Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, July 7th, 2026 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. My name is Donnell Weitsch and I'll be chairing tonight's meeting. For detailed information on meeting procedures, please review the full printed meeting agenda provided, which is at each end of the dais here. Manager Leonard, would you please call the roll? Of course. Commissioner Weitsch? I am here.

Commissioner Hammerschmidt?

Here.

Commissioner Lee? Here. Here. Commissioner Dish?

Here.

Commissioner Mills?

Here.

Commissioner Weatherby?

Here.

Commissioner Adams? Here. Commissioner Norton?

Here.

Commissioner Bassini is absent.

We have a quorum. Thank you, Manager Leonard. May I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda? Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Lee. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the June 16th, 2026 meeting? Moved by Commissioner Adams and seconded by Commissioner Weatherby. Is there any discussion of the minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. That takes us to agenda item number five. Next up are reports to the Planning Commission and written communication. We'll start with the council report, which will be given to us by Councilmember Dish when Councilmember Dish is ready. Excellent.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Wench.

You're welcome.

OK, last night's council meeting. Council passed, no, sorry, first reading bike parking. Confused on that, because we've had first reading on that before. But it keeps getting better, so let's hope we're done this time. There were two rezonings, and well, no, annexation is separate, Riverview and Fuller, very nice, and the 315 West Huron PUD came up for review, and concerns were raised about the ability to use that property for STRs, and questions were Yes, I'll call them questions rather than concerns. We're raised about the 25-year limit for the affordability term of the affordable portion of that project. And if I forgot anything, I know that planning manager Leonard, our chief will fill you in.

Can I ask you a question? Yes. Did it pass on first reading, or did it fail? It passed on first reading. Great, thank you.

But concerns were raised. Sure.

The last time it failed on first reading, and so then that was the end of that one. That's why I asked. Manager Leonard, do we have a manager report?

Yes, I just wanted to briefly share with the Commission and the public. We are moving towards implementation of our recently adopted comprehensive plan. We've issued a request for proposals for a consultant as the preferred option identified by the Planning Commission previously. That was issued to the public on June 26th. That request for proposals has been posted in a variety of really nerdy places, which I'm going to share with you. It's on the city's website. It's on the MITN network, which is a collaboration of bids across the state of Michigan. It is published at the American Planning Association. It is published at the Michigan Association of Planning, and also Planetizen, which is kind of a national urban planning related news feed and resource website. Proposal questions to staff are due to us on July 20th. We will respond then to all potential proposals and submitted proposals to do the work are due to the City on August 11th. In addition to UDC updates, we have also partnered with the Economic Development Department to include some of their anticipated consultant request to look at our development review process for opportunities to improve that so Given that some of those might lead to future UDC.

We're really excited about the opportunity to partner with them on that work as well Thank You manager Leonard do other Commission officers or liaisons have any thing to report Written communications are in today's packet. They're not in the printed handout that you have. You actually have to go to a website to see them. It's A2Gov.Legistar.com. Navigate to Calendar, then select City Planning Commission. Go down and find today's date, and then click on the link for the agenda, and then each item on the agenda has the attachments. So with that, that brings us to agenda item number six, public comment. This is an open period of public comment to speak on any issue not listed as a public hearing or a dedicated public comment on tonight's agenda. If you are here to speak to the Woodbury Gardens rezoning and site plan, please do so at the coming public hearing, not at this one. We'll first hear from those of you who are present, then we'll turn to remote participants. To speak remotely, please press star 9 if on phone, or use the raise hand feature if on Zoom. For phone access, dial 877-853-5247. In interim meeting ID 977-6634-1226, city staff will identify callers by the last three digits of their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in chambers or online, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present who'd like to address us on an issue that is not already on tonight's agenda and has a public hearing or comment period? Mr. Garber? All right. With that, I will ask Mr. Leonard if we have online participants. No hands raised. Chair Wage? Thank you. I shall close the public hearing. That takes us to agenda item number seven, communication from commissioners. Is there any? You sure? On to agenda item number eight, public hearing schedule for the next business meeting. Mr. Leonard, what public hearings do we have for our next business meeting?

We have two new petitions scheduled for the July 21st, 2026 regular planning commission meeting. That will take place again at 7 PM in these council chambers. These are not public hearing items, but they are dedicated public comment opportunities. One is Spring Hill Suites Hotel. This is at 2295 South State Street. It is a site plan for Planning Commission. It is a site plan to develop a five-story, 118-room hotel on a two-acre site zoned O office. A shared driveway will be constructed on the north side of the site. Parking for 122 vehicles will be provided underneath the building and at the rear of the site. It's located in Ward 4. the second public comment period project during that agenda is university in residential this is at 2424 east stadium boulevard it's a site plan for planning commission this is a site plan to construct a six-story residential building and three townhome buildings on a four-acre site zone tc1 transit corridor The development provides 307 dwelling units, 295 in a multifamily building, and four in each townhouse building. Parking for 417 vehicles, 156 bicycles will be provided underneath the buildings and in garages. 11 landmark trees are proposed to be removed and mitigated on and off site. This is located in Ward 3.

Thank you, Mr. Leonard. That takes us to agenda item number nine, unfinished business. There is none. On to agenda item 10A, Woodbury Gardens rezoning, REZ24-0008 and 1310, Wisteria site plan, SP260003 for city council approval. Woodbury Gardens proposes to rezone the existing 41.292 acre development that includes Ashter Drive, Wisteria Drive, and Woodbury Drive from R3 multifamily, R4 multifamily, and PL public land districts to TC1 transit corridor, with conditions capping the building height. The site plan project would partially redevelop one parcel to construct three seven-story buildings containing 342 dwelling units and a five-level parking garage. An administrative land transfer is required and will be considered separately. This development is in Ward 4. Staff recommendation is approval. We'll start our conversation with a petitioner presentation, which is up to 10 minutes. Then we'll have a staff presentation by Mr. Leonard. Then we'll have a public hearing, where we'll hear from those of you who are present, which is why I think you all are here. and those that might be joining us remotely. Then we will read the motion. The Planning Commission will have its discussion and make its recommendation. The final approval for this development is at City Council, so we will only be making a recommendation for approval or denial to Council, but we are not the final decision on this proposed development. So with that, I think Mr. Moore is a part of the presentation team. So, good evening and welcome.

We're here with a revised site plan. I think most of you were here when we brought our original proposal before you. And we have made several changes.

Mr. Moore, because of your height, could you bring the mic either closer or up so that we can hear you just a little bit? Thank you so much.

Sorry to be vertically challenged.

I mean, you know, you have the favor of height. It's the thing that is there. You can bring the podium up if that helps you.

Yeah, so the changes we've made have been in response to our previous presentation here. We have separated our building mass into three separate buildings to meet the dimensional requirements that were noted by the previous staff report in the TC1 zoning designation. At the request of the Planning Commission, we've eliminated one entire level of our parking deck, reducing the parking by approximately 87 spaces. At the request of neighbors, we have both added more screening landscaping between the townhouses in the adjacent single-family neighborhood to the north, And we have volunteered restrictions as a condition of zoning on those parcels that lie north and east of the proposed development site to restrict those uses to the current residential uses only. So no non-residential uses north and east of the defined project area. We've agreed to contribute to a new mid-block crossing proposed for East Stadium to make it easier for people to get across stadium boulevard and access the park and we've also agreed to construct a 10-foot wide multi-purpose walk for access to frisinger park i have here tonight with me ray phillips of grier klatt who will run through more details about the project our civil engineering consultant scott betzel with midwestern consulting is currently stuck in traffic but expecting momentarily if you have any questions for him i'm sure he'll be here And we also have the owner's representative, Adam Blesnik here, should you have any questions. I'll turn it over to Ray.

Thank you.

Good evening. Ray Phillips, the Krieger-Kleit Architects. I want to thank you for your time tonight in reviewing our proposed project. We have a brief presentation. It's going to look very similar to the one that we presented in January, but as Brad mentioned, we did make some key revisions, and I will touch base on those. product location south of Stadium Boulevard between Packard and South Industrial Highway. The blue outline is the overall Woodbury Gardens, but the yellow highlighted area is the area of the proposed development. As was mentioned, we are looking to rezone to TC1. We have three seven-story multifamily buildings and a five-story parking garage. The unit count remains at 342, so same unit count as we saw back in January. We just revised the unit mix. Indoor and outdoor amenity spaces remain very similar to what was presented previously. With the taking one level off the parking garage, went down from 456 parking spaces to 369 for a ratio of 1.08 per dwelling unit and the bike parking spaces also remain the same This is a colored site plan to kind of give you a graphical representation of each component of the project. Phase one is the orange building on the right side. The blue is the parking garage, part of phase two. And the purple is the apartment building that's part of phase two. And the one thing I want to point out there is at the bottom, we split the buildings completely. to comply with the TC1 zoning maximum width, so you have a full pedestrian access through that area. So this is the first floor plan. We have double-loaded corridor buildings, so a simple corridor running down the middle with units on either side. We have a mix of studio one, two-bed units, and townhouse units. Each of the three buildings have a clubhouse component, so that's where all the mail will be dropped off in those areas. We have bike parking in various locations, both inside, outside the buildings, and throughout the site. Second floor, very similar. And here you can see the third floor. This is where we have pedestrian bridges just on the third floor only that connect all the buildings together so you can have continuity between all the buildings and residents can move throughout. Typical floor plan, very similar to the floors below. And then the seventh floor plan, top floor plan, very similar as well. I just want to point out that on the west side is where we have a small rooftop, outdoor and indoor area that'd be facing west. Moving on here, we have the building model overlaid on top of a aerial image to kind of show how it fits in with the surrounding context. We have this from all four sides. then working here through to some kind of perspective renderings these are similar to the ones that we shared last time and we're looking at durable low maintenance materials so brick cast stone metal panel fiber cement siding each unit does have its own private balcony in addition to the community outdoor space as well that's around the project and here we can see where the building is split so this is where these two buildings used to connect on floors three through seven completely split with exception of the third floor bridge that connects and these are some additional perspective renderings this is the bridge at the vehicular entry that would get you into the site so that's the again third floor pedestrian bridge to connect both phase one and phase two And that's all we have. I don't know if Scott's here. OK. So we're here. Thank you for your time and for any questions you might have.

Thank you. We'll turn now to a staff presentation by Manager Leonard.

Good evening. Again, Commission, you might notice that I am not Principal Planner Jill Thatcher. Thank you for not being too disappointed in that. So just a quick overview. Staff is recommending both the approval of the site plan and the rezoning for Wisteria and Woodbury rezoning to TC1 with conditions. As noted, this project has come to you before and we do believe the petitioner has addressed many of the items discussed. You just got an overview of some of those reduced parking, some additional landscaping, and of course One of the significant findings at the time was that the dimensional requirements of the plan did not meet the TC1 requirements. That has now been resolved with the revised plan. The proposed petition to rezone to TC1, I do want to note some context of that. If you look in the recent adopted comprehensive plan, we have a zoning plan that is part of that in which TC1 is not an explicitly listed district for the transition district. One of the reasons for that is that the transition district is very, the comprehensive plan identifies that transition districts are very referential to some of the surrounding land uses. We believe that this TC1 district with the proposed conditions, which is very referential to the surrounding land use residential districts, specifically in this case lowering the height for a very significant portion of that to 35 feet, which is very consistent with some of the R3 areas that are already in that location. DO MAKE IT AN APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT WITH THOSE CONDITIONS FOR THE TRANSITION ZONE IN THAT CASE. THOSE CONDITIONS NOT ONLY IN STAFF'S EYES MAKE IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE TRANSITION DISTRICT BUT IT Very consistent with some of the other zoning districts that you will find listed in there with very similar sort of dimensional requirements while giving some of the benefit of the more modern TC1 district in sort of density and form to achieve some of the other goals such as moving together plan, more housing on transit routes. This is obviously a very well served transit area with the proximity to industrial and stadium, not to mention the AATA facility. Some of the other, the notes that there are a minimal amount of landmark trees that are impacted on the site. There are three landmark trees. While they did productively provide an alternative that would save those trees, obviously the detail of that review was not conducted. It would also result in a pretty significant reduction in units in that location. And from a sustainability perspective, the applicant has committed to an electric development. All appliances and HVAC will be electric. However, they are maintaining gas connections for backup generators and barbecue grills. They're also committing to solar panel coverage on at least 40% of the roofs. All of these will be memorialized in the development agreement, eventually presented to the city council for consideration. The only other thing that I will note is because Jill Thatcher was the primary project manager for this, she cannot avoid a nice history lesson. And I would note that despite my shock, this was evidence that sometimes the University of Michigan does sell property rather than strictly buying property in the city of Ann Arbor, which was pretty noteworthy, I thought. I'm happy to answer any questions as they come up.

Thank you, Mr. Leonard, for your report. We will now turn to a public hearing, both for those of you who are present and those who are connected online. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on this item. We'll first hear from those of you present with us in chambers, then we will turn to remote participants. To speak remotely, please. 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 their phone number or by name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in chambers or online, please state your name and your address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present who'd like to address us? Great. As you make your way, I just want to orient you. The mic moves, so you can move it. And please do speak into the mic so that people who are online can hear you. There are three lights that are on the podium. There's a green light that lets you know that you have plenty of time, about two and a half minutes. And then there is a yellow light that says you have 30 seconds, and you should wrap up your comments. And then you have a red light. At that time, I will ask that you seat the floor to the next speaker. There's also a countdown clock that's there in case lights are not your thing. So with that, good evening and welcome.

Good evening. My name's James Ashton Miller, and I live at 1314 Iroquois, where I've lived for 43 years. I'm an emeritus professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan. And don't worry, I'll be done within three minutes. I have four points that I want to make, and these can be summarized by, if the facts don't align, you should decline. TC1 is a transit corridor designation. Its purpose is to reduce car dependency and support transit-oriented development. But this site has no frontage on Stadium or Packard because it is accessed entirely via interior residential streets. Second, the developer will note bus stops exist nearby. Route 5 runs on Packard, Route 6 and 64 on Stadium. But this site does not front those roads. Proximity to transit is not the same as being on a transit corridor. Third, the site plan proposes 441 total parking spaces, and we read 342 units, which gave a ratio of 1.29 cars per unit. We heard a different number just now. that was 1.08. But despite that, recognized transit-oriented development standards target 0.5 to 0.75. This project nearly doubles that ceiling. A transit-oriented designation should not apply to a project nearly double that standard. And lastly, staff's own report, page 9, concedes that a little less than half of the site is surrounded by the districts the UDC requires for TC1 eligibility. But the standard is, quote, entirely surrounded, end quote. Staff says conditions mitigate the shortfall. but mitigation of a failed specification is not satisfaction of it. In summary, TC1 is a specification. This site does not meet it. I respectfully urge denial. Thank you. Thank you so much.

You all can make a line, or you can just come on up when you're ready.

Hello, my name is Sam Homan. I live at 1451 Kohler Road, which is one of the little dead end roads that is just to the east of Woodbury Gardens. I had a couple of requests for this project. One is I would like to ask the developer to commit to granting the city a utility easement along the east side of the property that they've been trying to get for a number of years. This has been a major holdup for South Boulevard and Kohler. Kohler is waiting to get its road resurfaced, and they can't do that until they loop the water main and sewer main from south along this utility easement. This project has been in the works for 20 years, I've heard. But regardless, it's holding up repaving of my street and improvement of water quality on south. So that is a major commitment I would ask that the applicant commit to resolving as quickly as possible. There's a couple new crosswalks within Woodbury Gardens that I'd like to request be added as well. It's a very minor thing within the right-of-way, and I documented these in an email. There is one parcel in this rezoning quest that I would ask be excluded. And in that map they showed earlier, they actually excluded it from the diagram. But it's the parcel on the west side of Friesinger Park. It is zoned public land, and it is explicitly called out in the future land use plan that was adopted as remaining as zoned public land. Fourth, I would really like to thank the applicant for the conditional use on the townhouse area. Those two parcels that are zoned R3 are very large, and changing them to a mixed use zoning would allow very large developments there that would not be welcome, but the R3 creates a very nice density gradient. And then finally, I would just ask the applicant to see if they can acquire an easement to Harp Street for pedestrian access, since there's no legal way to get from Woodbury Gardens into Harps, and there's no way for people on Harps to access Woodbury Park, which is right along there. So those are just a few minor things. But overall, I'm much happier with it with the conditional zoning. If the conditional zoning were removed, I would be very opposed to this. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello. Hi. My name is Dee Lamphere, and I live at 1307 Iroquois Place, and I have lived there since 2006, and I didn't do the math, but it's for a while. I did submit a written comment back in January, and I spoke to you then, and then submitted a new one. recently so I think that's in your packet but I wanted to come today to urge particularly some of you look familiar I know you were split on the TC one zoning back in January it was like a four four split because it didn't feel like a great fit and you were saying oh we wish we had the comprehensive land use plan passed so that we could consider that when we're thinking about the rezoning of this site we have it so you can consider it and it defines this area as transition. I know that Brett spoke about that and how they're kind of using transition to be like maybe kind of a free-moving thing where you can fit some TC1 into some transition or not, but I would argue that that designation does indicate that this isn't a good fit for the TC1 rezoning. And in my letter, I mentioned a very old clip of Chris Taylor. He was not mayor at that point, but he was talking about the landmark building, which, as we all know, was actually built on South Forest and South Industrial, two streets that are definitely a transit corridor. And he was talking about how Ann Arbor residents want to support density. But they want the density to, like, the density should make sense based on the neighborhood. And again, he was making that argument against the landmark building, which is in arguably a much higher transit corridor. My neighbors and I are definitely not against housing or development at the Woodbury Garden site. Redevelopment we understand is going to happen. The new owners want to redevelop it and we get that that is what is going to happen. But we're asking that the redevelopment respect the zoning that existed when they purchased the property. And the zoning that makes sense given that it is surrounded by more than 50% residential neighborhoods. So the Commission has the framework that you wanted back in January. I urge you to recommend an denial of the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Donna Ainsworth. I live at 1435 South Boulevard. I've been on South Boulevard since 1991 and my concern tonight is oh I spoke to the this Commission back in January when this issue came up before my concern is tonight is about who this housing will serve and who it would displace Woodbury Gardens is currently a mix of one- and two-bedroom apartments and one- and two-bedroom townhouses with partial basements, designated outdoor space, and private entrances. I regularly take my toddler grandchild to the Woodbury playground where we chat with Woodbury Garden residents whose small children are also playing there. There are toys and bicycles in the back of many of the townhomes. In the Ann Arbor Community Facebook group, people moving to our area often ask for recommendations of nice and relatively affordable places to live in Ann Arbor, and Woodbury Gardens is consistently recommended as a good place to be. The proposal before you demolishes existing occupied housing there, not a vacant lot and not a surface parking lot. These homes are where people live today. The current proposal to residential buildings totaling over 31,000 square feet would be removed. Other housing would be removed. We raised the same concern of displacement at the January hearing. The developer said the impacted residents would be offered units elsewhere in the Woodbury Gardens and that the impact would be minimal. However, if Woodbury were rezoned to CC1, the door would be open to demolishing the rest of the town homes and apartments for different and likely more expensive housing not geared toward families and the missing middle and residents at different stages of life. The developer has offered no binding relocation plan and affordability commitment. The proposed unit mix is weighed towards studios and one bedrooms. The housing information sheet lists the price range as unknown. The comprehensive land use plan adopted in March explicitly commits the city to mitigating displacement in goal two of the plan. Rather than advancing that goal, this project accelerates the displacement of existing residents while offering nothing binding in return. I ask you to vote against the TC1 rezoning. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Jack Benson. I'm at 1425 Iroquois Place, attending members of the City Planning Commission. I thank you for your time and consideration. Your efforts to bring about real positive changes to Ann Arbor's housing is needed and widely appreciated. I know that you all have spent great lengths of time and effort planning, deliberating, and creating the excellent Comprehensive Use Plan 2050. This plan is what Ann Arbor needs in order to continue to be the standard across the nation for what a great, livable city looks like. So first off, thank you for your work and leadership throughout this process. Like I said, my name is Jack Benson, and my wife and I moved into 1425 Iroquois in the summer of 2018. Over the past eight years, my family and I have had a number of changes to our lives, getting married, two new kids, moving overseas and back. Throughout all this, Iroquois Place has played a major role. Tonight, I would like to give some examples of the unique and special community that we cherish on Iroquois Place in the hopes that you can understand our street a little bit better. My wife and I got married in 2021. We didn't have any large wedding at some fancy country club. We got married in our front lawn on Iroquois Place. Our reception was in our backyard and we sent out invitations to the whole street. I would guess that we had over 20 people from Iroquois come to our wedding. A little while after our wedding, we welcomed our first child Mario into our lives. Our neighbors Rick and Jude at 1420 Iroquois have become family to us, so much so that we named them godparents to Mario. Iroquois means so much to us that we moved onto the street twice. We moved overseas a few years ago, and when we came back, We moved back into 1425 Iroquois, then purchased the street six houses down and sold our old house at 1425 to move into 1411 Iroquois. I also said I live at 1425. That's my old address. I'm at 1411 Iroquois Place. Excuse me. The city adopted the comprehensive land use plan this spring unanimously. It designates this area as transition, not hub, transition. That's not an accident. It reflects what this neighborhood is. What I keep hearing in this process is that the developer needs TC1 to make their project work. I'd ask the commission to consider that that is the wrong starting point. We should not be bending the zoning to fit the project. We should be finding a project that fits the zoning. We cherish this community so very much. I'm here tonight because what this commission decides is bigger than buildings. It's about what comes next for our community. Please take into consideration what you see here. The people of Iroquois sitting before you speaks to our shared love and commitment to one another and to our street. The plan exists. It was just adopted. It states that Woodbury is a transition zone. I'm asking the commission to trust the plan. Please recommend denial. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hello, commission. Ken Garber, 28 Haven Hill Court. That's nowhere near this neighborhood, but after hearing that, I wish I lived there, actually. I think I can resolve the parking number quandary that Dr. Ashton Miller mentioned. Mr. Phillips mentioned 369 parking spaces in the deck. Dr. Ashton Miller mentioned the 441 total spaces. we need to consider the 72 surface lot surface parking spaces that would reach 441 but you also have to consider 44 existing units that would be served by those units too so the total ratio is somewhere between the 1.08 that the developer cited in the 1.29 that Dr. Ashton Miller cited. It looks like 1.14 per unit to me. I agree with Dr. Ashton Miller. There's still too many at the meeting in January. Chair Weish suggested they get down to 0.7, which is the Beekman on Broadway number. So that's parking. On sustainability, yes, all electric. um but uh gas for emergency generators and outdoor barbecue grills does this mean they're going to run gas lines to each individual unit with all the expense that entails just to light charcoal once in a while um so that's a question i have i regardless self-igniting grills are fine you don't really need to do that i would say gas for backup generation at most They're offering very little else. They're not using VRF, even though it's most efficient. The owner, Adam Blednack, is here tonight, which I'm glad for. At his all-electric Owl Creek addition, which you approved two years ago, he committed to Energy Star multifamily new construction certification. I don't see that here. No low-weight steel, no recyclable materials. forget about clt or passive house elements some solar no demolition materials reuse plan i get it that you can't layer everything onto a single project and still have it pencil out but i see no evidence that any of this was considered here regarding the zoning i agree with many of the speakers that tc1 with conditions It feels wrong here. I feel it's designed to get around a PUD and its affordable housing requirements. And finally, I'll note that two years ago you approved the Owl Creek addition with 131 units, Mr. Blesnack's development. As far as I know, they haven't even broken ground on that. So I wonder why he's not proceeding with that project, which seems good. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Garber. Is there anyone else in chambers who'd like to address us at this time?

Hi, my name is Katie DeVoto. I am at 1408 Iroquois. Also speaking on behalf of neighbors who could not be here, Mark and Susan Pearlman at 1306 and Mary Greener at 1406. We've covered that the comprehensive land use plan has been adopted and that it designates Woodbury as transition. When the city adopted that plan, it was presented to the public as a binding blueprint for smart, predictable growth. Overriding that months later to accommodate a single developer's request for hub-level density breaks the promise. The club's zoning plan explicitly maps TC1 to HUB. The staff's report on Woodbury does refer to the UDC standard for TC1, which the report states a little less than half of the Woodbury site is surrounded by the required districts. the standard is entirely surrounded mitigation is not satisfaction of an eligibility threshold on behalf of mark and susan the applicant's own traffic study shows stadium and packard intersection is already at level of service f 214 seconds of northbound delay yet categorizes this project's impact as minimal those two facts cannot coexist The study's methodology compounds this. The background growth rate has drawn from a 2023 email about an unrelated intersection. A pedestrian impact was dismissed despite the applicant's own count approaching the city's threshold for enhanced treatment. You're being asked to evaluate the site plan on a traffic analysis that does not reflect the final decision. Additionally, the city's A2R2 initiative is actively evaluating lane reductions for both Stadium and Packard to incorporate bike lanes. That work is underway right now. Therefore, it cannot be incorporated in the applicant's study. Again, you are being asked to approve a major traffic generating development while a parallel city plan processes actively studying the capacity of these corridors. The public will absorb the consequences. There is a broader consequence. We are told that the plan would provide predictable framework for these kinds of decisions. This is among the first major rezoning requests since a unanimous decision. How you handle this will set precedent. And while one can argue that the club is advisory and not legally binding, the UDC is not advisory. and the staff report acknowledges it. We believe that these gaps should not be filled with conditions, but rather ask the applicant to come back with a project that fits the zoning. We urge you to recommend denial. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Leonard, is there anyone online who'd like to address us at this time?

There is. Adam Jeskevich, you can address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes.

Hi, Adam Jeskevich, 1430 Las Vegas Drive in the 4th Ward. I have, I think, I mostly support this development. I think with the conditions, TC1 does seem appropriate for this. One thing that I would like to see some more clarification, maybe some questions can be asked about pedestrian path connections to the surrounding neighborhood. I know there's a couple of cut-throughs. I think there's one on the end of Kohler, and there's kind of not really exactly... kosher cut through to um harps that um i think has been um it's just kind of a path like a goat path kind of a thing um i really wish that there could be better pedestrian connections to the surrounding neighborhood i think that addresses some of the concerns around the proximity of transit on packard if people are going to be walking to buses on packard it would be easier for them to get through that way rather than going all the way up to stadium and across i really appreciate the payment toward a safe pedestrian crosswalk on stadium i think that's sorely needed there's currently unmarked crosswalks at iroquois and stadium. There's curb ramps there, but there's no painted crosswalks on the street, which I think is a really bad situation and it would be great to see that alleviated. So I also do agree with Mr. Garber on the gas connections and the amount of parking. Thank you. Thank you.

Ann Marshall, you can unmute and address the Planning Commission for three minutes.

Yes, thank you. My name is Anne Marshall. And I'm a neighbor at 1341 Harp Street. And I want to express my opposition to this rezoning proposal. This is my first time speaking to this issue. I want to speak to the basic fundamental intent of the project. I'm a neighbor and walk regularly at Woodbury Gardens and oppose this very significant change to an existing, very livable, beautiful and functional rental community. It seems to me that this is inherently a profit driven project and it's not ecologically focused or neighborhood focused. It is a dramatic change to the neighborhood and both disturbs and destroys what is already a very livable and vibrant rental and single family neighborhood. So I urge you to vote against this proposal and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

No other hands raised, Chair White.

Thank you. One last call for chambers. I will close the public hearing and read the motions. There are two. The first motion. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the Mayor and City Council approve the 1310 Wisteria Site Plan Version 2, dated May 5, 2026, and development agreement contingent upon approved administrative land transfer. And motion two, the Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the mayor and city council approve the 1310 Wisteria rezoning petition to TC1 Transit Corridor District and accept the conditions to limit the maximum height as stated in the statement of conditions letter and shown on the 1310 Wisteria Wisteria slash Woodbury zoning boundaries map, subject to executing a conditional zoning statement of conditions. Moved by Commissioner Mills, seconded by Commissioner Adams. We are in discussion. Who would like to kick us off? I have a small little thing if you need some time. Oh, okay, great. So it was one of the commenters, the neighbors. I just wanted to note that the petitioner, any petitioner, including you as a landowner in the city of Ann Arbor, can request a rezoning at any time. There's no restriction on that. That's just a part of our process. And then the other thing I wanted to note is it's my understanding that this is a completely residential development. There's no current plans for commercial to be a part of this development. Is that correct? Okay, so I just wanted to note that this is a residential development. It's just not in the structure and style of single-family detached units, but it's still a residential. So just two quick things. We'll start with Councilmember Dish.

Thank you, Chair Wetsch, and thank you everybody who's come tonight. You've all done your homework, I see. Many of you are quoting pieces of the staff reports, which is great. Okay, I have a couple of things to say but I want to start with a small question for Mr. Leonard. It is very important that we keep the utility easement question and zoning decision separate because the utility easement is not under our purview. And so we're just going to block that off. Nonetheless, in the correspondence that we received, and at least there was one reference to the easement, utility easement in the comments, people have expressed curiosity as to what's going on in that process. And so I wonder if Mr. Leonard could update us.

Sure. First of all, you're right. How the city goes about acquiring land or easements for a variety of uses is under different statutes than the decisions that are prescribed for how we make zoning decisions. So I think that's good advice to sort of consider those along separate pathways. Nonetheless, my understanding is that it has been something that has been underway for a while. My understanding at this point is that the city has made an offer to the property owner for the purchase of an easement. that ongoing negotiations are happening largely between the city attorneys and the attorneys of the property owner. To my understanding, there has been no formal acceptance or rejection of that offer. It's still ongoing.

That is great. Thank you so much. I wanted to touch on a couple of things. that were raised in the concerns about the use of TC1 for this project. And so it is true that we do have a comprehensive land use plan now. What we don't have are zoning districts to map our land use categories. And one of the zoning districts that we don't have is transition. transition as transition all is going to be a it's going to contain multiple zoning districts sorry all of you folks out there who wanted us to come back with just one but transition is going to contain multiple zoning districts and it will it will enable a let me put it, I don't wanna use the word buffer, there's so many words I don't wanna use, but yeah, it will allow, yes, it will allow things to taper up and taper down, thank you. And I think that if we look at the conditions that are attached to this TC1 zoning, I will overstate my point and say that when we are done applying these conditions, It doesn't look a whole lot like TC1 anymore. It is absolutely true that there are features of TC1 in density and form, but the height and use limitations bring this zoning proposition closer to modeling what transition might look like. than what could be built under existing TC1 because what is happening here is buildings between 30 and 300 feet from residential properties adjacent to Woodbury are subject to a 35-foot height limit. Under TC1, they could start at 55 feet and go up to 75. So this is a height limit for properties within 300 feet of residential that is significantly lower than TC1 would allow. As for the seven-story building portion of this project, seven stories would be possible on transition. And seven stories would be possible in TC1. In fact, we're probably going to see a lot of seven stories in TC1 because it's a good break point. It's a... well, I don't want to get into the weeds because I'm never sure quite how well I understand the weeds. But I think it is safe to say that what we are trying to do is find an existing zoning category that will allow us to zone a transition project before we have that category. So I feel as though there is concern about TC1 And because TC1 conjures a certain image. There's also concern about TC1 because Folks are reading the purpose and intent statements about TC1 a little bit differently than I understand them. And I am not a lawyer. But my understanding is that the intent and purpose statements in the UDC are not restrictive. So they are statements of policy. They are not like standards in a table. which means also that they are not specifications and they do not confine where district designations can be applied. They are more appropriately interpreted as guides for consideration in light of other project-specific considerations. And so what you see in this report and what you heard in our initial discussion of this project where we really considered whether, is it a good judgment to use TC1 for here? And we really, I think, held our feet to the fire to think that through. And that is how some of the very fine conditions that are coming to you tonight, which are changes to this project, that's how they got in there. Because we really thought about what would make TC1 an acceptable use and responsive to the surroundings of this project. TC1 zoning that has been applied throughout the city is adjacent to residential. It can be adjacent to residential. It is typically not applied to things that are already residential. And that's what the little bit of oddness is in this case. And if I've just said something wrong or really missing the point, please jump in, Mr. Leonard. Okay, so far so good. Wow. It usually, I usually make a mistake within the first three minutes. Okay, so though I think, so there are other, some, well, some of you have mentioned concerns about precedent. And I think it comes up for us a lot. And we need to be clear that precedent is not one of the factors that is considered in a rezoning. So when we go through the criteria that we need to go through, which I'm not going to belabor because someone else will do it and I should stop talking soon. We don't think about precedent. And precedent setting would not, I mean, It is unlikely that you're going to come up with a project that is so similar to this one that someone can say, you have to do this for me because you did this for them. This is not going to set that. So I think some of the worries, while I think they are thoughtful concerns, I think you have all raised really thoughtful concerns. And I believe you. I believe that you are being honest when you say that you welcome additional housing in the city, and you were raising thoughtful concerns about it. Some of them are less likely to be worries, but so I'm done for now.

Thank you, Councilmember Dish. Who else would like to? Oh, all right. Turn to my right. Mills or Adams?

You're welcome.

I WANT TO START OUT WITH A QUESTION TO STAFF. I'M CURIOUS IN THE COMPARISON TABLE OF THE OTHER DISTRICTS, WHY NOT R4D? AND EVEN IN DECIDING TC1 RATHER THAN AS THE DISTRICT? DO YOU HAVE A SENSE?

Not being the planner that worked on it. I don't know you could pose that question petitioner, but as Commissioner dish summarized Ultimately we have an obligation to respond to the application before us so I do think that As I noted I think that the TC one with conditions is more similar to districts like the R4D and some of the other ones listed in the zoning plan for the comprehensive plan. That's why we have come to the conclusion that we think it's appropriate. But no, I don't sit here and say that. I know that R4D was specifically considered or analyzed for the purpose.

I mean, does anyone from the petitioner side, is this something that you guys considered? I'm not saying that this is wrong. I'm just curious.

We considered a number of options and settled on the conditional TC1 as the most appropriate for the project we want gone to bleed.

Okay. I went through and I was trying to figure out, like, why not R4D? Because this is a, it's a higher density R district. It would actually allow heights up to 120 feet. And to be honest, like, you could, that doesn't do tons of stepping, and so you could apply some of the same conditions. So in my head, I was thinking, like, especially, to be honest, after Commissioner White just commented about this is all residential. R4D only allows for residential, right? And that's where TC1 could have other uses. And that's what the transition district calls for. So in that way, if I had to choose between those to make it more in keeping with the comp plan, a district that allows for things other than residential is, I think, a better choice, even if you can effectively do the same stepping down through conditions in an R4D, for example. The other benefit of TC1 from my perspective compared to like an R4D is that there is a max parking. That's our district that actually says at some point you cannot, there's too many cars. However, this is where I'm like, I don't know that TC1, it wasn't built for this context necessarily. It was really built to beef up kind of the places that have lots of offices. And so when we set that multiplier for what is that max parking, it was with the assumption that there would be a mix of commercial or office and residential uses, and commercial uses typically require more parking per square foot. And so the Concern that I have on this is actually in the staff report So that's my like thinking through is this the right district I think the conditions help it a little bit and I do like that. There's max max parking here, however once we rezone the rezoning along with the conditions move with the land and the site plan that we see here doesn't have to be the one that's built there and And so I typically, when we're doing some kind of significant rezoning, I compare what the site plan is before a shown and then what the rezoning would actually allow. And when I do that, I see in terms of building width, it's pretty much the building is as wide as you could get. For the building diagonal, you could imagine a building that is It's a little bit under what the maximum building diagonal is, so it means that it could get kind of blockier. The height is kind of, it's maxed out there, or pretty darn close to it. The setbacks are... modest compared to like you effectively there is zero setbacks that are required in TC1 and the setbacks that are provided range from 8 feet to 30 feet so like it's not it could get closer to the property lines but because of that condition it would have to step back but the biggest thing that I want to raise is that if we rezone this property there could be 994 parking spots And what we're seeing is 441. And actually, I think it's over-parked for what it is. And if we rezone it, it could have a whole lot more parking for the same building area. When we rezone it, it's not tied to this site plan. That gives me pause. And similarly, in TC1, we have restrictions on the percentage of the lot that's dedicated to parking compared to the building area. And this is where what we see on the site plan is 36% of the square footage of the parking area. well, 36% of the building area is how big the square footage of the parking is, the surface area of the parking. It could go up to 125%. So I feel like what we're seeing is reasonable. And if we rezone it, there's a whole lot, especially on the parking side, we could end up with a multiplier here that is really intended for office or commercial uses where that multiplier may make sense. But for all residential, it doesn't. I don't think that a 666 square unit apartment needs two parking spots. And that's what it's allowed to have. And so I don't feel comfortable without some sort of condition associated with that. And I also would just flag for everybody that when we're thinking about how we might take on what transition districts look like, I think that that's an important. I really like, honestly, that TC1 has a parking maximum And this parking maximum was, again, made for mixed use, not for fully residential.

Thank you. Commissioner Mills.

Commissioner Adams. I agree with the findings of fact and the recommendations in the staff report tonight. I was a vote in support of this rezoning when we first reviewed it. I just wanted to address a couple of the issues raised by the public and by my colleagues at the last meeting. You know, noting Mr. Garber's assessment that this is a sidestep around a PUD. For the folks in the room, a PUD is essentially like a custom or bespoke zoning district. As a matter of practice, and also as a matter of law, we really can't use PUDs We're not supposed to be using them on scale. We really ought to be trying to, whenever possible, use the zoning districts we have. Here tonight, we're considering one that has been modified with voluntarily offered conditions. We should be striving, wherever possible, to use the zoning categories that we have, and not use PUDs you know, at scale. And that's not just bad policy, but the consistent with the plan. Zoning that moves from 120 feet in height, where it's far away from our zone parcels, and then tapers to mid-rise as it gets closer, and then to low rise when it's within 300 feet, that may not actually be the mechanic that gets written into our zoning code. Years from now when the plan is executed into zoning, but it is fairly consistent with the recommendations in the document So I think I think the proposed zoning with conditions is consistent with the plan The last point that I wanted to make gets back to some of the debate that we had the last meeting about the special Purpose statement and again council member does I think you've covered it The only the only thing that I wanted to emphasize here is The direction under special planning, what is it, special planning, or special purpose statement, it says we should consider these two statements of intent. So that's key language for me. That's a process instruction. That's a request to analyze certain issues or facts, but it's not a directive. It doesn't originally compel a specific outcome. The other thing that I would say there is there's no risk of getting council's intention wrong because council has the final say on the rezoning. So if we're wrong and council did intend those special purpose statements to be binding, they have an opportunity to say no. I don't think they were intended to be binding. I don't think we're bound by them. And I think TC1 with these conditions is perfectly appropriate for these parcels and for this area of the city in terms of again going back to the economic development resolutions being permissive and creative and how we exercise our authority to help address the city's housing crisis by saying yes to housing um and also i would say there for me that's that's a direction to wherever possible take the sliders and just you know move them right where we have the discretion to say This isn't a perfect fit, maybe. And TC1 is not a perfect fit for this site. But it need not be in order to be approved. And if anything, that is what those economic development resolutions directed us to do, is to say, if this can work, and it does feel like something that can be, you know, approve the right amount of housing that's appropriate for an area, then we should say yes to it instead of saying no.

Thank you, Commissioner Adams. We'll turn now to Commissioner Weatherby and then Norton.

So I have a couple questions, but this one is for Mr. Leonard. There's sort of been, I've heard hub, I've heard transition, I've heard TC1, I've heard conditions. I know we don't have the plan, and you can say, zip it, Weatherby. But how do conditions... You know, how will this look in, say, three years if we have something different and we have the conditions and this is TC1, but there's different, you know, transition looks different and has maybe different parking? Like, what is the... what can we look at as sort of true when we make our decision, and what is theoretical, and what is kind of the path that we think it's going to go, or what sticks with us when we say, you know, this zoning stays with the parcel, but we know we are going to be changing the zoning to some degree. How does that work?

So if I'm understanding correctly, The question is complex because we don't sit here knowing what the full realization of the comprehensive plan is. The comprehensive plan includes a couple helpful PROVISIONS TO HELP US NAVIGATE THIS IN PART BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT CHAIR WHITE INDICATED IS THAT WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION WHERE WE GET TO PUT PRESS PAUSE ON THE GOINGS ON OF A CITY OR OUR CITY. AND SO WE HAVE TO NAVIGATE OUR GOALS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CONSIDER OUR CURRENT LAW REGULATIONS TODAY FOR PETITIONS THAT ARE COMING TODAY IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR LARGER GOALS. So in the case of if this property were to be rezoned to TC1 with conditions, that, as noted, that rezoning runs with the land as any rezoning would. And until such a time that another petitioner comes and we act in such a way that rezoned that property or the city initiates the rezoning of that property, that rezoning that has been enacted is going to continue in that property. In some of the scenarios that you might be sort of contemplating to that question is for example is what happens if in implementing the You know the comprehensive plan I noted I noted that we are We've started the process of engaging professionals to help us with that work and we create a new district as the comp plan calls for us to do or a new districts for the transition zone and one of those has a different a different height restriction to adjacent residential than 600 feet 35 35 foot cap at that time when we create that district and we start applying that new zoning district to our map we're gonna have to make a decision on this property whether or not we want to apply that new zoning district here or or not I would say I sit here and from the premises we probably will look hard at doing that part of the goal of this comprehensive plan and other policy statements by the City Council is to develop fewer zoning districts to look for ways for them to be more flexible and so I think getting away from to use Commissioner Adams term bespoke zoning districts whether they are conditional on a per property basis or plan unit development MINIMIZING THOSE IS PROBABLY MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY STATEMENTS THAT CITY COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COMP PLAN CALLS FOR. DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION?

YEAH, I THINK. I KNOW THERE'S NOT AN ANSWER. BUT THAT HELPS. THAT HELPS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER WEATHERBY. WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER NORDEN AND THEN TO COMMISSIONER HAMMERSCHMIDT.

I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONER. I don't know if it's for you or for the petitioner. If I'm understanding this proposal, The site plan is for a smaller area of the area that would be rezoned and the rezoning will extend all the way to industrial. Correct. Okay, so that's correct. So I guess my question for the petitioner is, is there a phase three waiting out there to happen? Why are you asking to rezone that larger area when you're only putting for a site plan for the smaller area?

In order to give the entire Woodbury complex one zoning, rather than right now it's split with a bunch of different zonings all over the complex. The idea would be to have one comprehensive zoning for the entire Woodbury complex that would allow for potential future development, as well as the contemplative development that you see in the site plan. We don't have a phase three now. We don't know what the demand will be in the four or five years it's going to take to make this site plan a reality. But if there is a continuing ongoing demand, it's possible that there could be a phase three moving towards South Industrial.

Okay, so that's opening the door for that. And that would, just to make the point, TC1 would increase, it wouldn't necessarily just be residential. It would open the door for other commercial and maybe industrial uses, as we've kind of specified in the plan. And I don't know that that's not inappropriate. And in fact, the more things get developed towards industrial highway, the more it's in keeping with the concept of a highway. transit corridor. So I wanted to put that on the table. I have another question. And again, I don't know if this is for you, Mr. Leonard, or the petitioner. And maybe this is in the report somewhere. I'm trying to figure out what's the net increase in the number of housing units that this project would provide. You're going to be taking away some housing units and putting in new ones. What's the net increase?

March 33, when we're getting pre-court.

Adding 342, losing 33. So it's quite a substantial increase in the number of units.

OK. So I want to get that on the table, too. Somebody asked about grills. Are you really going to put a gas grill in every unit in this project? No.

No, they would be common grills in the common areas.

That's what I thought from earlier. So just a couple of grills in the common areas. Correct. It's a lot easier than wheeling propane around. OK. Thank you. We had public comments. I totally understand the neighbors' concerns about disruption to the neighborhood. I understand their concerns about displacement of what is existing pretty affordable housing. I'm scratching my head about that one. I don't think that we have the ability through this process to order or demand or expect that this petitioner or relocation efforts for the existing people. I don't think we can demand that for the authority that we have to act, even though I think that's a valid question to be asking. We can't demand that they provide a utility easement. That's not within our purview. I don't think, it's a little bit of a quirk in the plan that that one stretch of park is designated as PL because it's not publicly owned land. It's owned by the petitioner, right? So it's a fair question to ask what's really going to happen with that land in the future, but I don't think that we can dictate that that be rezoned as PL. I'm kind of processing this there and I'm thinking about all of the comments that you all have been making. I do want to make a couple of statements that I think is kind of consistent with what Some of the other planning commissioners have pointed out, I think folks are confusing a little bit the process we used to identify the future land use areas where we use TC1 and kind of linked that to hub areas. But we also make clear that having made these new land use areas, the intent is to move forward and craft new zoning districts that comport with the descriptions of what the different areas mean. And if you read, what the development style is that is preferred in a transition area, what's being proposed is entirely consistent with that. So we didn't create a zoning plan where we've got the old zoning, we've got the new plan, and we're gonna go back to the old zoning. That's not how it was ever intended to work. So it's a bit... I guess I'm chafing a bit at the assertion that we're not being publicly transparent. We're being entirely transparent and consistent with the way this process works and what we're trying to do and the transitions that we're trying to make. Right? We're not, this isn't some kind of a, now we're setting a new precedent that's going backwards and bad. We're moving in the direction that the plan actually calls for, even though I recognize it's disruptive to the neighboring property owners. And that's disquieting to you all. And I'm sorry for that. I think it's not the case that people are raising concerns about traffic. Ironically, this project... I hate these kinds of residential developments we have that everything is isolated from everything else. I can't imagine this is going to have any traffic impact on Iroquois Place because there's no connection from this project to Iroquois Place. It's going to affect stadium and industrial highway But it's a really disconnected grid. And in fact, people are calling for better connections to increase transport. So I'm seeing people shaking their heads that maybe I'm getting something wrong there. It's not a spot zoning. I'm looking at the comments that were handed to us. This isn't a spot zoning case. What we're contemplating is entirely consistent with what the plan is calling for and moving forward. Please don't think that the process that we use to identify the future land uses is binding us to only allow things that were used to try and identify those future land uses. That would be locking us in space and time forever the way things are, and that's exactly what we're trying not to do. We're trying to find creative ways to make transitions that are compatible with allowing density and this going to TC1, I'm still not convinced that it's quite the right district, but we're responding to the petitioner's request. I actually think it makes sense to have it in a district that will allow for commercial uses. Wouldn't it be great if there's some more coffee shops and things that ultimately get built out here that are within walking distance? I think it's consistent. that way, and with the height transitions that the project petitioner is offering voluntarily, that's providing the safety catch that is making this a more palatable transition zone. So as I process through this, I'm inclined to support it. Nothing is ever perfect. I understand the neighbors' concerns. I think the petitioner, I wish they would be doing more. on the sustainability features that Mr. Garber pointed out, but I don't think we can demand those on our part. So it's entirely in keeping with what the vision of the plan is calling for for transition areas in these kinds of settings. So I'll stop talking. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Norton. We'll go Hammerschmidt, then Lee. Mills or Dish, do you want a second go? All right, Mills and Dish, and then Weitsch.

Thank you. I appreciate this discussion, because I'm very torn on this, as I think I probably was back in January. This is a lot of new housing. I like the general idea. It does feel very consistent with what we envisioned with the comprehensive plan. I do wish this proposed density was closer to industrial, I guess because of how I was envisioning the tapering. But I am really struggling with the rezoning to TC1, because it feels to me that TC1 with conditions is basically writing their own zoning. So Mr. Leonard, can you convince me otherwise? I mean, how often do we put conditions? Is this a frequent thing that we do, is putting conditions on existing zoning? Like, how is this not writing their own zoning code?

So just to be clear, conditional zoning is provided in state law. It provides that a petitioner can recognize that there is a zoning district that is appropriate for a designation, but they can choose to add conditions that further restrict that zoning. So I would say the reason it's not crafting a new zoning district is because the vast majority of the regulations associated with that district are going to apply all the dimensional requirements, all the usual requirements, all the typical development requirements are going to apply with the exception of they are deciding, they are voluntarily offering modifications that further restrict. To be clear, conditional zoning, I would never advise you to use it as a relaxation of standards. IT IS ALWAYS IN THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY USED TO ADD FURTHER RESTRICTIONS TO IT. AND I THINK THE DISTINCTION IS BECAUSE IT TENDS TO BE VERY FOCUSED. IT TENDS TO BE, IN THIS CASE, IT'S PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON HEIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEREAS I THINK COMPARED TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, YOU MIGHT BE You might be in a very custom way addressing permitted uses, addressing accessory uses in addition to dimensional requirements, in addition to other requirements that might be attributable. So I don't want to say that there is no, they are by nature providing a condition. So that is modifying it. But I think the vast majority of the regulations are going to be equivalent to any TC1 elsewhere in the district. That's why I wouldn't categorize it in the same way.

Okay, thank you. Okay, I'm gonna cede to Commissioner Lee.

I'll come back to you. Thank you. Yep. Commissioner Lee, then Commissioner Mills, then Councilmember Dish, then Weitsch. Well, Hammersmith and or Weatherby, then Weitsch.

Sure. Thank you. I'm going to go to Mr. Holman's comment.

I think it was specific to pedestrian crossings.

One of the things that's enumerated in TC1 in the intent statement is the critical importance of pedestrian friendly features. I did take a look at the Alta and those streets are publicly owned. So one of the things I wanted to ask staff was by which, how could crosswalks or like a rapid flashing beacon get installed there given an increase in utilization what would that look like since it is city-owned streets and it's a right-of-way that being said pedestrian connectivity seems important it can't necessarily be addressed in this site plan but it should certainly be coordinated with the city so how would the developer slash the public promote pedestrian connectivity on, I think it was Wisteria. and Aster and Woodbury.

Yeah, so I just want to be honest. I don't have, I wasn't part of the review, so I don't know the back and forth of it. I can speak generally just to be clear. They are contributing to some pedestrian safety improvements adjacent to the site. I don't know the specificity of what improvements are being proposed on the interior public streets. You're absolutely right. They are public streets. I probably wouldn't jump I'm no traffic engineer, but on those internal circulation streets They're probably not of the volume that would warrant rapid rectangular flashing beacon if I have that designation, right? those Treatments are typically on more of the transit routes, so that might be more appropriate. And I don't even want to say that I am aware of what those, but the petitioner has agreed to participate in those. I don't know if those plans are fully refined yet or not. As far as improvements within the street, I'm sure that there's opportunities to do that. If that's something that you were interested in seeing more detail, we could, of course, bring that back, or it's something that we could just make sure we raise and it is answered more definitively before it progresses to City Council for any consideration.

I think given that it's in the intent statement, it might be something worth just exploring further. But it is something that I want to say. It is literally within the intent statement. So it states, all multimodal transportation start and end with pedestrian traffic. So if we can create more connectivity, I think we've looked at, gosh, what was the one next to? It was Leslie Park that created. There was a large development that happened there that created it. Oh yeah, thank you. It created a lot more connectivity and I think that was certainly more helpful from that standpoint. Commissioner Mills, I'm going to come to your point as it relates to parking and your concerns related to TC1 parking and how it would provide a little bit more capacity, which I will lead that with actually a question for the petitioner. How did you land on 369 spots?

I don't know. Scott, do you want to speak to that?

Good evening, I'm Scott Betzel from Midwestern Consulting. To be honest with you, it was a factor of just parking ratio and geometry of the space we had to work with. A parking structure has to be laid out in units, as you're quite aware, and everything. And so we had a limited amount of space to work with. And this being a wrap type of a configuration, this is what we ended up with. And the ratio seemed to serve the purposes and be appropriate for the use and the location of the project.

Got it.

Thank you. And it does allow for getting some of the parking, which currently happens in the public street, off the public street, which would enhance pedestrian connectivity.

Got it. Thank you. Appreciate that. One of the things I want to also point out is that precast concrete structures generally cost about $30,000 a spot. So in essence, Developers don't want to build more parking because it's a non-revenue generator. You could always charge for it, but on a per square foot basis, it's not generating as much economic productivity as, say, rental spaces or living spaces. And so there's an element of they're going to want to provide only as much as going to be supplemental to leasing units or creating enough of a space number of spaces that will support it. Generally, I've seen ULI parking standards and utilization peak demand ratios be used previously in other ones. But one of the things that I want to just point out is that given the cost ratios of how much a parking deck costs, which is generally going to be somewhere in that $120 to $150 per square foot. And it's about 200 square foot per space. I mean, this deck is probably going to cost $11 million, right? They don't want to build more parking, only as much as they're like, oh, gosh, what am I going to need to actually lease this? So I don't have this overarching concern that like, TC1 is going to, they're going to go build another deck for the sake of just building another deck, unless they truly believe that it was market necessary to lease those spaces. So that's just, I wanted to demonstrate, or at least just speak to that concern of like having just been in that seat of evaluating, oh my gosh, how much is this going to cost? And it doesn't generate revenue. It's actually only operating expenses, right? I got to reserve for maintenance. I have to do a bunch of preventative maintenance, as well as just look at CapEx that's going to happen five to seven years. So I understand that the zoning runs with the land. There's also, I would say, just economic realities that surround the parking business. And this isn't a place where you can charge Chicago $70 a night or something. I suppose, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, I suppose, yeah, maybe football games. I didn't think... I did not... Which is totally reasonable. So that... So I wanted to talk about parking count. The last thing I just want to kind of... point at is the general intent statement is about this supporting redevelopment infill development. I think that's the densification. I think I empathize because five to seven stories does feel They're mid-rise, and frankly, if you actually look at our comprehensive land use plan, it shows that we have this one chart that shows kind of like, all right, here's five stories, and that's kind of transition-esque. It's not intended to be prescriptive, but a description of it. Additionally, the general intent statement of TC1 encourage affordable housing, enabling more housing choices, sustainable forms of development with reduced resource and energy needs. I think it is self-evident that shared walls create more efficient type units rather than standalone units. I actually grew up in this area, so I know this very, very well. We used to play at the park outside. So to me, this does fit. It's adding 309 net units, all fully electrified. To me, I'm in support of this. Having listened to and really considered these points, I'm in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Lee. Let's now turn to Commissioner Mills. I'm sorry, Commissioner Lee, Commissioner Norton was getting my attention. Did you want to follow something very quickly? OK. So we'll go Mills, then Norton, if Councilmember Dish is OK with that. Great.

Just for clarity, this is a question for staff. If the zoning and site plan were approved tonight, if a different development were to come back that met the letter of the zoning, At that point, So it could be on additional parts of the site, potentially. It could have, I understand the economic realities, that it may not be likely to have another level of parking, although this has less parking than the last one. And so once upon a time, somebody thought that more parking would be good. Could they add a level of parking with, what would the process be to add a level of parking or to significantly redevelop?

uh it would be a site plan that would come back to the planning commission but it would at that point it would be a site plan considered under the context of whatever the zoning it would be so it would uh unless they were asking for some additional legislative modification to the zoning it would then be the final determination of this body as opposed to the city council like any site plan it would be considered and if it were to team if they were to add spaces and that were deemed compliant with the zoning we staff would recommend approval

And it ends with us then. It wouldn't go to council at that point because it's not the rezoning. Okay. Thanks.

All right. Commissioner Norton, then Commissioner Dish. Does Commissioner Weatherby want to come back? Okay. Okay. Then Lee, then Weitsch.

I just wanted to, so I want to draw on my experience in my other job. I was involved with the updates to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act some years ago and the efforts to add conditional zoning, rezoning to the MZA. And this kind of constraint on a zoning change was exactly what the state legislature was thinking of. We want to allow, there's something about this zoning district that makes it, such that the city would not approve it because it would allow buildings that are just too tall. So the developer says, but I don't want to build too tall. So I'm willing to offer a condition that will allow me to build what I want to build that now makes it palatable to the city council. So it's not bespoke zone. It's not like a PUD where you're kind of crafting exactly the precise thing you want to do. This is exactly what a condition rezoning provision was meant to do. I'm comfortable with it for that reason, for whatever that's worth to you. I also wanted to comment. I fully expect that this area, this larger area, will very likely be rezoned on the city's initiative as we update the zoning code because it's calling for it to be entirely within a transition zone all the way around. So if that happens, and some new zoning district is crafted that would be somehow different than what they've ended up building under this rezoning request, theirs would become a non-conforming use and the new zoning would apply. So, but that's gonna happen everywhere. So this is this kind of difficult problem where we're seeing a project and proposal that's in this transition area where we're grappling with This may not be entirely what we're thinking might go into zoning, but it's pretty close. And what's likely to be built, from my perspective, is consistent with what the transition seems to be calling for in the plan we adopted. But we should all do that mindful that this whole area will now be TC1, which opens the door for all of it to be redeveloped under the TC1 standards, which allow for a mix of uses. Maybe not a bad thing. The one thing though is because of the conditions they're putting in on building heights, nothing in this whole area will be above 120 feet. So they are tapering it pretty considerably compared to what would normally go into a TC1 zoning. So yes, it's opening the door to a lot more than maybe what they're proposing right now, but it's still greatly constrained on what they could do because of the conditions they're proffering for us to accept for the proposed rezoning. So I just wanted to get all of that out on the table too. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Norton. Council Member Dish.

Okay, I just, I want to summarize what I think is still on the table from our comments and then address the concern about displacement that was raised because nobody's spoken to that and I don't know if I should read into the record our consideration of the things we're supposed to consider when we do a rezoning. should I do that it doesn't need to because it's in the staff memo thank you okay so I'll just do that at Council but anyway so I think what's still in the table is everything the only thing that's not can or there are significant elements of TC one that are constrained by these conditions but the thing that is left unconstrained is the parking max and TC one and so I feel as though We are always never requiring a condition, but we might be able to state what a condition about parking that would make us feel better. So I'm just putting that out there. So I wanted to say about displacement, and I really, really appreciate that. I really appreciate bringing up that concern because I think it's one of the leading concerns that people have about Ann Arbor because we know that people are getting displaced from Ann Arbor and the people who are getting displaced from Ann Arbor are in some instances displacing people from IPSE. It's not a good thing to be happening and What we do when we add housing in Ann Arbor is we lessen regional displacement. So a big thing that is happening now is regional displacement. People are either not able to move here or people who would be happy to buy a house in Ann Arbor but cannot find one. are going to a surrounding area and putting pressure on that area and raising its housing market. So the form of displacement that people often mention, and that was mentioned earlier, is local displacement of existing residents. This is a really unusual project, because they actually have a plan to make sure that the existing residents can stay. And if we need a written assurance of that, I'm not suggesting that we write it as a zoning condition. That would not be a no, absolutely not. But maybe we just need a letter saying, we have a plan. This developer is also the property manager and is agreeing to hold open units so that people can have a comparable unit as a price they can afford. That's in my notes from our last meeting. Mr. Moore, if I am stating something that's incorrect, let me know. Then the question of the possibility of future displacement of existing residents if more of the project is demolished. I guess we don't have a crystal ball. We don't know. What we do know is that this developer could also, rather than demolishing, just expand, because there's plenty of infill land here left. So I understand the concern about that, but I also want to It is just so rare that we have any developer come into this room and tell us what they're going to do to manage displacement of existing residents. It's just completely unusual.

No. When Councilmember Dish wants to, they will address you and then give you an opportunity. Please, if we could not interrupt the commission.

I don't think he meant to. He wasn't. Thank you, though, for. I think I really should be more specific. Mr. Leonard, if you could advise me as to if there's any way we could have a better assurance about the displacement plan without writing into a zoning code, which would be extremely odd, I would appreciate a suggestion. That is the end.

It's something that I don't have a definitive answer. My initial thought is that, while I agree with you, I think it would be really inappropriate for a zoning regulation. It's really an operational decision that would be really difficult to enforce from a zoning perspective. We could pursue some Some documentation of it and the development agreement that all eventually presented to City Council but I will caution that part of development agreements their contractual relationship with obligations and consequences and so I don't know exactly what the consequence would be if That goal was not achieved So my quick answer is maybe the development agreement to the extent the petitioner could offer something but I want to be clear that it is DELVING INTO SORT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PROPERTY OWNER AND TENANTS THAT THE CITY MIGHT NOT WANT TO SPECIFICALLY INTERVENE IN.

MAYBE JUST A LETTER. YEAH.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LEE.

I wanted to make a quick note on traffic. I looked at the SEMCOG, which is the Southeastern Michigan Council of Government's vehicle count map. It is a little bit outdated, but it looks like of the latest measurement, they had 23,000 vehicles per day estimated on Stadium Boulevard. And so when you take a look at that, when you're talking about adding, let's say, every single person adds or every single unit adds a unit of traffic, we're talking about possibly or let's say that there's two units per single unit of housing. We're talking about possibly a 2% to 3% increase in the overall traffic. So I just want to put that in context of 20,000 trips per, per day. The other thing that I actually wanted to mention was coming back to the parking discussion as it relates to one disclaimer. Not all developers act rationally either, right? And so you are absolutely right that if this gets rezoned, there's no more discretion. Once it goes to TC1 with conditions on a buy-ride, let's say that they just want to max it out and just build a 900 space deck for just because they love parking. Again, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't, I guess, have to. You want to assume that people are rational actors, right? Under logical and rational decision-making frameworks of economic incentives, it would not make sense to do so. But I do want to make the disclaimer that you are right that once a rezoning is completed, if it comes to us on a buy-write basis, we don't have a basis to reject it. So I think there does remain, you know, I think it's a legitimate concern. One that I'm saying is not logically, like no rational developer would just build, you know, two parking decks of 900 spaces for the heck of building it, because that's like literally like $220 million, right? It's not to say that it's not impossible that there's some, AGAIN, TOTALLY IRRATIONAL THING. SO I HEAR YOU. AT THE SAME TIME, AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT THERE'S JUST RATIONAL LOGICAL BEHAVIOR IN THESE ECONOMIC MARKETS. SOMETIMES IT DOES NOT BEHAVE IN SUCH MANNER. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE COMMISSIONER NORTON WANTS TO RESPOND TO THAT.

CAN I JUST SPEAK TO THAT QUICKLY? UNDER OUR CURRENT ZONE CODES, PARKING LOTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN USES IN TC1 DISTRICTS. SO THEY'RE, I'M LOOKING AT THE TABLE RIGHT HERE, UNLESS I'M READING SOMETHING INCORRECTLY.

It's a permitted accessory to the residential use.

It can't be a primary use. So it would be an accessory. Yeah, yeah, right, right.

So, I mean, you're painting this picture. They might just come back with a big parking deck. That's not going to happen.

Or as in, like, they would reduce, I'm sorry, we can adhere to that.

It's okay. You all have ignored me during this part, so why should I stop you now? So go ahead.

We're talking about parking.

Yep.

No. There is some debate about how much parking they might provide as an accessory to a residential structure.

Correct. Which was Commissioner Mills' concern.

Mr. Leonard. Conditional zoning is voluntary. We could pose to the commissioner. There's been a lot of discussion. The petitioner's hearing a lot of concern about the fears that parking could be realized at a higher ratio. I would just pose to the petitioner. Would you be interested in offering a voluntary condition that restricted the maximum parking of the zoning district to something lower than what the TC1 permits, which is one for every 333 square feet?

To clarify, you mean on future development?

It would apply to the entire .

Because we currently meet the threshold of the TC1, the maximum that TC1 recommends.

And I just want to be clear, this would be totally up to you.

I can't answer that at this moment in time, but we'd consider it, I guess.

Thank you, Mr. Leonard. Commissioner Weatherby, Commissioner Adams, Commissioner Mills.

Go ahead.

And then I'll go after you.

Actually, in looking at the table where I did my comparison, this is something that Commissioner Norton brought up. It's only that one parcel, right? Is that comparison chart on Page, what is this page? 13 of the staff report. This is only that one five acre parcel rather than all 42 acres that are being rezoned, right? Well, the comparison chart is showing the lot area as five acres. And so this is actually where I'm a little bit confused. And based on the numbers, Yeah, based on the numbers that we're talking about, and it looks like from the map that that surface parking, that 72 spots, it looked to me from the map that is just on the park. Can you actually, this is something that you guys should be able to quickly answer. There's the parking garage and 72 surface parking spots there. Are there others on the whole site, other parking lots? Yeah. So I think that this comparison is just for that five acres, which again, there, so there's particularly to the west, there's a whole bunch of stuff that could be built lot to lot with again, a whole bunch more parking, a whole bunch more development, which from like, it depends on where you sit. It could be amazing. And also like, this is what I'm, what I'm talking about about how they could park even more on this. That is just for this parcel, not for the other 35 acres. And so that, I just want to that's where thinking about what is the multiplier here what might that multiplier be in other places too like on the other 35 acres I think that in my mind it's even more consequential and so I can't And particularly because we don't know, we don't have a concept plan of what development could look like. I mean, I think that actually the chart about where the height is is great. But again, I think we should recognize that we could be rezoning it to be like... zero setbacks for the rest of it, because that's what the CC1 allows. And it could be however much, I mean, it could be a whole lot, well, a whole lot more parking that obviously would be scaled to like additional building activity. Anyway, when I was looking at this, I was actually thinking of the whole site, but it's just those five acres.

For the site plan.

For the site plan. That is doing that comparison where I was saying, is what we're seeing, how different is it than what is being asked for in the rezoning? And it's true for that five acres, but we don't have a plan for the rest of the five acres. And what's built there now is obviously significantly, you could build a whole lot more in rezoning it to TC1.

Right. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. Now we'll hear from Commissioner Hammersmith.

I just want to kind of let everyone know where I'm at. I think, based on this discussion, I am a yes. And I think the clarity on the conditional zoning was very helpful. I mean, I don't know how to say this concisely. We need more housing in this city. Perfect should not be the enemy of the good. And I think as long as this is not something that, I mean, spot zoning came up in my mind, too. So I'm glad, Commissioner Norton, that you sort of said no to that. I mean, my biggest concern was just like, is TC1 appropriate? But I feel comfortable after this discussion and hearing from staff. my fellow commissioners. So I just wanted to let everyone know sort of where I am on this.

Thank you, Commissioner Hammerschmidt. So thank you for bringing this back to us. I think I was a vote in favor when it first came to our table in January. I remain supportive of the project. I do want to highlight the things that I heard tonight that I appreciate it. I appreciate it, the reduction in parking. I would echo Mr. Garber often. Mr. Garber and I, we go back and forth with different things and we learn from each other, but I'm grateful that he did some math on the parking. It would be fantastic to get it down to .7 again, which is what he noted, I said, in January. I think the big concern that I've heard as I've been trying to chair the table is is around the parking because TC1 does allow for a lot of parking, and this is a very large property that's being rezoned. It's 41 acres, and so it would be a significant amount given rational developers, actors, and limited capital stacks. And when Commissioner Lee talked about CapEx, he's talking about capital expenditures. But he works in this field, so you say these things a lot, you shorten them very quickly into abbreviations that isolate those of us who have no idea what he's talking about. But let me talk to the residents for a minute. I don't know what you're feeling. I honestly don't. I own a single family detached home in a single family detached neighborhood. When I bought it, I didn't buy it because I thought it was going to be my forever house. I thought I was going to be in the city for a few years. and then i would relocate and plant a church in dc and our first pregnancy ended in miscarriage and that changed our entire trajectory so i don't have the threat of my home being redeveloped and so i don't know what that feels like and i don't want to pretend to know what that feels like And we need you to come to the table to tell us your housing stories. We need you to come to tell us about taking your toddler kids, grandkids rather, to the park to play with your neighbors because we are neighbors and we want this city to be a place that we can all belong. So, for that, I'm grateful for you to come and express your concerns, to express how you see this development impacting your community and a place that you have made significant investment. The good news for you is you get to address City Council after we make our recommendation tonight. You get, I believe, two chances to do that. There's a first reading and then there will be a second reading. And I think City Council is the appropriate place for your concerns because they are the legislative body. They are the ones who can affect actual change. We have to interpret through the means of the UDC what comes before us from petitioners. We have no ability to tell a petitioner. hey, you can't do this thing. They can ask for whatever they want. And as petitioners, that is their right. And then we try to use the guides and the counsel that we have to make the best decision. I think the conversation around how we are thinking about this area I think is valid. And I took notes based on the things that you said. So when the consultants bring back a new UDC which has a map about your neighborhood and what it looks like, we'll be able to influence what that looks like. And I can tell you with confidence If the people who are seated here are the same people when that comes back, we're going to take what you have shared with us tonight and put it into practice. I know for sure, because Commissioner Mills has been here amongst us the longest, so Commissioner Hill, Mills has a historical stake in all of this as well and is going to speak up and that is about maximized or like how big things can be Commissioner Mills has already articulated that several times I've made note of it it's going to come forward Yeah, so I just wanted to acknowledge that. And I know that can feel meaningless, in a sense, in a legislative process. But I do want you to know that I am listening. We're taking the feedback that you are sharing with us. And we're trying to do the best we can. Now, to the developers. or the petitioners, rather, the gas lines for the grills. Can we get rid of that? Like, why are we bringing in a gas line to do that? It just feels sort of out of left field for me. So I mean, if there's some way for you to not do that, make it all electric and not bring those additional gas lines to those grills, I would just advise you to come up with it. If you need some suggestions, Mr. Garber is there. He knows pretty much everything. Just ask him. He can make recommendations to you. And if he doesn't know, he knows someone who does know. So I think that one's good. Mr. Moore or the owner, talk to us about parking. Because I do really, I know you told us how you got to the composition that you did, but the thing that I am learning when we discuss development is you're building capital stacks. So you're going out trying to find investment dollars to build the things that you want to do. So how much, if you are willing to answer my question, how much of the capital that you need to acquire to do this development is dependent on having this kind of parking? Because I don't think it makes sense to a lot of us who look in on the development. We say, oh, why can't you just use the existing parking? Why are you building new parking? And this was my question when they built the Harlan at Briarwood. They took a parking lot, they demolished it, and then they built a parking structure inside the development that was almost as large as the parking lot that they put the development on. And I asked this question then, and they were like, well, it's the only way we could actually get our financing. So Mr. Moore, the owner, if you could just come and just Help us understand some of these decisions, because they just don't seem to make sense.

Typically, the underwriters who are working in a national environment are looking for parking ratios in the neighborhood of one and a half parking spaces per dwelling unit. And they're comparing that to other developments in this city and in other cities. That's kind of the benchmark threshold is that 1.5 ratio. And that was the ratio that was canonized in the zoning ordinance until the recent changes. A lot of times when we begin a project, And we have a parking ratio that we feel we can find capital investment underwriting. We get through our site plan approval, and that process is ongoing. We're still looking as that happens. And we find someone who's willing to underwrite it with less parking. You may recall, for example, the project I worked on, Five Corners, where we had an entire underground level of parking, because that was a requirement of the people who were looking to underwrite the project at the time. Subsequently, we found an underwriter who was willing to do that underwriting without that parking, and we came back administratively and we removed that parking.

So it's possible... Can I interrupt you for just a quick second? The underwriters are the banks, so there's some lending agent that's sort of trying to figure out what the risk is for the capital that they would put into it. And I'm just defining it. You may all know it, but five years ago, when I sat in this process, I didn't understand how all of this works. So I just want to try to demystify some of that. Thank you, Mr. Morgan.

Yeah, so it is possible that we will find, as we move forward towards construction, that we can reduce the parking, in which case we'd file an amendment to do that. Largely, I think that can be administrative in the reduction. But if we... you know we came back and we wanted to add more as has been stated that would be coming back before this body but I I'm not I've never never had a project in my 40 some odd years where the underwriters demanded more than that one and a half so I don't think we'll ever come back asking for more it's likely that if we found the right underwriters that we could come back and do away with another floor of that parking we can't right now because we don't have that underwriting under contract

So can I ask the permission of the table to ask just one more follow-up question? And you may, don't leave Mr. Moore, you may chide me after I ask the question, but I just want to get that. So some of the concern around the TC1 is the TC1 has other uses in it other than residential. You, as I think Commissioner Dish articulated, we don't have a crystal ball in front of us right now. Is there anything you would want to say to us, the commission, or to the neighbors about the future of this site that would be reassuring? I think Commissioner Dish has asked for a letter for the displacement. I think I asked for something in January around the displacement to talk to the neighbors to say we're gonna work with you as best we can to get you rehoused. But if there's anything you'd like to say to the neighbors or that you think would be reassuring, I just want to hear it because I just think those are the concerns we have these irrational fears of the future and when we look out at the zoning we say well if we block this at least we know something like this won't be able to be built here and so if we permit this now we have no idea what's going to come because this has so many different kinds of uses in it

With respect to the displacement, we have been crafting a letter and we will provide that letter to the council about the policies for displacement. So that will be forthcoming as Commissioner Dish has suggested. We will have that letter that will be available for city council outlining the policy of relocating. There are a certain number of units that turn over all the time. People move out and those would be the units that would be available for people who would be displaced under phase two, which is three years down the road. Sure. So it's not like we have to build more units. They're just a natural process of turnover that we can usher those people into the units. As to the future, what other uses might be permitted, Commissioner Norton mentioned it might be nice to have a coffee shop, and that's entirely possible that as the density grows that there would be enough people there to support a coffee shop or a small market, and that would be incorporated in potential future phases, three, four, whatever happens down the road. But yes, we envision a time when that would be a possibility. And we've been doing projects around town where we're doing small retail components. with residential above it. I don't know if anyone's been to the Verve of late, but the Verve incorporated a coffee shop in the common lobby that's open to the whole neighborhood. And it works fantastically well. So we envision those kind of things could happen.

Okay. Well, with that, I'll turn to my right to see if any commissioners would like another. And then to my left. Are we ready to vote? Mr. Leonard, would you please call the roll?

I will. Just to be clear, this is on the motions as originally presented and moved and seconded. There's been no modification.

I'm sorry, hold on. Commissioner Mills has a question.

Would it be favorable or possible to separate the two motions?

Oh, you want to take them separately? I think that would be fine.

I would like to take them separately. Sure. Thank you.

Commissioner Mills is telling you what Commissioner Mills is about to do.

Is that friendly to the movers? Commissioner Mills, you, I think, moved the original motion.

And then I think it was Adams who seconded it. So is it friendly to the both of you? All right, great. So we're going to separate it. Let's start with Motion 1. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the Mayor and the City Council approve 1310 Wisteria Site Plan Version 2, dated May 5, 2026, and the development agreement contingent upon an approved administrative land transfer moved by... Could I suggest that you start with the rezoning first?

Come on.

I just read the thing, Mr. Leonard. I know, but it's the Planning Commission's recommendation. I got you. I got you. I see what you're doing. Thank you. All right. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission. No one is listening tonight. All right. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the Mayor and City Council approve 1310 Wisteria rezoning petition to TC1 Transit Corridor District and accept the conditions to limit the maximum height as stated in the statement of conditions letter and shown on the 1310 Wisteria-Woodbury zoning boundaries map subject to executing a conditional zoning statement of conditions. I'm going to move it again by Commissioner Mills and Adams, and then ask you, Mr. Leonard, to read the roll.

And we'll start with you, Commissioner Wach. Yes. Commissioner Hammersmith.

Yes.

Commissioner Lee. Yes. Commissioner Dish.

Yes.

Commissioner Mills.

No. No.

Commissioner Weatherby.

Yes.

Commissioner Adams. Yes. Commissioner Norton.

Yes.

Motion carries.

The first motion read second. The Ann Arbor City Planning Commission recommends that the Mayor and the City Council approve 1310 Wisteria Site Plan, version 2, dated May 5, 2026, in development agreement contention upon approved administrative land transfer. Moved again by Commissioner Mills and Adams. And Mr. Leonard, if you could read the roll. Commissioner Welch? Yes. Commissioner Hammersmith?

Yes.

Commissioner Lee? Yes. Commissioner Dish?

Yes.

Commissioner Mills?

Yes.

Commissioner Weatherby?

Yes.

Commissioner Adams? Yes. Commissioner Norton? Yes. The recommendations will be sent to the city council.

Thank you all, and good luck with the project. Shall we take a, let's call it a five minute break? Yeah? All right. Commissioner Dish doesn't want to take this break, but everybody else can. back to order and find where we are. That takes us to 11A, Other Business. This is our annual organization meeting part of our meeting tonight. We will do election of officers, committee assignments, review the bylaws, and our annual plan. With the permission of the table, I'd like to start with the election of officers. Just checking, I asked individually if anyone wanted to make themselves available for nomination for office. No one said they wanted to. So with that, given that there are no other nominations, I have a little script here. There's a blank, but I don't know what to put into this blank. We need someone to accept the slate that is in our agenda, and then we'll make a motion for that. So who would like to kick off the slate? It's me serving as chair, Hammersmith serving as vice chair, and Adams as secretary. All right, so Commissioner Mills moves to make the following elections. Commissioner White as chair, Commissioner Hammersmith as vice chair, and Commissioner Adams as secretary, and seconded by Commissioner Weatherby. Did I get that right, Mr. Leonard?

You are nominating these individuals to these positions. I presume, based on previous, everybody accepts those nominations? We do? Would you like to call a vote on accepting the nominations?

Only if you require it. No. Let's move to the vote. Great. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. So be it. I'll continue to chair. We would have like a mid-chair replacement. All right. Thank you, everybody. Let's now go to, can we look at the bylaws? I think that would be good. So our last version of our bylaws, we approved them July. At this time, council affirmed in October. Do we have any revisions, updates, or changes to the bylaws that we'd like to entertain? Commissioner Adams.

I don't want to make a motion. I just want to mention the communications from commissioner's portion of the agenda is not in our bylaws.

So we should add it to the agenda and note it in the bylaws?

I think it's, well, I'm sort of torn on it. I will make the motion, though. I think you should. Let's do it. I think it works well, and it's been used, I think, appropriately by the commissioners. We haven't abused it. We've used it to address public comments appropriately, and I think it's a pretty valuable tool in the toolbox. So I move to add it to the portion of the agenda immediately following the first public comment period.

It looks like there's support from Commissioner Norton as your second.

let's check in with manager and Leonard to make sure he captured what you are moving so Commissioner Adams and seconded by Norton are recommending that the bylaws be forwarded to City Council for consideration with the addition of a new number six and a new item between item six and seven Commissioner proposed business in the standard agenda

Is there a discussion of the motion? Are there any other proposed changes just while we're at it? I'm going to ask a question, but it is not a motion because I can't make them. Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. So I want to ask the table, in light of the bylaws, do we want to put in any kind of round-robin time rules around our speaking? Currently, we have an unlimited speaking time that is managed by the chair, and And it is working because we have a cooperative table. And I don't imagine the table is going to change in its cooperation. But I do want to ask if anyone has any thoughts about that before we move away from this at this time.

If any of us are feeling uncooperative. Yeah.

However you interpret it, it's open to you. All right, we'll start with Commissioner Norton.

I most decidedly do not want to move away from that. I really value the comments that we are engaging in back and forth because I'm learning, and it's helping me in my deliberations. And I would like to think it's helpful to the folks watching online or otherwise. So I would be really reticent to want to constrain our ability to engage in that deliberation.

OK. Yeah, Commissioner Lee.

Has anyone ever actually filibustered in something like this?

I'm just- It is quite possible. I mean, you would have to depend on the leadership of the chair to bring that in. And when it happens, it's going to feel very significant because it hasn't happened yet, if that makes sense. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Mills has a story.

No, I was going to say, I don't think it's happened in the 12 years that I've been on planning commission.

Yeah.

And different people talk different amounts. But I've never seen that happen.

Can I just remark at 12 years?

Okay. I am interested in anybody's feedback or comments or thoughts. So, Commissioner Adams.

I would like to get the meetings back down to some more reasonable end times. And I don't think a speaking time limit is a way to do that. I think as we move away from, I think we've gotten conditioned maybe to a meeting length that drags into the wee hours, so nine feels normal. I still think nine's late for these deliberations and these discussions, but that's more of a custom practice than it is a rule. Okay.

Any other feedback, thoughts? OK. That was my question. So I think the answer to your question, Mr. Leonard, is no. There are no additional changes to the bylaws to be forwarded to city council for their approval. Now let us talk about, let's look at committee assignments. And then we will look at our work plan. And our current committee, yes, okay. It's at the bottom of the memo from Mr. Leonard, or from some unnamed person. Nope. Manager Kelly and Mr. Leonard. So any changes here? I don't think you are miked.

Without Commissioner Basiuni it's hard to do this because there are no assignments. Okay. And we do not know what Commissioner Basiuni's desires might be.

So prime time to assign her to something.

Let's do that. So does anybody want to get off what they're on?

You were reappointed to the Board of Appeals after a couple changes. So I think you're stuck there.

And if there's no changes, we can just move on.

Okay.

If anybody wants to not be on the ORC, I would be happy to step in if anyone is feeling overtaxed.

I would also, that's very generous of you, Commissioner Dish. However, I would note that for the time being, the ORC is somewhat on hiatus because we've converted all their meetings to regular planning commission meetings.

Oh, that was an easy offer, though.

It's kind of performative at this point.

Ooh, that was a very astute observation. Nobody wanted to mention it. Okay, so then let's move on to our work plan since there are no committee changes. I do want to just flag, Mr. Lerner, before we leave here, I would like to do another retreat the way that we did, and I would like to do it out of the chambers like we did, and I would love to if not revisit the developments that we did because they're in a different state now, something very close to that. I think that was a very profitable time. I very much enjoyed it. It was great to even have the developer come for some of the projects that we were looking at and give us a sense of what they were doing and the vision that they had. I know the media followed us and covered it. Commissioner Weatherby unclogged a drain on the way. So I definitely want to ensure that we can do something like that again.

Okay.

I'll bring the umbrella. Great.

Yes.

Well, we could do it in a, and you know, maybe in the fall before the winter comes. Okay, so then we have our work plan and then we have the red line of our work plan. So let's bring those up and then see if we have any changes or additions that we would like. Commissioner Adams.

I just wanted to confirm that when the work plan says RFP issue 2026, that refers to the comprehensive plan rewrite? Correct. Yep. And then the re-review 30% height bonuses being expected July, that is the council approval of the changes we made to the bonuses, correct? Correct. Okay. Those are my two questions.

I would just also observe, if I may, sorry to jump in. No, you're fine. Go ahead. I know you're trying hard to keep control of all of us. Control, who can do that? Obviously, the UDC is a really broad project. So these, where you see these references, these are some of the specific things that have been memorialized in the past. And we have asserted that that would be great opportunity during the UDC to address those. So I didn't want to suggest in any way for the Commission, of course, or anybody else who's in the audience that

those were the only things that are going to be addressed through the udc that is intended to be a really comprehensive rewrite of our zoning but that's why they're reflected in the way that they are sure um i haven't uh daylighted for you mr leonard i did for manager kelly the three the four work session topics so i'll just give those to you and then we can figure out if they go into the work plan so i've asked commissioner mills to do one on data centers. Commissioner Norton on planning practices, given his role on the state planning governing body. I've asked Commissioner Lee to give us a presentation on development, pro formas, capital stacks. And I did talk to you, Mr. Leonard, about inviting the Michigan Planning Association to come in to talk about best practices after passing your comprehensive land use plan. And so that would talk about zoning. So those are four topics that I'd like to work with you and staff to schedule in our work session. And of course, getting the waste management scheduled so that we can have a conversation about that. I'd like to daylight the short-term rentals because at least some understanding of whether that's going to just come from council to us or if we need to take a look at that at all. You could totally pun on that one. And then I'd like to do another playing commission in the audience. because I thought that that was really profitable for us to sort of come from behind the dais and sit in the audience and talk, answer questions, understand the process a little bit better.

healthy to-do list, which one of those commissioners is closest to having their presentation ready? You are. OK. All right. I don't think they need to be on the work plan. I hear you. We'll get working on it. I'm just giving it to you.

That way you can say, OK, I heard this, and I'll figure out where it goes. Thank you.

I do want to highlight, we are tentative, not tentatively, we're planning on your work session for next week. We will have the solid waste discussion with our solid waste team, and we also have a presentation from OSI on the Bryant neighborhood geothermal installation. I just would note that will be noteworthy because you will be eventually seeing a site plan for some potential improvements in Bryant Park, which is, I don't know if some of you may or may not recall, the city years ago adopted a policy for public projects that would All right, while they are exempt from zoning, if they would typically require cycle interview, they come to you for advice. Any. Any conclusions you reach about how it does or doesn't meet our regulations are forwarded to the city council for their consideration and moving forward with that project.

I'd also like to put on your attention, it's not on the work plan, but you may already have a plan for it. I think it was profitable for us to have a pre-CIP conference with Kayla, if Kayla's still in that role and position. Absolutely. So that we can be informed, and that can be a profitable conversation. And we haven't had a conversation with Parks. in a while, not since their annual plan came through, but I think that might be advisable for us to have a conversation with them.

They're starting the process of a new PROS plan update, so we can add that to the list. Commissioner Mills, are you ready to potentially come to this body on the 28th of July?

I just sent Commissioner White, well, during the break, I sent Commissioner White an email saying when I was available. No, I'm on vacation. Sorry. But I could do either of the August times.

August 11th? Yeah. If we could do the 25th, that would allow me to be present. I'll be gone the 11th, but that's just me.

All right. I'm going to pencil. I'm going to, in planning manager parlay, I'm going to pencil that in for the 25th. Great. Thank you.

And I assume that somebody's going to tell me what you want me to cover, how long you want me to talk, that kind of thing.

I mean, it's a two-hour meeting. We usually allow the presenter the first 30 minutes, and then we have conversation. And so for what I'd like to... do is just data centers for a lot of people feel like a new zoning use. And so there's a lot that's happening and it's happening very quickly. And so you are becoming a state level expert in data centers. And so you could give us an update. You can also talk about the current geography of data centers and then questions for that.

That sounds great.

Is that good? I mean, actually, we can work the agenda right now. Are there things that you all want to talk about?

Normally, like the thing that I gave to MAP or whatever, Master Citizen Planner, covers what is a data center, you know, like questions about energy and water and all of that kind of stuff and the regulations. And then, I mean, we have a guide. I wrote a guide on what local governments should know about data centers. And so it's like the five takeaways of that. And so it's both what is true and false, but then also what I'm telling local governments across the state they might consider doing in their zoning. Yeah?

Yeah.

Okay, I'm going to shorten it, though, because normally that's like the 45-minute thing, so I'll make it shorter for us.

And then if you could, if it's accessible to you, map the data centers that you are aware of that are either in the city or immediately adjacent to the city.

NEDC data centers actually has a map, so it's very easy, and I will do that. I'll put that on your presentation.

Because I don't think people realize there are current data centers in the city of Ann Arbor.

Yeah, and actually, there's kind of competing maps about what they are.

Commissioner Weatherby made sure we knew that.

Well, and I think some of them don't show up on maps intentionally.

Exactly. I was going to say.

For security reasons.

Right. So I will pull together what is known from those public sources, and if other people have secret information that they want to share. Amazing.

OK. Yes, Commissioner Norton.

So you're asking me to give a, I could do a three-minute presentation on the history of planning and zoning in general, and in Michigan in particular.

Not the history, just the best practices.

Do's and don'ts as we're engaging. I could give a 30-minute talk on that, and I could do that on the 28th. 25th. OF JULY.

DO YOU, COMMISSIONER, A LOT OF TIMES AT WORKING SESSIONS WE DO KIND OF A TOPIC AN HOUR. YEAH. IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE ARE YOU THINKING THE SAME OR DO YOU WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE FOR DATA CENTERS?

WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO DO A 30-MINUTE PRESENTATION AND THEN A CONVERSATION. OKAY. WITH IT. I MEAN, WE DON'T UNLESS BECAUSE IT'S THE SUMMER I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO STACK. OKAY. So if we also open it up to the public and they have questions with different things, because if Commissioner Norton does something on what spot zoning is and what it's not according to the law as a topic, that might be helpful. And then I can imagine a public commenter might come in to say, this is what I know about spot zoning. And then that way we don't have to stack

Should I plan on that?

Yeah, so let's plan on Commissioner Norton on the 28th, although I already have something potentially stacked on that one. So if you have something, please keep it.

Don't move it for the agenda that I'm trying to move forward, which I think is an educational agenda, just in case anyone is not cluing in to what I'm doing. No secret agendas here.

All right. Any changes to the work plan, or are we good?

No, I think we're good, because we're waiting for the new UDC. So if they could do it fast, but good. That would be great. You can get fast, cheap, or good. But you can't get all three. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. Yes, let me read it from the thing, if everyone will just give me a second. So if you all could pull up your agenda, go to the last page, and then there's a highlighted section for who can move it. I can't move things. It's on the last page under work plan.

Yeah, somebody can move the attached work plan for fiscal year 2027 to be adopted. Yeah.

Go ahead. No, you do it. All right.

Moved by Commissioner Hammersmith. Is there a second? Council Member Dish. Thank you. Yes. We can do it as a voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Great. And I do believe that concludes our annual meeting. Thank you, Mr. Leonard and staff for putting everything together and presenting it to us and getting it to us in a timely fashion. We appreciate your efforts. That takes us to agenda item number 12, public comment. Let me read it. This is a second opportunity for individuals to speak up to three minutes on any issue. We'll first hear from those of you who are present, then remote participants. To speak remotely, press star nine. If on phone, if on Zoom, use the raise hand feature. 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 name if on Zoom. You'll hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please move to a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, whether in present chambers or online, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Mr. Garber, would you like to address us?

What the heck? So, yeah, I look forward to Commissioner Mills' presentation on data centers, Commissioner Norton's presentation on zoning and planning at the state level. I assume these are open to the public. And a question, I know I can't require a response, but there are data centers in the city of Ann Arbor? Okay. Anyway, thank you all. It's Actually, it was an enjoyable meeting for me in the public anyway, and I hope it was for you in your decision-making. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Garber. Do we still have remote participants?

One without a hand raised.

I shall close the public hearing. Move us to agenda item number 13, commission proposed business. Is there any? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Moved by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Norton. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned.