reszoning. We eventually reszone it as however we decide transition is going to be and would and and say I I don't and again I don't know how we're doing this with like the heights and everything but say all of a sudden like what we would recommend for this parcel would be 65 ft instead of 75 ft. Would it just become non-conforming and then in the future? Okay. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Hammer. Commissioner Lee, do you have a comment? You don't have to have one.

Okay, go ahead. First of all, thank you for your comments uh from the North Central Association. Really appreciate it. [clears throat] Um our evaluation is on those six points that we talked about, the extent to which the resoning resoning request is necessary. Um from what I'm seeing is this plan is changing from 21 larger units to 64. um and that in order for that to actually occur um this uh R4E would be required um just based on the dwelling units uh required per size. So I do think that in order to fulfill their program and um the overall housing needs of the community it is something that is uh necessary. I think the question is on that second point does resoning affecting public welfare property rights of persons located in the vicinity in the following ways. Um, I take a look at this and I'm thinking of like even shadow casting, right? 75 ft. Um, and I can certainly understand why. Uh, it's going to be a cast concrete base with wood frame construction on top. I can understand why the ask is what it is. Um, if you think about it, the sun's rising on the east, mostly casting shadows um towards the I'm thinking of what at what point is there really kind of a shadow casting sunlight impact? Um, especially during winter months, it's when the sun is the lowest, so it's going to cast large shadows. Um and to to me because this is specifically on the main street corridor that's the one where I think actually centrality and like densification towards these major corridors and thorough affairs make more sense. Um I do have a question for staff uh and that has to do with this concept of this setting a precedent, right? So how does like how would we have to evaluate like is let's say that another resoning petition comes in from an R4C to an R4E with a 75 ft condition, right? Would a

previous decision have bearing or would the context of the parcels be kind of like too I guess circumstantial or specialized for us to be able to evaluate it totally separately? I I guess my question specifically is how how real is this idea of setting precedents and would like uh I'm not aware uh so a precedent is not a standard for approving a resoning.

Yep. Um it seems logical that for the same reasons that you um um would support or recommend approval of one resoning, you might if the site is sufficiently close enough, you might find similar reasons. But um we are not obligated in any way to further or continue. Um and we do evaluate resonings on a individual basis uh for consistency with the standards of approval. The first one of which is consistency with the comprehensive plan.

Yep. Got it. Thank you, Planet Leo. Um, with that, um, I think my stance is that this resoning is advantageous to the city. It is delivering 60 plus units, 64 units in excess of the 21 that was proposed. Um, it is really hard to build things right now. some of the pricings that we're seeing um on the construction side just makes it like oh gosh wow is this really worth taking the risk of going through the construction risk the the the actual lease up risk. Um and so when things are kind of on that paradigm and then we have somebody who's willing to expand that to deliver 64 smaller units that are more affordable um towards a missing m uh middle. I think this is a I think this does indeed meet that test of is this reszoning necessary for this project to occur. Is this advantageous to the city of Ann Arbor? Does this meet convenience and service requirements? So, I do think that it it does fit the specific standards by which we're required to test it. So, for that reason, um I am very grateful for you to show up tonight and and we really appreciate your feedback. um given that in the future we will be um looking at other site plans specifically to the same standards um but that it will be separate like we won't be saying oh we approved 75 ft um in the past um with that kind of thing in mind um I'm inclined to support this so thank you thank you commissioner Lee I think we heard from all the commissioners so I just have a couple things um and I'll start with staff um planner dio when I read 5 uh 11.7 of the unified development code uh section B uh paragraph 4. I just [snorts] wanted uh your um just comment on uh the impact that the DDA changed

their boundaries recently and [snorts] that um that section speaks specifically to R4E um and being outside the DDD or excuse me the DDA boundary. So just wanted to flag that to see if that's something that should be revised, updated. um or amend it now that that map now extends to this location. And and you know, you may not have thought about it until just now, but I was just looking at it, but go ahead. You were going to

I was just going to say thank you for flagging that. Um we'll have to have a we'll have to have a discussion. Okay. um to the petitioner when we look at your area map that you submitted with this reszoning you put in a comparison table the comparison table doesn't have the right zoning that you are requesting you list on the area map uh C2B but I'll use that uh for my question and uh my question specifically starts with parking on this uh development data under your proposed on this area map you're looking at 96 parking spaces. Is that accurate or is that inaccurate?

Yeah, that's uh neither that zoning nor that parking count reflect. Great. That that makes me happy. That takes um a bulk of my concerns away. Uh what's that? What' you say? Oh, what? Uh Council Member Dish has a question for you. Uh Mr. Moore, you were going to ask. I mean, I did. He answered, but he had a followup. That isn't the So, that isn't the parking count, but what is the parking count? So, we currently have 64 units and 60. So, it's a 0.93 ratio. Okay. And all of that parking is going to be in the flood way. So, none of it's in the flood way.

It's in the the door to the lowest level of the garage is in the flood plane, but the flood plane does not go into the garage in any depth. Okay. Okay. I think we'll see that more clearly when it comes back uh should everything move forward. And then uh just I'm going to be slightly different than my colleagues uh about height. Uh R4E has no height limit. Uh why the 75 ft other than uh you get the space that you do need uh to achieve the 64? Uh this zoning allows for 75 units. Why aren't you proposing 75 instead of 64?

Uh afford uh the ability to afford to build the project. It just gets too expensive if we go another level higher than it triggers the high-rise section of the building code which and that's the Michigan building code and that would exceed but so you're not going to exceed 55 ft then. Well, again, the 55 foot is from the um place that the ladder truck is going to park up to the walking surface of the highest floor. It's not to the roof.

Okay. So, for the public, we're talking about the building code and certain um codes shift when you go over a certain height and then it requires additional materials and that increases the cost. So, that's the back and forth that we're having. Now, in case uh none of you like me a few years ago memorized the building code. All right. So, and it changes every 3 years.

It does. So, you're you're you're proposing a maximum height of 75, but you're going to be plus or minus around 55 because if you go above 55, you're going to have the same issues. Correct. So currently uh as the building is designed the the main parapit line of the of the main roof element on the south side which is the uh shortest part of the building cuz that's where the grade rises um you're looking at about 53 to 54 ft to the parit from the grade but on the north side you're looking about 69 1/2 ft. So in and no matter where you measure it you're not getting close to the 75 ft. Um, we just wanted to make sure we have an envelope that if floor to floor heights change during construction technology or the city changes where it measures building height and we have to go back to measuring the elevator overrides

sure that we got some some fluff room in there.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moore. And so, Mr. Davis, uh, to your comments, this is part of why I'm asking these questions, because if they're proposing a maximum height of 75, but they're not actually building to 75, it's not going to reach that maximum because the the economics just don't work for them for the development that they want to put in this place. So, you're probably looking at something closer to 55 on one side and as Mr. more said like 69, but that's from the lowest point to the highest point. And so when you do that measurement, it it's going to not be this monstrosity or this very large envelope that is potentially imagined when you hear 75 ft. If I'm understanding everything correctly, and I think I am, uh, Council Member Dish, and then I'll go back to my comments. No, do you have a comment here? It's it's appropriate. Go ahead.

All right. So, I did just want to since we're in this mode of of trying to be transparent tonight, always we are, but right now we're we're really kind of having a broader discussion than the particular proposal so that we can just talk about things and I just want to underscore what Mr. Moore just said and that is that um and because it it it will affect probably how how transition is treated and what Mr. Moore said is that at the point at which the uh the high-rise category in the building code is triggered. When when I say high-rise, I might think 10 ft, but the building code triggers high-rise at six.

10 stories. 10 stories. 10. Did I say 10 feet? You did? Yes. I am always building fairy houses. Yeah. These are hobbit houses [laughter] that council member,

right? 10 stories is maybe what I think of when I say high-rise, but what the building code means is six stories. Five to six stories. It depends the height of the first one. Da da da. And [snorts] so that is a practical limit that will very likely limit the heights that are permitted in transition. And so again, when this when we come to reszone the this space, I'm only saying very likely, God knows what could change, but again, there are practical limits and those have to do with physics and building codes. Um, when we come to transition, the height cap on this building will [clears throat] we it we wouldn't let it go higher, nor would it likely want to go higher. it. I mean because you have to go way higher to make it financially feasible and this is not hub. Okay, this is not hub. So the difference between a sixstory and a sevenstory building is one story, not just one foot, but one story and you know tens of thousands of dollars that don't pencil out because of the expense of the construction. So we're just hearing something that's good tonight. Um and I think I made it more murky.

Thank you, uh, Council Member Dish. I think I I think I got uh what I needed uh from my questions given the fact that we won't actually get to 75 because it's um it just won't pencil uh for you. So that helps me understand why um you're constrained on the unit um count. I see you putting your hand up, Mr. Davis. I'll use the prerogative of the chair just to quickly hear from you. Go ahead. What did you want to

You have to go to the mic very quickly. But you stated with that reasonzoning if he or the developer chose to he could actually elevated to much higher levels wasn't financially

well they're actually putting in a So my question whenever I see housing and and thank you yeah I understand what you're saying. So, whenever I see housing, especially when they're they're asking for a zoning that doesn't have a height limit, I want to know why they're adding an artificial height limit. Um, and I know that I differ from my colleague, um, uh, Commissioner Mills because every time R4C or R4E comes, uh, Commissioner Mills asks for a height limit because it's like, oh, this could be unlimited. And I'm like, wow, this this is wonderful. We we have this in our zoning. Let's get some unlimited housing here. Uh [laughter] but this resoning uh which would follow this land is uh a condition of 75 ft for this particular development if they were to sell it. Um that gets my question. Would would the uh cap go away because the condition is here. So it's going to follow the land unless a new petitioner comes and asks for a resoning. So there isn't the possibility for someone to exceed 75 ft here. And given the the you know sort of the financial feasibility of the building code, it's also economically not viable for another developer to do it because the same constraint that this developer has, another developer would also have to just even add an additional story. it would it wouldn't pencil or it wouldn't be feasible to be developed if that makes sense. [snorts] Okay. I I really appreciate you coming and I really appreciate your comments and I think it's important uh to hear from you especially um your uh social location to this development, your embedded um you and your family's um you know investment in this community. And I know you spoke during the uh comp plan cuz you left the

city and come back and and you're seeing the the transformation of the community that you grew up in as it it just sort of shifts. And so we appreciate your comments. Any other comments from the commission? With that, manager Kelly, would you call the role on the motion as presented? Norton, yes. Adam, [clears throat] yes. Weatherbe, yes. Mills, yes. Dish, yes. Lee, yes. Hammer Schmidt, yes. W, yes.

That carries. Thank you and good luck. All right, that takes us on to 10 C uh 3785 Varsity Drive. This is a resoning in an area plan re25007. A resoning request for city council from M1 Limited Industrial to C2B business service district. The area [snorts] plan for a vacant 1.2 acre parcel proposes the construction of 51-bedroom apartments across two buildings. The site has floodway and flood plane on the southern portion of the site. This is in Ward 4. Staff recommendation is approval. And so as we shift all the planners around, I just want to make sure you three know uh are you staying to make a comment at the end? Okay, great. Perfect. We will once planner or um manager Kelly gets all this set up, we'll hear first from the petitioner, then from planner Bennett, then we'll have another public hearing, and then the commission will have its discussion. Oh,

hello again. Double duty. Um,

okay. We we would like to um well first let's go let's go through our citizens partition meeting. Uh we had one uh one person showed up Tony Demiglio. He was very nice. Um we we chatted for like a half hour. Um we did we had a traffic study done. Uh there was uh 14 AM peak hour trips and 23 um PM peak hour trips. Those are below the city's uh threshold of 50. And then the so the multimotal transportation analysis isn't is required. Um what makes this what what makes this nice this site great is the large amount of residentially zone property adjacent to the this property that's feeasant run apartments is right next door and the gentleman there that that was at my citizens partition m I'm so dry citizens participation meeting uh he walks through our uh site to go to work uh cuz he he uh he works uh near the Mitsubishi um uh re research facility. Um the transition, let's see. Oh. Oh, yeah. You can see my cursor right there. Um that is where the property is in the in the transition zoning. And it wants this transition wants to see a a flexible mixeduse category that accommodates residential, commercial, and industrial employment uses. It supports a variety of building types near transit to entrance walkability to enhance walkability, increase transit use, and

strengthen commercial activity um um among key corridors. this uh and um the on the bottom there that uh 318 West Liberty, that's almost exactly the kind of building we're going to build. Uh parking underneath and three stories. Uh this this uh uh uh apartment complex is right up right up front. Oh, yeah. There we go. Right up front. Uh there's a a bus stop right there. Um, I skipped this one. Large technology firms giving way to smaller firms and and retail as you get closer to Ellsworth. The proposed residents could live and work here and high-tech jobs to smaller jobs down in down in these buildings here. These are all these are all building uh small businesses like Colony Hardware, Jiu-Jitsu Studio, Feather Fa Fathom Plumbing Solutions. Um, and then we we went through that. And right here is about the size of the building that we would like to build. We're we're in the transition area. Here is a picture of the site. We have a sidewalk, two buildings. There's 50 one and two bedrooms or was it 51 51 bedrooms and we got parking all the way along and and then parking underneath the first floor. or parking in the first floor. And that does it. That's that's the that's my my presentation. Uh I look forward to answering any questions that you have.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn to planner Michelle Bennett for a staff presentation. Welcome, Planner Bennett.

Good evening. Um so 3785 RC Drive is um what we'll be discussing tonight. It is about a 1.26 acre parcel. It's currently zoned um M1 which is limited industrial. This site is surrounded on three sides by M1 zoning. It does touch R4B on the eastern side. the apartments um that our petitioner mentioned. Um it would be about two buildings um 50 one-bedroom apartment spread across two buildings about 40,000 square ft uh 55 parking spaces. Um this is a request to reszone to C2B. Um, and the petitioner and I have discussed this a little about what would be, you know, something suitable here considering this is sort of our first foray into reszoning areas with our new comp plan where we have transition um that is historically always been industrial and now we are trying to diversify the uses in this area. Um so it led to a lot of discussion among staff. Um but you can see that we ultimately uh recommend approval for them um with some some of my longer comments about them uh towards the end if we'd like to discuss. But in general, I do think it complies with transition in the sense that it is close to the AAATA bus route 6A on Ellsworth corridor, which is in the RID's 2045 plan to be a pri priority service route. Um the petitioner also would be required through site plan if we if you were to continue on that route to build a sidewalk so we can help build the

multimotal network that transition kind of you know is is going for um but it would contribute to mixed uses and it would be mid-rise and those are kind of the three wonky words for transition is mixuse, mid-rise, multimodal. Um and so for yeah for those reasons we um recommend approval. Um touching quickly on the natural features there is a floodway and a flood plane on this site on the southern part of this site. Um so that would have to be respected. Um and that is why the development is sort of taking place on the northern side uh along with the parking. Um, so yes, we recommend approval and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. We will now go to the public hearing. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to 3 minutes on this item. We'll first hear from those of you who are present with us in chambers, then remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-5853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone or by name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in chambers or online, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present who'd like to speak on this item? Manager Kelly, do we have remote participants?

Adam just you have three minutes to address the planning commission.

Hi, Adam Juskevich here, 14:30 Las Vegas Drive. Um, I actually worked in this area on Varsity Drive actually though on the other side of Ellsworth um probably like 20 years ago. So, I'm I'm somewhat familiar with the area. Um, I think this particular development, adding more housing in this area would be great. Um, I totally support that. I do have some concerns around um transportation access as um as is concerned with pedestrians. Um, I think it's um interesting to hear from the petitioner that there's somebody from the um pheasantr run community that's um that's kind of informally cutting through this area to get to work. Um, I think it would be great if um once we see a site plan if we can see some kind of a pedestrian connection through to Feeasant Run to formalize that access. Um I'm not I don't think there's anything you can really do with this resoning to um to require that or anything, but it would really be great to see. Um also I um there was mention from planner Bennett that um they the petitioner would be required to build sidewalks. I assume that would be along the frontage of the particular parcel for this reasonzoning. Um I I think that would still leave a um sidewalk gap between this property and Ellsworth, which is where the nearest bus route is. I think that's the 6A maybe. Um that would um get them into downtown. Um and so I guess this is this is all kind

of stuff that's outside of the scope of the resoning. Um but definitely concerns with transportation access for pedestrians um within this particular part of the city. And um yeah, I don't know how exactly we address that um because I believe again that it's with outside of the scope of a reasonzoning of one particular parcel. Um, so yeah, just some concerns that I had. Thank you. Thank you.

There are no other hands raised. Thank you, Manager Kelly. I'll close the public hearing and read the motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the mayor and city council approve the resoning and area plan of 3785 Varsity Drive from M1 Limited Industrial District to C2B business service district. Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Weatherbe. We are in discussion. Who would like to kick us off?

Commissioner Nordon. I have a question for staff. For the for the other projects we were looking at, uh what as in all of these other projects, there's not a specific proposal on it in terms of developing the site. Is this is just a resoning? Correct. This is a resoning and area plan. An area plan. How constrained will they be to this particular development that they're showing us? Or in other words, could they come in and say, "We're going to build something much bigger than what we wanted to when we came and talked to you." In order to develop this site, they would need to still go through this site plan process. So, it would come back, but they would be allowed by right to build something much bigger.

They would be allowed to build what's allowed in C2B2, which which is in C2B if you Yeah. four stores. Four stories. Okay. Yeah. I guess they will office and they'll be constrained by the site conditions. There's a the flood plane and such. So really they wouldn't be able to build much more than what they're showing us even though this there's not a particular project in front of us right now given the site constraints and the zoning. I'm trying to get a beat on that. Fair to say.

Yeah. But with the other projects that we considered there, even though we've not considered specific projects, you couldn't build much more than what we considered given the site constraints in the zoning. The same thing is happening here. I'm trying to make sure that's what I'm following. Yeah. As long as they follow the dimensional standards in C2B and then to develop they'd have to adhere to our standards for for flood plane, right? That's the other major constraint on where they can build. Um, okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Mhm. Uh, Commissioner Lee,

overall I support this resoning. The only hesitation I actually have has to do with the etmology of C2B as the business service district. It says designed to provide for certain types of commercial activities that have functional and economic relationships. A downtown core or downtown interface commercial district. I know it's like I understand what's occurring. It's just a slightly like, hey, we think this zone fits and it makes sense, but it doesn't fits the actual qualitative description under which C2B is assigned under the UDC. That's my only hesitation. I understand the intent.

Um, it's noted as transition. So, I'm inclined to be that again, it's that qualitative conflict of what's currently prescribed in the UDC. So staff help me to resolve that and how would you explain that?

Sure. Um so we did discuss some other potential zones. Um some of which did not necessarily fit some of the residential zones did not fit um the kind of density they want to achieve. Um secondly because this is in transition which is meant to be mixed use. This is a district that um would permit things. So even if they didn't want to or in the future didn't like say they built residential but in the future it could still be it could be turned into something else like it is the more flexible option I thought fit the best under transition right so transition is super super broad and we currently until we flesh out exactly what that means we are filling in with what we currently have

e even if there is again discrepancy in the intent or the yeah in the qualitative description making do with what we got. Okay, got it. Thank you. I need to think on this just a little bit more. Thanks. Uh we'll go to weatherbe then dish. I think dish was first. I'm sorry. Uh dish then weatherbe. All right. She's seating her spot to me. All right. Weatherbe then dish. [laughter] Um, this to me was a really interesting one because uh

at first I think knowing that area somewhat it was like wow that's interesting but then when you look at it like this would be an awesome place to live. I mean I don't the the pot smoke might be a problem. that is a uh you know that is a known thing that people don't like. Um but you know you got Zingermanman's right there, you got a pot shop, you got uh you got I mean that's a pretty good combination right there. You've got uh you know gift stores. You've got exercise place. You've got um a hardware store. like like when we look at what the options are in a mixeduse area, this to me is like, wow, this actually is a really great spot for more housing. And so, um, you know, it it there's a lot of places to work, there's places to shop, there's places, and it's not our traditional downtown, and it's not what we've normally thought of, but to me, it is it is what we when we look at the comp plan and we think of transition and sort of what the options are in transition. like this is kind of a cool spot and and it's opened up the idea of this has opened up some interesting visions for me of like what could happen in a place that is not sort of the stereotypical what we think of when we think of residential or that we think of when we think of commercial. And um I think it's I think it's it's really interesting and kind of a kind of a cool spot. So,

thank you, Commissioner Weatherbe. Council member Dish.

So, that was such a great glass half full account. And the I want to call attention to a sentence in the staff report that felt like glass half empty. Um, and so normally when we consider these, we're thinking about what will the impact of this new thing be on the existing neighbors. But in this case, I think we're thinking about what will be the effect of the existing uses on this new thing. And you uh it is written in the staff report. Um the shift as evidenced by this site is that housing would now be permitted where there is not a complete sidewalk network, which I do want to talk about, where neighbors with large surface parking lots receive deliveries from semi trucks, which seems a little less fun than Ziggerman's, but also

I mean I live by the stadium, so Right. But not terrible. So I mean I noted that felt like it was gently calling attention to yes and then yes. However staff acknowledges yes its proximity to jobs and a bus line and that it has the potential to be connected to adjacent residential development. So absolutely it just it just does put us in an unusual position of considering the impact of the existing uses on this thing. But I think it's again, yeah, you're right. It's blazing a trail that could be extremely um could be extremely attractive. I I just had some I didn't quite know what to make about the statements about connectivity and uh in the report because I'm not sure how the things that need to come about in order for this to be best connected are going to come about. And Mr. Just Kevich raised one thing about how can people get to buses which I don't think is called out here but what is called out here is um the city's transportation review recommended conditional approval of the proposed resoning contingent upon the understanding that safe continuous accessible pedestrian facility connections to Ellsworth Road and cross site to the east will be required features of any future site plan. So that's I guess what they're saying is don't bring us a site plan that doesn't have those things. And so the developers factoring in the cost of those things and not thinking that the city will provide them.

Correct. Okay. And then and then there's just a sentence that leaves me hanging a tiny bit. The area plan does not indicate a connection to the residential development on Partridge Path through an easement. Um correct. But that is um addressed in the bullet point you just read above, which is that the transportation planners said that they would request a cross site to the east would be required. So that would be to the oops, excuse me, the residential development to the east. Great. So perfect. But it currently does not show that in the area plan.

So what you're saying is that this requirement which has been flagged and will actually happen is just not indicated on the area plan. But it will be so great. Thank you, Commissioner Mills.

I think um the analysis about what the comp plan calls for and the fact that this seems like a form that would fit along like in terms of scale with what could fit there, I think is right on. I think the question that I have and particularly when you drew our attention to the glass half empty kind of sentence is that we do have things in this city right now that require deliveries by semi-truckss and I I think about the businesses that have built up in some of these M districts or like in our M districts and right now obviously this is a vacant parcel I mean as best I can tell right I think it's vacant yes cuz person's walking across it. I both would I don't like vacancy and so I think filling in vacancy makes a lot of sense and I would worry if some of those things that are around there some of those uses the Zingermanman's mail order go away that are that they're not in this city anymore because if it's difficult for them to do things with like make their deliveries with their semi-trucks. So that is the thing that I think we should be weighing. And we had this discussion when we were coming up with the comp plan. This totally makes sense now. And I think we ought to [snorts] not outlaw the things that are already in there. Um as we're thinking about what this district looks like in resoning. I think it's so interesting actually tonight that we have seen two very different um kinds of developments both in transition and and the kind of existing land use patterns that they're going into and what that means um for um yeah for how what it's going to look like when we

take up the transition district. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. Any other commissioners? Uh, I just wanted to come back to the um C2B. So, I've been looking at office cuz I know office uh permits multifamily, but I assume the minimum space requirements was one of the reasons why office got eliminated because it requires 55% open space. I believe so. Yeah, because there's already constraints with the

right with the site itself and the flood plane. So, of our existing um zoning uh districts or zones without going to a PUB, uh C2B was the best possible option in spite of its purpose statement not being fulfilled in this place based on my assessment. Okay. All right. That was it for me. Anyone else? Manager Kelly, would you please call the role on the motion as presented? Norton, yes. Adams, yes. Weatherbe, yes.

Mills, yes. Dish, yes. Lee, yes. Emerman, yes. Wa, yes.

That carries. Thank you and good luck. That takes us to 11A, other business. There is none. And now we come to item number 12, public comment. This is the second opportunity for individuals to speak up for 3 minutes on any issue. We'll first hear from those of you who are present with us in chambers, then turn to remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-66341226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area. Mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in chambers or online, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us? Come right up.

And thanks for staying to the very end. Yeah. Yeah. Do I have to announce myself again? You do. Okay. Brian Alvarez, 215 South Wagner Road.

Um I just have to express um disappointment and then and then my concern. So the notification that was sent out by the city was not represented um accurately on the flyers, which I have a copy of here. There are actually two parcels of land that are not the parcels of land. One of them is, but the other property is not in in discussion. So, it caused a lot of confusion in our neighborhood uh as to what was going on and what was being addressed at this meeting. But I think my concerns are not in the scope of this uh this session and what you guys are looking at. I think I think my concerns are, you know, uh trapping vulnerable homeowners who have a cap uh limit of 10% to resell the home and these homes are going right back to the the property owners or the or the land trust. So, this is is it's kind of a false idea that you're empowering or giving people the power to own a home. That's not the case. They're not going to be able to profit. Um and my my you know the ethical concerns around Doug Selby and his association being on the board of the financial adviserss and also profiting personally from this uh this sale. So I have these ethical concerns that is not in the scope of I think what is being discussed today. Um and and and lastly I'll just mention this and then I'll ask my last question. Um this this uh community meeting was uh you know it was it was annotated and it was delivered. We asked for a copy of it. We have it here. These are very grossly misrepresented characteristics of how that meeting went. Um and there's some outright lies in here. So I'm I'm concerned about the efficacy of this this program uh moving forward. Obviously, I don't want this to happen, especially hearing that I have the potential of getting 16 new neighbors.

Uh, which which I am sure the city is looking forward to getting affordable housing. I just think that this is a a greedy proposition from from a land trust that, you know, um that is is praying on the desire to make affordable housing. So, that is my ethical concern. Where do I voice these ethical concerns in a space that can be uh that can be taken seriously? Because I encourage anybody to read any of these agreements of these housing projects and say that this is a good deal for for the for the homes, right? I'm not speaking on my behalf because I personally don't want to have these houses. I'm speaking on the behalf of the vulnerable families that we're going to be letting into these houses. I was those vulnerable families. So, I have ethical concerns. I don't know. This is obviously not the spot, but I do want to see who's in charge of being responsible and looking at and judging how you sent out these flyers to us, it just shows that this is is uh poorly managed and not taken seriously. So, those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

There are no virtual hands raised. All right, I will go ahead and close the public comment. And now that brings us to commission proposed business. Is there any? We'll start with Commissioner Adams, then Dish, and then myself if they don't cover what I have in mind. We'll start with you, Commissioner Adams.

So, I I did have some commission proposed business. I don't think I do. I spoke with uh Mr. Leonard earlier today, and he's going to add the comp plan execution to the agenda for the 19th. Um he's not bumping the uh city attorney presentation on SEUS. Um I think that puts us in a bind time-wise. Um I'm not sure what to do about that. Uh the concern that I have is that uh the next me next full meeting after the 19th will be in June. So we will have at that point the comp plan passed I think on the 16th of March. We will be into June before we can finalize execution. I'd really like not that not to happen, but uh we kind of are where we are.

Thank you, Commissioner Adams. Council member Dish,

I would like to propose um that we somewhere somehow have a conversation or discussion about how to facilitate cooperative housing. I know that we've had many of these offstage, but maybe a work session. There's a lot of interest in it. We keep hearing about it. I mean, we keep hearing from the same organization and maybe a work session would be appropriate given that it is in the comp plan and a discussion at the table with community members might help jumpstart some consideration in the comp plan. Um, not urgent. However, Manager Kelly, when you're ready, if you look up, I will go. But I can wait for you to finish typing. [laughter]

I appreciate that. Um, so I also noted in the staff presentation that there were inaccuracies in the image uh that was sent out. So in our packet, the first image shows the two properties but with a property in between and then the zoomed in shows them side by side. And I know that the developer presents the card or and the city is the entity that provides the addresses but the city is not responsible per se for what the developer sends out. So that they approve it. Okay. So that is a question for us to maybe look at um cuz I think Mr. hours's uh comment is valid in that aspect that it was somewhat misleading um just in in those two area photos. I think it was resolved in the packet but if the postcard is what went out it it showed it incorrectly. So um what is the recourse if any there? I will I don't have the the benefit of um Miss Mullen Corkran who you know previewed the materials. Uh you're correct that the postcard does go out by the developer, the petitioner. However, staff do a review for the uh primary elements that are required to be a part of advertising a community participation meeting. Um sometimes uh something's proposed and it shifts later throughout the site plan or resoning process. In the case of some of the Ann Arbor community land trust petitions, I can't remember if it was the one that was just approved by council last night or this one because there have there has been quite an

extensive back and forth with that petitioner. um they have started with a concept and uh it has shifted because of feasibility or land divisions possible uh based on access etc. But if the concept remains um primarily intact which is a resoning and the um location is primarily intact and everything was um you know advertised conceptually in good faith. I don't think that there is a huge problem there and we we have encountered this because the point is to get that feedback. Now would the feedback have been so different if there had been a third parcel or if there you know and if it didn't shift uh projects do shift all the time. There are details that change in unit count, stories, um parking spaces, you know, these are the types of things that uh neighbors usually want to comment on like parking. What you know, what is it? Uh you have uh petitions that sometimes right here at the at the dis will commit to changes to a site plan. Now, was that advertised in the community participation meeting? You know, no. So, we can't always envision how a project will evolve. I think that I would have to dig into the particular details of these maps to see if there is something truly preventable. I'm not sure without looking at that, but I can do a debrief with staff tomorrow.

Thank you, Manager Kelly. And then on Mr. Alvarez's um last question about where he might voice his concerns, my thought would be directly with the petitioner or their board. um this wouldn't be in the purview of the economic development office.

Uh so I would uh submit to you Mr. Alvarez that you're doing you're not in the wrong place but there may be many right places to be. So um I think [clears throat] the more that you uh connect with people who might share your opinion and express that in different forums the more traction you're going to get. The planning commission is one location and the in the instance of this petition of course it's a recommendation to city council. So there are still two public hearings public hearings right in the same room that will be advertised at a future date. Uh since you are so close to the properties you will almost certainly be within the required notification radius by the city clerk for those upcoming petitions. And uh I think that coming with other neighbors who share your concerns would be a good way to express to city council that you're not alone. Um of course the Ann Arbor Community Land Trust has a a board presumably they have board meetings. Those might be open. Um they may have their own opportunities to weigh in and um have conversations. I know that they've held many community open houses outside of their particular petitions which are opportunities to chat about like you know this is a I would say this is a a key discrepancy for people who support or don't support um community land trust is the equity and whether or not uh that's a good or bad idea. You know the petitioner thinks that it is a good idea. Some people disagree, but um there I would say there are many forums to engage directly with the petitioner. Uh Sarah Lawren is um the primary contact and that should be on engage.2ggov.org her contact information, but if it's not, I'm happy to give it to you after the meeting. And then one other

question. The city doesn't have a buds person to receive concerns like this that would fit that role. Correct.

Not that I'm aware of. I think in this case the uh the planning commission packet puts comments on public records. This comment will be recorded in the minutes in summarized fashion. uh all of our meetings are recorded. So those things put comments on on public record in terms of how an OMBbuds person could become involved in something that has statutory public hearings etc. The best place is the public hearing and the forum where that decision is being made in my opinion.

Great. Thank you for indulging me. I just want to make sure that uh as we were hearing your closing comment that we have an exhaustive sort of response because often times people come and don't know how to navigate the system and so uh some of the questions that you raised help us sort of daylight where the best uh channels were. Council member Dish.

Um I had the thought that because this is a housing tiff project. Um and I think that there is probably not a lot of knowledge in the community about how this kind of tiff works or even the normal kind that we're used to, the brownfield tiff. Um it is quite possible that um Mr. giant in the economic development office would be happy to speak to you or a group of you um about your questions about whether this is a good deal for the city. I think he may not have um a developed opinion about whether it's a good deal for the people who participate because as Mick Kelly suggested there are tradeoffs but he might be willing to even speak broadly about that. You can write to him. It would be jgiant2ggov.org. So JG giant just like the Jolly Green

only. Yeah. Like it's J. J the letter J. [laughter] Yes. And he really likes my 10 foot highrises. So you all don't. Um so you you know you can reach out to him. You can also reach out to me if you want me to help you contact. You can do it yourself, but if you wanted help with that. Great. Anyone else would uh commission proposed business? With that, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. Moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Mills. All those in favor say I. I. We are adjourned.