Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. My name is Donnell Wyche. I'll be chairing tonight's meeting. For detailed information on meeting procedures, please review the full printed agenda, which is at the end of the dais, at each end. We have a packet that we will be reviewing tonight. That packet is available in Legistar. You can visit it or download it on your device if you'd like at a2gov.legistar.com. You'll click on Calendar, then you'll click on City Planning Commission. You'll scroll down the page until you find today's date, and then click on the agenda. And each of the items that we'll be reviewing tonight are linked on that digital agenda. With that, Manager Kelly, would you please call the roll?

Absolutely. Weish. Here. Hammerschmidt. Here. Lee.

Here.

Mills. Here. Weatherby. Here. Norton. Here. Basuni. Here. Noting absences from Commissioner Lee and Council Member Dish. Oh, I'm sorry. Adams. Yes. Sorry.

That was last week.

It might be. Sorry about that. From Adams and Dish.

All right. So we have a quorum. May I have a motion to approve the agenda? Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Weatherby. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion carries. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the May 19th, 2026 meeting? Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Weatherby. Is there any discussion of the minutes? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. That takes us to agenda item number five, reports to the Planning Commission and written communication. Again, our written communications are attached in our packet via Legistar. We'll start with Manager Kevley.

I will do a brief council report out, which is that this time around, yes, Commissioner Weatherby was reappointed to the ZBA. Happy to say. And also that the UDC amendments to reflect new solid waste terminology and clarifying jurisdiction of the Washtenaw County Water Resources Commission review of stormwater systems were approved. And for the manager report, I would like to give a warm welcome to our newest intern, Willene Smith, to the City of Ann Arbor Planning Services. She will be with us for approximately the next six months. And I wanted to give her a few moments to introduce herself. Hi, everyone.

My name is Willene Smith. I am based in the University of Michigan. Undergrad, I'm senior. I major in urban regional planning, minor in public nonprofit administration. Urban management is my passion. I'm really excited to be here. I'm originally from Detroit and not Ann Arbor, so I feel like every day I'm here, I'm taking in new experiences, getting to know the city a little bit more, and just really familiarizing myself with, like, a little less metropolitan centers such as Ann Arbor.

Thank you, Manager Kelly. Do other commissioner officers or committee liaisons have anything to report? All right, that takes us to our first opportunity for public comment tonight. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on issues not listed as a public hearing or a dedicated public comment later in our agenda. We'll first hear from those of you who are present in chambers, then we will turn to our remote participants to... Speak remotely, press star 9 if on phone or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247 and enter meeting ID 977-6634-1226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of your phone number or by name if you are 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 online, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present in chambers who'd like to address us at this time?

Thanks, Chair Weiss and Commission. Ken Garber, 28, Hammerhill Court. I'd like to comment on Agenda Item 11A, CPC feedback on UDC update RFP, assuming that this is the appropriate time and that there's no dedicated public comment period for that. Yeah. Sounds like that's true.

You're good.

Okay, just very briefly, thank you very much to staff and commission for putting this out for a public discussion. In my experience with the city, Most if not all RFPs simply get drafted by staff and posted on the city's website for possible contractor interest and never really get run by the public. So this is fantastic. Really, I really think this is valuable and I look forward to the discussion. My only comment is or suggestion is on page four under development standards. The draft RFP currently states, identify where and how sustainable features can be incentivized. I'd like to see this made stronger. Possible language could be, quote, identify where and how sustainable features can be required or incentivized and environmental harms avoided or mitigated, end quote. That's my only suggestion. Thanks again for hearing my comment and I look forward to the meeting.

Mr. Garber, before you leave the table, can you read your exact language in again so I can capture it?

Thanks, I appreciate that. It's short. Identify where and how sustainable features can be required or incentivized and environmental harms avoided or mitigated.

Thank you, Mr. Garber. Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? Manager Kelly, do we have remote participants who'd like to address us?

There are no remote participants at this time. Thank you.

Seeing no additional individuals, I will close the public comment period and move us to agenda item number seven, communication from commissioners. Is there any? On to agenda item number eight, public hearings scheduled for the next regular meeting. Manager Kelly.

For the June 16th Regular Planning Commission meeting taking place at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers, there is a public hearing for 3400 Dexter Road, a site plan for City Council with accompanying annexation from Sioux Township and proposed rezoning to R4B. The site plan for a 4.31-acre parcel proposes to construct 33-story attached townhome units in seven buildings, One three-unit building, three four-unit buildings, and three five-unit buildings. Each townhome will have two garage and two driveway parking spaces. There will also be three guest service parking spaces. The site plan proposes 2.82 acres of open space and contains some wetland areas. It is adjacent to M14, currently zoned Township, and would be in Ward 5. I will also note that there is a continued discussion of postponed item 850, Green Hills Drive, special exception use and site plan. Although the public hearing already occurred for that, it would not be inconvenient for staff to add a dedicated public comment to that.

All right. Thank you, Manager Culley. That takes us to agenda item number nine, unfinished business. There is none. On to agenda item 10A, regular business. This is 315 West Huron Street, SP26-0004. It includes the following addresses. 301, 311, 315, 317, 319 West Huron Street and 102, 106 South First Street. It's a PUD rezoning and site plan for city council approval. Let's see. Oh, I'll keep going. Proposed as a fully electric 10-story mixed-use development with 285 units, studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, 15% of the units at 60% AMI affordable and amenity spaces. The ground floor will have covered parking with EV charging and access via West Washington Street. The first floor will have additional covered parking and coffee shop retail and access via First Yes, South First Street. Floors 1 through 10 will have residential units and the 10th floor will feature a rooftop bar. A dedicated entrance will be provided off South First Street. Various sustainability features are included. Site is partially in the floodplain fringe, Zone D2 downtown interface, First Street overlay district, Second Street, excuse me, Secondary Street designation, and it is located in Ward 5. Staff recommendation is approval. We'll start with the petitioner, who will have 10 minutes to address us. Then we'll hear from the planner, Planner Shaikh, and then we will hear from the public. And then after hearing from the public, the Planning Commission will have its discussion and will take its vote for a recommendation to City Council. Good evening.

Hi. Thanks for having me back. Six months ago to the date, actually, I was here proposing this project in the pre-PUD meeting. Now that we've gotten through our site plan review process, I'm back to share a couple of small updates, answer some questions from the last meeting, and hopefully win you all in an approval vote. Just a quick refresher on what we covered last time. This is a PUD where we are rearranging the by-right density on the site. So I don't know if you recall, but last time I showed a diagram where we have lots of tucks and nips and things off the site, and we have to restack the square footage we're allowed on the site in a more vertical fashion. It's, as we saw in the notes, it's an all-electric building. We're planning 15% of the units at 60% AMI affordability through the MISH to TIF program, and I've got more details on that from last time. We will have a coffee shop in the ground floor lobby, kind of integrated into the lobby, and then looking at rooftop additional retail space. So you might recall this diagram from last time. Just as a refresher, we have a train track to the west side. We have a floodplain fringe to the northwest. We have proximity to the Allmendinger building. And we have a certain, the green arrows there are the bar depth that's kind of naturally the right depth for an apartment building. When we took that original full plate massing and then actually, with respect to all of these variables, rearranged that massing, we get this height increase. So that's the thrust of the PUD. We're not asking for any additional FAR or square footage. We're just asking to rearrange those. And then you also may recall that this leaves us with a great opportunity on the west side of the building to create a new pocket park for the bicentennial monument that currently exists on the site, as well as connect Huron to Washington via a trail. So we may call it the tree line trail if we kind of connect all the dots there. But at any rate, a cut through, a trail, whatever it might be. From the actual property, we're talking about an eight foot dedication. And then we are in talks with Watco, the railroad, to offer some additional width there. But eight feet should at least provide a good functionality to get up and down, even if Watco decides not to cooperate. The sustainability features, again, all electric, no natural gas plumbed into the building. We will have a diesel generator as backup power, but that's the only fossil fuels on site. It's going to be a light gauge steel building. So you might recall it's physically lighter weight than a concrete building. All the steel would be recyclable at the end of life. Even coming into the building, it typically is about 70% recycled steel. And we're panelizing a lot of the construction off site to bring things in to build it faster with less waste. Oops, sorry. So to circle back to a few topics that we talked about last time that were sort of homework for me to go back, I rewatched the whole meeting. I made sure I picked up all the details. There were comments from Commissioner Weatherby and Chair Weish about delivery management, the MSHDA TIF being a public benefit, the affordability tied to MSHDA TIF being a public benefit or not, and then the coffee shop in the lobby making it feel open to the neighborhood and not just I think you called it a gated development and feeling like we're exclusionary. So I've got a slide on each of those. So delivery management, the green spaces here are how we're addressing that. So first of all, there's It's about two cars worth of live parking on the street, on First Street. That exists already, and we plan on keeping that. And then on property, this is a double duty with solid waste pickup, as well as, I think, delivery management and Uber Eats and guest pickup and that kind of thing. So you can come into the building, and that large green rectangle there has the ability for a garbage truck to turn around. And so those four live parking spaces will be signed. 15-minute parking or deliveries or whatever. So we'll probably use them for move-ins and things like that as well. But those are quick pull-in, easy turn around and come back out so you're not backing onto First Street. So deliveries keep increasing. This is about what we can offer on the site. I think the two live spaces on the street will get the most use. Some of the delivery drivers will need to be lots of signage to encourage them to come on property and utilize the turnaround. But it's Hopefully, this can keep some of the vehicles from just piling up on First Street for us. We had quite a bit of discussion last time on the affordability driven by the MISHTA TIF. So 15% of the units at 60% AMI is funded by a tax abatement. And we talked about whether or not that constitutes a public benefit or not. And a comeback ask of, how does the TIF work? What do the taxes actually look like? So the graph that I've got there Blue is we don't build the building, right? That's the tax that exists on the two parcels, as best I could tell from the assessor's website. So that's trended at about a 3% per year increase over time. Then the orange line is the TIF tax, the net tax to the municipality paid with the MSHDA TIF. So already when we build the building, we're going to have more than a 4x increase on the base parcel tax rate. And then you can see at year 26, it steps up significantly to more than $3.5 million a year. So the area between the orange and the blue is the net impact of taxes paid to the city and the county. And so given that the orange line is above the blue line, I suppose that's perhaps a net benefit. But I want to at least illustrate how the function works. So now, if you took that sloped part to the right of the orange line and drew it all the way back to the beginning, the area under that curve, that triangle, that's the benefit to the project. That helps actually get the project out of the ground. So absent this, I can't make the numbers work. So at the very least, there's more taxes paid if the building's built from day one And then finally, we wanted to show the latest rendering we have of a furnished coffee shop lobby. And then I have some renderings of a building I'm almost finished with in Grand Rapids that has a similar, it's a much smaller building, but a similar vibe to what we're talking about here. So anyone can walk in off the street through the vestibule. There's going to be lots of furnished space, breakout conversation spaces. Where the cursor is is the coffee bar right here. So that's where baristas will serve drinks from. You'll probably queue and order here, and then you'll be able to sit anywhere. And this is all open, just like any other coffee shop would be. But you'll see that we'll have some kind of probably pretty glassy leasing office that attaches at the back, and then a door here that gets us into the residential corridor. That'll be security access controlled. And then access to the elevator lobby that's probably just open, because we can control the elevator access with a fob. You'll see that there's a blue section of we're marking it retail right now. I don't want to name names or anything, but we are working on a concept that attaches that lower level up to the roof with a dedicated elevator. So those are the three major. Oh, here's some renderings of the project that I'm almost finished with in Grand Rapids. So very welcoming, warm, a coffee shop that really kind of blends in with the existing lobby that's already there. You can't see it in these pictures, but the elevators are just around the corner. The leasing office is further than that. And it really kind of feels like an all-in-one type space. So those are the major comebacks from the first pre-PUD meeting. And I'm open to any questions.

Great. We'll hear from Planner Shaikh next. And then we'll have a public hearing. And then we'll have our discussion. And that's where we'll come back to you.

Do you have a seat, yeah?

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean, you can do whatever you want. But your time is over, yes. And now we'll move on to Planner Shaikh.

Thank you, Chair Weish. Yeah, as you recall, we saw this project back in December as part of the PUD process. The PUD process starts at the beginning with a pre-PUD conference where the potential applicant presents their development ideas to the Planning Commission for feedback before kicking things off. As you recall, it's not a voting item. It's largely a conversational item where the applicant can present and talk about potential ideas with the Planning Commission. By and large the project has not changed from the project that we saw back in December as you recall it's a Plan for the construction of a fully electric 10-story mixed-use building, 285 units, retail spaces, coffee shop space, rooftop bar, multiple EV and bicycle parking, and other sustainability features. The project itself, it's a .84-acre parcel bordered by West Huron Street to the north, Ann Arbor Railroad. to the west, South First Street, and West Washington Street. Multiple buildings are on the site. There's even more addresses, but it's specifically two parcels. Each parcel is subdivided into I wouldn't say subdivided, has multiple addresses tied to it. So we're talking about rezoning of two parcels, but 11 addresses, I think, or nine addresses. Neighboring uses on the other side of the railroad tracks to the west is the YMCA. To the north across Huron Street is the Delano Center. Across First Street is a parking lot to the east, and the two parcels kind of surround on the north and west sides the Allmendinger Building. So when we're looking at a PUD, this, I think, is our first PUD where we have updated our comprehensive plan documents. We used to have six documents that composed the comprehensive plan, and now we're down to four. So first step of what we look at is the comprehensive plan and the compatibility. So the comprehensive plan 2050, the Parks and Recreation, the PROS plan, Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan, the transportation plan, the moving together, moving towards zero plan, and the treeline trail plan. So contextualizing this project in the new land use plan recommends hub for this area. The proposed use and PUD zoning district are consistent with this plan and the surrounding land uses. Also recall that there are eight criteria for PUD zoning district review. To pass through those briefly and quickly, of course, if I'm speaking too quickly, tell me to slow down. Item one, these are all found in section 529.11 of the UDC. Item one, the PUD district has a beneficial effect for the city on present and potential surrounding land uses. Item two, the beneficial effect could not be achieved under any other zoning classification and is not required to be provided by existing standards. Number three, the uses do not negatively impact public utilities or surrounding properties. Item four, the uses are consistent with the comprehensive plan and policies. Item five, when residential uses are proposed and the proposed density exceeds the comprehensive plan recommendation or the underlying zoning designation density, 15% of the residential units must be affordable housing units or in lieu fees paid or accommodation. Item 6, supplemental regulations include certain elements. Item 7, vehicle and pedestrian transportation within and to the district is provided that also supports alternative methods of transportation. Item 8, disturbance to natural features and or historically significant architectural features is limited to the minimum necessary. So staff, and it looks at the PUD, kind of looks at this project in two aspects. So we look at the proposed PUD zoning against these criteria, and then look at the site plan or the project in and of itself. So they kind of like walk together through the analysis, both the PUD, the concept of a PUD and the project and how well they fit together. building upwards through the comprehensive plan and zoning. The staff does recommend, I will skip through some of these, but staff does recommend approval of the PUD zoning district. We find that the zoning district and corresponding project fulfill the intent statement for PUDs generally. Staff also finds that it meets the standards for beneficial effects, including the provision of sustainability features, all-electric design, and rooftop solar, affordable housing, open space, and efficiency in land use and respecting the neighboring historically significant Allmendinger Building. Staff also find that the beneficial effects could not be achieved through the other zoning classifications. The proposed use also does not negatively impact public utilities or surrounding properties. And find that the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan, as well as with neighboring uses. The supplemental regulations provide, and I'll get to the supplemental regulations in more detail in a moment. The supplemental regulations provide sufficient justification and performance standards to monitor purported benefits. And staff find that the amount of vehicle parking provided has been reduced significantly, and bicycle and EV parking are also provided as required. And finally, staff find that the disturbances to natural features have been limited to the minimum necessary with required mitigation measures in place. before I jump to the brief discussion of the supplemental regulations I do want to call attention to the Planning Commission that there you do have there are two Potential actions this evening because there are two separate items so we have the rezoning potential rezoning recommendation for the PUD zoning district and This is a recommendation for the site plan. So there's that's why there's two separate Items discussed in the staff report As we briefly overview the proposed supplemental regulations. So for the planning commissioners, just to remind you and to remind the public here and everybody watching at home, how does a PUD zoning district work? PUD, Planned Unit Development Zoning District, it's kind of a customized zoning district in which you denote PUD zoning district on the map for specific parcels and what I've mentioned a few times are called the supplemental regulations. The supplemental regulations effectively function as the site specific zoning code in addition to other applicable parts of the UDC for those parcels. So that's what the supplemental regulations are. That's what their function is. So the draft supplemental regulations have been drafted for this parcel are being shared. I can zoom in a little bit. I don't know if the commissioners can see. CTN, is there a way that we can show this on the monitors? Oh, awesome, thank you. Yeah, already requested. Thank you, Deputy Manager Kalio as well. So the supplemental regulations, just to outline briefly for everyone. So section one is the purpose statement, all supplemental regulations, because this ends up getting, these would get enacted as essentially an ordinance, as an ordinance through city council. Section one is a purpose statement. Section two is the applicability, which is the legal description. So where does this PUD zoning district sit in space? So these are the legal descriptions for the two parcels. And section three are the findings of the public benefits. So note affordable housing, sustainability features, open space, and respecting neighboring properties. And section four is the site-specific zoning conditions. So staff's recommendation in working with the applicant is to start with a base zoning district. And what are the exceptions to that? This may get complicated in a few years when the UDC gets changed, but we'll work through it. I think we have 40 or so, 30. I think we just cataloged, worked on cataloging the number of PDs in the city. But to simplify things up until this, for the past few years, we've taken that approach. So this would obviously start with the D2 zoning district. The principal uses would be the same allowed as within the D2 zoning district. Affordable housing, so these are the regulations that this project, assuming that it moves forward, and that's the other thing that staff takes into consideration in working through these supplemental regulations. somewhat tailored to the specific project at hand, but for whatever reason, should the project at hand not be able to move forward, these regulations sit with the land. So another project that would come along would need to follow these site-specific zoning regulations, essentially. So it's kind of a balancing act between figuring out what things get placed on the land, what things get placed here and there. So a minimum of 15% of affordable housing at 60% AMI for a minimum of 25 years or an equivalent payment in lieu. Sustainability features all buildings in development fully electric, meaning powered by electricity as the only source of energy for all on-site space conditioning, water heating, cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances except for backup power sources to power life safety systems in compliance with applicable billing codes and other laws. And I want to thank our OSI department or area for their help in drafting these requirements. Number two, rooftop solar with a minimum of 19% of the building footprint area shall be included for each development. The number, it's about 30% of the rooftop. We wanted to, staff struggled a little bit with this. We tend to express solar in building footprint area and not rooftop area. So it's 19% of the building footprint area. maintain consistency across projects and across different codes in the city and it works out mathematically to be 30% of the rooftop of the proposed project at hand minimum of 30% of their proposed rooftop given the fact that there's a proposed active use on the rooftop which isn't very, very common across projects. All developments within the zoning district shall include a construction waste management plan with a goal of achieving a 50% waste diversion rate. Part D has the details about the public open space along the railroad tracks, a minimum eight foot public access easement, relocation of the bicentennial monument that I believe is along Huron right now to the pedestrian plaza. Part E are the specific area height and placement standards. So this is where we go back to the D2 downtown interface and first street overlay and secondary street designations. So those conditions of those zoning districts apply with the following proposed exceptions. Maximum building height. Street wall height along Huron because of the significant slope downward from First Street towards the railroad tracks. We used to have, but no longer have, an FAR requirement downtown, but calculating, you can impute a FAR for the project or for any site based on maximum developability. ground area and maximum number of stories, you can kind of, not even reverse engineer, but calculate what the FAR would be. So we do have a proposed maximum FAR for this parcel to reflect the differences in density. and minimum setback along the Allmendinger building and maximum vehicle parking for the site. Happy during any more questions that the commissioners may have to go into more details about those or how they reflect things or the logic behind them, but I think I've talked enough and I will turn over the mic.

Thank you, Planner Shaikh. Let's move to our public hearing now. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on this item. We'll first hear from those of you who are present with us in chambers, then we'll turn to remote participants, if there are any. 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 977-663-41226. City staff will identify callers by the last three digits of your name or your phone number, if you're on the phone, your name, if you're on Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, 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 on this item? Come on up. You can make a line. You can be kind to each other and wait, but we will wait for you. And as you make your way, for those of you who are speaking at the podium tonight, there are three indicators. There's a green light that tells you you're good to go. There's a yellow light that's your 30-minute warning. The red light, please stop talking. And... Did I say 30 minutes? Please don't take 30 minutes. 30 seconds. I said the right color, but it was the wrong time. There is also a countdown clock that will tell you how much time you have remaining. So with that, hello.

Is it there? I'm Amy Barnett. I live at 111 North Ashley, which is kind of kitty corner southeast of this new building. Two quick questions. Are these condominiums or are these rentals, which I don't believe is in the thing? And with 285 units, how many parking spaces will there be for residents?

Okay.

Does someone actually answer these here? Sure.

I'm happy to take some of your time to explain how this would work. This is your time. You get three minutes, and then we are taking notes. I'm taking notes. Everyone at the table is taking notes. One of us is going to write down your questions, and one of us is going to ask the developer, and the developer is going to answer you.

Thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome. There is no guarantee that we ask your questions, but it has been our pattern to ask your questions. Who's next?

Hello, everyone. Hi. My name is Brennan Andes. I live at 300 Glenwood Street. And by raise of hands, I was just wondering how many people from here- We're not gonna raise our hands, I'm sorry. Well, my question is, I'm concerned about the history of Ann Arbor and the people who are representing Ann Arbor being in the interest of people who are from Ann Arbor. As I was born in Ann Arbor my whole life, I see that I have a bit of an issue with this building being built. whether it is not because of the architect and the beautiful design that they have or whatnot, but my concern is that the historical building itself would be demolished, and it is the actual origin of this town, and that is one of the longest standing commercial buildings in the city of Ann Arbor. And so I was wondering if we could have a motion to vote on whether it could be historically preserved before the planning goes through to destroy this building, which has literally been in commercial use for, I believe, over 120 years. And it concerns me that without the public opinion, that the people of Ann Arbor would not be able to have a say in losing what could be considered a historical I don't believe it would be monument, but it's a historical place. And so I'm not opposed to the rezoning and development of Ann Arbor as it sees fit to continue with the growing population. But I do have a concern without the people being able to vote on such an issue. Not to mention, I represent a small continuum of people who are employed by that building. And I have a myriad of concerns in regards to, A, how long we would be unemployed before the building would be developed. B, how long the busiest street in Ann Arbor would be shut down, because Huron Street is the main vein for access to the city downtown and out of town. I don't think it would be fair to the city of Ann Arbor to essentially not have everyone weigh in on this as a thing that was not, I believe my concern is that if it was just up to you guys to vote on this and it gets passed, that it would be misrepresenting the interests of the people of Ann Arbor.

Thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Hello, I'm Dan Gunning. I live at 626 Westwood Avenue in Ward 5. I am opposed to the PUD for this property. I think that the building itself, as so many other large developments in the city, is not really aesthetically aligned with any of the existing Ann Arbor architecture. It's sort of straight up and directly. There's no setbacks or any sort of simple access for people on the street, just kind of crowded. And I think that for the location, it is too tall. I think that the zoning for that area that we've agreed upon before this exception would be made is about five stories, which I think seems a lot more appropriate for that location. And I would oppose it on the basis that it is really 10 stories of luxury apartments. and right downtown. I can see what the appeal for that would be financially, but the idea that this is contributing to affordability, I think, is very misleading. I think that the affordability 15% is a very small portion of all those units, and that the definition of affordability is misleading because a lot of talk goes on at these meetings about defending affordability for teachers, service workers that work in restaurants and bars. But at 60%, I think that that's not accurate. I think that you would need to find affordability at 30% of average medium income to really accommodate people like school teachers. other people like workers. I also, yeah, so I support the existing zoning for that district. I would also say that I'm upset about the loss of the functioning businesses at the two addresses in question. We've already lost a Korean restaurant because the landlord, in expectation of this, wouldn't give them a long-term lease. But there's a business on the ground level, Live, which has become a functional showcase for local music. It's very useful for local musicians. It has free music for everybody on Friday. And so it's a way to showcase local music. And then also, the place downstairs, I think there were three years of... thank you inactivity would make it would put it out of business the last word would would be thank you so thank you

good evening john marucci 111 north ashley street a couple of questions or concerns rooftop bar when i hear that i'm concerned about noise levels maybe some light pollution and stuff at a 10 10th floor level i don't know if there's anything comparable in the city right now that would compare to to that is it going to be an open rooftop deck you know what what what are we looking at there So I would have questions on that, some more detail on what the proposed use is going to look like there. Also, the infrastructure currently, 285 units with the current sewage and so forth. I know we're currently going through a big construction on Washington and First there. Is this going to, in a couple years, need another increase, more street closures, tear-ups, increasing sewer sizes and so forth? I trust that's all being calculated for that, but I have those questions as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Robert Helver, 1890 Encore Lane, Ann Arbor. I represent the Arbor Atrium. There's been some questions about occupancies and people within the building and the Korean restaurant leaving. Those businesses have been struggling for years. It's not indicative of just what's going on. It was Miki before that, and Miki struggled. The Korean restaurant has struggled. We are at 0% occupancy right now within the building. partially as as part of what's going on here but historically our occupancy was within that building had been extremely low and and I'm not sure if it's a function of location and I think that this particular development brings something special to the area, not just houses. But I struggle with the comments that were made earlier about it being a historic building. It's never been a historic building. It's never been designated as a historic building. And this particular use, I believe, would be the best use for that particular location. So, thank you.

Thank you. It usually starts when you start.

Oh, I see.

That way we don't rob you of time.

Okay, so my name is Laura Cocales, and I'm 111 North Ashley as well, with some of the other people here. My concern is 285 is a lot of units we're only 100 and we're 10 floors so i'm looking at three times that amount on a corner not out my window so to speak so i'm looking at the cars how many parking spots is really important So I'd be very interested to know where all the other cars are going to go. And the infrastructure and what we see already downtown, jamming it up, trying to get into those parking lots, making the streets very tight, very dangerous. It's become pretty clunky, cumbersome in that area. I'm curious on the parking, I'm curious, some of the rooftop was mentioned as well. I'm also looking at dumpsters coming from a very large background when it comes to hospitality. Where do you put the recycle? Where do you put the dumpsters? Are they going to be gated? What kind of gates are going around these? Where are those going to be located? What kind of setbacks? Where will packages be delivered? How will they honestly be delivered? Furniture, move-in, move-outs. How many elevators? I don't know if that matters. How many elevators are in there? It just seems... beautiful to look at and I understand that I just am concerned about the infrastructure in the area and that corner especially since we just see so much and the narrow streets that are right in front which is biking it's just it's difficult already so I don't want to place my concerns in that area those areas and that's it. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address us at this time?

You brought a book.

I'm not going to read it. OK. Thank you, Chair Wyche. Ken Garber again. Overall, decent sustainability features, including the recyclable materials, the light-gauge steel, the almost all-electric building, some solar. Fall short of A20 in many ways, though, not net zero energy, structural steel, not CLT, few passive house elements, not sure about ERV. But it's better than most buildings we see. I was surprised to hear about the diesel power generator. I assumed it would be a natural gas connection. It raises the question of will it be storing the diesel on site and will there be a natural gas connection? Planner Shaik mentioned that OSI helped draft the development agreement language around the backup power. I'm sure that's true, but I spoke with Dr. Stultz today. She told me she had no idea what the statutory basis is for carving out that exception to all electric and encouraged me to raise the issue tonight and try to get some clarification on that. I wrote you a long letter yesterday in which I tried to explore what the what code says about that and you know that's why I brought the book. You know, I could not find anything in this book or in other sources that actually requires, that stipulates a fuel source for the backup generator. I believe that for residential like this, a battery could be used. Whether systems now are capable of meeting the NFPA 110 requirements, I'm not sure. I need to do more research. But I think that's a question I would put to the petitioner, whether that's been looked into. So, yeah, and I had some proposed language on the development agreement. I actually have second thoughts about that. I'd like to propose different language. It would be this. All buildings in the development are all electric, et cetera, et cetera, including backup power systems to power life safety systems unless otherwise required by applicable building codes. or other laws. So that makes the all-electric generator the default option with gas or diesel only allowed if required by code. And it may be. I'm not an expert. I may be missing it somewhere. But I think we could use clarification on that question. So why does this matter? Because either we have a future without fossil gas combustion or we have no future. Emissions are cumulative, so just reducing them does not stop global heating. We have to zero them out. This is basic atmospheric physics. This is not my opinion. Gas lines must be cut and left to wither, like telegraph lines, which are also relics of the past. Every new gas line, even this one, is an insult to our future. That's why I feel strongly about it. Thank you.

I'd be glad to repeat my- No, I caught it this time. Thank you, Mr. Garber. Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address us at this time? And we know Mr. Garber because he speaks a lot, so if you're wondering why I'm directly addressing him, it's because we've gotten to know him over five years, and so he's here. Manager Kelly, do we have remote participants who'd like to participate? We have only internal participants. I don't know what that means, but okay. It's okay. It's okay. It's okay. I'll close the public hearing and only read the written motions because Planner Shaikh likes to put all the conditions into the motion, which will make for a very long reading. So I will refer to the conditions that Planner Shaikh has listed under the motions with the permission of the table. Okay. Thank you. So, motion number one. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the Mayor and City Council approve the 315 West Huron Plan Unit Development Zoning District and Supplemental Regulations. Motion number two. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends approval of SP 26-004 315 West Huron Street Plan Unit Development Site Plan. Addresses as followed. 301, 311, 315, 317, 319 West Huron Street and 102 and 106 South First Street. Version two dated April 15th, 2026. Subject to the execution and compliance with the development agreement and the following conditions which must be satisfied through the submission of revised plans within six months of approval by city council. And those conditions are listed on our agenda. Move by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Lee. We are in discussion, and if the table would permit me, I just wanted to answer a couple questions first that came from the folks in the audience, and then we could go to your questions because I think it'll help. So number one on the... Condos versus rental, we'll ask, but I think they're all rentals. Parking, it's 95 parking spaces are proposed according to the site plan. That comes out to about 0.33 per unit. We have a comparable sort of number we've been playing with at 0.6 per unit, and that comes from a different development. The Planning Commission does not address historic preservation. There's another historic... district commission that sits within the city that requires a designation as well as a motion by council. I believe Huron Street is an MDOT road. It's not an interior to the city. So the state actually manages that roadway. So the city has limitations with what they can and cannot do with regard to that. I believe, and Planner DeLeo is here, but wasn't expecting me to call on Planner DeLeo right now, but we have a 60-foot height limit in D2. I mean, Planter Shake can. I always call on Planter DeLeo because Planter DeLeo knows the UDC backwards and forward, but Planter Shake.

Yeah, so recall that downtown kind of has a layered. So the height in downtown districts actually comes from the overlay district. So not just the D1, D2. So D2 First Street, if I remember right off the top of my head, has a 60 foot.

Great. And then on AMI for affordability, 30% is permanently affordable, but the AMI for affordability goes all the way up to 80%. Those numbers are not set by our jurisdiction. They're often set by a federal jurisdiction, and then we follow the guidelines that we receive from the federal government. for that. Someone asked if there are other rooftop amenities, and there are. The Verb, which is at 721 South Forest, has a rooftop amenity that is not an enclosure. So this would not be the first rooftop amenity. And with that, I will turn to my colleagues to see what items you'd like to kick us off in discussion with, and then I'll come back because I have some more questions from both the audience and myself that I'd like to talk with the developer about. We'll start with Commissioner Mills.

Thanks, and thank you for this. Thank you for coming back. And how did you know that my question was gonna bring it towards you? Actually, I think we had the benefit of seeing the plans the first time and that there's no changes is awesome. And I think actually if you pull up the site plan, it might answer a couple of questions that people had. specifically about solid waste and you sort of went over that but I think just zooming in a little bit taking a little bit more time might help.

I don't know if it's up on the monitor or not but I can point that out for you. OK, so north is up. The green area, the big rectangle, is where garbage trucks will pull in off the street. We will actually have all of our garbage bins inside the building under trash chutes. And then when it's garbage pickup time, those bins get rolled out. They sit there. They get picked up by the trash truck that dumps them in. The trash truck turns around in that green area and exits. And then those bins go back under the trash chutes. so uh there may be some times where those bins are sitting there waiting for collection but generally the trash is all in a large trash room inside the building oh sorry about that yeah you have to speak to the mic i know you're trying to address the questions in the audience but it's being recorded and we need to hear you clearly it won't be on first it'll be off street the bins will be correct yeah yeah off street in this

It's not a rectangle. It's the one that's the other green.

You can see the little depictions of dumpsters right here.

Right.

Yeah. So they're tucked into the building even when they're out ready for pickup. And then normally they live in a room here that's under trash chutes.

And you mentioned before that you thought that this would be the place for the deliveries and also for move-in, move-out. And I'm just curious where, if someone's parked there, where the entrance is, how they get into the building, if you can help people know.

There's a couple of entrances. So you saw the depiction of the cafe entrance up here, the retail entrance here, and then along this side, we'll have another entrance that's more residential focused.

So that's primarily the move-in, move-out kind of?

Yeah, as close to the elevators as we could get it. OK.

Let's see, in that vein, well, I would just note that I live about a block and a half from here, and cycle by, well, it's unpleasant to cycle on Huron, let's be honest, or even on the sidewalks, and so I'm on Washington, except for construction. And just want, I would say, I think a lot, I also have two small children that cycle with me and we love the bicycle highways and have multiple times nearly gotten run over when people are pulling out of William parking garage. Anyway, it's very scary. And actually, I appreciate that here the bicycle highway is on the other side of the street. So that's going to be less of an issue. I saw in the staff report that transportation asked for some additional treatment. I wasn't quite sure if they were talking about the First Street side or if they were talking about the Washington Street side. around the sidewalk. And so do you have more details, or do you want me to ask staff about what that comment actually from them meant?

On the Washington Street side, I know we were required to limit left-hand turns out of the, it's not shown on this part of the site plan here, but there's two levels of parking. They don't connect with each other. The lower level exits onto Washington, and there was discussion about not having cars turn left because there's the railway trestle that sort of limits visibility if you were going to try to cross traffic. That may be what you're referring to.

I mean, in the staff report, maybe this is a question for Plan or Shake. There was a, I thought that there was some, let me find it. Do you know what comment I'm talking about in the transportation section that's up front?

Potentially. Off-site parking pedestrian demand. Provide an estimate of pedestrian volumes associated with off-site parking and identify likely pedestrian routes. Does that work?

No, but I was actually, that was another thing I was curious about. What do we mean by off-site parking? Yeah.

There's not a... Well, yeah, so I'll jump through. I think there, yeah, there's only three.

The one before it is the thing that actually, the pedestrian priority crossing treatment, I wasn't sure what that meant or looked like. For example, raised crossing or equivalent design. Yeah. Is that raising the sidewalk? Yeah.

So, yeah, the raised crossing. So this is at the driveway. And to my colleagues in transportation, please excuse me if you're watching for mischaracterization or paraphrasing. And talking, reviewing things with them before this meeting at the driveway entrance, revising that area. interface point. So specifically where cars would be going into the building along First Street and where that crosses a sidewalk. So potentially the examples given by transportation were like a raised crossing. So like the sidewalk, like we see in some areas with the raised crossing and blinkers. It may or may not have blinkers or like an audible uh warning things um there but the treatment there at the garage entrance specifically where it crosses the sidewalk that's that item the second item is basically to dig in a little bit deeper to mapping out potential off-site parking demand we have a decent amount of parking downtown just getting a little bit understanding about where If beyond the 96 parking spaces, what is the parking demand beyond 96 for a 285-unit building? And just kind of mapping those routes. Are they parking at Ann and Ashley? Are they parking potential closed structures?

Great. Thank you for that. Have you given any thought to what your anticipated parking demand will be for the 285 units?

Yeah, there's going to be more cars than we have parking spots for. almost certainly the case. But in an urban building like this, we try to also look at parking as a holistic resource downtown. And to my knowledge, the municipal parking decks often have a lot of space in them that could be utilized for a building like this. There's a large lot right across the street. And so anybody not parking in the building will have probably a dynamic, flexible parking arrangement.

Great. I have some, I have a list of other questions, but actually I'm sure other people will pick them up, or if not, we can come back. I'll just make my observation. Often I think about what is shown in the renderings and what's in the supplemental regulations, right? Like how close is this to what we can expect? My sense is that it's pretty darn close. And I actually think that the way that you described it and the way that it's set up effectively saying we're shifting the FAR around. And it makes a whole lot of sense. And the idea that it's 10 stories, and many of the folks that are here that are providing comment today are also in 10 stories. It feels like it's, yes, it's different than what would be required in D2. And so it needs a PUD because it's not possible in the current district. And I think it seems sensible. The only thing that I would note to my colleagues is that in the supplemental regulations, it provides for park where it is, that the monument would get moved. But there's nothing in there that's about making it as pretty as shown in the renderings. And I also recognize that how to write that into supplemental regulations is tricky. If it's ugly, just know that a near neighbor will be very sad.

I'm happy to put it would be a very pretty park.

I mean, I just think that some of the elements, at least that you've shown in the renderings, that look like extensions of the train trestle, I think that that's really cool. And I think it could really be a And I think also maybe that's not apparent and a question that I may have gotten as I was preparing for this meeting for my husband is like, are people going to look out up at the train? And no, based on what we showed before, it's parking on those lower two levels, right? And so there's not going to be units under the train. Correct.

Yeah, that was one of the rearrangement of mass factors that I showed in December was we don't want anybody looking up at train tracks that just feels like weird feng shui. So they're above the train tracks. They're away from the train tracks to the extent that we can make a squared off building. And then we're the pocket park area is the floodplain. And the boat trusses that you see there, those are actually in place right now in that old parking garage building that's there. So the intent is to keep those things, once we pull the roof off of it, well, hopefully it's still standing. But the idea is to have it kind of feel like the building that was there to an extent, but now open it up to the sky. And frankly, that could be the least expensive way to do it also, is to keep the existing wall, keep as much of the existing infrastructure. So I hope it looks as pretty as this. You know, things like a mural are no problem to do, and planting trees, of course, we're going to do. But I would say the bow trusses are the one thing that we won't know until we know.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to Commissioner Bass-Uni.

Hello.

Then I have Weatherby.

Awesome. Hello. Thank you, petitioner, and thank you for everyone for your public comments. I think I have three relatively straightforward questions. Let's see how we do this. So while you're here at the podium, actually, two questions. One, I think one of the commenters had asked about the dumpsters and whether they'd be gated. And so if we can go back to that lovely delivery management slide, I think that would be helpful. Is that something that you plan at this point? I'm curious if that is information you have at this point.

So given that we'll be wheeling them out from the building, and then they'll be picked up hopefully pretty quickly after that, I don't know that we would have gates in front of them, just because it would be an extra step that Solid Waste would have to approve of opening or unlocking or whatever. We probably haven't gotten to that level of design detail at this point, but I don't like looking at dumpsters either I prefer to keep the grounds as slightly as we can and still remain functional lovely.

Thank you Other question was I also I live a few blocks away from this location I've been to live multiple times as well as last word Love it, but I do live near the train tracks as well and our home fortunately has very good soundproofing for windows and I notice it when the train comes back south, like it goes north, it's fine. But if we've left the windows open and it's like 1 a.m., it's very noticeable. So I was curious if there's a plan for noise proofing.

Yes. So I skipped past it really quickly. In buildings I've done before, I use triple pane glass. And that's for two reasons. One, that's about as good as you can get from an energy efficiency standpoint without going really, really exotic. And then two, just as importantly, in my opinion, is that it makes for a very quiet, relatively soundproofed apartment, at least from outside noise. I build urban infill buildings near traffic and train tracks and motorcycles and trucks. And I do try, I'm not going to get into all the stuff that I did back in December, but I try to make these spaces as... human habitable as I can. And that's things like natural light and a quiet environment and the highest ceilings we can get with reasonable buildability and height limits, that kind of thing. So having windows where you shut them and it seals the outside out, I think it's It just makes for a better living experience. And the windows I put in previous buildings are made by Intus. They're actually brought over from Europe. This building is a little taller than I've done before. There's certain regulations after a certain height where it'll be triple pane and or a very high R value, which is like the insulation value. And we may have certain treatment on the train track side of the building versus the east side of the building, for example, but we haven't gotten to that level of construction drawing yet.

Great, thank you. I want to say that's music to my ears, and I was like, no, we want quiet. Thank you. And then my last question is actually for Planner Shaik. I just want to clarify, you were saying the supplemental regulations, if I understood correctly, sit with the land. I just want to clarify, is that in perpetuity?

Yeah, that's until, you know, a subsequent to the supplemental regulation that PUD functions as a rezoning. So we're changing the designation of these two parcels as spelled out in the supplemental regs. So these are the other applicable sections of the UDC applied here, but the supplemental regulations are tied to these two parcels until the supplemental regulations would be you know edited which would look similar to you know a rezoning type application or the parcels are rezoned through another process or another petition for rezoning wonderful thank you all done

Commissioner Weatherby, then Norton, and then I have Hammersmith, and then Lee, and then Weitsch. All right, great.

Okay, so a couple things. So first of all, there was a request. I don't think they're for you yet, so you can sit down. But I'm sure once I get through them, then I'll be like, hey. So One of the commenters asked if any of us were actually from Ann Arbor, and I hesitate to answer this because we are all living in Ann Arbor, and just because you've been here for one year or six months or 10 years or 50 years, I think you still are a valuable member of the city and of the people who live here. So that said, yes, I was born here. I first went to this building when it was the Rubaiyat and with my parents, interestingly, if you know the Rubaiyat. I've been to them live many times. I love the last word. My husband worked at Arbor Atrium for 13-some years. Very cool building. Seems a shame that it has had a hard time filling because it's a really interesting building. Those trestles are really cool, and most people don't know that that whole thing exists, and it would be cool. It would be really great if you can expose those. But the owners are looking to build something different. And this is not a city, the city didn't request this. This is the owners of the property. And so, and I think that's, you know, they could kick everybody out. I don't know who's here, and I'm not saying that that's going to happen. I'm not trying to. But we are just looking at what is before us and who you know, the businesses that are there are awesome, and I hope that they will continue in some form if they choose to, but that's not under our purview. And the same with if it's apartments or condos, it may be apartments now, it may be condos in two years, it may be condos in ten years, and then back to apartments. That also, we're looking at the building, not necessarily How it functions and if it's not like we would approve it because it's condos and not because it's apartments or You know those things We're looking at the building Let's see Rooftop bar also circ bar down the street. It has a rooftop bar. So there are some rooftop bars around But I would ask if the bar ends up happening that it not and music, and I think that those things can cause problems and are great if they don't, because I actually think we could use some more rooftop bars, so kind of excited about the option there. The existing building is not a historic building, but it is going to protect the one that is listed as a historic building right next door. So that is a good thing, and part of the design was to set back from the existing historic building. The original, am I remembering this correctly, the original design was much closer to the historically designated building. And so this is actually a good thing. And let's see. Oh, Watco isn't known for cooperating on projects. So I hope that you get some cooperation from Watco. And I guess then my last question was, and this is actually for you, is, It sounds like you're in sort of talks with retail. One of the things that we've seen a lot is there's a lot of discussion of retail and then when the building actually gets built that the financing and such means that that retail is no longer viable. Is this something that you're thinking of and that you're looking at financing so that retail at a reasonable rate for whatever the retail you want is going to be something that is at least considered.

Yeah, it's no secret that retail is hard. Even the coffee shop in the lobby has a lot of concessions to a tenant like that. I've got two of those, one that's operating, one that's about to open in Grand Rapids, same model. And those are sweetheart deals. The idea is that it's a win-win-win for everybody. It's a great amenity for tenants to come down in their pajamas and get coffee. It's great that it opens up the neighborhood, and it also activates the space just a little bit more. It's less sterile. The other retail portion that we're talking about in the building, we're actively working and designing right now. We have all intents to keep moving forward, but it is hard. It is difficult and costs are high and rents are sensitive and all of those things. I actually was trying to scale back any sort of discussion of that to not make any promises, but a couple little elements still remain in the docs, but it is definitely our intention. There's designs that we've been working on, not anything we can share at this point, but that's the, everybody's really pushing for that. And the pro forma and the financing is all set with that being plan of record.

Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Weatherby. Commissioner Norton.

Don't sit down, because I'm going to have questions for you. But I want to make a couple of comments first. I understand that we heard about affordable housing. This isn't gonna be affordable housing and whether it's condos or apartments, either way, it will be 200 some units of residential living. That helps greatly with the supply problem that we have. So it doesn't need to be all affordable housing to make an impact on providing more housing in the city. So I think that's a good thing to note. I think, maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but if it's possible to put up the diagram again of the, I don't know who I'm talking to, the alleyway. Where the, yeah, wait. The delivery area. Just to be clear, you've basically created an alley that's pretty well hidden from the street, right? If I'm reading this map correctly, you're entering an alley off of First Street. You're not really going to be able to see what's going on back in there. So the concerns about... I'm not sure how you would see those garbage containers from the street if you're standing on the street.

Not very easily.

Yeah, so I guess there were concerns raised about this is going to be ugly. The garbage is going to be sitting out on the street. You're not going to see the garbage if I'm reading this. mapping correctly, it's pretty well tucked in.

Correct. Yeah, between where the Elmendinger building sits, and then how far we yeah, you might have a very quick glance of it as you're walking down the sidewalk.

And then we and then we're worried about pedestrian crossing coming out of that. So the traffic folks are telling you do something to make that safe. I know the back of the townhomes off of Main Street have a warning light system so that you can tell if someone's coming in or out. I think that can be addressed readily. So those things, I understand the concerns about the height, but every building that's gone in, people have complained it's too tall. I totally get we're getting benefits by squeezing it in to get it out of the floodway. It means you go up a little bit. I think that's a reasonable trade-off. I was really surprised that Commissioner Mills didn't ask this question, so I'm gonna ask it. Why diesel or gas? Can you not use batteries as your backup power? What's going on with that?

Yeah, a battery backup system for a building like this tends to get very expensive very quickly. We have very tall elevators, and so the demands in an emergency situation to power those for an extended period of time, size the batteries to be very, very large. A diesel backup system is very nicely self-contained. In the future, if there's better battery technology, this is just one unit that we can pick up, move off-site, and replace with something else very easily. There's no natural gas tap on the property at all. Someone asked about natural gas as an alternative. That natural gas generator is also larger physically than a diesel. The natural gas is just not as energy dense. And you need a much larger sized thing. So this is the way to keep it as compact, as future proof, to the extent that we can pick it up and move it. And we don't have a ton of infrastructure tied into it. And it's also the most cost efficient.

And where will the diesel be stored? Sorry? You'll have a diesel tank outside?

Oh, yeah. Typically, these are an all-in-one unit. So the tank is the bottom layer, and then the generator goes on top, and it's all in an enclosure. And the benefit of that, too, is in an extended outage, batteries will wear down. The solar would help a little bit to keep those charged. But if you hit a duration of outage that's long enough, you'll run out of batteries. And there's no way to quickly charge them. You can refill a diesel tank if you need to, if we're down for three, four, five days or something.

I would love if you could do batteries, but I understand the trade-offs that are going on here. Maybe at some point the technology will get to the point where You could do that. So I guess I'll leave it at that. I do have two comments. I remember from the last time you were here that you had talked about maintaining the facade, even though you're going to take out the building that's down adjacent to the tracks. You had said something about retaining the facade of the existing building. Is that still part of the plan?

That is still. There's a backup slide way buried. But yes, the idea would be to... Hold on. Nobody get dizzy. This is a look at what it could look like. So a lot of those windows are bricked up right now. We would pull those down, create just sort of a metal. There's no glass there. It would just be sort of like pretend windows. But keep the facade, keep the bow trusses inside, but pull the roof off, pull the windows out, and make it more open and accessible.

So that's not fixed in the plan, but that's something you're hoping to do if you can make it work?

Correct, yeah.

I think that's pretty cool. It'd be nice if you could save it in the trusses. I would point out a poorly designed part can become really bad really fast. For sure. And having it kind of enclosed in secretive kind of adds to that. So I'm kind of talking from both sides. It'd be nice to keep the facade, but I also recognize... If you really want that space to be activated and used, it needs to feel comfortable and welcoming. And so I'm trusting you're mindful of that for your... Yeah, it's a balance.

You know, you want to preserve some of those historic-looking elements, but also keep it open and visible and well-activated and well-lit and all that stuff. So we'll be balancing all that. Part of this is we're not really sure what it's going to look like when we start taking the building apart. We'll see what we can save and what we can't.

Okay, well, I'll just say none of my, my biggest question was on the backup power and I'm not sure, I don't see a way to fix that problem.

Cool.

Otherwise, I think you're addressing the concerns and adding some valuable housing to the market and hopeful that you're able to kind of do a really good design that's going to be welcoming and activated and used as the trail for public use as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Norton. Commissioner Hammerschmidt. Thank you.

Glad to see you back. OK, so these are kind of all over the place. We don't have to go back to the delivery slide, but I'm glad that you said that you're going to have lots of signage, because I have a feeling, and I think you know this too, that people are just going to still park anywhere, just deliveries and whatever, and just have their hazards on and be in bike lanes and whatever. I don't know. I know Lyft and Uber, they'll have designated meeting spots. So I wonder if other services like that where you can set it so it's within that alleyway, so that is the pickup point. I don't know if that's something that you can explain.

I've never done that before. But if it's possible, that would be great to pull that traffic off the street.

Just because I think it will take time. I think eventually people will get used to the residents putting the pin in that area just to keep them off the street. But yes, lots of signage. Anything you can do with those companies to say, you go in here to deliver and pick people up, and there's parking spots for 10 minute parking. The summary of the public meeting you guys held was probably the most lively summary I've ever read of a public meeting. I've never seen that many comments before in a public meeting summary. What was the vibe that you came away with from that meeting?

Yeah, that was back in October. And there were a lot of folks that I think are, they really like what's there, quite frankly. There's great businesses. There's a lot of history and memories and restaurants and office work that's happened there. And proposing something that's really different, I think, just caused a lot of questions and concerns, and especially an urban infill building with not a ton of parking and a lot of units and a lot of rental units and stuff like that. There was just a lot of concern. Like, this is very, very different than what the current condition is. And I thought the answers that were recorded were very good from that public meeting.

Thank you. On parking, is the parking unbundled?

It is unbundled, yeah.

Sorry.

Yes. That was a question from last time, too, actually.

Oh, was it? Yeah, unbundled. I don't remember last time, guys. That was a long time ago. I barely remember last week.

I rewatched the whole thing twice.

I wanted to make sure. I love that. I love that. Rooftop bar, I think I said that. I do remember saying this last time. I'm very excited about the rooftop bar. And I know we can't, this isn't, I'm just curious. especially given the comments tonight, like noise, light pollution, are you, is it the last word?

Can you say, uh, we're working closely with those guys. Yeah.

It says it in the presentation or in their site, something. Um, so, so those things will be addressed as like the plans develop. Is it year round? Like,

Yeah, so the rooftop is maybe a little bit of a misnomer. It's the top floor pulled back from the floor below it. So there would be an indoor portion. And then those open up the folding things. And then there's an outdoor patio section as well that's covered. You can see the big sort of eyebrow on top of the building, even in the first. Yeah, so you can see that. That's like the patio section up there that's covered. OK, very cool.

I think I also said this last time. One thing I really like is that the unit mix really emphasizes smaller units. So I just did some quick calculations. Given the comment that we heard that 111 North Ashley, it has maybe like a third of the units. But in this building, there's 117 one beds, which is 41% of the total, and then 104 studio or studio plus, which is 36% of the total. And I can't validate this, but the internet on Zillow told me that there's only six studios at 111 North Ashley. So I think that's why we're seeing so many.

Yeah, yeah. It's an average square foot per unit thing. I don't know the gross square footage of that building versus this one, but I would guess that the average square foot of a unit is very different than the two.

And I think, I mean, whether or not the rents that you'll get for even the smaller units can be considered affordable or attainable in Ann Arbor. I mean, the market will determine that. Affordability is just a huge topic of concern, and there are so many complex reasons why housing is so expensive right now. I would actually like to quickly shout out a post that I saw circulating on social media written by my colleague Tanel Weij about housing affordability and why it is. And I thought that did an amazing job of explaining why it is so hard to build affordable housing. So can you plug your, how do you, it's on your website?

It is. I'll mention it. You'll mention it?

Okay. I would encourage everyone to find it and read it because I just thought it really well laid out. Like why we can't, we can't just like say we want affordable housing and build it. It is so much more complex than that. And getting these housing units is going to help Overall, the market, I mean, but we can't, I mean, it just can't, we just can't build just affordable housing. Anyways, okay. Last thing. Hearing Ken Garber say that this is better than most buildings we see feels like a ringing endorsement. I quoted that. Yeah, high praise. I guess, like, I'm, I don't know much about diesel. It sounds like I mean, hopefully, it sounds like an environmental concern to me. To my colleagues here, I would entertain the language that Mr. Garber proposed of, and I don't remember if that was in the development agreement or what. I have heard it down. You wrote it down. That basically, it gives you the option to use diesel, but it doesn't. it gives you the option to also not like if in two years there is better battery technology i mean i just i i don't know like i liked kind of leaving it flexible the unless otherwise required by applicable building codes um i don't know maybe we can talk more about that at the table i know you might have thoughts all right thank you okay thank you commissioner hammersmith commissioner lee i know you didn't raise your hand but

Before I go, I need to check in with you. Sure thing.

The only, I think, public comment that hadn't been addressed was a comment with respect to stormwater and wastewater calculations, whether we had sufficient amount of construction or infrastructure associated. So when any of these projects come, you can actually look it up. So there's stormwater, which is when it rains, how much does the site actually retain? and like flow into the storm water. And then there's waste water, which is when you flush your bathroom and something along those lines. So specifically those two things have to be separated because one has to be treated, the other goes into our natural water system. It's on the utility plan, so it's C400. So they're calculating the gallons per day that's required or what they project per inhabitant, per apartment unit, per square footage of use. So they are planning on doing underground detention chambers. So they're gonna have these that's going to be basically holding it's gonna actually most likely be an improvement in the amount of stormwater when it rains because there's already a structure there normally that calculation matters most when it's currently like a Soil site essentially that's able to kind of absorb water before it starts releasing and they call it the first bank full flush If it rains for about an hour So and then sanitary service on they look at the capacity associated with that on a daily basis on a monthly basis So is there gonna be sufficient? Connectiveness and is there enough capacity? So for each one of these they have to comply with City of Ann Arbor's engineering standards as well as on the stormwater side. It's the Washtenaw County Water Resource Commissioner standards so I just wanted to make that note that that does get reviewed. You can take a look at those. It gets pretty complex, but the calculations are publicly available if you so choose. Other than that, PUD's evaluation, just from my standpoint, has to do very specifically with just simply what the udc states that we have to evaluate it by planner shake did a great job of already summarizing it i'm going to go over it just to be able to clarify my position on this beneficial if the pud has a beneficial effect for the city on present and potential surrounding land uses i think that's satisfied it could not be achieved under any other zoning categories And I think in this particular case, just based on dimensionality, right now it's D2. It's limited at 60 feet. So I think that this actually is satisfied as well. Do not negatively impact public utilities or surrounding properties. I think that's satisfied based on the calculations that I've seen. And that they're consistent with the comprehensive plan and policies and act. adequate justifications has been presented. And so I actually really appreciated a lot of the dimensional analysis of transition going into the by-right development that could be built on that parking lot. So 180 feet, that's about 15 stories. So this actually does really kind of create, based on the grade, a legible vista. So I think that actually has been sufficiently justified. And then, yeah, 15% of residential units. That's 43 units. That's actually a fair amount of units. And I just checked the 2025 AMI. It is $52,000 for a single individual at 60% AMI. That means that the max that they can charge is $1,400 a month. So they are limited to that. So they calculate that by multiplying your AMI, or your average median income, that $52,000. by 33%. Maybe it's 30%. I can't remember. Yeah, 30. So if you are paying anything in excess of that, you're considered rent burdened. So the last one, supplemental regulations include the certain elements we've talked about. I'd be also open to allowing for flexibility on the backup generator. And then vehicle and pedestrian transportation, SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION AND DISTURBANCE OF NATURAL FEATURES LIMITED AND HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES LIMITED TO THE MINIMUM NECESSARY. SO FROM MY READ OF THE THINGS WHICH WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE AND LOOK AT THE APPLICATION OF THE UDC, FOR ME, THIS FITS. SO I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LEE. WITH THE TABLE'S PERMISSION, I'LL ASK MY QUESTIONS NOW. So let's start with Plan or Shake. Can you talk to us about setbacks for this building? What are the standard setbacks for the D2 and the overlay district?

Let's jump in. Give me just one moment.

While you look at that, go ahead.

Sorry. So the required setbacks for the zoning as it stands now, front setback, it's on a primary street. It's a one foot maximum setback, so zero to one feet. On a secondary street, so this street has, because there's layered zoning in our downtown, so there's first level of zoning is d1 or d2 in our downtown area and then we have overly districts so based on like the sub-district of downtown so there's first street there's liberty and something else i think there's eight or So districts spread through downtown. So that has another layer of zoning requirements. And then we have look at the street designation. So some streets downtown are primary streets. So Huron, as the most primary primary street in all of downtown, is obviously a primary street. In some of the areas closer to Carytown, we have the lowest level street designation that is front yard street designation. So we have primary, secondary, and front yard street designations throughout. the downtown area. So in this case, we have both primary street and secondary street because there's three different street frontages that this parcel has. So along primary streets, the required setback would be 0 to 1 feet. Along secondary streets would be a maximum of 10 feet, so 0 to 10 feet. And side yard and rear yard setbacks would be 0 feet. and a five-foot street wall offset. So above the first two to three stories, the building has to be set back a minimum of five feet average to create that distinction between Traditionally, buildings, the oldest buildings around downtown are usually between two and three stories. So that design requirement is inspired by what did Ann Arbor look like before to help integrate taller buildings into the older context of the downtown area.

Thank you, Plan or Shake. I think that was from Laura when you were making your public comment, and I didn't strike it through, so I wanted to make sure we got that. Dan talked about the luxury apartments and then the affordability, and I'll frame those in my question to you in just a second. I saw that you still snuck in the sound. This time it wasn't the door handle but the window, so good on you for that. I do want to come back to Mr. Garber's praise, because even though it didn't seem like high praise to you, from our point of view, it is high praise that he didn't go through a whole list of how you have failed our environment and our world. He's still not satisfied, but it was good. What I want to do, my colleague, Commissioner Hammerschmidt, mentioned my personal blog. It's thewychefamily.com. So it's just T-H-E-W-Y-C-H-E, which is my last name, and then family.com. And then you can find it there. i recently with commissioner lee as a part of our continuing ed participated in the building michigan communities conference that was in lansing and in that they had a section for elected and appointed officials where we went through a pro forma something that commissioner lee does professionally and also teaches at the university and i'm sure other colleagues have participated in that, but it was helpful to me to try to build a four-unit affordable housing development, and I couldn't. And part of the reason why I couldn't in the pro forma is the bank wouldn't lend enough money in this exercise for me to completely finance it. And so we talk about secondary financing, and I'm going to go in the weeds for just a second because I just think it's important. But part of, and can you bring up your affordable slide where you have your chart? So if I heard you correctly, and this is my question to start, which sits in my comments, you said, That you wouldn't be able to complete this building without these the Correct the Mishnah grants for a TIF program. Yeah, right and And this is a TIF. It's just a brownfield.

This is the three percent is it's a nine percent would which is what you're doing housing TIF Okay, the best way I can describe it is like a supercharged brownfield type program.

Okay, and But it doesn't, it'll still go through the county's brown fill for you to do that. Okay. So what this means and what I'm learning is in order for a developer to do whatever they want to do, they have to secure financing. You call it your capital stack, right? So what's your, what portion of this capital stack has this financing in it? If you're willing to share. You might not want to disclose, but if you...

So the way I typically use TIFF is not necessarily to bring it all into present day, or to capitalize the TIFF stream. With such a long duration of TIFF, I'm going to also get in the weeds for a second. With such a long duration of TIFF, which is basically I pay property taxes, you give me some of it back. That getting the money back income stream, I can actually show the bank and say, hey, look, this is extra income to the building, and they'll give me more debt because I can support the payments of it because I have the TIF stream. So that's the way I'm using it here.

So you're not actually using it to close your financial gap. You're using it to extend your liability in order to get bank financing. Yes. And then if you will, and you can decline, are you using other funding sources like limiter partners? Are there other grants that you're doing? Are you capitalizing the equity from your other developments in Michigan to finish this?

I don't cross-pollinate between developments. Each is its own LLC with its own group of investors. So the capital stack for me is going to be a senior loan of hopefully 80-something percent on this.

So 80% is really high. That's coming from your primary financing source?

Yes. Well, and that's aided by this TIF stream. And we'll say, okay, we'll lend you this much based on the rents that you're taking in and parking revenue and your TIF stream. We can support this amount of debt on this project.

And so this was our back and forth at the pre-PUD because towards the end, you sort of put in, oh, it meets this criteria because it has affordable housing. And then I asked, well, how are you, are you donating that? Are you as a developer putting that in? And you were like, oh no, it's this program. And then I clarified, I was like, oh, then that's our tax dollars that are coming in. And so we went back. So I really do appreciate you hearing my question very clearly and not ignoring it or obfuscating it, but being really straightforward with us as a community about how you plan to fund and you know, sort of make these affordable units available. And this is just a challenge of, like, I think from the public, we are your neighbors, many of us, some your literal neighbors, some your near neighbors, and often we want the same things. I think Commissioner Lee articulated it best. We are in a legal framework, and so the legal framework guides how we can ask for those things. But we often do this back and forth with developers, where they come, they have an idea, they have a landowner who's going to sell them a property, they want to envision something. We have public commenters who are like, You need to care about the environment. Don't hook up fossil fuel. And so when you don't do that, you get a little praise. I don't think you're going to get the gate that you are asking for, but the building is serving as a gate for the trash. And I don't know if the question around the trash was concerned about people rifling through the trash, and that was what you were articulating. But the developer is here, and when we finish our vote, often developers are happy to continue conversations with near neighbors you seem like someone who is willing to have a conversation with your near neighbor and I think you should have a conversation with them if you all are the physical literal neighbors you can also ask the developer if you have questions during the development around parking of construction we just had at our table two weeks ago or three weeks ago A neighbor sent in a note. They couldn't go on their bike down a construction site. They wrote a note to us. We read it. We asked the planning manager to figure out what the problem was. The planning manager figured out what the problem was. I talked to the person because they happened to go to my church and they're like, I got so many calls. And it is now fixed. And there are only few times that we can actually do that. And so we want to articulate when we can. And I say all of that to say you can figure out how to talk. to each other, give them a number that they can call if they have questions, and make sure someone answers and responds to it. And then that just helps us live together a little bit better. It's not going to solve all our problems, but it does solve a little. My colleague dealt with the unbundling of the parking. I thought that that was helpful to hear that you are unbundling that. And then I think... One, I appreciate you bringing this back. I appreciate you proposing this development in our community. We need this housing. We need this affordable housing. I appreciate you hearing us about opening up the development so it doesn't feel like a gated community. That was the comment that was made at the first time was that... people tend to see these developments as private, vertical, gated communities. So they sit here, but they're not open. So like, you know, someone can solicit at my door because I'm in a single family home in a neighborhood, but they can't get to my door if I lived in your development. And it does feel... for some people to say, oh, I have all these neighbors, but they're over there, and there's a pass that I would need in order to interact with them. So opening up your lobby, putting, you know, activated space in there, and saying here that that's your intent to try to integrate the development into the neighborhood I think helps. I do have one more question. Again, feel free not to answer. So recently our local paper in Live talked about rents in the downtown. They put the rates between $20 per square foot to $45 per square foot. I wonder if you have any guidance on what you're thinking for a commercial space downtown. Yeah.

That sounds about right from a market rate standpoint.

So are you above or below 30 in what you're estimating as you push through this development? Again, you don't have to answer, but I'm going to ask.

With the rooftop space, it's complicated. There's more of a partnership structure. But the cafe... I have one project where I'm doing a rent per square foot and a different market, but I would shoot to be at the lower end of that. Frankly, to me, it's more important to keep the coffee shop alive and the coffee flowing and people happy. The building doesn't live or die on the rent from that lobby, correct?

And that's what a lot of neighbors are concerned about. So you're tearing something out that seems viable, that is viable for them. You're going to shut that down for X number of years, two to three years to complete your development. Then you're going to put that space up for lease. But when you put that space up for lease, you're going to try to maximize the return on your investment. So those rents sit. I'm just telling you the narrative. You can comment when I'm done. sit at $45 per square foot for 2,500 to 3,000 square feet, and no one can afford that except for a national retailer for whom they have a book that can afford that. And so then it feels like you've taken something away from the community, and then you've left us with an unactivated, empty storefront. So I think that's what I'm hearing. And so if there's anything you want to say to us, I'm sure myself and the neighbors would happily hear what you have to say.

Sure, sure, sure. It's way more important to the building that the space is active and warm and inviting and occupied. bringing in it's such a I see that happen all the time where a developer will say oh I have to have a mixed-use building because of zoning or any Z or whatever and they'll build a 2,000 square foot gray box off to the side and say there you go check the box and then it just sits empty forever and ever and it's not a creative to the building it doesn't help anybody and this was this this coffee shop Lobby concept was a little hack that I did a couple of times in Portland and And it worked pretty well. I'm from Michigan originally, lived in Portland for a while, developed, came back. So a lobby coffee shop like this, to me, it's much more about the building culture and character. It would be more of a partnership deal with whoever's going to be in there. The building I'm about to open, I'm buying all of their equipment for them because they're like, hey, you know, you're leasing up like we're not going to have the it's 148 unit building. Those people aren't there on day one. They're going to show up over the course of the lease up. But like, can you help us out? Like, yeah, sure, man. We just need you to be there and smile and serve coffee, and we'll work it out. So it's a building amenity as much as it is a retail space. And to a large extent, what we're trying to do on the top floor is the same concept.

Okay. I do remember Commissioner Weatherby saying not to promise the rooftop if you can't deliver because a promise that's not delivered is worse than you delivering on something that you said. So I just wanted to quote Commissioner Weatherby before I move on. Mr. Garber proposed an amendment or a change to the language of the development agreement. Do we have any support for that? We'll start with Commissioner Mills. I have it written. I can share it with you or if you already have it written, if that's where you're going.

Sorry, point of clarification, you're discussing the supplemental regulations, correct? Yeah, I think so.

Okay.

Yep. What was the concern?

There was just a differentiate between development agreement and supplemental regulations.

I am sorry. You are correct. You are correct. We are talking about the supplemental regs. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

I just wanted to make sure things were clear for the record.

Yeah, that's great.

And I think that the language is the same as in the comments. And your research, in terms of whether or not this is required, I think is really strong. Here's my two cents worth, which, again, most of the energy that I study is much larger than this. So I'll be honest that it's enough to be dangerous. And first of all, I think not connecting to natural gas is a huge win. In terms of a fossil fuel in part because the more new customers that we have particularly ones that are saying I'm connected to natural gas and so and for life safety Considerations it makes it really hard to shut off that system. And so we don't want to be adding new customers to natural gas So I think that that actually from a sustainability perspective is a win even though diesels dirtier Let's be really honest And so that's one of the things that I'm thinking about. I wish that I had taken time to look in NFPA 855, which is the regulations that are, that's the National Fire Protection Act 855. It's associated with battery storage systems. I don't know the sizing of what kind of battery you would need in order to serve the elevators and how much is going to be generated if 30% of the roof has solar panels on it, right? Like, look at that. And NFP 855 was recently updated in light of fire concerns associated with battery storage. And so for a number of things there, Fire officials are increasingly asking that the current chemistries of batteries be separated from buildings. And so I don't know the footprint. It requires some spacing. And so I think the idea of plug and play, I think that the intuition here about diesel being standalone and then being able to swap out is about right. And I don't know if the sizing will work. And the other thing that I'm going to say, though, is that you should talk to the sustainable energy utility, because we have a new utility in town. that is looking at both rooftop solar, or backyard solar, depending on where you are, and battery storage. And so there may be opportunities, and thinking about it as a community asset and pricing it that way. So you're not going to build this building tomorrow.

Sure.

By the time you figure out what this looks like, there may be more options. And what might be expensive right now or unattainable right now may not be if it's part of kind of the city's sustainable utility. It might make better utilization. I mean, these systems that back up diesel, you hope to never have to use, right? And actually, I mean, I don't know what your experience is. Downtown, my power does not go out very often, blessedly. Like... I know I need to knock on something. I'm right by Lurie Terrace. I've lived in that house for many, but I think one time my power's gone out, which is crazy. And so hopefully you never have to use this. it may be possible for battery storage that is seen as a community asset to not only be the times of backup. So I would just encourage you to explore that. Again, I know other people, a lot of the mechanical stuff is not figured out at this point. Like the developers figure that out later. That is very, very common that they figure it out later. So that would be something that I would suggest. So in that way, I don't know that I would support that change. The only change that I might support to the supplemental regs is to ban a natural gas connection. So that's what I would put in there instead.

Would you like to make that as a motion?

Sure.

All right, let's pause. Manager Kelly, let me know when you're ready.

It seems like that is friendly too, like it's not going to kill your project.

No, we're not planning any natural gas anyway.

We're waiting so that we can get a shared document and language, which then helps staff when they talk with you later. All right.

Please advise.

Yeah. Back to you or Hammerschmidt, because you two together have been sending signals across my eyesight.

I'm pulling up the supplemental regs. And so I think in this section, sustainability features C. Yeah, in C, under one, all buildings.

Let's pause. Let's pause so that Manager Kelly can catch us.

I'm going to pull up the offer syntax. Sure. Amazing.

In just a moment, though, let's make sure Manager Kelly's ready for us. And for those of you who are wondering what we're doing, we're trying to make sure that the language that the table is about to share gets correctly captured by staff so that it can be correctly communicated to the developer. Because often multiple ones of us will wordsmith and make changes as Commissioner Norton is about to do. And the cross-talking can be difficult to capture on the recording later. So if you're like, what is happening? That's what's happening. No, we're going to wait just one more second, and then I have four of you to speak, and then we'll let you go as soon as I hear green light from Manager Kelly.

Sorry, I thought I could share my whole screen. We can sit in silence.

I know it's uncomfortable.

Share a window. So I guess I'll share the... Just a second.

Sorry. I know everyone wants to speak, but if we can just wait, it'll actually work a little bit better.

So in the draft supplemental regulations under PUD regulation, see sustainability features?

Yes. Now, who's going to speak for you all? Is it Norton?

I trust Norton's got a great idea of what to say here.

All right. So we're going to pause there and hear from Lee first, because you wanted to interject something, and then we'll go to the language for Norton.

It was just to say procedurally, this goes to council after. We make a recommendation. So just for those watching, sorry.

No, you're fine. All right, Commissioner Norton.

So I'm working where you're going, and I think adding a little bit of flexibility. So I want to make two suggestions, Manager Kelly. On the last phrase, it says, except for backup power sources to power life safety systems, I would insert the words, except for backup power sources other than electric may be used to power. So we're opening the door to allow something else. That's the first.

Can you pause and repeat it?

I'm just wondering if something general to the effect of to adjust the source of energy to become flexible, and then that would allow I'm just suggesting perhaps if we're not sure or maybe there's a consternation over the exact phrasing that something that captures the essence of what you want to do would accomplish maybe the same thing because planning staff could talk with OSI before it goes to council, etc.

Just putting that out there. So I would put these words out there. And then if OSI needs to tweak it to make it workable, that's fine with me. But the first concept is to open the door for power sources other than electric can be used for backup. But then I would add a final sentence. Backup power sources may not be based on connection to natural gas. So I'm kind of opening the door for other sources, but then closing it to natural gas specifically, which is what I heard Commissioner Mills wanted to propose.

Is that friendly to the table? Is that agreeable to the table? We're going to motion it in a moment, but I just want to, before we do that.

I'm asking CTN if they can put this on the screens that are in front of the commission so that you can see the... It's up now. I'm writing it. Make sure I get it how you would like it. OK. So in the draft supplemental regulations under section 4, PUD regulation C, sustainability features to adjust the final phrase, which is, I don't think that's right. So to adjust the final phrase in 0.1 To allow power sources other than electric for backup. I got that far. Okay.

And to add a final statement that the backup power source shall not be based on a natural gas connection. Or natural gas? Does it need to be?

I think the natural gas connection is the important part. I mean, I don't think space-wise propane is going to be any better. Like, propane and natural gas are more or less the same thing. It's just it's not hooked up to the system that, again, is part of what will become a legacy system.

Yeah, so the backup power source shall not, I would say shall, not should, shall not be based on a connection to natural gas.

So I'm just writing it as though it were at the end of the Sorry trying to remember because there are actually two motions for This particular item See if I can find my tab Is this motion one or two, Mr. Shaik?

I think this is motion one. Okay. Because that reads the planned unit development district and the supplemental regulations. That's how that ends.

I've got it. Give me one moment. So... Supplemental regulations, perhaps with the additional recommendation

How does that look? What is missing is that I'm looking at the last two lines, comma, and to add a final statement that the backup power source shall not be based on a connection to natural gas. or something like that, shall not be connected to natural gas. It's the connection to this thing that I think we just addressed.

OK. So the bolded text would be added with an approved amendment or an amendment by the body.

To the motion. Let's hear from Commissioner Hammerschmidt, then Commissioner Lee.

I don't know that we, I think that last, that final statement is enough. I don't really understand the adjusting to allow power sources other than electric for backup, because that's what it already does. Doesn't it? I mean, it says except for backup power sources. So it's all electric except for backup power sources. And then we would say... And then that can't be a natural gas connection. I'm not sure why we would need that first part.

I was trying to capture battery, which I guess is electric.

And technically, it's not a generator. It's a storage device. And so anyway, it's not really backup power.

So you think all we need is just the final thing.

I think so. I agree. No natural gas. I mean, you can do just no natural gas connection. It's fine, too. But that sounds more. Should I strike the highlighted portion then?

Yes.

It makes it simpler. Yeah.

All right. Commissioner Lee.

Can I just ask for my edification? So if we are saying for life safety emergency backup systems, we're cool with some type of combustion. In this particular scenario, it's diesel. Like, help me to understand the kind of segmentation. Because if there's a finite amount of fuel in this diesel generator, it needs to be refilled, probably needs to be serviced, et cetera. But help me to understand the rationale behind saying, well, we're cool with combustion in this one, but not cool with it. OK.

I think it's a code thing.

It code requires. Right now, I mean, like the language currently, basically, I'm just trying to ask, like, what is the version as, again, it's like putting this kind of restriction on it. I'm just asking.

I think it's the connection to the natural gas.

Okay, so this is connectivity, which they would have...

Right, which the developer has already committed to. And so I think the discussion at the table was, but it's not actually in the supplemental regs. So this developer is committed, but the supplemental regs is going to follow with the... So the table, as the discussion went, wants to tie that to the rezoning as opposed to this particular developer who's amenable to it.

OK, got it. Because the language currently says all building in the development are all electric, everything is powered by that, except for backup power sources to power life safety systems in compliance with the political building codes and other laws. And then we want to add one additional sentence that's saying, not what Sandy before going, no natural gas connections.

Yeah, and the idea behind that is that, and there's actually research, sorry.

No, no, no, we've already filled in our decorum. I just told Commissioner Norton he can just go because we're just having a conversation. That's all. This is not a correction. Commissioner Mills, go ahead.

And there's some active research that's been published from the University of Michigan effectively saying when we get to the end and there's very few customers left on natural gas system, that's when it gets really tricky. To abandon a system where there's still some people that are dependent on it, there's a lot of discussion about who's able to get off of natural gas first. And generally speaking, it's been wealthier folks. And if we have a new customer hooking up saying, I need natural gas for this life support system, it's going to make that natural gas system there longer. And so what we want to try to do, that's the idea of not getting new people addicted, honestly.

Connected.

Yeah, connected to it so that we can transition people off of it rather than continuing to grow the system is the idea. So that, yes, it's fossil fuels. And actually, diesel's worse from a climate perspective. But it's hopefully only backup. And it's for life safety.

Thank you. That's helpful. And just from my standpoint, it had to do with the continuity of services. This is only in emergency situations. If there's a finite amount of diesel, for example, I don't know how long that lasts, right? So the question is just a trade-off, right? The policy is always about trade-offs. But thank you for articulating that. That was helpful for me. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Norton, did you want to? Otherwise, we'll go to Commissioner Bassiuni.

Just to add... So part of the reason for not connecting to natural gas is not to perpetuate the natural gas system and have that going. If I'm reading this, maybe we need to say emergency life support. We're not putting in a generator that's going to be used all the time. an emergency backup source that will only, if ever, be used if the power goes out for any length period of time. You can bring in diesel fuel if you need to. So I understand and I get batteries are not entirely safe technologies too. There are fire hazards as well. There's no safe completely perfect solution here, pick the one that's the least disruptive or the least problematic. I get why, in this case, diesel is actually probably the better way to go, and I'm willing to accept that. And I get why we don't want to allow gas connection. So I'm just following up on your question. Why are we going here? Because it's not a permanent, ongoing system. It's just an emergency system.

So. Thank you, Commissioner Norton. Commissioner Bastiani.

I'm loving this discussion. This is great. Thank you all for, I think, picking parts to kind of dissect, and it's great to hear, and I appreciate it. My question was for Commissioner Mills. I'd love to see that study, because I'm a nerd, and I want to read it. So at some point, if that's something you can share out, I don't even know if it's something that could be posted in the meeting minutes or something. I think that's a really valuable piece of information. the peer-reviewed literature or the literature in general.

So thank you. Dr. Katie Hausman at the Ford School of Public Policy has done work on this. Fabulous. Thank you.

All right. Can we all turn our attention to the proposed motion on our screens? It's also being displayed for the public on the two monitors in front and the one directly behind the podium.

I'm hoping that someone could remind me who... Oh, we haven't done that yet, actually.

We wanted you to be able to write it first. Wonderful. So, did we get the language right? Everyone at the table is okay with this? All right, so moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Hammerschmidt, It already says I can do a voice vote. I shall. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Do we have any other discussion of the original motion as amended now and the secondary motion? Are we ready for a vote? Manager Kelly, when you're ready, you can have a seat. We will, we can have a roll call vote on the motion, motion one as amended and motion two.

Boish?

Yes.

Hammerschmidt? Yes. Lee? Yes. Mills? Yes. Weatherby. Yes. Norton. Yes. Beth Uny.

Yes.

That carries. Thank you. Good luck. We did. We did. We moved, seconded, and yep, we did that. Everybody good? Or do you need a bathroom break? Oh, we do need a bathroom break. Let us take a five-minute, well, six-minute bathroom break. We'll be back at 920. Okay. I'm going to call us back to order. Thank you, everyone. We are now at, I do believe, 11A. Yes, other business. And this is CPC feedback on the UDC update to RFPs. This is an opportunity for the Commission to provide feedback on the proposed RFP, and I think we will start with a joint staff presentation by Planner Bennett and Planner DeLeo. However, Planner Bennett often prefers to be called Michelle in these settings, so either will be welcome.

Which no one adheres to.

Oh, Alexis too? Okay. All right. I didn't know that, Alexis. So there we go. No, she doesn't want to be called Michelle. All right. So we're kind of punchy tonight. And it's early, friends. It's only 923. So we'll turn it over to Michelle and Alexis.

Okay, thank you. Just to orient everyone, today we are going over a draft of the UDC RFP that we hope to issue. We had decided a couple meetings ago that instead of going piecemeal through this with a staff work plan that we are going to issue an RFP. So Alexis and I have been working on it. I believe it's been in your packet the last couple of weeks, but maybe you didn't get to it last time as much because the meeting went so late. So this might be our first proper discussion about this. My plan was, since it's in your packet, we could all just go through it. I have highlighted on my copy some areas I wanted to draw all of your attention to because we have received some comments from commissioners, and I want to show where we tried to incorporate them. and you all can give us feedback if those are adequate enough or if you have any other wording you would like to use alexis and i are taking notes so this is a feedback session before we issue this okay um So the introduction has largely stayed the same. It's just a reminder that we have a zoning ordinance that was largely written in the 1960s, even though we have amended it over time. A lot of the content is outdated. And that our comprehensive land use plan for 2050 has asked that we do a rewrite so that we can now align with our newer goals. So on page 1A, project goals, there was a note last time to update those or make it clear to the selected firm that they would be responsible for reading through and understanding our goals and strategies. We did provide a list here that shows the major highlights of the goals and strategies from the comp plan. This is not an exhaustive list, but we did try to take the feedback here that These bullet points here should reflect the goals that we have spent the last three years discussing. So we added those. We added this section B. specific objectives. And we took out some higher level things just to be clear. So underneath these, we go article by article what our specific objectives are. But at the top here, these objectives kind of relate to the larger UDC of how we want the document organized and how we want it to look. So these were scattered amongst different articles before, but we wanted to pull them out at the beginning and call them out. So those are the bullet points there, including accessible to all users. We get into more detail later when we talk about deliverables that we need you to be compliant with the new ADA standards for web content because this will largely live online. But this is kind of the higher level version of this needs to be accessible to all users. I'm also to you all interrupting me at any point with questions, because we have about nine pages here for this draft. Then we go into the articles that we'd like to see major revisions to. I don't think a lot of this content has changed since last time. I think we tried to condense it and make it clearer. But I think that the major ideas remain the same, and that we need someone to rewrite the zones that are going to comply with the intent of hub, transition, and residential from the comp plan. We made clear that we'd like it to be the fewest number of districts as appropriate to minimize exceptions, alternatives, and that we need additional area height and placement standards to achieve compatibility. So if I'm losing anyone, we are on page three at the top here. We're looking at article two under zoning districts. We're asking them to look at our character overlay districts. We're also asking them to advise us how to integrate PUD districts because we talked about that a little bit during the comprehensive land use plan. If you all remember, we have I didn't know, but Josh said 30 or 40 within the city. And that might affect maybe up to 80 or 90. We'll figure that out. But some integration there with our standards. Article three is our use regulations. And I will outline here maybe a common, maybe not tension, but more conflict. But when you're writing a scope, there are two ways to go about it. You can use more general language because we are trying to hire experts and we want to Tell them what we want, but we want to leave enough room so that they can bring their expertise to us. But you also want to be specific enough so that they know what they're getting into and so that they can assemble the best team possible for our specific issues that this city has. As a college town, we might have different zoning issues than other communities. So you want to lay them out, but you also want to leave room. So this here is us trying to strike a balance between being specific and also vague in certain areas. So with our use standards here, or sorry, with our use regulations, note that I did call out, we have said in our comp plan that we want local neighborhood commercial uses in our residential districts. that we need to look at dimensional standards and potentially supplemental standards for our, you know, triplexes and townhomes. So we call that out in this section. And we also call out, you know, group housing, which is a bigger deal here because we have fraternities and sororities and that we also want to work more closely with housing co-ops to enable housing affordability. Okay, article four has two sections We start with what we know we need and then in the second part it says as time and budget allow And under the time and budget allow are things that we have either worked on recently So we have new ish standards already like our bicycle standards our parking standards and That's one example. But above them, these bullet points are the things that we are saying we need to have addressed by the time this draft is done. That would include things like stormwater, natural features, access standards. So then moving on to Article 5, this is our... Oh, yes. So we are on page five, and we are on article five, which is administrative bodies and procedures. This is really where we need to work with a consultant to figure out how to provide clear, succinct, relevant standards for our approvals, amendments, modifications, and anything that is creating a barrier to redevelopment this will overlap slightly with our economic development team who has also been tasked with looking at our procedures and how we can streamline things and make them faster and more predictable for developers so we will be coordinating with them on this section as well Nonconformities, this section needs a lot of work, according to our planning staff. And we didn't talk about this as much during the comp plan, but having experience with it, we're asking the selected firm to help us with best standards in this area. Okay, page five still, project schedule. This is asking them to have a complete version in 24 months. That still gives us up to 36 months, right, which is a total we've been talking about as an ideal timeline would be completing this in three years. That would put the onus on them to do this within two years so that we can have some time once we have a complete draft to work on this as staff and with the Planning Commission. At the bottom of page five, we added some desired qualifications here. This was not in the original scope, but we thought that there are things that we have preferences and that we wanted to be open about what those are. Okay, moving on to the scope of work, we added a few extra materials here. The reimagined Washtenaw corridor improvement study was added, and once our engineers looked at the scope as well, the public services utility comprehensive plan reports were added. If you remember, the stormwater, sanitary, and water studies are going on right now and should be ending this summer. Okay. As we move down, we try to be very clear about what staff will be responsible for, how we will assist, how we will work together with the consultants, and then what our deliverable expectations are from the consultants. So to start, we would prefer a kickoff meeting and that I envisioned to be with staff. I know that was a question that came in. It's open for either. It could be held with the planning commission, but I had intended that to be with staff. I'm asking them to have a template that tracks our detailed progress for each scope item and the percentage of the budget that is spent. And that is something that I would like to be shared with staff monthly. There was a note here that also with Planning Commission, I agree with that. I think I was trying to be clear to them that's the responsibility to us and that we will have a responsibility to also be sharing that information with the Planning Commission. Okay, as we go through now, we're looking at the draft preliminary code and zoning layer. The way that I see this going is that I don't know their exact process, but with zoning, because it is a document where so many different sections are related, that they might be writing large parts of it at a time. But we have asked that they either come to us with article by article or articles that are grouped logically that we need to look at together. We've asked that they have at least three meetings with staff as they go through each article, and we can work with them. We have written in here that we would come to you at least twice per article, and that the first time would generally be where we need your feedback on decision points. So we would be drafting things and saying, well, we could go this way or this way. You go a little bit further down in this parking section or another section. We could go this way or this way. Let's draft it out. Let's think about it. And let's bring it to the Planning Commission at decision points. And then we can come back to you when things have actually been drafted with the feedback that you have provided to us. So there would be regular meetings with staff. And there would still be regular meetings during that 24 months with the Planning Commission. I have a list here on the top of page eight of some ideas for engagement. Again, this is one of those areas where we want to give them some of our good ideas or some things we know that have worked, but we are also open to Anything that they've had success with also There was a question about what we mean by working groups or focus groups because it says select a targeted group of residents boards and commissions of business owners or other relevant stakeholders and I think the way we've been conceiving this is that because this is more of a technical document, that we would like groups that are focused around bigger topics that we know need to change. So there could be, for example, a stormwater working group. We already have one because they're writing the stormwater comprehensive plan right now. So we've already assembled a group of professionals in that area that could perhaps help us now move forward with the policy. We were talking to the DDA today. There's a potential that with some of their transportation studies that we could have a specific working group with them and their business owners on how we might want to rezone areas where trunk lines or different streets are going to be changing there. So selecting a targeted group is meant to be centered around a topic that we know needs some expertise to help us with the policy. Okay, in the bottom of page eight with those deliverables, we'd like a Word document that shows the track changes made so that it's very clear what's being changed or if they're proposing completely new information that they cite what part of the UDC is changing or indicate what text is new. That will help us over time that was brought up to be more accessible so that the residents can follow along and we can post the different drafts and people can see exactly what sections we're talking about. Again, a minimum of monthly updates to staff on the project's progress, which we also plan to share with you on a similar basis. And then I would just say on page nine, when we get to the deliverable expectations, I thought it was there where we were clear that we would like to make this document as user-friendly as possible. So we want it to be linked throughout. We want, ideally, when you're hovering over words that are defined, that a definition will pop up, that this is accessible for all users, that it's really, ideally, much easier to use now that we have some more of that technology. That brings us to the bottom of page nine, which is the end of this scope. If there happened to be any other money lying around, or if they wanted to propose within their budget some additional services that they could provide, We would love to have a staff training because many of us are very used to the code as written, and so it might take some time to get used to this. And also, secondly, if you've heard of services like Muni Code or other platforms, There can be some back and forth with a host and getting things online. So we also said, if you have experience with that and you have time, we would love help with that. So we will ask for them to budget for those items, but those will be optional. Alexis, unless you think I missed anything major, I'm happy to turn it over to any feedback or questions.

I would only say that for the RFP, Michelle was very instrumental on applying lessons learned from the comp plan process, the behind-the-scenes managing with the consultant and applying those. And the rest of the staff was also in the zoning staff was heavily involved in the planning. WHAT SHOULD CHANGE. SO THE SCOPE WAS REALLY A JOINT EFFORT, APPLYING BOTH WHAT OUR VISION IS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE UDC, BUT PLUS ALSO THE LOGISTICS AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE COMP PLAN. AND I THINK SOME OF THE SPECIFIC ENGAGEMENT EXPECTATIONS OR THE DELIVERABLE EXPECTATIONS, YOU'LL SEE THAT REFLECTED, MICHELLE'S EXPERIENCE REFLECTED THERE.

THANK YOU, ALEXIS AND MICHELLE. Commissioners, what feedback do we have and who would like to start?

No.

Okay, we'll start with Commissioner Lee.

I'M GOING TO TURN TO MR. GARBER'S COMMENTS EARLIER JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE POINT ON SUSTAINABILITY AS OPPOSED TO JUST RECOMMENDING FOR THINGS THAT ENCOURAGE SUSTAINABILITY RATHER REQUIREMENTS THERE OF. CAN WE TURN THAT LANGUAGE REAL QUICK?

Yeah, thank you for noting that. I actually wrote it down as Mr. Garber was speaking, so I do have it here, I think verbatim. So identify where and how sustainable features can be required or incentivized and environmental harms avoided or mitigated. So I have that as a note.

Yep, that's what I have as well.

Yeah, I would like to see that added.

Okay. I don't think we're making motions. I think we're just making recommendations to it and then passing it on. And I guess if you're going to reject it, you're going to tell us that you're going to reject it? Okay, great. Thanks.

Yes, so I do have that noted.

All right. Commissioner Norton. into your mic.

I'll repeat, Mr. Garbers. Wow, thank you for sharing this with us and soliciting our feedback. I think this is a great process. And I think on balance, it's And I don't want to flyspeck it and kind of make lots of individual tweaks, but I have a couple suggestions to think about. You might ask, you do mention that you're aiming for a 24-month timeline, but you might ask them to provide benchmarks on a little bit more precisely how they think they're going to get there. so that we can track a little bit better in the proposals when they're proposing to you are the benchmarks they're providing sensible and likely to achieve what we're trying to get to. So that's the first suggestion. You might ask them, you've kind of laid out a strategy of how you think you want It makes sense to you all to proceed which is fine, but you might also solicit from them their own strategy for how to organize this work and and Combine it and work it through because they might present something to you that you all hadn't thought of that actually makes a whole lot of sense and if if they're the experts, I'm not really sure where you would put that but kind of put that out there as well we're all we'd also welcome a proposed strategy for how to organize the work something along those lines that's a second suggestion it's a little bit I know I saw in here that the staff will be engaging the public engagement and you're just looking for from the consultant to help with that, but I think you need to, the presentation you gave to us before with the different levels of public engagement for the different kinds of decisions, you might include that as an addendum or something and just make that a little bit more clear of how you're envisioning that public engagement and the role the consultant would play with that. You might get a better proposal in terms of what that means if you're providing that information. I don't want to let the public engagement piece get lost because it wasn't clarified in the RFP. So that's a suggestion. And then finally, in terms of qualifications, I think we want somebody who's more than just as a desired qualification familiar with the Michigan's planning and zoning enabling laws. I know there's a little bit of a, we don't necessarily want to hire attorneys, but wow, I sure would like someone who's drafting a zoning code to have some legal training and know the MPA and the MZA and the case law that's relevant. And so I'd want to beef that up a little bit more meaningfully that we want someone who knows their stuff.

Do you mean specifically beef up the word familiarity with?

No. So here's where I would confer with the city council on what they're willing for you to go along with. But I would ask you to kind of rethink how you present that and be a little bit more, increase the expectations on the legal qualifications of the consultant that's preparing this work. their knowledge of the relevant case law and provisions and and go with what the city count the city attorney is comfortable with and what you're all comfortable with does that make sense so are you saying that there's like some like required qualifications and then desired qualifications required they should they should know the mpa and the mza a desired qualification would be an attorney who knows that in the case law maybe is the way i would think about it

Commissioner Mills.

That actually would address one of my concerns about the requiring sustainability elements, to be real honest. There are things that are preempted based on Building code like because because our very uniform building code and that have changed recently because of the and like addendum put into it, but that's something that We don't want somebody to give us some give us something from California So if I can riff I mean there may be some hesitancy to spend money on attorneys to write this code but it'll probably be more cost-effective in the long run and

if it's attorneys writing the code who know the law or some fashion so that we don't go through six rounds because the city attorney keeps saying, well, no, actually we can't do that because that would be illegal. So there's a sweet spot in there somewhere where the original draft we're getting is going to work legally and we don't bounce back and forth with the city attorney. So I'm trying to beef up the qualifications to get there. Am I making sense? I see Alexis nodding her head.

I would say with all due respect to attorneys, though, we don't want it to sound as if it's written by attorneys. I think we want it to sound right as, like, that someone from the public could pick this up and follow it. But in terms of adhering to Michigan laws, absolutely.

But it still needs to adhere to Michigan and federal constitutional law. Yeah.

Yeah, I think your point is well taken, but I feel like that is just such an essential element. We can look into beefing it up, but that goes to the required qualifications and then desired. It's an absolutely required qualification to be familiar with the state and the Michigan state legislation.

And capable of producing a draft that will be legal. Yes. Yes, I'll add that concept in there somewhere.

Right. Yeah, but... We specifically do not want attorneys writing the code. That is inherently not user friendly.

I wouldn't go that far. There are firms out there that have attorneys, and then they're quite good. I wouldn't count them out.

Yes, there are firms that have attorneys, but you don't want them the lead off. You don't want them to be the lead off.

Yeah, well, if that's the concern, then make it clear that the code needs to be written so that it can be read by the lay public and understood. Have that be a primary criterion, but it's also got to be legally... and there's gonna need to be an attorney in there somewhere who can vouch for that.

Okay. I have two more things.

I had Bassiouni next. No, I have you next.

Yeah, I was going to say, I know that my comment led to other discussion.

I have you, then Bassiouni, then Weatherby, then Hammersmith.

Amazing.

Great. Sorry.

No problem. So I'm on the bottom of page eight. And actually, it's really fun for me that you both... Alexis and Michelle are here. Because it's the second bullet in the deliverable expectation that I'm actually really curious how we feel about this. So in part it's because I... Because of Zorro. Which predated... Yes, exactly. The zoning ordinance reorganization. Yeah. Which was a... multi-year, was it a decade almost, process. I came in towards the very end. I came on to commission towards the very end of it. And some of it was mapping. The whole goal of this was to, and Alexis led it, so I'm going to summarize, but effectively not change the zoning ordinance, but make it more readable. And so there was this huge mapping of what was in the old organization and where it showed up in the new, in what is now the UDC. The reason that I bring that up is that if we're really starting from scratch, I don't know why we would want a Track Changes version. And as I say that, I also want them to know the history of what they're coming from. And so I can see some benefits in saying, you know the sorts of things that we have historically cared about. But that one gives me more pause and or suggests that we have different, we're sending mixed messages about what we're expecting in this.

I'm going to jump in and say, cannot help myself. I did not leave Zorro. The attorney's office was Zorro. And it did take 10 years. Now, I actually circled that, and I feel the same. I'm not sure what benefit attract changes compared to the current UGC would provide. I think, though, among all the... I think we can work with this. Even if it stays in the scope of work, when we actually select a consultant, we have other language in here that talks about develop a system for tracking comments and feedback. I think that the... The gist behind this bullet point is be clear about what we're changing, maybe when the substantive work changes. I should mention for the table, I guess, it was extremely important in the Zorro because we were very much trying to be not making substantive changes. So we were tracking... even if it was rephrased, but the substance stayed the same, and that we didn't add or subtract any standards. Here, I think it's not as important. We might actually want to add or subtract standards. But again, I think the overall gist is, A, be very transparent about what we're doing when we are adding or subtracting a standard or changing it, making sure that we're not creating any gaps. We actually want to fill gaps that we have in regulations. We don't want to create any new ones. So that's what this is... is driving at. And maybe it's not an actual track. I think that once the preliminary draft is out, then track changes are very important. Michelle and I, we will regroup about this. But we don't need to beat it. But yeah, I think good flag, good point. Share your concerns. We'll figure out something.

Yeah, thank you for bringing that up because we had discussed that before like if this is going to be a rewrite But there was also the thought that like we might have some good sections that just need a little Tweaking and so maybe they carry those over and show us the tweaks We don't know but I think Alexis made the point that we will figure out how to reward this well part of it

is that I want to learn from what they've done in other places. And just having a cookie cutter standard template is not the thing that I think is good. I want them to have done their homework and read what's in the UDC now, also really internalized the comp plan. And so I think that that's, yeah. Also, I am reading, based on what you said, the list of priorities at the beginning, like pages two, and what actually they're doing is a non-exhaustive list. In part, I don't want to... I don't beat horses, but I like I don't want to be a broken record on this, but I do think particularly when we get to residential districts that part about like thinking through Build maximum building sizes is gonna come back up and I don't see that in here really and so I just, it's in the plan. So I know, I believe that it'll come back. And I just don't know if we should, I'm okay that we're not explicit about it, but I want to name it now because if you think we do need to be more explicit about that, I can pull out the specific bullet in the plan that I think will give comfort to everyone other folks who might read the first couple of these and say, whoa.

Are you suggesting that it is a bullet point in this list? Possibly, as long as

Or to make it real clear that this is a non-exhaustive list. We're expecting you to, when you are doing the zoning, go to what we say in chapter, I think it's chapter five, right? Where we have a couple pages on each of the different areas and what we're expecting of those. That, in my mind, is really important. Okay. Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Mills. Commissioner Bassuni. Awesome. And then Weatherby, then Hammerschmidt.

Sweet. Okay. So I will try to keep my comments and questions organized. As I mentioned in my email, and I think a bit ad nauseum, thank you. Oh, I'll wait. Sorry. They're chatting. Or, like, discussing something. No, you're good. OK, great. I was just going to say, ad nauseum, just thank you for providing this RFP. I agree. The balance of it, I am very excited for. I love that we are sharing this out before it is being posted so that the public can see and understand the process. So amazing. All right. So I think one of my general thoughts, and I think I mentioned this at the last RFP draft discussion, kind of, that one of the key things that I'm excited to see you already doing, and I hope we can continue, is a level of transparency around the process so that we can get this best outcome possible. And you allude to it in various points throughout here, which is awesome. Regarding the track changes, yes, I think so. I was a member of the public who would have found the track changes really helpful. But I also definitely understand if we have our lovely UDC. Here's my mini version, because why not? Over 250 pages, and then we're doing track changes granularly. That could be extremely overwhelming and tedious. So I hope and trust that you'll be able to find that balance that you were talking about, because I think exactly if we're starting with a brand new document, tracking the changes over time is one level of complexity versus incorporating the UDC as it stands and then doing track changes. All that to say, I think for me, track changes or some version of it is pretty essential just to have some level of version control and, again, that clarity for folks, myself included. And then another thing more generally, I think... In my understanding around some of our goals, I think I'd mentioned in the email, oh gosh, so many questions, but it's fine, like A20. So I think one thing that's important to me is also re-emphasizing in various points throughout the RFP the idea around walkability and the importance of the word for climate stuff that we want. Thank you, sustainability. So I was thinking in particular on page two, about halfway down the bullet, so where it says promote redevelopment of car-oriented shopping centers to create more downtown-like environments. I was like, I would love not to wordsmith too much, but I would love it to say more walkable environments. Because some downtowns are actually not, in fact, quite walkable. And so I think that, to me, conveys a bit more of what we as a city, one of the values we hold. And I think that was something I'd also mentioned under page four around the provide new parking standards for vehicles, maintaining no minimums, and considering maximum limits with provisions for EV parking, and revising bike parking standards for consistency and coordination. And I was thinking if you would consider separating that out to some level, basically to emphasize that non-vehicle, non-automobile parking is important. It might be subtle, but I feel like that's a way to, again, signal what some of our values are as a community. Let's see what else. Oh, yeah. And then the other thing, just a general theme, was the emphasizing the balance. The balance of trying to emphasize speed with, I think Commissioner Norton, you said this at some point, deliberate urgency, I think is what you said. I like that phrase. So I think there's around the timeline, so page five project schedule, the city expects a final draft code, and the 24 months, and then the 12 months, so the 36 month total timeline. I'm not 100% sure, but I wonder if there's a way to emphasize that intentional and thoughtful speed would be prized for an applicant. Yeah, so I think that was the other thing. And then I had some more specific granular questions, but does that all make sense? Slash any thoughts, feedback, comments, concerns?

Just the last one. So you would like to keep these time frames?

Yes, yes. I mean, if we could do it faster, amazing. But yes, these seem like reasonable timelines, generally speaking, given the workload and my understanding of this process. But yes, if someone is like, well, we could do it effectively within 18 months and then six months, I'm like, I don't know that. They should know that. That could be a nice little thing for them to consider. Okay, so then in terms of the, one of my questions around page six, so this was the reviewing the other codes, the other applicable codes, I was just wondering, following up on one of my questions around the accessibility, just because I didn't see it directly mentioned as a plan, and this might be a question actually for Commissioner Norton as an attorney, But I was wondering, is there any plan that we would need to indicate for accessibility? So like the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act of Michigan, or are the protections within that superseded by one of these other codes? I don't know, but yeah.

I have a few thoughts, but I'm going to defer to Alexis.

I was going to say, generally that is mostly handled by the building code. The zoning ordinance generally talks about land. Accessibility does come into play with walkways, paths, ramps, ramps, angles, and so on and so forth for pedestrians. Once you get to the edge of the building, the building code takes over.

Thank you. That's a great reminder. Excellent. Wonderful. And then let me see. Where was my other question? I can also cede back my time before I, okay, oh, I had one, sorry, I did find the last one, I think. Page two, the use graphics to convey information under part B, this was something I just wanted to follow up with because the previous draft RFP had said graphics and illustrations, and so I'm a visual person, and I just wanted to ask, does graphics efficiently convey that it will also include illustrations? Again, I don't know, but just wanted to flag that because I found the illustration super helpful in the comprehensive land use plan.

I'll add that back in.

OK, thank you. I might have some more questions, but let me cede it to another commissioner so we have some variety. Thank you.

Commissioner Weatherby.

Okay, so my first thing from just kind of my tech background is to just be sort of cautious about specifying technical things like we want a Word document. Well, in two years, that may not be the... So there's just a few things and I assume that that would be kind of assumed or worked on down the road, but There's things like, you know tool tips on hover We want and I would think maybe just things more like such as just because this arena is changing very quickly right now. And so it may be that a document in two years looks entirely different from what we're used to right now. And so just kind of to hedge our bets a little bit that we want, you know, a document that will be a modern document, which I'm not sure a Word document in two years will be. Don't panic, anybody. Just saying. But then I'm going to contradict myself a little bit, because one of the things I would like to add in is clickable maps or maps that are, because that's a frustration that I definitely had in the comp plan, was that it was difficult to get to the level that we needed to really be able to look at some of the things specifically, and I think that's gonna be even more so as we talk about zoning maps. And so I just want to be a little like, I assume those things will all happen, but that's something I'd like to add in. But then my sort of more general question is how do we If we do have a two to three year process that is being primarily driven, I'm not sure if this is correct, primarily driven by an outside organization or primarily worked on by an outside organization, How do we interact with, like, what we are doing? We've already started seeing things like, well, we're working stuff based on the comprehensive plan. We're looking at the comprehensive plan. How do we get to a point in two to three years where that's not just, like, a brand-new document? you know, I think this is going to be mostly staff, is how do we sort of work toward a point where we're working toward the document that this group is providing in sort of a triangulating on the same spot rather than us just doing our thing here and this outside group doing their thing here and giving presentations and then in three years like, oh, you know, And I don't know how to write that in. I don't know how to. I'm just stating it.

We as a staff have had some experience with that when we did the A2-D2 and we wiped out a handful of downtown centered zoning districts and adopted the D1-D2 and the character overlay districts. I think that, and even when currently when we handle a little bit smaller amendments or like the bicycle amendment that's working its way through right now, for developers and anyone designing, we're going to use the, well, the current code is going to be effective until it's not effective. And there's going to be a very hard, bright line. It's going to be a certain date. we're going to use this code until, definitely until we have the first draft and beyond. There will, in reality, will be more like a four to six month window. And that's when we'll start telling people It may be designed to the new code, designed to the new draft. But you're going to have to hold your site plan approval until that date. So of the whatever two or three year time period, we're going to be using our current code right up until about the end. And it's not going to be until the last months when we have some assurance about exactly what the content of the new districts are, what the new standards are. Then we can advise people, you have your choice. GO REALLY FAST UNDER THE CURRENT CODE OR WAIT UNTIL IT'S ADOPTED. BUT WE WON'T REALLY BE OPERATING IN A GRAY AREA IN TERMS OF ACTUAL IMPROVALS AND ENTITLEMENTS.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER HAMMER-SMITH.

THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE THINGS I THINK. ARE THERE, I DON'T THINK I MISSED THIS IN HERE, BUT ARE THERE are required for the proposal from whoever is submitting a proposal, like a schedule, a budget? Is that separate from this? Oh, yeah.

So we have requirements as staff when we propose this, when we publish this. I'm only showing you the scope. But yeah, there are many other things that they will be required to submit.

Which includes like a more detailed schedule of like the stuff? Yes. OK. Perfect. Because I saw that in a couple of the comments too. And then my only other question is just curious about timing on getting this out, selection process, how this gets distributed to reach a broad audience of proposers.

Yeah, I think our goal is to have this published this month. And we would plan to post it on the Michigan Association of Planning and also on the American Planning Association website. So that would give us more of a national scope. So we'd have a local and national. Those are the two that I'm positive about. But I suppose I would ask our team or if you all have any other recommendations on where to post.

Nope. So how long would it be open for? I'm just trying to get a sense of when we might have somebody selected and who would be involved in the selection process.

I think we've discussed internally it would be open for about a month to give teams enough time to assemble. Some people might need to include sub-consultants and need to organize with them. And then I don't know if we've discussed a selection team, but I would assume it would be Alexis, Brett, and I at least to start since we've been working on this. I think that might be Brett's discretion if he wants to pull in people from other departments.

Okay. So hopefully end of summer, we might have somebody selected. Okay. Thank you.

And then that would start the three-year clock. So the clock would start from the selection, not from the submission of the RFP.

So once we select someone, then I think the budget has to be approved by council. So that would have to go to council. So there could be a couple month delay. I would probably start the clock once we're under contract.

So the funding's in the budget, but they still have to approve it because it'll be over a certain amount. Approve the contract. Okay. Yeah. All right. So that could delay it in a sense.

Do you mean that council wouldn't approve it or that you mean just because it has to go to them, that's an extra step in the timeline? Yeah.

I think I have multiple questions or reflections. One is, if this is going out in July, it comes back and you make your selection in August. Okay. So if you're making your selection in August and then it's, is there a first reading, second reading that has to happen? Or is it just a first reading for the contract approval? Does anyone know? Does it have to go through two readings?

I'm sorry. I'm not sure.

Okay. So if it had to go through two readings, that's six weeks? Because it's like the first is a two-week.

They're often on consent agendas.

It's a consent agenda. Okay. So there's not a need for a first or second reading. Okay. All right.

I believe it's done by resolution, not by ordinance. Ordinances are the first and second reading. This would be by resolution. Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

All right.

Other questions from commissioners? Well, thank you.

You're welcome.

All right. We will go now to Agenda Item 11B, Other Business, City Planning Commission 2026 Calendar Updates. Manager Kelly.

As I mentioned at your last meeting, there's a conflict currently on the calendar for the August 4th election. We'd like to move that to August 5th. And I have a proposed motion in your chair's group.

You do. Shall I read it? That would be great. The Planning Commission moves to approve the calendar adjustment as included in the meeting packet. Move by Commissioner Mills. Second it by Commissioner Weatherby. Sorry, I was just slowing down so that Manager Kelly could catch up with me. Great. That brings us to item number 12. Oh, sorry. We have to vote. We have to vote. Can I do this as a voice vote? Yes. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. That takes us to agenda item number 12, public comment. This is the second time for individuals to speak up to three minutes on any issue. We'll first hear from those of you that are present with us in chambers then we'll turn to remote participants to speak remotely press star 9 if on phone or use raise hand feature if on zoom for phone access dial 877-853-5247 and intermeeting id 977-6634-1226 city staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by zoom 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 sounds For all participants, whether in chambers or online, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Mr. Garber, would you like to make a comment? All right. Mr. Garber is the only person in the room. That's why I addressed him directly. Manager Kelly, do we have a remote participant who would like to address the commission?

Commissioner Basiuni is online.

That's correct. I don't want to comment. I joined it because I couldn't see the screen earlier, and so I could see it on my computer. And then you put it up, so it all worked out. So I will leave the Zoom. Thank you for that reminder.

There are no other attendees.

What delightfulness. I shall close the public comment and take us to commission proposed business. Is there any? Manager Kelly, elections are coming, and I wondered if you were planning to do what you did last year in preparation for that by sending out an email, apprising the table of the offices, soliciting nominations, and then aggregating that and presenting it back to us. I believe this happens at our first regular meeting in July.

Yes, we will be sending you some information in the lead up to your annual organizational meeting as it is referred to in the bylaws will be on July 7th. I'm not sure if there will be other agenda items at least. Probably not public hearings. I asked the team this week, and they have till the end of the week to let me know if anything else would be on that agenda. So it will include a number of sort of required items. So an annual look to see whether or not you want to revise your bylaws, a vote to fill or continue the terms for chair, vice chair, which is currently vacant, and secretary. and then your subcommittee appointments. All of the ordinance revision committee meetings have been substituted with working sessions for the purpose of placeholders for the UDC rewrite. So you could potentially suspend the ORC appointments or something, but it's that kind of thing. Clean up. Manager Leonard will be chairing that meeting from the staff side. I will be on vacation.

Oh, good for you. All right. I do just to let the table know I'm preparing a small request around some continuing ed to the planning managers for our consideration. So once I get that wrapped up, you'll see what I'm proposing once I get feedback from the planning manager. I've talked to Mr. Leonard and gotten some verbal approvals, but I haven't put it all together. But I have three things. So one, I'd love for Commissioner Mills to give us an update on data centers. And I've asked Commissioner Norton to give us a little refresher on like a planning 101 refresher for us. And then I haven't asked Commissioner Lee yet, but I'm asking Commissioner Lee to walk us through a pro forma so that we can see how that all works and understand how development actually works. And then finally, I have a request and to the Michigan Association of Planners to talk about best practices for implementing a comprehensive land use plan. So some continuing ed coming your way with the approval of the planning managers and scheduling. So we don't have that all in, but that's what's coming down the pike. Sorry, Manager Kelly.

I speak to the topic of education for the commission and meetings. There is not currently any agenda item for your working session on the 9th. And I was curious before we left today if you all wanted to keep that meeting. Solid waste is not available on that date. I'm already working with them on an alternative date.

sure i don't think the cooperatives item that council member dish asked for a few meetings ago is ripe yet either okay well i don't think i'm ready with any of the things i was suggesting so with the table's consent we can cancel that meeting okay let's do that thank you for letting us know about that no one ever rejects a cancelled meeting

My mic conveniently went out. It did. It went out when you were like, I don't think that's true. This group loves meetings.

All right. Any other commission proposed business? With that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Hammerschmidt. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. We are adjourned.