Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 regular meeting of the Ann Arbor Planning Commission. For detailed information on meeting procedures, please review the full printed meeting agenda provided. Manager Kelly, will you call the roll?

Certainly, noting planned absences from Chair Weish, Commissioners Lee, and Mills. Hammerschmidt? Here. Adams?

Here.

Dish? Here. Weatherby? Here. Norton? Here. Bess Uni? Here. You have a quorum, and I will remind the commission that five votes are required to pass any item.

Thank you. All right, moving on to item number three, approval of the agenda. I have a motion to approve the agenda. Moved by Commissioner Dish, seconded by Commissioner Weatherby. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Minutes of the previous meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes of the July 7th, 2026 meeting? Moved by Commissioner Dish, seconded by Commissioner Basiuni. Any discussion of the minutes? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Agenda item number five, reports to the Planning Commission and written communications. We will start with the council report from Council Member Dish.

Last night, Council approved the adjustment to the sustainability component of the height exception. It approved the Wagner Road rezoning, the rezoning of 3785 Varsity Drive with the condition that the units not be used as STRs. That condition was added after our consideration of this project. the 700 north main rezone from M1 to C2B with the 75 foot height cap, all of which we approved. And then they passed a resolution to direct the city administrator to come back to council with two things. One is a I guess a set of recommendations or a proposal for how we could and what, how we could, how council could pass a moratorium on STRs and what should be exempt or included in that moratorium. Either as part of the work to prepare that moratorium menu or subsequent to it the resolution directs a council to bring some proposed amendments to the city's str ordinance and to the udc after some amount of study some amount of which would be done by planning staff i will tell you that I voted no on this, and that I expressed concern about adding things, especially to staff's agenda right now, but also that will involve the Planning Commission because we have expressed a strong desire to see a contract signed, sealed, and delivered on the UDC work. And also, some of this direction, I don't understand how it doesn't simply interrupt the UDC work that we have prioritized. So I say this not in any, I think the council is filled with well-meaning, very conscientious human beings. But I have some concerns about direction, yeah.

Thank you, Council Member Dish. Manager report is next for Manager Kelly.

I have no report this evening.

All right. Do any other commissioner officers or committee liaisons have anything to report? OK. And I will note that written communications are included in today's packet. All right, moving on to item number six, public comment. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak for up to three minutes on issues not listed as a public hearing or dedicated public comment period on the agenda. We will first hear from those present and then remote participants. To speak remotely, press star nine if on the phone or use the raise hand feature in Zoom. For phone access, call 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 for Zoom users. 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, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present who would like to speak at this time?

Thank you, Commissioner Hammerschmidt. Ken Garber, 28, Haverhill Court. Just a quick comment, informational, about yesterday's council meeting and council approving the height exception amendments that Council Member Dish referred to. Sheila Rizzulli of the Ann Arbor Renders Commission spoke at the public hearing yesterday. and said that this had come up at their deliberations, and they're very concerned that the affordable housing height exception is not being used. And that she urges this commission to take this up as soon as possible again, to close this sustainability loophole, that's my term, and achieve proportionality so that we're not just getting sustainability height exceptions, but also affordability height exceptions. So in case you missed it, I just wanted to pass on Sheila's comment and that this is being discussed at Render's Commission. I also commented, but that was then. And I look forward to this meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm assuming everyone else here is here for the two agenda items. Is there anyone who would like to address the commission remotely?

There are no hands raised.

All right. With that, I will close the public hearing. Agenda item number seven is communications from commissioners, which is an opportunity for the commission to respond to and address any public comment if desired. Does anyone desire? All right. Agenda item number eight, public hearing scheduled for the next business meeting. Manager Kelly.

There are four items anticipated for that agenda and that will be your August 5th agenda in these chambers at 7 p.m. There's one public hearing and three dedicated public comment opportunities. The public hearing is 2958 Shady Lane rezoning for City Council approval. A proposed annexation and rezoning of a single-family lot from Pittsfield Township to the City of Ann Arbor R1D Zoning District. There is no proposed development. The lot is 5,227 square feet and located in Ward 3. The first of the dedicated public comment items is a returning item, 3400 Dexter, site plan for City Council with accompanying annexation from Sio Township. and proposed rezoning to R4B, Multiple Family Dwelling District. You may recall from your earlier meeting, I believe it may have been the 616 meeting, that this was a site plan for a 4.31-acre parcel proposing the construction of 33-story attached townhome units in seven buildings, one three-unit building, three four-unit buildings, and three five-unit buildings. Each townhome will have two buildings GARAGE AND TWO DRIVEWAY PARKING SPACES. THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL GUEST SURFACE PARKING SPACES AND THE SITE PROPOSES 2.82 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE IN ADDITION TO CONTAINING SOME WETLAND AREAS ADJACENT TO M-14 AND CURRENTLY ZONED TOWNSHIP AND WOULD BE IN WARD FIVE. The next public comment opportunity is for 841 Broadway Street, a site plan for Planning Commission approval. This is a proposed plan that revises a previous plan already in place for the site to remove one level of the parking deck underneath the residential buildings and replace it with approximately seven units. The parking would be relocated offsite to the adjacent Amtrak lot and is part of the larger 841 Broadway planned unit development and located in Ward 1. And the final item for that next agenda is 3861 Research Park Drive. A site plan for planning commission approval. The site plan proposes three additions to an existing gift of life building. The original eastern building will be demolished and replaced with a new wing for laboratory and medical space. The front center wing on the west half of the building will also be demolished and replaced with a new connector that will enclose the proposed internal courtyard. A small utility room will also be added to the rear of the building. The three additions total about 22,650 square feet for a total of 91,570 square feet. Existing parking in the front of the building will remain and 49 new parking spaces are located in the rear. This is located in Ward 4.

Sounds like a packed agenda. OK, agenda item number nine, unfinished business. There is none. So that moves us to agenda item number 10A, regular business. This is the Spring Hill Suite site plan for Planning Commission, located at 2295 South State Street. It's a site plan to develop a five-story, 118-room hotel on a two-acre site-zoned 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. This site is located in Ward 4, and the staff recommendation is approval. We will first have a petitioner presentation, and then a staff presentation, and a public hearing, and then our discussion.

Good evening. Heath Hart with Midwestern Consulting.

You're just presenting the site plan, right?

Yeah. I'm going to get in here for a second. Thanks. There you go. Perfect. You can use these arrows or you can click.

Okay. Thank you. Starting over again, Heath Hart with Midwestern Consulting. Also with me to answer any questions is Scott Bowers, the architect, and Ray Bacall, who is the owner, developer of the site. You might recall this site came before the Planning Commission probably two years ago. At that point in time, there was some issues with a water main and sanitary main coming through the center of the site. And that conflicted with some proposed retaining walls. The retaining walls were necessary in order to get the parking to serve the hotel. It is a 118 unit hotel. We're back before you tonight, well actually I'm not back, I wasn't part of the original one, but back before you tonight to present a revised plan. And the revised plan addressed some of the concerns that were previously brought forth. Specifically the water main, what we're doing is relocating that to the property line. Previously that water main would also serve the parcel to the north and by relocating it to the property line it provides access to that parcel to the north without having to encroach across our site to get the water lead. We are also removing a sanitary lead that came across our site or I'm sorry sanitary main that came across our site and a dead ended on our site and that sanitary lead also served the parcel to the north. That sanitary main we're looking to extend through our property to the property to the north so that way they would also have access to that sanitary main in the future when that's developed. We met with the owner of that parcel. We went through our plan with him. Part of the plan that we were presenting was a shared driveway. That shared driveway would allow elimination of one of the curb cuts on State Street. It would also provide access to his property. In addition to that, it would allow for the relocation of the utilities. And then that utility easement would be split across the two properties for which that water main would serve. As part of the new plan, we've also moved the surface parking under the building. That helps reduce the impervious surface of the site. we have i think 38 spaces proposed under the building and then a total of 124 i believe or somewhere in that ballpark so the remainder of those would be the surface parking which is a reduced number of surface parking from what was previously proposed Also with this design with a shared driveway we were allowed to make up a lot of the grade across the site. The site has about 40 feet of drop from the front to the back. So with that shared driveway we're making up some of the grade drop as well as coming across the parking lot and that allowed us to reduce the height of the retaining walls that were previously proposed along the back of the site. There is some natural feature impacts. There's some trees that we are proposing to remove. We did try to maximize the site for replacement trees. And we are looking for a payment in lieu for the remaining balance of those trees that are being removed. There is an existing detention pond that's on the site. that was taking actually public storm water. We're looking to extend that storm lead through the site that's taking water from the State Street corridor and remain the discharge point to that pond where it currently discharges to. The other natural features is the steep slopes and of course those steep slopes were a man-made steep slopes. We're trying to use those, incorporate them as much as we can into the building. To the east of our property is the Ann Arbor Public Schools bus parking. To the south of the site is Oasis Hot Tubs. We developed the building So we have a couple of wings and we have a mass of landscaping to provide a buffer between that adjacent property to the south. The property to the north, as I said, would have the shared driveway access. So they would have their access to their lot when that finally gets developed. If you're familiar with this site, it was an old beauty salon, not in the greatest visual aspect of the site, as well as the building next door to the north, which I think was recently demolished. I know there was about four buildings on that site and they went through a grading permit to remove those buildings. Not sure what that future development is going to be. It's still undecided. I think you might be looking to sell the property, but If there's any questions, I'll speak very quickly on the building. If there is questions, like I said, Scott Bowers is here to answer specific questions. But it is a five-story building, 118 keys. It is a Spring Hill Suites, so it is a nicer venue. If you look at the neighboring property of the University of Michigan right across the street, it is an excellent location for a hotel. There is ATA parking, I'm sorry, bus stops on State Street directly in front of the hotel. As part of our plan, we did work with ATA to relocate one of those bus stops since it was basically sitting right on the property line where that new driveway is going to come in. So we're shifting that slightly south, very close to where the existing drive approach is. So I think that's it. I'll surrender the rest of my time. And if I didn't cover anything, we'll be available to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, we'll move on to the staff presentation from Planner DeLeo.

THANK YOU. I'LL COVER JUST SOME TECHNICAL DETAILS, SOME PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR THIS ONE. IT IS THE SPRINGHILL SUITES HOTEL SITE PLAN FOR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL MENTIONED. IT'S A FIVE STORY HOTEL, ABOUT 118 ROOMS, TWO ACRE SITE, ZONED O OFFICE. This project has been under review for a while. At the time it was submitted, it was required to have Type 1 community participation, which was done by a virtual meeting held in June of 2023. The new access configuration has been mentioned, as well as the parking. A little bit more about the natural features is that the site formerly has a pioneer woodland with landmark trees within it. It has a wetland that comes from the lack of maintenance of a stormwater management pond. And human-made steep slopes. These all have low-level concern protection priorities, which at a very high, broad level, lumping them together, it means that the development on the site with removal of either the invasive species or restoring the natural conditions is actually preferable than just protecting those natural features as is. um the woodland area including the landmark trees to be removed has a total diameter at breast height of 856 inches they'll be mitigating 50 of that as required and of the required mitigation 79 trees providing almost 200 caliber inches will go on site and about and a payment in lieu for off-site planting will be done for the remaining 230 caliber inches The staff report contains a brief development standards review summary table and the only notable staff comment aside from all staff reviews have recommended approval. There's one additional comment. The transportation staff that the University of Michigan is providing some financial support for a safe pedestrian crossing in the area. And this developer is requested to contribute towards that project, toward the design and implementation of the crosswalk, which they have agreed. This speaks to what Mr. Hart was talking about. It's a good spot for a hotel because there are a lot of destinations, there is a lot of transit access, and there's a lot of cross-state DESIRE AND THEY WILL CONTRIBUTE TOWARD THAT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL BE PREPARED FOR CITY COUNCIL SHORTLY TO ADDRESS THE PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR THE ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE WOODLAND MITIGATION AND THIS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CONTRIBUTION.

All right, thank you very much, Planner DeLeo. All right, we will move on to, it's not a public hearing, right? It's public comment, because this is our approval. OK, so public comment. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak for up to three minutes on the item. We will first hear from those present, and then remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on the phone or use the raise hand feature in Zoom. For phone access, call 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 will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak. Please ensure that you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present who would like to speak at this time?

You know I've got to do this. Thank you, Vice Chair Hammersmith. Ken Garber again. So 28 Havenhill Court is my address. The parking, I really don't know what the standards are for hotels these days. This is 118 keys, 118 rooms, either 122 parking spaces, according to the staff report, 124 according to Mr. Herp. So just over one per room. I will note that there's a Drury Plaza Hotel under review down State Street at 615 Briarwood Circle. 180 rooms, only 97 parking spaces. So barely more than half a parking space per room. And that's farther away from downtown and not as easily accessible by transit. I bring that up to say do we need this many parking spaces for this hotel given that Drury Plaza is getting by with so many fewer and it's a much bigger hotel. On sustainability features, nothing about that in the developer presentation, in the staff presentation, in the staff report, or as far as I can see in the site plan. So I don't know what, if anything, the developer is proposing. I will say that Spring Hill Suites is a subsidiary of Marriott Hotels. which publishes an annual sustainability report. The latest one states that, quote, over 20% of hotels in our portfolio are certified to a recognized sustainability standard, and 383 open and pipeline hotels achieved or are pursuing LEED or an equivalent certification, end quote. LEED certainly isn't the last word on sustainability, but it's something. Is this hotel one of those 20% pursuing some kind of green building certification? If so, why not? If not, why not? This is just one One hotel that's part of an ongoing hotel boom in the city. There's the AC Marriott across the street here, 310 rooms about to, excuse me, 139 rooms about to open. Broadway Park West, 148 rooms. Broken Ground, Under Review, or five more. Harbor South, Victory Inn Replacement, Fairfield Inn, Jewelry Plaza. and this one, over 600,000 square feet total. They're all heated with gas. None of them are pursuing, as far as I know, green building certification. I know we can't require any of this, but this does seem to be a setback in our city's climate goals. That's a lot of square footage, a lot of rooms. That's Going up with gas. We constantly hear from OSI that new belts have to come in all electric. Anyway, end of comment. My time has run out. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak at this time? Do we have any remote participants? There are no hands raised. All right. I will read the proposed motion. The Ann Arbor Planning Commission hereby approves the Spring Hill Suite site plan at 2295 South State Street, version 7, dated June 16, 2026, to develop a hotel subject to entering in and satisfying all provisions of a development agreement. Moved by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Dish. We are in discussion. Would anyone like to kick us off?

Commissioner Weatherby.

Thank you.

Get the ball rolling here. So number one, the thing I'm most excited about is the pedestrian crossing. That was an issue when we approved the previous hotel nearby. And I've seen terrifying things in action as people, large groups of people, try to cross the street there. And so that's a really good thing. And I'm happy that the university is contributing some to that, too. I would agree with Mr. Garber. Why are there so many parking spots? This is a question for the petitioner.

So I will answer. With the Spring Hill Suites, there is a brand requirement for minimum parking. So that minimum parking assumes full occupancy plus some workers. Obviously, during the night, you're not going to have as many workers there. And during the day, the occupants are going to be gone from the hotel. So that's why it kind of reserves 118 spots for the rooms. And then there's four spots reserved for employees that could possibly be working there also.

And it seems, I mean, the norm that we've seen and heard is that people aren't driving personal cars to stay in hotels as much anymore. Is that... that's not something this brand has observed?

I can't really comment on that other than I know there is a brand requirement for the minimum parking that they that they want to see on their their properties and that's probably obviously so they don't be short right because that's not that's not desirable for for their hotel or service.

Okay and then Probably also the sustainability aspects. Are there any in this?

I can speak on the stormwater. Scott Bowers is here. He can speak on the hotel itself. Obviously the stormwater, we are providing, meeting the city and county stormwater requirements. We did do testing on the site. There is no infiltration potential. It's clay soils. So we do have a 20% additional volume that we're providing on site. All that's underground in the surface parking lot is where that's located.

And that's required, correct?

That is required, correct, yeah.

So are you, are there any, like, is the building all electric? Is there any solar? Anything?

Good evening, Scott Bowers, Bowers & Associates Architects, 2000 Green. Well, one of the reasons that we put parking under the building is because we didn't want to have so much on surface. The other is that we are doing all electric.

It is all electric? All electric. Okay, awesome.

Any other questions?

Are you done? I'm done. Oh, you're done, okay. All right, thank you. Anyone, Commissioner Dish, would you like to ask any questions?

While this gentleman is standing over here. Yes, while he's standing. Hello, Mr. Bowers. Could you say a little bit more about how you're going to achieve the all-electric? And will that include everything, such as sometimes we hear that laundry isn't efficient to do that way, which we don't necessarily. I am not endorsing that view. I am just saying that I heard it, so I'm curious as to whether when you say all-electric.

Laundry and water boilers are difficult, but it can be done.

And you will be doing it?

That's what we agreed to.

Excellent. And then you're using what kind of heat pumps?

Yeah, the P-tacks that are under the windows that are all electric. Heat pumps for the common areas. Mm-hmm.

Any other questions? I don't, but if anyone can go deeper into that, I welcome that. Commissioner Norton.

What we sometimes hear are gas generators as backup for power outages. Are you seeing the need to do that?

Right now, we don't have a backup generator. We'd have one that would arrive to the site if we needed.

If you need to bring one in.

Bring one in.

Yeah, OK. I'll just make a comment. I mean, we don't have the ability to require any of that. It's great, and I would encourage you to find ways to do the kind of sustainability things that Mr. Garber's pointing out. It'd be nice if you could reduce parking, but I understand if you're coming in cars, that's not much way around that. I think this project fits well. This site, I think it'll be a great service to the folks using the university athletic facilities across the way. I think it seems to be a perfectly good project. I'm not seeing any reason to say no, so I will be voting in favor.

Thank you. Any other questions? No? No? I just wanted to ask Planner DiLeo, did you know that this was going to be all electric? And will that be in the development agreement?

I don't believe I was aware. It can be added to the development agreement, which has not been completely drafted yet.

Is there anything that we would need to do here to make sure that gets codified in there?

You have my word that I will put it in. I do suppose you can amend the motion, but I... I hereby solemnly swear I will add it to the development agreement. Does anyone want to amend the motion?

Do we trust Alexis? I think we trust Alexis. Okay. I think all the questions that I had were also addressed. The crosswalk, I agree, will be a great improvement in this area where there is no mid-block crossing and it's a very long block. I guess I'm curious, did you meet with the office of sustainability and innovation as you were going through this i believe we did okay it's been a while okay yeah okay great um all right are we ready for a vote okay um all right do you want to do roll call uh yeah that would be best okay okay on the motion as presented hammerschmidt yes adams yes dish yes

Weatherby? Yes. Norton? Yes. Bess Unite? Yes. That carries unanimously.

All right, that is approved. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move on to item number 10b, regular business. The University in Ann Arbor site plan for Planning Commission, 2424 East Stadium Boulevard, a site plan to construct a six-story residential building and three townhome buildings on a four-acre site zoned TC1 Transit Corridor. The development provides 307 dwelling units, 295 in the multifamily building, and four in each townhouse building. Parking for 417 vehicles and 156 bicycles will be provided underneath the building and in garages. 11 landmark trees are proposed to be removed and mitigated on and off site. This project is in Ward 3, and the staff recommendation is approval. Again, we will start with the petitioner presentation.

Hank, we're still trying to get the full screen. Yeah, how do you make it full screen? Yeah. Ah, okay. Oh, thank you. All right.

Right down. There we go. All right. Great. Hello everyone, I'm Zach Weiss, the development officer of Beztac, and thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to present to you for approval tonight. I'm joined here by John Majewski of Majewski Architects, Luke Bonner from Bonner Advisory, and Josh Ratliff from Giffels Webster, and I think on Zoom we have our landscape architect as well, from Grissom Metz and Dries. Just some brief background about our company, Beztac. We're a third-generation family-run company, owner, developer, and manager. We currently have about 30,000 apartment and senior housing units under management across the country. We have been active in the Ann Arbor community since I think about 1989. We developed Briar Cove Apartments off of Eisenhower currently still own and manage that today. More recently, we've developed a couple recent projects in the townships. Our all-seasons assisted living and independent living community in Ann Arbor Township and Uptown Ann Arbor in Pittsfield. So we have a long history in the city and a commitment to seeing things through as a long-term holder and operator of real estate. So this is the second time we're asking for approval on this site, but it's a completely different project than the one that was in 2022. That project was 185 units in a four story structure. I believe the zoning was C2 or O2 at the time. And it was a U-shaped development around an existing office. Since that time there's been the rezoning for TC1. We were able to acquire some additional land and consolidate the site as multifamily only. So now our project that we are presenting tonight is six-story development. with 295 mid-rise units and 12 townhomes. So we're very excited to present, and I'm gonna turn it over to John Majewski. He'll go through some of the architectural details. And I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Zach. John Majewski, Majewski Architects. I'll try to run through this very quickly with you. The previous plan Zach had already talked about. I think everybody remembers we were here just about four years ago when we got that finally approved. But luckily another piece of land became available. It gave us a new opportunity. It kind of gave us a real opportunity to clean up the site and get rid of the existing building, which was always a little strange in the center. So the building that we've ended up with now is kind of broken into two key components. In our minds, we go from the park to the townhouses to the higher occupancy building. And then we move as we go west into retail and the mixture of parking that sits on that side kind of key factors that drove the building is there's under the t zoning there's a requirement for street frontage there's a requirement for presence of street frontage and there's also a requirement that everything fits basically within a 450 foot diagonal so it's kind of a circle you have to imagine that we have to put on the site then the other two things that always drive our projects in Ann Arbor for better or worse is trash that's definitely always a huge factor and respectfully the fire department because it needs to get on the site and turn around so that's the beauty of being downtown we don't have to worry about that because we have streets but here we really did so The west side has kind of a turnaround that comes in. It gives us a great opportunity for parking. The renderings will show it more obvious than it is. It's on the Trader Joe's side. It's actually screened by that additional white building that you can see. To some extent, it's really pretty well screened, but it will show up in the renderings. The building's basically a courtyard building with the amenities and the pool in the center, the parking at the back, and then, as I mentioned, the townhouses step down. We've hidden the parking by the townhouses for the back area, but that's also our area for the trash to make its maneuvering and to get around. This view shows you from the west, and if you could imagine there would be a lower scale building that would kind of actually screen our parking. We needed to move that entrance as far to the west to get away from the intersection, because that is kind of a key future intersection that the traffic planners want us to stay away from. This effectively is once you're standing in the back of the site looking back. This is inside the courtyard. There is a swimming pool in here. This is looking the other way in the courtyard where we have a two-tiered amenity area. That upper amenity area actually hides parking, which is down below it, the inside parking. It all kind of sits across that back section. Here you see the view as it goes down and we move to the east and we go from the higher building, three-story townhouses to the park. Parking is mainly all below grade right in the center of the building. It does have a level that kind of pops up. And then you can see the units ring around as they go above it. Basically, we're talking about studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms. The townhouses are pretty unique. They're pretty large and very generous, and they're three-bedroom units. So they'll be, I think, really a very ideal situation for somebody who's looking for a little bit more space to live in a two-car garage, which is within the building. The project will be pursuing national green building standards, so the NGBS design standard would show the underground parking. We want to make sure that everybody understands that. We do meet the current parking requirements. If there was some problem with future parking, the need for more future parking, we would have some availability with the parking to have flexibility to add a few more parking spaces for bicycles we do have access to local transportation we use energy star appliances we're definitely focused on using locally sourced materials for the way that we do this it's important that the reduced It reduces vehicle miles traveled basically where we sit and that we kind of want to be a part of this concept of a resilient community due to the proximity not only of where we are but to the retail that we have next door that there's kind of built-in grocery shopping right next door to our site. the there might be a question we do have all the dwelling units are electric the dryers are electric the generators diesel I'm not proud to say it's diesel but that makes sound better to some than gas so I just want to point that out the materials on the exterior of the building basically range from a dark band of darker brown brick at the bottom to a cream brick on top of that that's going to take us all the way up to effectively the fourth story. The frames then bring us up to the fifth and to the sixth story to kind of give a sense of where the entrance is in this particular view. Above that we use the synthetic stucco material on the upper two levels and they basically are going to be a material inside the frame which is going to be darker than the brick but picking up on the brick. and above the cream brick will go to just a slightly lighter synthetic stucco. The frames are all metal that you see around it and there's quite a bit of metal panel and then any of the windows are dark bronze aluminum color. This just runs basically through the elevations around the exterior of the building. I would try to tell you guys I know parking is always of a concern where I believe about 8.4 beds per bedroom I'm sorry 8.4 parking spaces per bedroom with giving us a good buffer then for some additional guest parking but when we designed this building and I'll go back really quick we basically designed it so that parking garage sitting at the back stacks up three stories so you can see where it is here and then you can see where it goes if everything were to change and the world didn't need parking there is the possibility for us to take advantage of three floors on the back of this building which could be converted at a later date So we just want to let you know that that's kind of built into the system. The heights are appropriate for that. The lowest unit would partially sit below grade. The upper two units would be up above. It could be townhouses. It could be anything. It's just there's the possibility for something like that. So I think that's really it. Thank you. If there are any questions, just let me know.

Thank you very much. We will move on to the staff presentation from Planner DiLeo once again.

Thank you. Once again, I'll focus on some standards of approval and some procedures. This is the University in Ann Arbor site plan at 2424 East Stadium Boulevard. It is a four-acre site zoned TC1 proposed to construct a six-story residential building and three townhome buildings, 12 units total. The site was developed with a motel, some office buildings, a branch bank, which have been demolished. The site is currently vacant. And it has completed its type two citizens participation, which are postcards mailed to the community within 500 feet of the site. The site is adjacent to Manchester Park, which is a county-owned but city-managed park. The site is also adjacent to a commercial shopping center, and there's multi-family residential toward the south. I feel that the design and parking have been well covered. I will note that each townhouse unit has one EV charger installed and counts as one Class A bicycle parking space. There are an additional 30 EV chargers within the parking structure and some surface EV chargers that also are at accessible parking spaces. The site has 10 net landmark trees ranging from 18 to 36 inches. with a combined total of 221 caliper inches of DBH. All will be removed and replaced as required, being 50% of the removed DBH. 19 trees will be planted on the site and 20 trees will be planted in the adjacent Manchester Park. That will be a total of 110 and a half caliper inches of mitigation. There is a brief development standards review summary table in the staff report. The TC1 district is not regulated by FAR, or it has no maximum FAR. But for comparison purposes, the project is about 285% FAR. It has just less than 500,000 square feet of floor area. it's building height it must be a minimum of two stories and this particular location given its proximity to residential it can be up to 75 feet and that's about what the proposed height is let's see for staff review it has gone through a rigorous staff review all staff have recommended AS ALWAYS, WHEN YOU ARE ADDING HOUSEHOLDS TO THE CITY, PARKS REQUESTS A CONTRIBUTION WITH A FORMULA BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS. THIS DEVELOPER HAS OFFERED TO PAY, IS OFFERED TO CONTRIBUTE the requested contribution, but less the monetary value of the 20 trees that will be planted in Manchester Park. I did not do the percentage, but it's a pretty high percentage of the total request. And with that, staff is recommending approval. And as with the other one, a staff, not a staff, a development agreement will be prepared and forwarded for city council approval to address the off-site things such as transportation improvements and tree mitigation plantings and parks contribution.

Thank you very much. Okay, public comment. This is an opportunity for individuals to speak for up to three minutes on the item. We will first hear from those present and then remote participants. To speak remotely, press star 9 if on the phone or use the raise hand feature in Zoom. For phone access, call 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 will hear an announcement when it's your turn to speak, and please ensure you're in a quiet area and mute any background noise. For all participants, please state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. Is there anyone present who would like to speak at this time?

Thank you again, Vice Chair Hammerschmidt. Ken Garber again. So just an observation, the hallmark of TC1 so far in our experience seems to be parking structures. Arbor South has three of them with over 2,400 total spaces. You saw Woodbury Gardens earlier this month, 369 space parking deck. This parking deck, I think, has 337 spaces, something like that. Maybe TC1 should stand for traffic and cars. This project is 307 units, so there are 1.36 parking spaces per unit. About half the units are one bedrooms. Anyway, you knew I was going to bring up parking. Sustainability. Yeah. The National Green Building Standard. Appreciate that. It was unclear to me whether they're seeking certification or just building to that standard. If certification, maybe that could be put into the development agreement. I will note from the staff report that they're seeking bronze level certification or standard, and that's the lowest of the four NGBS levels, bronze, silver, gold, emerald, I think. And it's not a particularly strong standard to begin with, but it's something. Electrification, glad to hear about that, and the diesel backup generator is acceptable to me. So my question is, is there a gas connection then? Is there any reason for gas in this project? And if so, what is it for? So that's a question I would have. And maybe there's no need for a gas connection here. Yeah, you may know that this project is seeking a public subsidy in the form of Brownfield Tift tax capture. There's contaminated groundwater from a closed gas station across stadium. But it's in a deep groundwater zone with no vapor intrusion and no remediation needed, based on my understanding of the documents. Just monitoring. City economic development staff are reviewing the proposal. To me that the fact that they're seeking a taxpayer subsidy in the form of TIF capture for an entirely market rate housing development means that their sustainability features should be really good. I mean really state-of-the-art. And I don't see that here. But I do acknowledge that the measures they are taking. so uh that concludes my comment to sum up parking um do they need a gas connection and if so what for um how's it going with tiff capture i know that's not a direct concern of this commission but to me it's relevant um thank you thank you anyone else present who would like to speak

Do we have any remote participants?

There are no hands raised.

All right. I will close the public comment and read the proposed motion. The Ann Arbor Planning Commission hereby approves the University Inn Ann Arbor site plan at 2424 East Stadium Boulevard, version 5, dated July 6, 2026, to develop a multifamily residential building in townhomes subject to entering into and satisfying all terms of a development agreement. Moved by... Commissioner Adams, seconded by Council Member Dish. We are in discussion. Who would like to kick us off? Don't all raise your hands at once, guys. Commissioner Adams.

This is a question for the applicant. Mr. Garber brought up the TIF. Is the project contingent on that TIF being approved?

We're currently in discussions with the relevant authorities for the TIF. Obviously, Being able to use the TIFF is an important thing in general, so we look for it to be a component of this.

Got it. OK. And just a quick comment, if that's OK. To Mr. Garber's comments, I mean, you can take a seat, Adam. I'm sensitive to all of that. I just want to be clear. I'm sensitive to the fact that there are various issues with all of the site plans that come before us. Especially when we're sitting, though, in an approval context. Personally, I want to be sensitive to the legal standard that I'm being asked to apply. which is i don't get to weigh in on whether there's sustainability whether there are remediation activities that justify a taxpayer subsidy or not i'm just weighing in on whether the site plan meets the legal standard and based on the staff report which i agree with it does so i'm a vote for approval tonight all right thank you commissioner norton this may be for staff i'm

of scratching my head a little bit they the project proponent would have to provide the trees as mitigation the 20 trees correct and and park planning normally asks for a contribution because of the addition of households that will increase demand on the city parks so i'm not sure why they're getting to deduct the trees that they're providing as mitigation from the amount that they're being asked to provide because of the additional homes being put in. It seems like they're being able to double count. Did park planning approve that, or did they sign up on that? Or could you give me some thoughts on that, please?

The mitigation is required. There is no getting around that. That is in the code. The park contribution is a request for a contribution. And parks is has the policy of uniformly following the formula and the calculation and making a request. And they typically say thank you to whatever the response is, the agreement is. Rather than, this would be rather than deduct for this or deduct for that or give, their policy is to request based on the formula. And that's where it is, it's a request.

Okay, that makes sense, thank you. I have a question maybe for the architect, I'm not sure. And I'm sure you've thought of this, but I just wanna understand. I got to believe that people living in this place are going to want to take advantage of Trader Joe's and the stuff around there. I'm trying to get a sense from the site plan. Will they be able to get there easily or are they going to have to walk all the way out on Stadium Boulevard? I'm thinking about, for example, the townhome folks. Will they be able to get there? Do they have to walk all the way out and around to get to it?

I'll let Zach talk that, but we've been working for a long time to try to get a connection. So it's a cross-property agreement, right? Zach, it's basically. Yeah. Because nothing could be better for the residents.

Yeah, you're not building any commercial stuff in, but you don't really need to because there's a lot of commercial right there. Correct.

So we've engaged with the neighboring property owner, and we're currently in discussions about either a pedestrian connection or a vehicular connection. But nothing agreed to it at this time. But we're trying to move the ball.

I'm sorry. Would you please speak into the mic when responding?

Yeah, we've engaged the neighboring property owner to potentially create either a pedestrian or vehicular connection. We don't have an agreement at this time, but it's something we have pursued until now and hope to keep pursuing.

you're mindful of and working on. Yeah, thank you.

Commissioner Norton, I did want to just point out if you take a look at the site plan right now, I failed to bring this up, but we effectively are adding a very large chunk of land to the park on the east side of our site. You can see this kind of green chunk right here.

Oh, yeah, okay.

Which we can't build on because it's a Manchester easement. It is the site's property, but there is an easement for city utilities that run under it. Okay. So the park didn't want to take it as a park, but it's effectively becoming a part of the park.

But they're happy to have it be used as such. Right. So you're kind of making a contribution that way as well. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Can I ask, I'm just curious if I'm understanding the site design As you're standing on Stadium Boulevard, will you be looking into people's windows in their units? It's kind of hard to see from the renderings. What exactly is on the street at street level that people will be looking into as they're walking down Stadium?

There's a lot of trees in front of all of that, but right now we pulled those all out. Those are effectively very large, tall units. And they're not really dissimilar in concept to what we did at 2111 Packard, which has turned out to be some of the most popular units. So I get the concern, but I think we have enough buffer to kind of really make that work. And the idea is it's trying to look like a retail active space somewhat in scale.

I'm not really concerned. I was just curious. What is that experience going to be like?

They're very, very tall units.

Okay. Thank you. The only other comment I'll make is I know we've had conversations. So the parking thing, I get the conundrum that we're facing. With that, I don't personally have a good solution for it. We've talked about Gas versus diesel. I became convinced from a past discussion that diesel is actually, if you have to have a backup, it's better than bringing a gas line onto the site. I don't know if this project will have gas connected to it. I don't know that it's something that we can dictate in any event. But this seems like... a really good location for a lot of good housing and it's a nice mix of housing types in a place that people might even walk down the street to the other restaurants and such going on further down on Washtenaw. So it seems like a nice location for this. So I am inclined, I will be voting in favor of the project.

Thank you.

Commissioner Weatherby. Yeah, so I like the project. I like the idea of it. I have some questions. So 417 parking spots seems like an awful lot of parking spots, especially with the slide that said, wow, we're so great location near public transit, near retail. and near a lot of parking, but then the parking that may be needed in that area is going to be closed off to people for Trader Joe's where they might need parking. So it's just a little, it feels like we're very much siloing parking spaces for people who don't need them in an area that needs parking. And that, I get that it's not really your thing, but it just feels like a weird, you know, a weird, like maybe we should just have parking for everyone. I realize you're not going to do that for your site but but I am super excited that the parking could be this is the first time that somebody has actually said that that parking could be converted and that you're actually thinking about that and so that is is really great because I do think in the future this that may be much more of a reality than it is now and you're not going to want a lot of empty parking spots in the bottom of your building so super excited to hear that people are actually thinking about that and and that's a really it's the first time that I've heard a developer actually say that so I appreciate that pedestrian connection will happen whether you put it in or not so just be aware I used to live on Medford Road and people will walk through because it is absolutely ridiculous to think that people are going to get in a car and drive out on stadium to cut drive into like it's that's it's just not that's not what humans do so um you know i would work hard to get a good pedestrian connection because otherwise you'll have a crappy pedestrian connection but you will have a pedestrian connection and that's you want that i mean that's part of the beauty of this site so um And then I did have a slight question for staff. So adding 20 trees to Manchester Park, Manchester Park is not very big. And while 20 trees is going to fit fine in there, it's interesting to me that County Farm Park, which apparently, I guess, is probably county rather than city, is right there. But Manchester Park doesn't really have any amenities, but it's going to have a lot of trees. And is that, like, are there other parks that could use some trees nearby? Or is it just that that's fine, Manchester Park will have a lot of trees, and that's great, and we're just going to be glad for the trees? Like, it just seems like a funny, like, kind of a dumping spot for trees. There's not a lot of other, I mean, it seems like just kind of like a weird place. Bonus.

um i i hear you i i very much um i get it um and i don't have a great answer tonight um i feel remiss that i didn't ask these questions myself of my colleagues in parks um so i i do know that the uh the park staff and developer went back and forth a couple times um i can share that the very first iteration we just assumed it was a city-owned park and it was a little surprised to um that it was not actually city-owned it's county-owned but city managed That to say, because I know that they went back and forth between the park staff and this project team a couple times, I have to assume that everyone has said, and parks has recommended approval. So they must be satisfied. I would have to follow up because I feel remiss. I don't know exactly why. I'm not as familiar off the top of my head what other parks are in the area that might have the amenities that you would assume. And why was it, my guess is, Well, I was going to say, my guess is that mitigation trees are going into Manchester because it's a city and the county park is county, but actually they're both county. So I'm going to take that back. I don't have a great answer, but I am relying on the overall park's approval that they're somehow okay with this.

Okay.

Yeah, because I just like, you know, would a wildflower prairie be better or would benches or, like, it just feels like we're just putting a lot of trees in a... grassy spot where like I'm just not sure it's adding a lot I mean I love that we're adding more trees but it just feels a little strange in that particular area thank you

Awesome. Thank you to the staff for all of your efforts. Thank you for the petitioners and team. I am very excited about the spot next to Trader Joe's being activated in a way that I think will help fill a need for a lot of folks. So I did have a couple questions. It's funny, coming later, I think multiple of you have kind of alluded to some of them. So I agree about the, my question was, will there be a cut through to Trader Joe's? Agreeing with Commissioner Weatherby, whether you want to or not, something will happen. So in terms of vehicular or pedestrian, I know my preference would be pedestrian slash cycling for a variety of reasons. But however that cross property agreement works, some kind of connection. Then I wanted to confirm, I think the architect, I think you'd mentioned, did I hear this correctly, that per bedroom there are about 8.4 parking spaces? 0.84. Thank you. Okay, excellent.

0.89, I think is what it is.

0.89, excellent, but less than one. Yeah. Because I was like, wow.

Yeah. The way I was looking at it was because the townhomes are pretty much self-parked, looking at the garage parking and the surface parking relative to the mid-rise units only, I think it comes out to about 0.89 spaces per bedroom.

OK, thank you. I was doing some back of the napkin math, and I was like, something's not adding up. So that clarifies and is very much better than the one I was hearing. So the other question I had was regarding the parking potentially at a future date being converted, I'm also very excited by this prospect. And my question is, why not now? Could you help us? Understand the process in which you have arrived at this point Especially given that it is on a major transit corridor. There are multiple bus lines Like the four and the 104 that go there and are very close. So Yeah, if you could explain a bit more I'd love to hear that So

um it is it is on you know a major bus line major thoroughfare um but it is a very unique location uh being that it's not downtown um so there is it's more of a i guess a neighborhood feel so there is we believe a lot more automobile usage obviously the goal is for that to be reduced over time um with the more residents there it's possible that you know it increases the ridership and it can happen over time. So we just looked at, you know, other properties in similar locations and this is sort of the level we were comfortable with. Another thing to factor in is the unit mix. You know, I think I think the focus on per bedroom is important rather than per unit. A lot of the new developments that have recently been approved are very heavily weighted in one bedrooms. Ours do have larger units, both in terms of square footage and in terms of bedroom count. So it's a bit of a different demographic we're trying to fill. Maybe someone in the neighborhood who lives in Ann Arbor Hills or Burns Park wants to downsize. you know, maybe live in either a flat or a townhome, and that might come with cars. So that's just kind of the way we're approaching it. So the garage itself, it's, I think, 1.14 spaces per mid-rise unit. I don't have the number per bedroom. Well, I guess, yeah, what I already said, per bedroom. So it's not like the garage itself... is necessarily oversized, just kind of a little bit more than one per unit.

Thank you. Yeah, I was just intrigued by the mention that there could be potential conversion. Out of curiosity, what would that look like? What parameters or metrics would you be considering at a future date, hypothetically, to convert it?

I don't even know how that would work, so I'm curious. I guess I'll just say it's not something we're actively looking at now, but I think... what, you know, our team when we're looking at this, it's just, you know, things might happen in the future where maybe autonomous takes off, maybe it doesn't, but like the way that the grade drops at this property it it makes it so that actually the parking is somewhat exposed on certain places so it's not we're not you know digging an entire basement that's completely covered it's just it it's not something we're we're looking to do now it's just something that hey as a backstop in the future if the environment changes then then it's something that we might want to take on

Thank you. I love a creative future outlook. And then my last question was, I'm not sure if it'll be for you or the architect, but if we go back to the site plan, slide four, in this staff report on page four also, for access, the existing hardened center median will be extended across the majority of the site frontage and a pedestrian crossing will be added. I'm having a hard time visualizing that. So if we could pull up the site plan, I just wanted to better understand it.

Are you able to see it?

Yes, on these screens.

So where my cursor is, is where that hardened median is? Yep. So right now I think the median stops maybe right there. I'm not quite sure. So as one of the traffic improvements that are associated with this, the median will be extended. And then the area of refuge I think is right here. I'm not sure of the like the dimensions or the dynamics of what's included in that. But that's Is that what you were referring to?

No, that's helpful. Yeah, because I was actually looking at if you move your cursor to the right where you keep going, where it's like the 30-foot easement, it's way to the east of your property. So I wasn't sure if that crossing the road is what you were referring to. So that is very helpful. Thank you. So yeah, so the dashed lines in the blue, that is not the proposed pedestrian crossing for that part.

No, that's a utility easement. Sounds great.

OK, thank you. Oh, yes, and I also concur with Commissioner Adams. Just based on everything that seems to fit, I am leaning in favor. Council Member Dish.

Thank you. I don't want to take up a lot of time. I want to say that I'm really excited that the TC1 rezoning that this body worked very hard on and council wanted very much. I'm really glad that that made it possible in part. That was among the factors that made it possible for you to bring this project. I, too, was thinking about the adjoining parks. And Manchester Park is definitely not a park with a lot of amenities. I mean, the same is true to some extent of County Farm Park. There's not a playground or anything. Is there? OK, it didn't show. Oh, there's an amazing . And how far away is it? Not too far. Good. Okay, never mind. Because I was going to ask you if you're, it seems that some of this housing would be, yeah, exactly, exactly. It seems that given the bedroom counts, not only in the townhouses, but in the apartments. This is a housing type that there isn't a lot of in the city. It's non-student oriented rental housing. And I think we really do have need for that. And I'm really happy that you have a pool, and I think that deck looks great. But I'm wondering if the... Would there be anything that you might add to make it more fun for people who have children? And you aren't required to, so I guess what I should, I'm sorry, let me phrase this differently. Did you consider including anything that might make this more fun for families with children?

So I guess that's an interesting question. It's guess the short answer is I mean we feel that the the amenities we have there cover a pretty wide range I mean I think they'll be there could be a lot of different types of people who want to live here and we feel that and I think the fact that it is you know non-student you know it sort of opens up what you can do and I think you know we've we've designed it in a way that they can be appealing to a lot of different groups. I mean, like the courtyard has, you know, big green space where there can be, you know, cornhole or lawn games or, you know, things like that. But nothing specific as far as like a playground or a playroom at this property, so.

I would just add that there is an opportunity if the park district and the county would decide they wanted to do something based on the contribution that's been made and the fact that there's a big piece of property being added so there's a lot of opportunity I think we just need the powers that be to consider it I do not believe they think a park I mean, a child's playground is necessary here. That doesn't mean they don't want it, but I think they set priorities for different locations.

Thank you.

And I don't know how they do that.

That's really helpful. So I guess then the only, this is a terrific TC1 project, great location. really adds housing diversity. Very, very, very happy to see it. So I think the one thing that I would ask is just to enhance a little bit, Ms. DiLeo, your conversation with parks, your follow-up conversation with parks. Because even if parks is satisfied with the trees going into Manchester Park, or is that what it's called? Yes. Is there a better location or a different amenity that could satisfy things but give us something more valuable or usable, really, more functional? And that could be anything. I mean, I like the idea of a prairie, even, because butterflies and people get to bird watch and stuff like that. So is that okay to have with your conversation? Super. And I'm sure that when council sees that, no, council never sees this. Yes, yes, this is so great. This is how zoning works. Okay. Oh, right. But council approves the development agreement. Yes. So they might love more detail or assurance about pedestrian connection. Not that they will have much to say about it at all. But were that in there, it might be nice for them.

OK, thank you. I'm going to stay on parks for a second. The park chunk, as you refer to it, which I love, that you're adding, if that's open to the public, it's essentially an extension of Manchester Park?

Yes, it is. It used to be the Manchester right-of-way. When Manchester Road was vacated through that corridor, the city retained an easement, and so the normal right-of-way that would run through that section is still a city easement and is available for both public access and utilities.

I'm sorry. Are you then adding that sidewalk... that is showing right there with the connections up to the... Will the rest be grass? I don't know what it looks like now.

Yeah, so what it is right now is Manchester Road comes up, and then there's kind of a quasi-driveway into the old church building, or where the old church building was, and there's an existing city sidewalk that... goes down to the south to connect Manchester Road to Stadium sidewalk. And that is all being removed and then replaced. And then the remainder of the area that is no longer pavement will be ceded and re-established.

OK. Are any of those 20 trees going to be in that area?

We would love to. Unfortunately, we cannot place them. There is a very deep storm sewer. There is a sanitary sewer and a water main all in that corridor. And it is not the best place for trees.

OK. Can you plant anything besides grass, like the prairie?

That would be. Think about it. Yeah, yeah, definitely.

Think about it. OK. I think you had mentioned the contribution and the county can do whatever. But the park's contribution goes to the city, no? Yeah. So the county's getting the 20 trees. The rest of the money goes to the city to do with whatever they see fit in any other city park.

It is a city policy to use the money in a park that is within walking distance or within proximity to the site. It is not a super hard and fast rule, but that is their policy. And I don't know the legal arrangements if the city could build something in Manchester. It is city maintained. I will be asking all these questions. OK. Thank you.

The sidewalk, and I'm sorry if this was, I couldn't, I had a lot of trouble, I think someone from my computer had a lot of trouble opening documents. But are there going to be any upgrades to that sidewalk, the front stadium? Because it looks a little rough.

Yes, that's been something that we've worked very extensively with planning, transportation, and engineering. With the entire sidewalk along the stadium is going to be removed and replaced, and it's going to be brought up to the standards in the DDA's requirements for the frontage. And so that's going to include an eight-foot pathway and then a five-foot amenity zone. in front of the main building and then that'll taper off as it gets in front of the town homes because the frontage narrows down to where it'll connect on the east side.

That's great. Thank you. So Commissioner Dish. I keep going between Commissioner Dish and Council Member Dish, just for fun. County Farm Park is about a 10 minute walk. It's about a half a mile away. And County Farm Park also has a really nice off street bike path. And I don't know exactly where it goes to, but I think this will really improve the connectivity between this area and County Farm Park. So I feel good about that. I'm also really excited. I will just say, I'm very excited. I've been wondering what's going on with this site. Every time I go to Trader Joe's, I'm like, didn't we approve a site plan? And then, wasn't there a building that was supposed to stay? Did they tear it down? So I'm glad that the old site plan expired and that this came back. I think this project is great. It's so much better. This could potentially be the first TC1 project that actually gets built. So I'm very excited, and I hope you break ground soon. I also want to say something about parking. I feel like in Ann Arbor, in where we sit in the development climate right now, and the urbanization of the city, we do still need parking. And people still do need to drive through the city. And we have a bus. And people can bike. But I don't think we have buses with quite the headways, where if you don't have to rely on it, I mean, you're going to get a car. We don't have bike share. So I think parking here is still something that we need right now. So I think the fact that you have designed into that underground-ish parking garage, that it could be convertible if we ever get to a point where You know, we have a subway, and people are walking. I know. If we ever do get to a point where it makes sense to do a conversion into more housing, where you don't see the need for parking, I think it's great that you're designing it this way, because I think so many parking garages are not designed to be converted. With that said, is the parking unbundled? Or is it like per... Do you pay extra for a parking spot, or does a certain number of parking spots come per unit? Is there guest parking? How is parking managed?

So, it will be extra the way that we're approaching it now. Guests, we assume, will park in the surface spaces. Okay. 56 surface spaces.

Okay. And each townhome also has their own?

Driveways, too.

Okay. In the future, do you think townhome garages could be converted to living spaces?

I can say yes. Great. Perfect. I've done it.

Awesome. That's sort of how it's designed perspective. Okay, cool. And then just one more question, sort of piggybacking off of one of Mr. Garber's comments. What does pursuing the certification that you're pursuing entail? What are some of the strategies that this sort of... I'm not familiar with the certification system, which is embarrassing to me personally. So I had some of the same concerns, because I'm just like, well, LEED feels a lot more stringent. So is it like indoor air quality stuff, materiality? You've already said electrification.

It's a little bit of everything. It's just a point system that we will eventually share with the city once we bundle up and figure out which points we're going to use. It's not different than LEED. It's just another one like it, or Green Globes. And I mean this site has transportation, but we don't get a bunch of points like we do when we're down in the city So there's no points for Trader Joe's next door. There really should be but they really aren't yeah But there are points for things as simple as extra insulation better mechanical systems When we use the heat pumps that can give some different things, but we always continually have to beat the current mesh michigan energy code which unfortunately for us is just getting better and better and more stringent so it's getting in harder and harder so it is pure and simply a lot of games of going back and forth juggling things to do it and our biggest thing that we do today is to super insulate the building okay great thank you yep all right are we ready to vote okay manager county

On the motion as presented, Bess Uni? Yes. Norton? Yes. Weatherby? Yes. Dish? Yes. Adams? Yes. Hammerschmidt? Yes. And that carries. Great. I hope you break ground soon.

Good luck. Okay, that moves us on to 11a, other business. A 2026 City Planning Commission calendar review. The Planning Commission is requested to cancel the Thursday, November 5th, 2026 meeting due to election conflicts. Are we just canceling it completely for that whole week? Okay, so we just got to vote on it?

Yes, and it can be a voice vote and a motion could be something to the effect of I move that we adjust our calendar to cancel the Thursday, November 5th meeting.

Would anyone like to move that? Council Member Dish would like to move that motion that you just eloquently said. Do we have a second? Commissioner Norton? All those in favor. Was there any discussion? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. got our thursday back okay that moves us on move this on to item number 12. um this is our second opportunity for public comment on any issue individuals can speak for up to three minutes we'll first hear from those present than remote participants do we have any remote participants uh we no longer have remote participants okay well i'm not going to read the whole spiel but i will again give us the opportunity okay is there anyone present who would like to speak Never one to turn down an opportunity.

You know what? I am going to pass. There was something I was going to say, but I will pass. Okay.

Anyone else present? Anyone who would like to address us remotely? Did anyone just magically join or call in or anything? Okay. Item number 13. Is there any commission proposed business? All right. That moves us to item number 14, adjournment. Moved by Commissioner Adams, seconded by Commissioner Norton. All those in favor say aye. Aye. We are adjourned.