Loading...
Detroit City Planning Commission, 5/1/2025
Speaker 1
00:00Clear, coming through loud and clear. Thank you. Dr Bolger,
Speaker 2
00:07the May 1 meeting of the city of Detroit City Planning Commission will begin once we have achieved a quorum. We appreciate your understanding and your patience. The May 1 meeting of the Detroit City Planning Commission will begin once we have achieved a quorum. Thank you for Your Understanding. Applause.
Speaker 2
06:32The May, the May, 1 meeting of the Detroit City Planning Commission will begin shortly. We have achieved a quorum, and the Meeting will begin shortly. Thank you. Applause.
Unknown Speaker
11:41Mr. Royster, I believe We are Ready. You
Speaker 3
12:24Director Todd, are you ready? All right, good evening, everyone. Thanks for attending our planning commission meeting. Meeting this evening. It is Thursday, May 1, at 5:31pm I will go and call this meeting to order. Director Todd, can I have a roll call? Please?
Unknown Speaker
12:43You certainly may, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Bennett, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Esparza,
Unknown Speaker
12:56Commissioner Harrison, present I
Speaker 2
13:06one technical issue, my apologies, all right. Commissioner Lewis present. Commissioner Markowitz is asked to be excused. Commissioner Russell here, Commissioner Smith present, and Commissioner udavi has asked to be excused. Mr. Chair commissioners, you have a quorum present. Thank
Speaker 3
13:29you, Director Todd. Do we have any amendments to the agenda? There are none, all right, as there are no amendments to the agenda. Looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented motions. Thank you, Commissioner Daniels, do we have a second court? Thank you, Commissioner Harrison, all in support of approving the agenda as presented, indicate your support with the sign of aye, aye, aye, and all in opposition sign of nay. The motion passes. The agenda has been approved. Next we have the meeting minutes for January 16, 2025, those are included in our packet, looking for a motion to approve the January 16 2025, meeting minutes. Thank you, Commissioner Daniels, do we have a second support? Thank you, Commissioner Harrison, all in support of approving the January 16 2025, meeting minutes indicate your support with the sign of aye. Thank you and all that opposition signed up nay, the ayes have it the January 16 2025, meeting minutes have been approved. Next we have the 515 public hearing. This is to consider the request of parks on development on behalf of watch Detroit, in conjunction with initiative by the Detroit City Planning Commission to rezone, we have a very long list of properties here, so I'll kind of summarize and just say the series of properties as Presented by staff, the series of properties as presented. No, sorry. Okay, we're good series of properties as presented by staff. From the current r2 two family zoning classification to an SD one special development, small scale mixtures district and from our three low residential density to an SD one special development, small, special use, misted mixed use district, and it looks like Miss sweat. Will you be assisting us with this item this evening? I will, Mister Chair, alright, whenever you're ready, if you want to have the applicants come up, and then we can go ahead and start this
Unknown Speaker
15:45item. I'm just joining the Zoom now.
Speaker 2
15:55Commissioners, Mr. Chair, yes, there is a corrected or revised report on this. We'll circulate it via email, but certainly miss Webb will be able to address those issues in the course of the presentation. Okay,
Unknown Speaker
16:09is it going to be coming to our email or is it being printed?
Speaker 2
16:14My apologies. I should never doubt Miss green she has it distributed. Oh,
Unknown Speaker
16:18so we already have it. So the version we're looking at is the current one?
Unknown Speaker
16:23Yes, the one that's in your table Pav is the current Okay.
Unknown Speaker
16:25Thank you, Miss green. You
Speaker 4
16:43guys, I'm trying to Get my screen to share. I
Speaker 2
17:35here, you want to take just a quick technical pause while we try to figure this out.
Speaker 3
17:39No problem. All right, we will do a brief pause to the call of the chair.
Unknown Speaker
17:59Open now, yeah, just the people.
Speaker 3
18:12Mr. Chair, yes. All right, let's go and resume the meeting to the call of the chair and Miss swear, whenever you're ready, maybe you want to introduce the team.
Speaker 4
18:26Yes, Mr. Chair tomorrow with the City Planning Commission staff. Good
Speaker 5
18:33evening. Tanya Stapleton with the parks and development partners.
Speaker 6
18:37Good evening. Tanya Mitchell, on behalf of watch Detroit LLC.
Speaker 7
18:47All right. Tyron Mitchell Jr, on behalf of watch Detroit LLC,
Unknown Speaker
18:54thank you. Thank you for joining.
Speaker 4
18:58We 
are looking at a rezone, proposed rezoning for three properties, which were proposed by Park zone development on behalf of watch Detroit at 58675861, and 5855, Du Bois Street. And this is in conjunction with a initiative by the City Planning Commission as well, which I will show those parcels momentarily. It's located in district five, where the red star is, and here is just an aerial view of the area. You can see it's just south of I 94 where the Hamtramck General Motors facility is in, and it is along the proposed route for the Dequindre Cut extension of the Joe Louis Greenway. This shows the shaded red area is the rezoning area. It's border generally by I 94 service drive to the north, Du Bois Street to the east, Hendry Street to the south in Saint Aubin Street. To the west, it includes two full blocks. Sorry, I can't see my own screen. There we go. So the request from Parks zone development, as I said, was three parcels. They are requesting this to permit mixed use commercial development. It's a small scale mixed use, which would include office, multi purpose and community spaces, an art gallery, bookstore and a cafe that would serve alcoholic beverages on site. And the initiative of the planning commission added on an additional 53 parcels in those two blocks. And it's expected that the rezoning of these parcels would encourage a complimentary mixture of small scale mixed uses, and that this would complement the current neighborhood characteristics and the proposed Joe Lewis Greenway Dequindre Cut extension that is set to go through there. None of the properties within the proposed area would be non conforming as a result of the rezoning.
+3
are looking at a rezone, proposed rezoning for three properties, which were proposed by Park zone development on behalf of watch Detroit at 58675861, and 5855, Du Bois Street. And this is in conjunction with a initiative by the City Planning Commission as well, which I will show those parcels momentarily. It's located in district five, where the red star is, and here is just an aerial view of the area. You can see it's just south of I 94 where the Hamtramck General Motors facility is in, and it is along the proposed route for the Dequindre Cut extension of the Joe Louis Greenway. This shows the shaded red area is the rezoning area. It's border generally by I 94 service drive to the north, Du Bois Street to the east, Hendry Street to the south in Saint Aubin Street. To the west, it includes two full blocks. Sorry, I can't see my own screen. There we go. So the request from Parks zone development, as I said, was three parcels. They are requesting this to permit mixed use commercial development. It's a small scale mixed use, which would include office, multi purpose and community spaces, an art gallery, bookstore and a cafe that would serve alcoholic beverages on site. And the initiative of the planning commission added on an additional 53 parcels in those two blocks. And it's expected that the rezoning of these parcels would encourage a complimentary mixture of small scale mixed uses, and that this would complement the current neighborhood characteristics and the proposed Joe Lewis Greenway Dequindre Cut extension that is set to go through there. None of the properties within the proposed area would be non conforming as a result of the rezoning. 
Speaker 4
21:17And 
just to show you where the properties are, that parks zone development and watch Detroit initially proposed. You can see those are in green there and then the yellow properties are the ones that the planning commission initiative extended it to. So the the area includes both r2 and our three zoning as of right now, and it's being proposed to go to SD one. And this is just showing that this was part of the Joe Louis Greenway extension neighborhood planning study area and the green way, as of now, is proposed to go along st Aubin, just to the west of the proposed site. The current zoning is both r2 and r3 with m4 to the west. It's an intention intensive industrial and then with general business in our five also to the east,
+3
just to show you where the properties are, that parks zone development and watch Detroit initially proposed. You can see those are in green there and then the yellow properties are the ones that the planning commission initiative extended it to. So the the area includes both r2 and our three zoning as of right now, and it's being proposed to go to SD one. And this is just showing that this was part of the Joe Louis Greenway extension neighborhood planning study area and the green way, as of now, is proposed to go along st Aubin, just to the west of the proposed site. The current zoning is both r2 and r3 with m4 to the west. It's an intention intensive industrial and then with general business in our five also to the east, 
Speaker 4
22:35to 
the north, the surrounding zoning to the north is the freeway, so there is no zoning for those for that area to the east is our two and our five. It's developed with both residential with, I believe, five single family homes there on Dubois, and then in institutional uses, with a church, school, and then a large vacant church there. To the south, it is all our three, and it is all vacant parcels. And to the west is m4 and it is an intensive industrial use. The future land use map for this area shows this low to medium density residential. And to east along Shane, it's shown for neighborhood commercial that also goes one block in when you go south of Palmer Street. And it also so to the West would be light industrial, and then north of the freeway is general industrial, P and D, D will provide a master plan interpretation prior to staff submitting a recommendation for this. We do not have one yet. Community engagement. There has been one letter of support submitted to CPC staff from the east ferry warn Community Association, I did forget to put on here that the petitioners have gone to community meetings to to talk to the community about this development. There has been one other communication with the planning staff, as well as with the petitioner, the same the neighboring owner of the industrial site was inquiring as to whether or not the plan development had a residential component, which it does not both myself and the petitioner, spoke to the owners representation and explained this and they had no further concerns. We also were contacted by grassroots Detroit, a local organization in that area, who indicated that they do have some questions and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning, we have a meeting scheduled with them, with both CPC staff, the organization, and the petitioner, that is scheduled for tomorrow, so we will be bringing the results of that back and incorporating that into the recommendation at a further date. Thank I
+2
the north, the surrounding zoning to the north is the freeway, so there is no zoning for those for that area to the east is our two and our five. It's developed with both residential with, I believe, five single family homes there on Dubois, and then in institutional uses, with a church, school, and then a large vacant church there. To the south, it is all our three, and it is all vacant parcels. And to the west is m4 and it is an intensive industrial use. The future land use map for this area shows this low to medium density residential. And to east along Shane, it's shown for neighborhood commercial that also goes one block in when you go south of Palmer Street. And it also so to the West would be light industrial, and then north of the freeway is general industrial, P and D, D will provide a master plan interpretation prior to staff submitting a recommendation for this. We do not have one yet. Community engagement. There has been one letter of support submitted to CPC staff from the east ferry warn Community Association, I did forget to put on here that the petitioners have gone to community meetings to to talk to the community about this development. There has been one other communication with the planning staff, as well as with the petitioner, the same the neighboring owner of the industrial site was inquiring as to whether or not the plan development had a residential component, which it does not both myself and the petitioner, spoke to the owners representation and explained this and they had no further concerns. We also were contacted by grassroots Detroit, a local organization in that area, who indicated that they do have some questions and concerns regarding the proposed rezoning, we have a meeting scheduled with them, with both CPC staff, the organization, and the petitioner, that is scheduled for tomorrow, so we will be bringing the results of that back and incorporating that into the recommendation at a further date. Thank I Unknown Speaker
25:26apologize again. I
Speaker 4
25:57so I am pulling up the site plan now, and I will let Ms Stapleton speak to that and let them further explain about their community engagement and other things.
Speaker 5
26:12Thank you so much for that great presentation covered all of the bases. So I started working with Mr. And Mrs. Mitchell last year when they purchased the building in 2024 and we were first retained to do a feasibility study at that time looking at the permit history. This is one of the typical homes that was a commercial business in the middle of residential area with apartments on top. The last permit for this structure was in 1933 it was permitted as retail sales and personal service. So the initial thought is, we would go to the board of zoning appeals to re establish a non conforming use. Um, however, we quickly began looking at the rezoning option for a number of reasons. Um, first is, as you know, if non conforming use, the intent is over time to get rid of non conforming uses in your community. So every time they needed to, they wanted to expand or make any changes, they'd have to go back to the BCA, which is big burden for for petitioner. The second reason is in looking at this community, we knew that the Joe Louis Greenway was going through there, and we reached out to the planning department to see if there were any Master Plan Changes envisioned. And there hasn't been a whole lot of planning done, but we did desire to go with something that would create a buffer between the residential to the east and the industrial zone on the other side of Saint Aubin. And so in meeting with the CPC staff, they recommended that an SD one a larger area would create a nice buffer. And as we started working on the project, I was reminded that when we first, when the city first created SD one and SD two, I was working with Midtown, and we went and rezoned the entire community in the absence of development plans in order to encourage development. And if you've been in this area, this is a rather uninvested area right now we believe that the Joe Louis Greenway coming through there is going to create a lot of opportunity, and then being proactive with zoning is really going to be a catalyst for additional development. So we did speak with Ferris processing, as Ms sweat said, they contacted us they were concerned, like many of our manufacturing businesses in the city, they're there first, and then housing comes, and then there's land use conflicts, and the residents always win, but there's land use conflicts, so it makes businesses like this very nervous, and when I explained to them that we're actually moving away from residential zoning, they were very happy. So I think we have their support. So I am going to, well, let me just talk about the site plan briefly. We originally were envisioning parking behind the building, until we found the Greenway was going there, and working with the Mitchell's architect, we really wanted something facing the Greenway. So this courtyard that they envision the outdoor seating potentially entertainment. They talked about the possibility of of having a food truck once in a while on on their property. There is on site parking. The Mitchells have submitted a lot combination already, so it'll be one contiguous site, and it's just going to be like a mixed use kind of community, third, third place, if, if, if you know what I mean by that. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Tyrone, because I want him to go in a little bit more into the community engagement. You did a great job, but he's prepared some comments, so we're going to let let him speak, unless and then, Tanya, did you have anything? Okay? Alright. Thank
Speaker 7
30:09you. Hello, everyone. When we first purchased the building, June of last year, we talked to the neighbors around mainly the the faith experience Church, which is it's the active church closer to Shane, they had a concerns that it was going to be an after hours spot like the previous owners had. And so I explained to them that we're more, say, community oriented, and we were going to look at opening a coffee shop cafe with art. So we had a meeting with the outreach pastor for that church on march 3, and we just we discussed the application that we had here to rezone and our plans for the property. We met with East ferry Warren Association on April 2, they put us on their agenda for their meeting, and we're able to talk to the group and answer questions about the business that we wanted to bring into their community. On April 21 we met with two members of the grassroots neighborhood association. Told them about our ideas, our background, and the application for the for the rezoning. So that's been pretty much our engagement with the community.
Speaker 5
31:42So So just in closing, I'd like to say so Mr. And Mrs. Mitchell, they live in the district. They're Detroiters, and they're developing in their community there. He gets mad when I call him a developer. He's like, I just own a building, and I get that. So these are the exact kind of developments that I think we're trying to encourage and support, and so we will continue to support them through the process, should this rezoning occur. Thank you.
Speaker 3
32:09All right. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation and great background information. I'll start with my fellow Commissioners for questions, Commissioner Harrison and then Commissioner Daniels,
Speaker 8
32:25thank Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the petitioners for the presentation and giving us a little primer on the site. So I'll just say you know one I appreciate, you know, this type of project, this type of project idea, coming before us. Because I can't tell you how many times I've driven on 94 you know, sort of coming off on a service drive. And sort of look over to my right and, you know, you see where the community has experienced some it's been impacted, you know, like many places. But I feel like, as planners, you know, we're born with, like, maybe it's just through our cultivation of our experience and our our training to, like, envision, like, wow, this. There's something possible here. You know, there's something possible. I can see what used to be there, and I can see the possibility. So, you know, I get excited at considering what, what this could be. The question I have in terms of your continued outreach, Have you, have you talked to the community anyways, about the programming of you know, what you plan on doing? You just described that you've had some conversation with the church. Have you invited other ideas as to how the space might be programmed in the future with this type of existing or this type of potential change in the in the zoning.
Speaker 7
33:47Okay, so we talked to when we spoke with the church, he mentioned that they had artists in the church, and we let them know that we have a working with a artist that's going to open a gallery there, and we're open to making it very accessible to everyone in the community. We've heard that a lot of artists are getting, I should say, prices are going up and and being able to do art in the city. So we want to make our space very accessible. When we met with grassroots, this is new, the new to this. And to be honest, one thing I told them was that we had ideas for what we saw like, Okay, we wanted to do a cafe, we wanted to do art and working with Tanya and whatnot. You know, we need to get out and do community engagement. And that was an opportunity for us to hear what the community might want. And so they were asking us what we were going to do for the community. We're part of the Juneteenth Michigan chapter. I'm a member of that, and we're going to house that chapter out of there. I do it. We do a summer reading program. So we're going to be doing some programming for the youth in the building. And pretty much, we want it to be a community space where it's everyone feels welcome and wants to be a part of it.
Speaker 8
35:03Yeah, yeah. Um, I really appreciate that. And once again, you know, I think it's, I think it's really just searching for my words. I appreciate your visioning and thinking about the potential for this space, especially as there are changes that are coming underway to the community. I would really love to see you know, more of that outreach, just to get more feedback, as you cultivate your idea, as you sort of flesh out potential behind this, because I do feel that there's a tremendous amount of potential, and I like the fact that you all are right there in the neighborhood and sort of already doing some outreach within the community. And so I have no other questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank
Speaker 3
35:49you. Thank you. Commissioner Harrison committee, good. Commissioner Daniels. Okay. I just have a couple questions, and I think these are probably staff specific questions. I heard the applicant, you know, mention that we want to see new things happen in that area. Does. Since the city, the CPC, brought forward the additional 44 parcels, I'm just curious what, what is City's anticipation on what's going to happen in the these potential seat, SD one district,
Speaker 4
36:19with the rezoning the SC one, and with the Joe Louis Greenway coming through there, we see it as a way to support the Greenway, to get people into the area, to enjoy that area, it would all be it would be limited to small Scale mixed use, so very non intensive uses. And it would allow for projects like this all scale, neighborhood oriented, serving the community and still keeping within the residential character that was once there. It's a lot of vacant land there right now, so just kind of spurring that development and really working off of the Greenway going through there. Okay?
Speaker 3
37:08And who owns? Does the city own? Or the land bank own a lot of those 44 parcels the it's actually
Speaker 4
37:1653 that we've added on, and we are the city owns the land bank owns all. But I think, six of them.
Unknown Speaker
37:34Six are probably vacant too. No,
Speaker 4
37:36there are some single family homes that we're working on, trying to get in touch with, but the petitioner has spoken to a lot of the neighbors, and
Speaker 3
37:45in those homes, as single family residential are permitted in SD one, they're not going to be yes, they are. You said no non conformers would be made, right, correct, Mister Chair, okay? And then I just, this is the last question. It's not really relevant. I'm just curious. I'm all for bringing SD one to areas to spur development, but I know historically, SD one was a special district for a certain area, you know, in its inception, and we're slowly putting it in more and more places. Is it still a special district, or is it starting to just be a regular zoning district? You know, I know it is a regular zoning district, but no, you know, name, nomenclature and things like that.
Speaker 2
38:35So, Mr. Chair, if I may, I if I understand your question correctly, it is still a special district in terms of just how we refer to it special in terms of it being mixed use of it being in what we refer to as the sort of special district category. When it was initially established, yes, we were sort of piloting it in certain areas. But to answer your question, it is still, it definitely falls within the menu of your regular districts, but, but it, but it does fall into the category of special, in that it is neither residential, industrial or commercial. Okay, so there
Speaker 3
39:17is a category that it is situated in, not just title special district. It's Okay, understood. Okay,
Speaker 4
39:24Mr. Chair, I apologize I was when I answered your question about how many properties are owned by the land bank. I was thinking of how many properties are developed and have the single family homes as being six, there are 33 properties that are either land bank or planning and development owned. So 20 properties are privately owned, and of those, only six are developed.
Unknown Speaker
39:49Gotcha,
Speaker 3
39:50okay, thank you. So six single family homes, yes, okay, all right, that answers all of my questions. This is a public hearing so typical to our standard public hearing process, it's an opportunity for residents who are participating in the meeting here in person or virtually to provide input or ask questions based on what they've heard or any information they received. We accept public comment in two fashions, in person, if you want to provide comments, you can get a yellow staff card to staff, and then they'll bring it to the front, and then we can address you in that manner. Or if you are attending within the Zoom platform, you can raise your hand, and then we will move you over so you could speak. Everyone has three minutes, and I apologize if I have to stop you, but we just gotta keep the meeting going, so I will go and open the public hearing. And let's see, can we start here in the room? Yes, Mister rather So Miss sweat, whoever's helping out. Do we have any in person comments for public hearing for this item,
Unknown Speaker
41:00I did not receive any comment cards. Mister Chair,
Speaker 3
41:03okay, and within the Zoom platform, do we have any hands raised for public comment?
Speaker 4
41:09Mister Chair, we do have one hand raised, but it has no name or phone number,
Speaker 3
41:14okay, well, let's acknowledge John Doe and see if they're here
Unknown Speaker
41:21so they should be able to speak if they unmute.
Speaker 3
41:26Hello, hello. Good evening. May be heard. Yes, we hear you. How are you doing?
Speaker 9
41:32I am blessed. Good evening, everyone. This is Miss D I represent the 4207 11 grassroots Detroiters. They did bring this project to us. The way it was presented was, was it was about a week ago, and the way it was presented was not that it was such a large scale project that it was only like their particular property we are we since then, we have gone to our community and talk to our community. No one else has heard about this project around here. People that are living right down there haven't heard about the project. There needs to be more community engagement done, and they are not. Our community is not happy with this. We have been wanting to and fighting to get residential homes built over here, and it this is not in line with the plan that our community wants, and what is the city's plan for our community? We can never really get an answer to that, but they are rezoning properties for SD one and different things that are not residential. There definitely needs to be some more community engagement done with this project, and we are looking forward to meeting with you guys tomorrow.
Speaker 3
43:05Okay, thank you. Thank you for part of your comments. Um, does the applicant team know how to get in contact with this owner? Okay, so just make sure you make that meeting set up
Speaker 4
43:14tomorrow. Yes, that staff will also be attending. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Harrison,
Speaker 8
43:21thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, one of the things that I was reminded of from the commenter is that this, this is, there's, there's a project that is in the middle of this sort of larger scale sort of rezoning, and I think that there probably needs to be sort of just clarity, clarification on, on, uh, thinking Miss, miss, Sway on, on behalf of, like, sort of Identifying, sort of, there's this one specific sort of parcel that's in the middle of this, and then sort of it opens up space for sort of this coordination of a zoning change. Is there a plan to do that in that way? It doesn't, sort of doesn't get conflated through the
Unknown Speaker
44:10chair to Commissioner Russell or Harrison, I
Speaker 3
44:12want me to cut you off. I just want to pause the let me get my time right. The 515 public hearings to the call the chair, call the six o'clock public hearing to the college, or recess the six o'clock public hearing and then resume the 515 public hearing. Um, go ahead. Miss way
Speaker 4
44:32through the chair to Commissioner Harrison. I do know the project that you're speaking about, they own a good amount of the land south of this free zoning. I was hoping that Mr. Gulak was here. I do not have any updates on that project. I know that it was I
Speaker 4
45:04I'm sorry to clarify, are you speaking of the large development that was supposed to happen south of this one?
Speaker 8
45:11I'm speaking of the project, the he's owning that's in front of us. Okay, yeah, so, yes,
Speaker 4
45:18um, so there hasn't been any talk about what would go on in that area yet. It's just priming it for that to allow for the development the petitioners. Development is very small. It is a small structure with three parcels. Beyond that there hasn't been any coordination yet.
Speaker 2
45:50Thank you, Mr. Chair, if I may append. Miss, Wes remarks to Commissioner Harrison. This was one of those instances, as we have had, you know, occur in the past, where the commission has actually asked that we look at the larger area. And typically, of course, we do that. That was the case here where Miss wedding, Dr Boger took a look at the larger area to see what opportunities may exist. True enough that when we made this decision, there was not the opportunity to do the sort of outreach and engagement that would be equal to what the or or concurrent with what the petitioner has done. So we expected to have to do what we are doing now, but we wanted to be proactive in this instance and not miss the opportunity to propose this larger rezoning. Certainly, we look forward to getting more information from grassroots Detroit, from the other property owners and residents in that area, and making sure that they do understand the distinction between what the petitioner is proposing and what the commission has taken on as an initiative, and certainly the thrust of it will be to serve what the petitioner wants to the extent that we need to scale back or put off a larger rezoning, if that is the desire of community and commission, then we will respond according
Speaker 4
47:13and I apologize I was going to say through the chair and speaking to the commenters concerns this will still allow for residential as as by right. Residential would be allowed for multi family, for lofts and for mixed use with second floor residential uses as well. So this still gives opportunity for residential to come in, and then there's additional ones allowed through the conditional basis as well. Um,
Speaker 8
47:49thank Thank you, Miss Winton. Thank you, Director Todd, for providing that that, um, those details, and that's exactly what I was thinking. Just to make certain that there's, you know, because of of, of what's now seen, I think it's important to have that type of coordination. I mean, we talk about that all the time in here, but just to make certain that there's clarity related to now, say, the petitioners project, in this case, that's before, it's also in in a that there's clarity drawn so it's not sort of conflated into being something much larger. So thank you for that. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3
48:22Thank you. Commission Harrison, and then I do want to make sure, do we have any more public comments? Uh, virtually. Mister Chair, I do not see any. Okay, let's go ahead and close the public comment portion of this item, and then I'll go to Commissioner Lewis. You have any questions?
Speaker 10
48:43Thank you, Mr. Chair, not a question to the staff. The the master plan is under review as as I understand it is that correct
Speaker 4
48:56through the chair to Commissioner Lewis, that is correct, and
Speaker 10
49:01given the number of parcels involved, have you considered maybe talking with someone who is reviewing and updating the master plans so that we can understand a little more about what's going to happen to the other 40 or 50 parcels
Speaker 4
49:23through the chair to Commissioner Lewis, we will be having further discussion with PND, and we're still waiting on A master plan interpretation for that. And this was also part of a neighborhood study, which for the Joe Louis Greenway. So that study is very recent in the last couple of years. So that's part of what we went off of for this initiative. And yes, we will be having further discussion prior to bringing a recommendation to the commission.
Speaker 10
49:58And I think that would help address the question as to what's going to happen to the parcels other than the ones that are being rezoned today for a specific development. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
Speaker 3
50:12you commission, Lewis. And if I could add on, because now that I'm kind of thinking it through SD one allows single family and these small commercial uses. So I think what people are used to is commercial corridors backed by residential when we do this and make, you know, both sides of medbury, SD one, and then those kind of interior parcels, it seems like you could have a mix of, you know, you may have a commercial type use on the boy, and then next to it, you could potentially have a single family next to potentially another commercial use, if that's what they want to put there. So, and I don't know if that's what the intention is, you know, is the intention to have residential homes next to small scale commercial uses, next to other potential single families? Or are we trying to create, you know, kind of what we're used to, where you have a frontage of commercial on a Dubois and then behind it are residential just I'm trying to envision how that's supposed to play out
Unknown Speaker
51:25through the Chair. Ms Stapleton would like to comment on this
Speaker 5
51:30thinking alike, Mr. Chairman. So one of the things as a planner, I was concerned about spot zoning, which is why I really supported the larger initiative. The second reason I thought it was a great idea is because of the amount of city owned property. So what, what I envision is that planning and development, when they get a little further along in their in their planning, would issue an RFP for those parcels with community input from grassroots and I know my clients would like to have some input as to how the surrounding areas developed as well, but so I hope there's some comfort in knowing that there's those are city parcels, and you just know what? People just can't go and pull a permit and build something because the city still controls the majority of the land in the area. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 4
52:22Also, these are for single family homes in this area or in SD one. It would be conditional use, so it would have to go through that process as well
Speaker 3
52:34for single family. So with that in mind, is the intention kind of for it not to be single family anymore? If single family is conditional and we're changing, it used to go from residential to small scale, mixed use is, is the kind of subtle intention for it to not be residential and you would like it to be more commercial.
Speaker 2
53:00Mister Chair, I certainly agree with what Miss Stapleton indicated in terms of a possible process going forward. I think that what we're simply trying to do based upon some of the commentary that we've been hearing from our colleagues at p and d, what we've been hearing through our own efforts with zone Detroit, as well as what they're doing with plan Detroit. When we look at what the r1 single family and the r2 two family districts allow, they are not today, generating a great deal of interest. This is why the mixed use categories have been so popular over the last few years because of the diversity of possibilities that are potential having when you employ that district, and yes, you can get a mix of activities together. Again, with respect to what Miss Stapleton said, this is where the city would look to further control that I don't think that we are trying to move it away from residential. We're trying to spur development and definitely have both a mix of residential typologies as well as some complimentary commercial this is an opportunity for individuals to do home occupations and actually also do some live work circumstances where you can potentially have your business directly below or right next door in a commercial facility, and again, have that sort of, again mix of activities making for a more diverse community moving away from the traditional single or two family footprint, but again, this is what we'll look to get greater input and understanding from from the community, and that could further dictate what the city might do in the future. Again, should the rezoning go forward.
Speaker 3
54:55Perfect. Thank you. Alright, so that concludes our good. Alright, go ahead. Commissioner Russell, thank you. Chair
Speaker 11
55:07I was curious about in this. I guess it has a little something to do with the project. But can you show me where exactly the plan for the Greenway or the quinder cut is going? You said it was to the west of Saint Alban, and is it to the west of that commercial property, or just on the west side of single through
Speaker 4
55:37the chair to Commissioner Russell, as Miss Stapleton showed on the site plan. The plans that I had were slightly different and I a little outdated. Apparently, it's right next to so that's close. It is proposed to go then the newest proposal for it is to go through the alley behind the property,
Speaker 11
56:07my little and which way is north on this is it to the right or to the left? This is
Speaker 4
56:12kind of it that would be going north east, correct? So this is tilted to make it straight. This has been rotated on the top. I think, yeah,
Speaker 11
56:25East is on the top, so the North is to the right on this plane. Angle
Speaker 7
56:29is that right North is to the top, or going towards medbury? North
Speaker 11
56:35to the Okay, medbury, okay, yes, yeah, and then, okay,
Unknown Speaker
56:42yeah, and, and I'm
Speaker 11
56:44sorry to take up. So, okay, so we're at the corner of medbury and Saint Aubin, or medbury and service drive right and the so the proposed Joe Lewis Greenway is going right along Saint on that,
Speaker 4
57:01through the chair. It's actually going to jump over and go through the alley right behind their site. You know, I'm going to pull up another map, yes.
Speaker 11
57:09Okay, so that on this, on this plan, where it says proposed Joe goes Greenway. That's the alley. They're the chair. Russell, yeah, and it's Saint Auburn Street. Okay, I got it. Well, that's pretty
Speaker 4
57:22cool. They're the chair. There's actually a whole another set of parcels there on the other side of that. And then Saint Aubin, okay,
Speaker 11
57:29and so you said it juts over, right? So as we go south, those are the the the lots that the city is including in this rezoning, right? So as it goes further south, where does the Joe Lewis Greenway? Yeah, is it on Saint Alban? Joe Lewis Greenway
Speaker 7
57:52is east of Saint Alban. Goes up, I think it goes up Saint Alban, closer to Eastern Market. And then I don't know what street it cuts over, okay, to the east. And then it goes up the boy Street. And then it makes a left on, I think I'm
Speaker 11
58:08sorry to be so slow. Where's Boyd Street? I'm looking
Speaker 4
58:11on through the chair. If you look at the screen, this shows it, it's, it's very zoomed out. Okay,
Speaker 7
58:19so it's going up Dubois Street, that's what you said, Yes. And then it's going to cut over and then go up
Speaker 11
58:24to 
alley. So, okay, and then the properties that the the city, we're going all the way down to Hendry street through the chair, yes. So at Hendry and Dubois Street, that's the Greenway, right? So, so, so it's kind of a unique area for for this and and so is one of the the purpose to, I'm going a long way with this, is to make this area denser, and then if, if that is the case. Because my next question was going to be, did we look at SD two versus SD one and and why we settled with SD one as the recommendation. And where has that been successful in other neighborhoods? I'm thinking of midtown for one through
+1
alley. So, okay, and then the properties that the the city, we're going all the way down to Hendry street through the chair, yes. So at Hendry and Dubois Street, that's the Greenway, right? So, so, so it's kind of a unique area for for this and and so is one of the the purpose to, I'm going a long way with this, is to make this area denser, and then if, if that is the case. Because my next question was going to be, did we look at SD two versus SD one and and why we settled with SD one as the recommendation. And where has that been successful in other neighborhoods? I'm thinking of midtown for one through Speaker 4
59:28the chairman, let Director Todd address the where has it been successful in other neighborhoods? I don't know of
Speaker 2
59:38certainly through the chair to Commissioner Russell. So to answer the first part of the question, with respect to the SD one versus the SD two, the SD two, of course, would allow for some light industrial uses, and therein we would see more incompatibility with the desire per the previous response, to still encourage residential activity. The SD one again, makes greater sense in terms of that neighborhood mixed use sort of community. So yes, we are definitely looking at the possibility of something being more densely developed, whether that's across the board or again, on selected blocks, as indicated. That's for a plan, a proposal for RFP yet to be devised, to ultimately bear out in terms of the success, certainly as indicated before, when it comes to the piloting of both these two districts, the SD one and the SD two, that was done in Midtown, where we've got different conditions, by and large, urban core, and again, immediately above the central business district and Below new center and Wayne State. So here, as we get more out into the neighborhoods, and I think also, again, consistent with the work that we've been doing, when we talking about, when we talk about missing middle housing, when we talk about creating greater diversity of residential typologies across the city, what we're saying here is that we're what we're looking for. Again, with respect to the Joe Louis Greenway, the resident the industrial activities that also buffer this area, is that the SD one would seem to present the most viable district for having that type of mix. Again, we're still talking about a predominantly or a mixed use community that is featuring, if not predominantly, still residential.
Speaker 11
01:01:50I'm just going to say what I understand. So SD one we picked because it limits explode any unwanted or higher intensity uses. So we picked SD one. And SD one allows versus r1 or r2 a more variety of housing along with commercial so it could be some senior things with amenities already built in in those areas, okay? And I'm just trying to end that we do want to grow, or when we say density, we're trying to grow the population, and that's okay. And then I think somebody, or we already talked, I didn't hear all of it.
Speaker 11
01:02:47There are no pending RFPs coming from the city for this area already, and we're getting, we're moving maybe in that direction,
Speaker 4
01:03:00through the chair to Commissioner Russell, no, there are no pending, okay,
Speaker 11
01:03:05and then so thank you. And I was just going to say this, and I think it a lot of my commissioners echoed this, is that you know these things are are put in place so that you know, if it does go through, anybody can come and develop and not you know and know the ground rules and just be able to go and not have to go and go in front of a the expense of coming in front of a body like this, you know. But at the same token, it's expected that whoever is developing a site in the city stays connected with the immediate surrounding and the community abutting that, and just be good neighbors and and I think there are a couple more examples of like where SD one has really worked for A neighborhood, because it's allowed people to do something very creative and and I think at the end result, there has, there have been some times when, at the beginning, the surrounding area did not see that vision, but at that and those people that develop those property, if they stay connected, the whole community was able to and really appreciate and welcome that. So I'm just trying to say a good neighbor looks like a good plan. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3
01:04:54Thank you, Commissioner Russell. All right, Miss swig, can you give us some next steps for this item? What we can expect going forward through
Unknown Speaker
01:05:02the Chair? I'm sorry. I think Director County has
Speaker 2
01:05:06Mister Chair. We do note that there is one individual whose hand is raised now to speak, and there may have been some trouble in getting their hand raised prior to I only raise it in if you would like to open up public comment again just for that one individual to speak.
Speaker 3
01:05:22I'm hesitant, because we just don't typically do that. But if that individual can hang out, we do have public comment after the six exactly, and then this item has to come back, so we'll hear him at 6p at the public comment, and then we'll take that information back. Thank you,
Unknown Speaker
01:05:36Mr. Chair, okay, Miss Witt
Speaker 4
01:05:40to you, Mr. Chair, our next steps would be to continue with the public engagement. As I said, we have a meeting set up tomorrow with the organization that called in, and then to work further with PND and to get our master plan interpretation for this, and then we would come back to this body.
Speaker 3
01:06:02Alright, anything else you want to share with us? No Mister Chair. All right. Well, thank you for bringing, bringing this item. Thanks for attending, and we look forward to seeing you when you come back. Thank you. All right. Next item, I want to recall our 6pm public hearing. This is to consider the request of Patrick Lynch to amend article X VII, Section 5017, nine, district map number eight of 2019, Detroit city code chapter 50 zoning to show a, b for general business district zoning classification, where the r3 low density residential district zoning classification exists at the property commonly known at as 656, and 622, Melbourne Street, generally bounded by Melbourne Oakland Avenue, Mount Vernon and Kingsley Street and Mister Jeffries, good evening. How are you doing?
Speaker 12
01:07:03Good evening. Mister Chair, good evening. Commissioners, doing well today. Community. Jeffrey of the CPC staff,
Speaker 3
01:07:09alright, whenever you're ready, take it away. Mister
Speaker 12
01:07:13Chair, if we can allow our petitioner to introduce himself.
Unknown Speaker
01:07:16Yes. Welcome.
Speaker 13
01:07:18Hi everyone. My name is Patrick Lynch. Everybody calls me patty. I've never been here. It's very nice. Thank you for having me. And I guess if it's okay with you. Kimani, do you want me to give some history of the of the spot? Or do you want to go first? I first
Speaker 12
01:07:38through 
the Chair? I want to start off first, and then I'll give the floor to you. So let me bring up some slides. So I believe you all should be able to see my screen. Yes, we can. Like, okay, so this is the petition of Mr. Lynch, who just introduced himself for rezoning from r3 to the b4 zoning classification. And this pertains to what currently exists as the schwedtz health club. And this is being proposed as an expansion in two phase or two parts to this project, which Mr. Lynch will go further into detail on how that would be phased. But let me go. Here we go. So we're looking at the north end neighborhood sometimes, I guess, depending on who you speak to, you may get different boundaries for the north end. But from the recent planning study that the city led, these are the boundaries that were crafted to define the north end, Wilbur to the West Woodland Street to the north, the I 75 to the east, and then East Grand Boulevard to the south. So this just gives you a snapshot of the current makeup of the neighborhood. Generally, everything in yellow 
is generally residential. Red being commercial, then some institutional throughout the neighborhood. This is generally, excuse me, generally, where the subject site is. So the parcels that are proposed to be rezoned are 656, and 662, Melbourne, Melbourne street. So you can see that where you see the pan. And just to the east of these parcels is the building that currently exists as this fits health club today, and this just shows how that's parceled out in the buildings that sit on these sites. And of course, the personals proposed to be rezoned or vacant today. This just gives a temperature of what's in the area, what the surrounding area looks like. Here you see this fits health club residential homes just west of of the club again. This is Oakland Avenue. This is Melbourne again. This is looking down Melbourne. This is a little further into their residential street. This is across the street from the Spitz, so you have the church just to the east of the streets, across across Oakland Avenue. And then this is the church's parking lot as it relates to the master plan. This is the middle Woodward neighborhood. This is cluster four of that area of the master plan. Here you can see, this is, you know, coming out of the master plan. Many times questions come up as it relates to that. So master plan is broken up into neighborhoods and clusters. So this gives you a sense of what that looks like. And then closer up, this is what the master plan calls out for this area. Largely is saying that, you know, the surrounding area around the subject sites are planned to continue being low density residential, but for the actual parcels that are in question, they are proposed to for future to become neighborhood commercial. And then the planning and development department submitted a letter saying that this proposal is generally consistent with the master planning policies, and so that is in favor of what is being proposed today. And with that Mister Chair, I can pass the floor to mister Lynch, just to give some of the history of the club, and then take us further into what their proposal is.
+1
the Chair? I want to start off first, and then I'll give the floor to you. So let me bring up some slides. So I believe you all should be able to see my screen. Yes, we can. Like, okay, so this is the petition of Mr. Lynch, who just introduced himself for rezoning from r3 to the b4 zoning classification. And this pertains to what currently exists as the schwedtz health club. And this is being proposed as an expansion in two phase or two parts to this project, which Mr. Lynch will go further into detail on how that would be phased. But let me go. Here we go. So we're looking at the north end neighborhood sometimes, I guess, depending on who you speak to, you may get different boundaries for the north end. But from the recent planning study that the city led, these are the boundaries that were crafted to define the north end, Wilbur to the West Woodland Street to the north, the I 75 to the east, and then East Grand Boulevard to the south. So this just gives you a snapshot of the current makeup of the neighborhood. Generally, everything in yellow +2
is generally residential. Red being commercial, then some institutional throughout the neighborhood. This is generally, excuse me, generally, where the subject site is. So the parcels that are proposed to be rezoned are 656, and 662, Melbourne, Melbourne street. So you can see that where you see the pan. And just to the east of these parcels is the building that currently exists as this fits health club today, and this just shows how that's parceled out in the buildings that sit on these sites. And of course, the personals proposed to be rezoned or vacant today. This just gives a temperature of what's in the area, what the surrounding area looks like. Here you see this fits health club residential homes just west of of the club again. This is Oakland Avenue. This is Melbourne again. This is looking down Melbourne. This is a little further into their residential street. This is across the street from the Spitz, so you have the church just to the east of the streets, across across Oakland Avenue. And then this is the church's parking lot as it relates to the master plan. This is the middle Woodward neighborhood. This is cluster four of that area of the master plan. Here you can see, this is, you know, coming out of the master plan. Many times questions come up as it relates to that. So master plan is broken up into neighborhoods and clusters. So this gives you a sense of what that looks like. And then closer up, this is what the master plan calls out for this area. Largely is saying that, you know, the surrounding area around the subject sites are planned to continue being low density residential, but for the actual parcels that are in question, they are proposed to for future to become neighborhood commercial. And then the planning and development department submitted a letter saying that this proposal is generally consistent with the master planning policies, and so that is in favor of what is being proposed today. And with that Mister Chair, I can pass the floor to mister Lynch, just to give some of the history of the club, and then take us further into what their proposal is. Unknown Speaker
01:12:09Okay. Thank you, Mister Jeffrey.
Speaker 13
01:12:11Thank you so much. So not sure if any of you have ever been to the schvitz, some of you have probably heard of it. It's been basically what it is today since 1930 it was originally the Jewish community and cultural center of the north end, beginning in 1917 and then in 1930 it was converted to a traditional Russian Jewish bath house. I bought the building in 2017 and as you might know, it had a bit of a reputation, and it had some weekend activity that was for perhaps a bit inappropriate. Many people's opinions. I'm glad to say that we've cleaned it up in so many ways, it's literally a family friendly place. Now we're averaging over 1000 visitors a week during the winter, everybody, young, old, black, white, everyone feels welcome. People in the neighborhood can walk to it. I'm proud to say that I've seen in some of the neighborhood listings. When people are trying to sell a house, the list the neighborhood amenity. We have a really, really wonderful relationship with Nazarene, Missionary Baptist Church Pastor Kevin Harris, kitty corner from us, the parking lot across Oakland. We share and have for a long, long time we've had their community in our space. We help them replace their roof. It's a really wonderful relationship. We've received nothing but positive support from the neighborhood. Jerry Hebron and Oakland Avenue urban farm. They're friends of ours. The King Street block club has written a letter of support. They're great people. So I think in general, people really have come to love and respect the shits and what it has to offer. It is, first and foremost, a health club, with heat and cold therapies being our primary offering. And we have a wonderful restaurant there. There's not a lot of food options in the north end. And so what people really appreciate is, even if they're not coming in to use the facility, they can carry out or just have dinner, and that's been really nice. We're open seven days a week. Sometimes it's mixed COVID, and other times it's men only or women only. And I'm, of course, happy. I could talk for hours about the Schmidt's happy to answer any questions you might have about the history or the current status of it, and then real quick, just to talk about the future. Our biggest issue, and a lot of people don't realize this, is that we have a 4000 square foot ballroom above the bath house that was originally like a social hall back 100 years ago, would have been Bar Mitzvahs, bar mitzvahs the High Holidays. It was like a religious Hall. Over the course of many decades, it fell into disrepair. It got all chopped up and basically unusable. I'm probably north of half a million dollars in restoration work into the ballroom. Half the roof has been replaced. Significant masonry work has been done, and so it's going to become yet another great community space that everyone in the North End and beyond can use, but we need to be able to heat and cool it. And because of the historic nature of the roof and the way we had to replace it, those HVAC units are not going to go on top my preference, and probably our only option, is to put them behind the building. And that's our primary reason for wanting to rezone at this time, is so that we can pull a proper permit and put some H back on the lot directly behind the building. 
Phase two, which Kimani sort of referenced, would be the ability, and these renderings aren't exactly what it would look like, but someday, God willing, and if the budget allows, we could actually have our very, very small patio that we currently have to the north of the building, expand west into something like you see today, where when we have People who are coming to relax and enjoy the facilities that they can enjoy more than just the very small patio we have now. We've never received one complaint from the neighborhood. We're not a noisy place. We close at 10 o'clock. People are there to relax, and so at any rate, this just gives you an idea of what the future might hold, but our primary goal is to be able to have some HVAC units behind the building, so I
+1
Phase two, which Kimani sort of referenced, would be the ability, and these renderings aren't exactly what it would look like, but someday, God willing, and if the budget allows, we could actually have our very, very small patio that we currently have to the north of the building, expand west into something like you see today, where when we have People who are coming to relax and enjoy the facilities that they can enjoy more than just the very small patio we have now. We've never received one complaint from the neighborhood. We're not a noisy place. We close at 10 o'clock. People are there to relax, and so at any rate, this just gives you an idea of what the future might hold, but our primary goal is to be able to have some HVAC units behind the building, so I Speaker 3
01:16:45hope that helps. Alright, thank you Mr. Much. Yeah. And we'll start with thank you for the presentation, and thank you, Mr. Jeffrey, we'll start with Commissioner questions. Commissioner Esparza,
Unknown Speaker
01:16:57you Yeah, thank you, Chairman. So just to pick up on what you had mentioned, we want to call it phase one is the H back, yeah, related work,
Speaker 13
01:17:11yeah. I think that that's really with all the work that we have to do on the ballroom. I don't really see in the budget a major expansion into the yards to the west, but the so the primary first phase would be the HVAC,
Speaker 14
01:17:26right? So then phase two, phase,
Speaker 13
01:17:32yeah, exactly. We already have an outdoor lounge, which I don't know if we have an aerial view on this deck, but we do have an outdoor lounge that's north of the building, and so it would be an expansion of that lounge, essentially.
Speaker 14
01:17:47So right now, there does exist an outdoor yeah operation, or
Speaker 13
01:17:53yeah there's some tables out there and a couple booths, and people relax when the weather's nice out there, it's blah. It's fenced in on the north end of the building.
Speaker 14
01:18:06The renderings that you have seem to show an immediate residential neighbor next door. Is that actually the case? Yeah, I
Speaker 13
01:18:15actually just bought that house from the land bank, so I'm in the process of fixing it up, and it'll probably become staff housing, but I'm in the middle of renovating that. Our plan is to not rezone that, but to keep it residential use, right? So you control
Speaker 14
01:18:31that. That was going to be. My last question is whether you've spoken to the neighbor, but you
Speaker 13
01:18:36own it. I'm the neighbor. Yeah. Thank you Chairman.
Speaker 3
01:18:39Thank you. Commissioner Esparza, Commissioner Benny,
Speaker 15
01:18:45thank you Mr. Chair. So focusing. I'm sure you thought this through with with phase two, hopefully does come to fruition. I have some friends that frequent this. But with that being that you're a good community partner right now, I assume continue to do that, because as someone who's still on the relatively young side, I know pools and summer time. And are you is the plan to be something low key. Are you looking at having DJ things like that? Thing about that, this is still a residential neighborhood, and, yeah, there is not the desire to go to that extent when you're having parties and things like that with the outdoor pool, yeah,
Speaker 13
01:19:31yeah, exactly No. We're, we're a health club. I mean, my goal would be less DJs late night and more getting kids in before noon during the summer to learn how to swim. You know what I'm saying so, you know, and I think too it's not that people couldn't have a good time in the ballroom or outside. But I think if we are going to have, for example, a wedding with a DJ that belongs inside, that's why we have a ballroom, you know. But I could see cocktails outside, you know, and whatever before, before the dinner and dancing or whatever. But those are sort of dreams. Our primary, primary focus, of course, is to get to get the room usable, above the above the facility, and continue to be a health club seven days a week.
Speaker 15
01:20:25Thank you. My follow up question is, this is going to be an event space? I don't know the size of a lot that you share with the church currently, is it going to be adequate for both if you're now hosting weddings and things like that? Yeah. I
Speaker 13
01:20:41mean, 
we have two lots, so we own the lot across Melbourne, and then the church, and we share the lot across Oakland. So we do have two parking lots and a lot of street parking. I hate to say it, but for a pretty long stretch there on Oakland, we're the only active business. So you know, we've had Sundays, our most popular day of the week. We've had over 300 guests already, and parking has never been an issue, and we've never had complaints. So I'm willing to work, you know, with community partners, and there's some empty lots around there that could potentially be turned into parking. Personally, I'd rather see less parking and more development and residential use. But, you know, I'm not a I'm not a planning commissioner, so that's ultimately not up to me. But so far, plan parking has not been an issue for us.
+2
we have two lots, so we own the lot across Melbourne, and then the church, and we share the lot across Oakland. So we do have two parking lots and a lot of street parking. I hate to say it, but for a pretty long stretch there on Oakland, we're the only active business. So you know, we've had Sundays, our most popular day of the week. We've had over 300 guests already, and parking has never been an issue, and we've never had complaints. So I'm willing to work, you know, with community partners, and there's some empty lots around there that could potentially be turned into parking. Personally, I'd rather see less parking and more development and residential use. But, you know, I'm not a I'm not a planning commissioner, so that's ultimately not up to me. But so far, plan parking has not been an issue for us. Speaker 3
01:21:36Thank you, Commissioner Bay, any other questions? Commissioners barley,
Speaker 14
01:21:40thank you, Chairman, if I might ask, Are you the business owner that owns a donut shop on Woodward? Dutch girl,
Speaker 13
01:21:46yeah, I almost brought some for you guys, but I didn't know if that would be appropriate.
Unknown Speaker
01:21:50It would not.
Speaker 13
01:21:54But thankfully, yeah, I own Dutch girl, and my wife gets the credit there. She does more work there than I do. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker
01:22:02Okay, alright. Any other questions Commissioner Russell,
Unknown Speaker
01:22:05this question is for mister Jeff.
Speaker 11
01:22:13What? What is a street like Oakland. What should it be, don't
Speaker 12
01:22:25do the chair to Commissioner Russell is is the question what should Oakland be zoned.
Unknown Speaker
01:22:30Yeah. That side, there's been a
Speaker 12
01:22:34lot of discussion around Oakland over the years. Our staff even worked with a couple of a university some years ago, some years back to where there was a study that was done about what potential of Oakland Avenue as it relates to zoning, there could be proposals for, you know, a change from what it exists as today. However, it's probably not necessary, unless there's something special that the community is trying to achieve. There was a recent planning study that, you know, concluded that majority of the corridor is zoned properly right now is before. So before generally allows, you know, housing, it allows commercial it allows mixed use activity, so it's not much that you can't do on the corridor now, it might be more so if you know, there was desire to refine and make it more specific to, you know, SD one with, you know, limiting certain uses, but generally, you can achieve most of what you might anticipate on a commercial corridor today through the before zoning
Speaker 11
01:23:56right and, and, and I'm just, I'm just trying to understand, because it looks like it is building a zone before, right and, and it it would, I don't know where that alley would be, but it looked like everything was already, should already be zone that. But the properties we're looking at, and maybe I'm just not looking at the map right, but where's the that is where a residential house, that's that, that's
Speaker 12
01:24:28correct, those lots back, you can pull it back up. So these are the lots proposed to be rezoned. This fits proper. Is already zoned before, but these are it's we're going to further into the residential neighborhood. So these two parcels are proposed to be resolved. Yeah, pretty, pretty shallow. But you know, when you combine the two, it's a decent amount of space.
Unknown Speaker
01:25:02That's not abnormal, is
Unknown Speaker
01:25:05it? Pardon me, I didn't catch that last question.
Unknown Speaker
01:25:07I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's not abnormal, is it
Unknown Speaker
01:25:13the size of the lots,
Speaker 11
01:25:15I mean, for, for before, to extend off the, you know, back off a street that far
Speaker 12
01:25:24my, my, I would say objective opinion is no, even if you look at the master plan, it was, you know, back in when this master plan was adopted, they even foreshadowed that it would transition to neighborhood commercial,
Speaker 3
01:25:41if I could. I'm sorry, I mean, to cut you off, but we did something similar. I know we did it for parking, but I think it's a similar situation over on casual for the folding place, didn't we rezone? Yeah, casual cafe, didn't we rezone the residential land behind their parking lot to SD one or something like that? Sure,
Speaker 12
01:26:05that's a, that's a good you know, example of a similar case, and in that case, as well, the house next door was bought by that petitioner, by that owner, to act as a buffer. And I think, you know, that was a discussion that we had with Mr. Lynch, you know, as it pertains to the house, and having some sort of buffer between that activity and the rest of the neighbors, and we also asked him to speak to some of the neighbors, so he's, he's done some engagement with neighbors on that block, and to the, you know, to date, we haven't received any negative feedback. We sent the mailing out, so it seems to be support for what's being proposed, as far as we could tell so far.
Speaker 11
01:26:57Thank Thank you, Mister Jeffers, and you could brought some donuts.
Speaker 3
01:27:06I just don't want us in trouble. I want the FBI to come get us again. I'm just kidding.
Unknown Speaker
01:27:12Don't bring it in, right?
Speaker 3
01:27:14Donut, alright. Um, okay. Thank you, Mr. Jeffrey. Thank you Mr. Don't leave yet. Oh yeah. Thank you, Director Tyler. You going to say something I saw you move. Okay, so I don't see any other Commissioner comments. So this is a public hearing, so let's go ahead and open the six o'clock public hearing, similar to our previous public hearing, it's an opportunity for residents to provide input, either in person or attending. Virtually everyone has two minutes. I misspoke at the last one and gave everybody three minutes, but the actual time is two minutes, and we will go ahead and start that. So let's start in person. Do we have any in person cards for this item? Ms, peralez chair. We
Speaker 16
01:28:00didn't receive any in person cards for the second. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 3
01:28:04We will move to our zoom platform, and I know we had one lingering hand if you are listening this public hearing is specific to this item. If you do want to provide comments on that last item, the 515 for Parkside development, we will address you directly during public comment after this item, so I'll also give you a reminder on when that moment comes. Miss peralez, do we have any virtual hands raised,
Speaker 16
01:28:33Mister Chair, we have one hand raised. It's a caller ending, and 263, they should be allowed to speak. Okay,
Speaker 3
01:28:42let's hear them, because I don't want to disregard them, but I think they're going to want to speak to the 515 public hearing. So let's just bring them over and see what item they're here for. They should be allowed to speak. Hello, good evening.
Speaker 17
01:28:59Yes, how you doing? Yes, I wanted to speak to the 515 meeting.
Speaker 3
01:29:03Okay, I'll call you back when at the proper moment. Okay, all right. Thank you. All right. Miss brothers, are there any other virtual hands?
Speaker 16
01:29:13Mister Chair, we have no other hands for this item. All right, I'll go ahead and
Speaker 3
01:29:17close the public hearing for the six o'clock item. I will go back to my fellow Commissioners if you have any closing comments or questions. All right, so I'll go back to Mr. Jeffrey That does conclude the public hearing for this item. Can you give us some next steps and kind of what you anticipate this item will be going through next
Speaker 12
01:29:39Mister Chair, seems that there's large support and amount of support for this item. Seeing that there's no questions remaining from the commissioners, as far as I can ascertain, we'll be coming back with a recommendation likely for approval, unless something changes in between this time and then,
Speaker 3
01:30:06okay, think that sounds good. Thank you, Mr. Lynch, thank you this weekend, and we look forward to seeing you when you come back. I appreciate it. Go, pistons. Go, pistons. Trying to get out of here
Speaker 13
01:30:18am I should I go? Yeah, you all say, alright, thanks, everybody. Appreciate it.
Speaker 3
01:30:21Alright, moving on. Next, we have general public comments, similar to our public hearing, opportunity for residents to speak on any item related to the agenda or not on the or not on the agenda. So we will go ahead and open public comment. Miss peralez, do we have any public commenters here in person?
Speaker 16
01:30:43Mister Chair, we do not have anybody in person, alright.
Speaker 3
01:30:46Can we go to the Zoom platform? I think we have the one hand, yes. Do we have any others?
Speaker 16
01:30:52Mr. Chair? We just have that one caller ending in 263, okay,
Unknown Speaker
01:30:57let's bring her over.
Unknown Speaker
01:31:00She should be about to speak now.
Unknown Speaker
01:31:02All right, good evening.
Speaker 17
01:31:09Good evening, everybody. Thank you for allowing me a chance to speak to the 515 meeting. Um, I just have a couple of questions. Was wondering, because I literally can look at that building from my house, and I the area that you guys are are kind of talking about rebuilding on i My, my, my area. We didn't get any notifications. So I'm just trying to figure out how you guys, besides the block club that you spoke to and the church, did you think about the other 20 houses, like, right across from the area you want to build on, 20 plus houses, because we got blocks full over here coming and knocking on our doors or putting, you know, informing us on what you want to do. Because this is the first I've heard of it.
Speaker 3
01:32:12Okay, does that conclude your comments? Yeah, okay, we will aggregate those and have staff answer those questions for you.
Speaker 3
01:32:29Okay, so let me close it out. Miss progress. Do we have any other public comments?
Unknown Speaker
01:32:35Mister Chair, there are no other hands raised. Okay with
Speaker 3
01:32:38that. We will close the public comment. Director Todd, you want to try to answer some of those questions. Certainly.
Speaker 2
01:32:43Mister Chair, through you to the commission, to and to the caller. We first and foremost, would like her to contact the office tomorrow, if possible, if, in fact, she's going to be in attendance at the meeting that we will be having in the community. We look forward to talking with her and getting further clarity as to her specific concerns the areas that she was referencing, and as I indicated earlier, this was not an attempt to advance a rezoning for any particular project in terms of the commission initiative to rezone a larger area with respect to the petitioners desire, we're looking to represent that specifically. But there was no, again, no specific development intent. What we spoke to earlier during the public hearing was what could possibly happen, and again, that would happen as we see it, in conjunction with the community, we saw this as a means of getting some of what we understood the community there to desire coming out of the study that was done With respect to the Joe Louis Greenway, but we not having participated directly with that, do look forward to getting more particular information in our meeting tomorrow with grassroots, with grassroots Detroit, and at that time again, begin to determine the right direction in which to go again, To make it clear. And certainly I do understand the speculative nature, if you will, or as it might be perceived as speculative, this was not the intent to facilitate any particular development, but again, to actually help spur development by changing the zoning so that a more diversity of things could take place, maybe making the property more appealing to development interest, both local and otherwise.
Speaker 3
01:35:00Thank you for providing that clarification. Director Codd, so that does conclude our public comment portion of the agenda. Next, we have unfinished business. We have two unfinished business items. Mister Bulger, you're up first. We do have a consideration of the city's planning commission to amend article X, B, I, I, Section 5017, 73 district map number 71 of the 2019, Detroit City Code, Chapter 50, zoning, to change the PD Plan Development District zoning classification as currently shown on 11 locations to either an r1 or an r2 or an r3 or an r5 zoning classification, Miss Doctor Bolger, Oh, hello. I know. Feel like I saw you virtually, and then you
Unknown Speaker
01:35:46were here. Yes, good evening, commissioners, good evening.
Unknown Speaker
01:35:50Whenever you're ready, you can take it
Speaker 1
01:35:52away. Yes, can I share my screen with you? I have a PowerPoint that we could share? Yes, you may. Thank you.
Speaker 1
01:36:15Back on April 3, commissioners will recall that we had a public hearing where we looked at the corner of Detroit, which happens to have the greatest number of planned development zoning districts that predate the modern era. In 1968 the zoning ordinance was revised for the first time since the 1940 ordinance in a very comprehensive way. And at that time, any of the land in the city of Detroit that had been zoned RMA, which is residential, multiple with approval, was changed to a PD. However, the PD that was that were placed on the maps in 1968 did not have the same ingredients that a PD, such as what we see today. Have the law department got on our case a few years ago, pointing out that there's a lot of these RMA plan developments that need to be looked at, because it's unclear what could possibly go in to on this land should Something happen to that existing property. So we're looking at this map 71 which includes property within the within Council District One, to try and make sure that the use of the land is more more readily understood. And so the public hearing that 
we had in the community was one where we held it at Wayne County Community College District in northwest Detroit. We went through the various sites. And there were 11 different sites that we looked at. Nine of them were these atypical plan development districts, the ones that had been adopted roughly in the very early 1960s Thank you. And we went through, went through each of those. And tonight, for those of I'm, I'm glad to either walk through each of the various slides here for the benefit of any commissioner that had not been here, although the chair may prefer that I do the quick version of this, of this particular presentation. So map 71 as we said, is far northwest Detroit. The 11 sites that we were talking about cluster around the area of Telegraph Road and West Seven Mile. This map shows where those 11 sites are located, and some of those PDS are appropriate. Developments were proceeding. They were authorized, like the shopping center that you see at the northwest corner of seven mile and telegraph at the former Pinkas restaurant site. Some of them never got off the ground. There was a Home Depot 
that was proposed on the west side of telegraph, south of frisbee, and some were established before 1968 and they lack the basic elements that are currently required. Those are what we're referring to as the RMA PDS. The Law Department pointed out that we need to address those and either rezone them back to how they had been zoned before, or to another appropriate zoning classification, or to come up with the development plan for those PDS. At the April 3 public hearing, nine of the 11 locations that we looked at were those atypical PDS. Those were established between 1957 and 1963 under Mayor Mayor Mariani and Mayor Kavanaugh, these nine atypical locations were rezoned from the 1940 zoning classification and all of those pieces of property had been zoned r1, single family residential, and that kind of zoning classification did not allow for any multiple family dwellings, no apartment buildings. And as we mentioned in 1968 if it had been zoned R, M, a, it was changed to PD but unlike more recent PDS, there's a lot of uncertainty as to what you know, what if? What happens if a building burns down? What happens if there's 
damage to it? What else could go there? Can somebody expand without, without greater permission? And so in looking at these, we walked through each of those sites, and at that public hearing, there was no testimony raised, either in person or remotely, regarding of any of the nine sites that were identified as those R, M, a, p, d, s on the map that we were looking at, those would be sites number one through nine. One of the residents from the area appeared in person at the hearing, and the area that her property is in was site number 10, which was Woodbine and Lenoir streets north of seven mile and south of south of Frisbee. And this site included 81 lots. 70 of them have houses standing. 10 of them or 11 of them are vacant lots. And the this person who spoke mentioned that she was interested in providing transitional housing. And a good discussion ensued among commissioners as to the permissibility of that. And it became clear that the r2 zoning district, which is what planning commission staff and what the public notice of the hearing indicated was being proposed for these 81 lots doesn't allow for any kind of a group living scenario, including things like transitional housing. The day after the public hearing, we got a call in the office seeking some clarification about limits and permissibility under our two for housing in this area. And also at the public hearing, one of the attendees who did not speak at the microphone, voiced interest in possible agriculture or ecological or open space use of site number 11, which is the former Bonnie Brook golf course site. And as of a couple days ago, we heard back from that person, indicating that she had 
made contact with the owner of the property and that they're moving ahead with this, the Bonnie Brook site is the one location where staff was recommending and where the notice of the hearing recommended a rezoning back to way the to how the land had been zoned earlier, namely to the r1 zoning district classification the planning and development department submitted its report as to these 11 locations, and it found that four of the 11 sites were perfectly consistent with what the master plan identified for that area, sites, 258, and nine. They also determined that there were five locations that were viewed to be generally consistent with the Master Plan. And when the planning and development department identifies something as being generally consistent, usually it's because it's a property which is not particularly big, something smaller than 10 acres, and because they their assessment is that by rezoning to that zoning classification, it would not really alter the character of the area. So there were those five sites that they viewed as generally consistent, and then there were two sites that we knew going in were not consistent with the Master Plan. The first of those sites, site number 10, were those 81 lots on Woodbine and Lenore, where, back in 2004 it was envisioned that Home Depot would go in. That project never got off the ground. But to this day, the only permits that the building department is able to issue for new uses would be for a retail store. So all of the houses on those 81 blocks, I'm sorry, 81 lots, are currently non conforming as a result of that rezoning.
+2
we had in the community was one where we held it at Wayne County Community College District in northwest Detroit. We went through the various sites. And there were 11 different sites that we looked at. Nine of them were these atypical plan development districts, the ones that had been adopted roughly in the very early 1960s Thank you. And we went through, went through each of those. And tonight, for those of I'm, I'm glad to either walk through each of the various slides here for the benefit of any commissioner that had not been here, although the chair may prefer that I do the quick version of this, of this particular presentation. So map 71 as we said, is far northwest Detroit. The 11 sites that we were talking about cluster around the area of Telegraph Road and West Seven Mile. This map shows where those 11 sites are located, and some of those PDS are appropriate. Developments were proceeding. They were authorized, like the shopping center that you see at the northwest corner of seven mile and telegraph at the former Pinkas restaurant site. Some of them never got off the ground. There was a Home Depot +1
that was proposed on the west side of telegraph, south of frisbee, and some were established before 1968 and they lack the basic elements that are currently required. Those are what we're referring to as the RMA PDS. The Law Department pointed out that we need to address those and either rezone them back to how they had been zoned before, or to another appropriate zoning classification, or to come up with the development plan for those PDS. At the April 3 public hearing, nine of the 11 locations that we looked at were those atypical PDS. Those were established between 1957 and 1963 under Mayor Mayor Mariani and Mayor Kavanaugh, these nine atypical locations were rezoned from the 1940 zoning classification and all of those pieces of property had been zoned r1, single family residential, and that kind of zoning classification did not allow for any multiple family dwellings, no apartment buildings. And as we mentioned in 1968 if it had been zoned R, M, a, it was changed to PD but unlike more recent PDS, there's a lot of uncertainty as to what you know, what if? What happens if a building burns down? What happens if there's +1
damage to it? What else could go there? Can somebody expand without, without greater permission? And so in looking at these, we walked through each of those sites, and at that public hearing, there was no testimony raised, either in person or remotely, regarding of any of the nine sites that were identified as those R, M, a, p, d, s on the map that we were looking at, those would be sites number one through nine. One of the residents from the area appeared in person at the hearing, and the area that her property is in was site number 10, which was Woodbine and Lenoir streets north of seven mile and south of south of Frisbee. And this site included 81 lots. 70 of them have houses standing. 10 of them or 11 of them are vacant lots. And the this person who spoke mentioned that she was interested in providing transitional housing. And a good discussion ensued among commissioners as to the permissibility of that. And it became clear that the r2 zoning district, which is what planning commission staff and what the public notice of the hearing indicated was being proposed for these 81 lots doesn't allow for any kind of a group living scenario, including things like transitional housing. The day after the public hearing, we got a call in the office seeking some clarification about limits and permissibility under our two for housing in this area. And also at the public hearing, one of the attendees who did not speak at the microphone, voiced interest in possible agriculture or ecological or open space use of site number 11, which is the former Bonnie Brook golf course site. And as of a couple days ago, we heard back from that person, indicating that she had +2
made contact with the owner of the property and that they're moving ahead with this, the Bonnie Brook site is the one location where staff was recommending and where the notice of the hearing recommended a rezoning back to way the to how the land had been zoned earlier, namely to the r1 zoning district classification the planning and development department submitted its report as to these 11 locations, and it found that four of the 11 sites were perfectly consistent with what the master plan identified for that area, sites, 258, and nine. They also determined that there were five locations that were viewed to be generally consistent with the Master Plan. And when the planning and development department identifies something as being generally consistent, usually it's because it's a property which is not particularly big, something smaller than 10 acres, and because they their assessment is that by rezoning to that zoning classification, it would not really alter the character of the area. So there were those five sites that they viewed as generally consistent, and then there were two sites that we knew going in were not consistent with the Master Plan. The first of those sites, site number 10, were those 81 lots on Woodbine and Lenore, where, back in 2004 it was envisioned that Home Depot would go in. That project never got off the ground. But to this day, the only permits that the building department is able to issue for new uses would be for a retail store. So all of the houses on those 81 blocks, I'm sorry, 81 lots, are currently non conforming as a result of that rezoning. Speaker 1
01:45:34They also the reason for that is that the Master Plan also was changed because of the size of the area to call for a commercial retail center for that property. The other site which we understood in which P and D, D confirmed is not being consistent with a master plan. Was 20,400 telegraph site number 11, that's the remnant of the former Bonnie Brook golf course at the southeast corner of telegraph and West Eight Mile Road. What had been hoped for that property was an extended stay hotel for the area, that project fell through, and currently, that 
land has pretty much returned to nature. The master plan for the area calls for recreation, the PRC Master Plan classification the next significant number of slides are the site by site review of these properties. So in the course of our discussions, if there are any of these locations that we want to take a more detailed look at, we can do that by just backing up in the into the PowerPoint. So what, what staff has recommended in the report that you received, dated April 29 is rezoning of these PDS, some of them to our three the low density residential district classification, one of the sites to r5 medium density residential zoning district classification. One of the sites, those 81 lots to the r2 two family residential district classification, and one, the bunny Brook golf course site back to r1 these are standard zoning district classifications. The permitted uses are listed both the ones that are permitted by right and conditional and setbacks and height limits are already specified. So people who might be interested in developing property or changing the use of the property know what the rules of the game are so see CPC staff's 
recommendations. We're recommending to you, if you're ready to hear these recommendations at this point, that eight of the 11 sites that are currently PD be rezoned to our three the low density residential zoning district classification. And those are they're split into two groups here sites number 1234, and 4b and specifically we're looking in site one at property on West Seven Mile Road, 24 to 2424 to 70 and 24 to 90. West Seven Mile. Site number two contains two through lots north of West seven mile between Shiawassee and Appleton, known as 19130 and 19220 Appleton site three also, we're recommending go to an r3 classification. It's one lot south of west seven mile on the east side of Fenton, commonly known as 18, 980, and 19,000 Fenton. And then sites four a and 4b consist of one lot east of telegraph which is 19, 301, Shiawassee and one two point acre lot west of telegraph commonly known as 19 to 25 Woodbine. The other four sites which we're recommending go from PD to r3 are the two lots on the west side of Berg road, just east of greater Grace Temple, commonly known as 19143 and 19173 bird and then eight lots consist make up site number six north of seven, mile between Lenore and Grand View, commonly known as 19 141 19 160 19 191 Winston And then on Grand View 19. 120 19. 140 and 19. 180 Grand View and 24 620, West seven, mile and 19. 185 Lenoir site number seven is one lot at the northeast corner of telegraph and frisbee, commonly known as 19,800 telegraph site number nine is one lot on the west side of Shiawassee, between West Seven Mile and Verdun, commonly known as 19, 255, Shiawassee. And as 
you saw from the pictures that we showed on April 3, all of these locations are developed with apartment buildings on them. When we look at what the low density residential district provides for, it allows for nine residential uses on a buy rate basis, 11 public, civic and institutional uses on a buy right basis, no retail service or commercial, no manufacturing and on a conditional basis, there are seven residential uses permitted, six public, civic and institutional uses, and four retail service, commercial uses that are permitted on a conditional basis, but no manufacturing or industrial uses are permitted. Staff's recommendation dealing with site number eight, which is the property on Shiawassee, which backs up to West Eight Mile Road. The master plan for that area calls for a more intensive development, and the r5 zoning district would be the appropriate zoning classification for these lots. One one of the two lots has an apartment building on and the other one has a DTE substation, small substation on it. So we're recommending our five for 24540, and 24570, Shiawassee, the r5 medium density district allows 14 residential uses on a buy right basis, 13 public civic institutional uses, 
three retail service commercial uses, but no manufacturing and or industrial on a conditional basis. Our five allows for seven residential uses, seven public civic institutional uses, and 10 plus retail service commercial uses that are permitted on a conditional basis, again, no manufacturing or industrials permitted. We're recommending a rezoning from PD to r2 for site number 10. These are the 81 lots that compose what we're also referring to as the Home Depot site. 31 of those 81 lots are on the east side of Woodbine. We look at that as the address is 19 254, through 19 534, Woodbine, 29 of the 81 lots are on the west side of Woodbine. 19 261, through 19 511, Woodward and 21 of the 81 on the are on the east side of Lenore. 19 280, through 19 514, Lenore. And if when we look at Woodbine, what we see are really a lot of small houses up and down the street. There are many more houses than there are vacant lots. Lenore is a shady street with a lot of single family dwellings on it. The r2 residential district is certainly more restrictive than either the r3 or the 
r5 three residential uses are permitted by Wright, two public, civic and institutional uses are permitted by right, no retail service or commercial. No manufacturing is permitted on a conditional basis. There are four residential uses that are allowed to be considered, 11 public, civic and institutional uses permitted on a conditional basis, and two retail service and commercial uses permitted conditionally. But no manufacturing or industrial so on the with regard to site 10, these 81 lots the Home Depot set, there was a lot of discussion about, why would we go to r2 rather than the r3 r3 would allow for a greater number of uses, including allowing for the kind of group living use that the speaker at the public hearing was interested in being able to establish and staff's recommendation for going to r2 rather than r3 has to do both with reasons of substance and or process. When it comes down to substance, the r3 district permits uses, none of which currently exists to our knowledge, in the 81 lot Home Depot area on Lenoir and Woodbine, also, we know that the laudable desire to provide transitional housing, which BC could consider under r3 would also open the door to numerous land uses, notably several different group living uses that are prohibited in r1 and r2 the kind of small group living uses that we referred to at the April 3 meeting state license residential facilities for one to six individuals that are currently permitted in r1 and r2 by state preemption are more in character with the single family pattern of development that that we see on Woodbine and Lenore and then, importantly, for reasons of process, Although rezoning part or all of the 81 lot location on Lenore and Woodbine would offer a greater opportunity for various land uses, including group homes. The Planning Commission would have to re notify the public and hold a separate public hearing before recommending that such a change to city council be adopted. The after the public hearing was held, we went back and we noticed that in the in the several hundreds of public notices that we mailed out, and in the notice that was published in the Detroit legal news, we did specifically indicate that the proposed rezoning of this site, number 10 on Lenore and Woodbine would was being proposed from PD to r2
+2
land has pretty much returned to nature. The master plan for the area calls for recreation, the PRC Master Plan classification the next significant number of slides are the site by site review of these properties. So in the course of our discussions, if there are any of these locations that we want to take a more detailed look at, we can do that by just backing up in the into the PowerPoint. So what, what staff has recommended in the report that you received, dated April 29 is rezoning of these PDS, some of them to our three the low density residential district classification, one of the sites to r5 medium density residential zoning district classification. One of the sites, those 81 lots to the r2 two family residential district classification, and one, the bunny Brook golf course site back to r1 these are standard zoning district classifications. The permitted uses are listed both the ones that are permitted by right and conditional and setbacks and height limits are already specified. So people who might be interested in developing property or changing the use of the property know what the rules of the game are so see CPC staff's +1
recommendations. We're recommending to you, if you're ready to hear these recommendations at this point, that eight of the 11 sites that are currently PD be rezoned to our three the low density residential zoning district classification. And those are they're split into two groups here sites number 1234, and 4b and specifically we're looking in site one at property on West Seven Mile Road, 24 to 2424 to 70 and 24 to 90. West Seven Mile. Site number two contains two through lots north of West seven mile between Shiawassee and Appleton, known as 19130 and 19220 Appleton site three also, we're recommending go to an r3 classification. It's one lot south of west seven mile on the east side of Fenton, commonly known as 18, 980, and 19,000 Fenton. And then sites four a and 4b consist of one lot east of telegraph which is 19, 301, Shiawassee and one two point acre lot west of telegraph commonly known as 19 to 25 Woodbine. The other four sites which we're recommending go from PD to r3 are the two lots on the west side of Berg road, just east of greater Grace Temple, commonly known as 19143 and 19173 bird and then eight lots consist make up site number six north of seven, mile between Lenore and Grand View, commonly known as 19 141 19 160 19 191 Winston And then on Grand View 19. 120 19. 140 and 19. 180 Grand View and 24 620, West seven, mile and 19. 185 Lenoir site number seven is one lot at the northeast corner of telegraph and frisbee, commonly known as 19,800 telegraph site number nine is one lot on the west side of Shiawassee, between West Seven Mile and Verdun, commonly known as 19, 255, Shiawassee. And as +2
you saw from the pictures that we showed on April 3, all of these locations are developed with apartment buildings on them. When we look at what the low density residential district provides for, it allows for nine residential uses on a buy rate basis, 11 public, civic and institutional uses on a buy right basis, no retail service or commercial, no manufacturing and on a conditional basis, there are seven residential uses permitted, six public, civic and institutional uses, and four retail service, commercial uses that are permitted on a conditional basis, but no manufacturing or industrial uses are permitted. Staff's recommendation dealing with site number eight, which is the property on Shiawassee, which backs up to West Eight Mile Road. The master plan for that area calls for a more intensive development, and the r5 zoning district would be the appropriate zoning classification for these lots. One one of the two lots has an apartment building on and the other one has a DTE substation, small substation on it. So we're recommending our five for 24540, and 24570, Shiawassee, the r5 medium density district allows 14 residential uses on a buy right basis, 13 public civic institutional uses, +1
three retail service commercial uses, but no manufacturing and or industrial on a conditional basis. Our five allows for seven residential uses, seven public civic institutional uses, and 10 plus retail service commercial uses that are permitted on a conditional basis, again, no manufacturing or industrials permitted. We're recommending a rezoning from PD to r2 for site number 10. These are the 81 lots that compose what we're also referring to as the Home Depot site. 31 of those 81 lots are on the east side of Woodbine. We look at that as the address is 19 254, through 19 534, Woodbine, 29 of the 81 lots are on the west side of Woodbine. 19 261, through 19 511, Woodward and 21 of the 81 on the are on the east side of Lenore. 19 280, through 19 514, Lenore. And if when we look at Woodbine, what we see are really a lot of small houses up and down the street. There are many more houses than there are vacant lots. Lenore is a shady street with a lot of single family dwellings on it. The r2 residential district is certainly more restrictive than either the r3 or the +3
r5 three residential uses are permitted by Wright, two public, civic and institutional uses are permitted by right, no retail service or commercial. No manufacturing is permitted on a conditional basis. There are four residential uses that are allowed to be considered, 11 public, civic and institutional uses permitted on a conditional basis, and two retail service and commercial uses permitted conditionally. But no manufacturing or industrial so on the with regard to site 10, these 81 lots the Home Depot set, there was a lot of discussion about, why would we go to r2 rather than the r3 r3 would allow for a greater number of uses, including allowing for the kind of group living use that the speaker at the public hearing was interested in being able to establish and staff's recommendation for going to r2 rather than r3 has to do both with reasons of substance and or process. When it comes down to substance, the r3 district permits uses, none of which currently exists to our knowledge, in the 81 lot Home Depot area on Lenoir and Woodbine, also, we know that the laudable desire to provide transitional housing, which BC could consider under r3 would also open the door to numerous land uses, notably several different group living uses that are prohibited in r1 and r2 the kind of small group living uses that we referred to at the April 3 meeting state license residential facilities for one to six individuals that are currently permitted in r1 and r2 by state preemption are more in character with the single family pattern of development that that we see on Woodbine and Lenore and then, importantly, for reasons of process, Although rezoning part or all of the 81 lot location on Lenore and Woodbine would offer a greater opportunity for various land uses, including group homes. The Planning Commission would have to re notify the public and hold a separate public hearing before recommending that such a change to city council be adopted. The after the public hearing was held, we went back and we noticed that in the in the several hundreds of public notices that we mailed out, and in the notice that was published in the Detroit legal news, we did specifically indicate that the proposed rezoning of this site, number 10 on Lenore and Woodbine would was being proposed from PD to r2 
Speaker 1
01:56:20because no community engagement has in has occurred to this point to determine support or opposition to our three zoning in the R in the Eddy one lot area, there's no certainty of broad support for the uses that are three would permit. If the retail oriented PD is removed, 70 homes will no longer be non conforming, and the proposed r2 zoning would allow for use in development more in line with the existing use in development. Subsequent to this, a proposal to rezone part or all of the area to r3 or other district could be taken up now, 
one because there was as much discussion concerning this and as much sympathy as there was for the person who was hoping to be able to establish transitional housing on her property. Locate, we note that location number 10. It's the only one of the 11 sites where we're recommending rezoning from PD to r2 and for the reasons of substance and process a rezoning to our three is not timely. Had we advertised that we were considering a rezoning of those lots to either r2 or r3 then a vote to recommend r3 could be, could be considered, because that did not happen in the notice. We're kind of stuck with the r2 with with the proposal of r2 however, the resident who's interested in providing transitional housing could be accommodated if, instead of a zoning map amendment, if the text of the zoning ordinance were amended to allow for various group living uses in the r2 district, and it would be Something that would be considered on a conditional basis, commissioners will certainly recall the the extensive discussions that took place here when a use of public, civic and institutional use, such as group daycare homes, was proposed On a by right basis, in r1 and r2 it drew a good bit of concern from some neighbors, in addition to a good bit of support, particularly from those who are providing group daycare. Our past experiences that such a proposal to by text amendment allow group living uses on land zoned r2 could expect similar kinds of controversy. Lastly, when we look at site number 11, we're recommending going from PD to r1 this is one lot covering nine of the 46 acres of the old Bonny Brook golf course. East side of telegraph, south of west Eight 
Mile Road, our one even though telegraph is a busy street and eight mile is a busy street, when staff was in contact with the owner of the property, the the property owner was was not interested at that point in pursuing going commercial. We specifically asked whether a B for general commercial zoning classification might be, might interest him for the use of that property. He indicated no and that he would just assume it go back to r1 the r1 is the is the most restrictive zoning district. It's only one residential use is permitted by right. Two public, civic and institutional uses are permitted by right. No retail, no service, no commercial, no industrial or manufacturing, but urban gardens are permitted by right on a conditional basis. There are two residential uses that are permitted, 11 public, civic and institutional uses, and two retail service and commercial uses on a conditional basis, although no manufacturing, industrial, urban farms are permitted as a conditional use. If we look at this picture of how Bonnie Brook golf course looks right now, it actually kind of matches up with the view for kind of open space or recreational area it is in the floodplain of the Rouge River, and the sense is that we're looking at our one not because we anticipate someone chomping at the bit to put in a new residential, single family dwelling subdivision, but Because the zoning ordinance says when you've got a lapsed PD rezone, back to the way it used to be, or to a more appropriate zoning classification. Interestingly, the party which was interested in the golf course, who was at the meeting on April 3, when they got in contact with the owner of the property for what was proposed as something along the lines of an what we might think of what you would see with an urban farm. The owner of the property was reported to have been interested in talking about that further, and that's something that could be permissible under r1 these are the recommendations staff has for the 11 different sites, and be glad to answer any questions that commissioners may have. Thank you. Thank
+1
one because there was as much discussion concerning this and as much sympathy as there was for the person who was hoping to be able to establish transitional housing on her property. Locate, we note that location number 10. It's the only one of the 11 sites where we're recommending rezoning from PD to r2 and for the reasons of substance and process a rezoning to our three is not timely. Had we advertised that we were considering a rezoning of those lots to either r2 or r3 then a vote to recommend r3 could be, could be considered, because that did not happen in the notice. We're kind of stuck with the r2 with with the proposal of r2 however, the resident who's interested in providing transitional housing could be accommodated if, instead of a zoning map amendment, if the text of the zoning ordinance were amended to allow for various group living uses in the r2 district, and it would be Something that would be considered on a conditional basis, commissioners will certainly recall the the extensive discussions that took place here when a use of public, civic and institutional use, such as group daycare homes, was proposed On a by right basis, in r1 and r2 it drew a good bit of concern from some neighbors, in addition to a good bit of support, particularly from those who are providing group daycare. Our past experiences that such a proposal to by text amendment allow group living uses on land zoned r2 could expect similar kinds of controversy. Lastly, when we look at site number 11, we're recommending going from PD to r1 this is one lot covering nine of the 46 acres of the old Bonny Brook golf course. East side of telegraph, south of west Eight +1
Mile Road, our one even though telegraph is a busy street and eight mile is a busy street, when staff was in contact with the owner of the property, the the property owner was was not interested at that point in pursuing going commercial. We specifically asked whether a B for general commercial zoning classification might be, might interest him for the use of that property. He indicated no and that he would just assume it go back to r1 the r1 is the is the most restrictive zoning district. It's only one residential use is permitted by right. Two public, civic and institutional uses are permitted by right. No retail, no service, no commercial, no industrial or manufacturing, but urban gardens are permitted by right on a conditional basis. There are two residential uses that are permitted, 11 public, civic and institutional uses, and two retail service and commercial uses on a conditional basis, although no manufacturing, industrial, urban farms are permitted as a conditional use. If we look at this picture of how Bonnie Brook golf course looks right now, it actually kind of matches up with the view for kind of open space or recreational area it is in the floodplain of the Rouge River, and the sense is that we're looking at our one not because we anticipate someone chomping at the bit to put in a new residential, single family dwelling subdivision, but Because the zoning ordinance says when you've got a lapsed PD rezone, back to the way it used to be, or to a more appropriate zoning classification. Interestingly, the party which was interested in the golf course, who was at the meeting on April 3, when they got in contact with the owner of the property for what was proposed as something along the lines of an what we might think of what you would see with an urban farm. The owner of the property was reported to have been interested in talking about that further, and that's something that could be permissible under r1 these are the recommendations staff has for the 11 different sites, and be glad to answer any questions that commissioners may have. Thank you. Thank Speaker 3
02:02:21you. Dr Bolger, looking around, I see Commissioner lewis go right ahead.
Speaker 10
02:02:29Doctor Bulger, I'm sure you anticipated, and I want you to know is with a great deal of respect and admiration for your knowledge and experience on these matters, I am concerned about the woman that came in, and so I have a few questions for you. What was the zoning of site 10 prior to the PD
Speaker 1
02:02:54through the chair, the all of the land on Woodbine and Lenoir had been our one
Speaker 10
02:03:05Okay, and so we're not going back to the original zoning. We're going to a more appropriate zoning
Speaker 1
02:03:13that's through the Chair. Yes, that's that we feel that that would be the more appropriate zoning classification. Why through the chair, what we're looking at is in terms of citywide a need for more housing, and particularly a need for being able to provide multiple, multiple housing options to family dwellings would be something that go at least a little ways toward providing more residential opportunities For people who for people who need it. So we're looking at our two as a way possibly for some of those 11 vacant lots in that area to be redeveloped.
Speaker 10
02:04:05I'm looking, I'm thinking about a rezoning that came before us just moments ago in a much less intense area than telegraph, where I guess the city is controlling 50 something lots, and chose to go to SD One. We're talking about a site at Telegraph. And we're choosing something different. I think it was my understanding that when you talk about the 11 vacant lots, that the interest of developers is more to so to an SD one than an R anything. Again, my concern is about the young woman that came before us and explained to us her opposition to the zoning because she was moving forward to establish this transitional housing business. I don't know if she's invested, how much she's invested. I'm just thinking that we should give a little more attention to that before we take that opportunity completely away from her
Speaker 1
02:05:23through the chair. I would agree. And I think one of one of the prickly issues that was tied up with her request was that, even though theoretically we could envision that perhaps just a parcel, we knew we wouldn't want to rezone just one lot in the middle of an extensive area, because it would raise some some spot zoning issues that might be difficult to defend, but it wasn't clear just at that point how many lots, how much area would it be appropriate to rezone to our three whether to do all 81 lots, which we felt would be biting off too much without having engaged the community on that or how far, how far to go. Her property is apparently within several lots north
Unknown Speaker
02:06:28of
Speaker 1
02:06:32it backs up to the strip mall a long telegraph but just where to cut off what might be an r3 wasn't clear. That's something that, if and when the land was rezoned to r2 could be taken up as a fresh petition, and which means there's still all those hoops to jump through, but we can't see any shortcut short of another map amendment or a text amendment To satisfy the vision and the goals that this citizen came forward with. And
Speaker 10
02:07:17I do understand, Dr Bulger, not as completely as you do, but I do understand that things do not happen overnight. Again, this zoning will completely take any opportunity for her to move forward. I know it's a PD, and she'd probably come before you anyway if she wanted to move forward on that, but at least under a PD, she'd have some opportunity. And again, I see where there is a much less intense corner or area than Telegraph that went to SD one because developers, as I heard it, are more apt to want to develop land SD one than are anything. Again, my concern is mainly I don't want to take her property from her, especially since she voiced to us what her intentions were, and she voiced to us that she was against and maybe I'm incorrect. Did she say she was against the zoning
Speaker 1
02:08:36through the through the chair? I believe that she did state that she would not support the r2 if it didn't permit the kind of transitional housing that she would look at. So that's that.
Speaker 10
02:08:51Would that be, I don't, I'm not a lawyer. Would that be considered a taking? No, through
Speaker 1
02:08:58the through the Chair, if anything, right now, the city could be accused of having taken her no, I'm, I mean, I don't, not a lawyer, and I'm lawyering in front of you the right now, the only thing if she wanted to use her property in a different way, the only thing that the building department could issue her a permit for is a retail center. If she wanted to demolish her house and build a new house, the building department could not give her a permit for that, because a single family dwelling is not permissible under the existing under the existing. PD, which has been, you know, which is, which is lapsed, so that right now she and 70, you know, 70 home owners and residents are in kind of a limbo state as to what they can do. Well,
Speaker 10
02:10:03the young lady wants to establish a business at her property. And again, my concern is that she came to us, indicated that she would like to establish a business at her property. Now, right now she could change her business idea to a retail center, and she would be able to do it. She wants to establish a business at her property. My concern is that she came to us. I just, we just had a hearing on a much less intense area, and we're going with SD one at Telegraph Road. We're going with our two. So I will, you know, I just want to be well understood that I am totally against us just taking that opportunity away from her, without exploring how she would be able to move forward with a business idea. And I don't know if she has the financing or anything, you know the financing for it, or anything like that. I just, I just want to voice my opposition to us just taking her opportunity away. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 3
02:11:30Thank you commission, Lewis, and if I can ask a couple clarifying questions today, she could that app that resident cannot have that use in her home today, correct?
Speaker 1
02:11:43That's correct. It would be considered a change of use, and it to a use that's not permitted under the zone. And
Speaker 3
02:11:52the proposed change, if we were to go back to r1 she would not be able to have that use. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
02:11:59R1 would not permit the transitional housing that she envisions. Correct,
Speaker 3
02:12:05okay. R2 does not permit that particular use. That's correct, okay. So historically, that use has not been permitted there and in both immediate routes. Based on what the PD allows us to do, she would still not be able to allow that use. That generally correct. If going r1 or
Unknown Speaker
02:12:27two, that's correct. Okay,
Speaker 3
02:12:30r3 allows the use. But I think what I'm hearing is there is not a determination on how much of that area to make our three. And if there is an appetite for our three outside of that one in particular resident who wants to do a use that is not permitted anyway, that's correct, okay? And if we were to entertain a portion of that area being zoned r3 just that solo property being zoned r3 we have not done the proper noticing and legal preparation to allow that to take place. So if we were, we'd have to either start over or close here and pick up another option, yes,
Unknown Speaker
02:13:13that's correct, okay. And
Speaker 3
02:13:18lastly, the the alternative option we have, and I think this came up on the third is, if r3 is not suitable for that area, r2 and r1 don't allow that use to exist, then our next option, I think you said it, is to look at the zoning ordinance and zoning ordinance and determine, if, not just in this area, if our two should support this particular house transitional housing use, if all districts in the city that are zoned are to if transitional housing would be appropriate. Is that the other option? I hear
Speaker 1
02:13:57yes, that would be the text amendment approach. Okay, and
Speaker 3
02:14:02just for the sake of everyone listening, what would that process look like? I think we've done something similar. Can you just speak to that?
Speaker 1
02:14:09Yes, a text amendment basically would be rewriting the rules for what is permitted and on what basis in which zoning district. And a good example of that had to do with group daycare homes for seven to 12 minor children. And so it would go through the same process of there needing to be a hearing before the planning commission, recommendation from the Commission going to city council, and then for city council holding its public hearing before voting on that text amendment. Okay,
Speaker 3
02:14:48so that I'm just going to run some hypotheticals. If we go forward with an r2 and we we close it today, and we came back with further discussion to investigate if the r2 district is appropriate for transitional housing uses. And we determine it would be determined if it's permitted by right or conditional. And then that homeowner, there may be a fee associated with that process for conditional land uses. I'm not sure what BC charges, but at least there would be an avenue where that resident can get that use, and the residents have an opportunity to provide some sort of input, hypothetically, if it's a conditional use on how they feel about that use going into that district.
Speaker 1
02:15:34Yes, if we're listed as a conditional use in the zoning ordinance that allows the building department to consider the use where
Speaker 3
02:15:43and currently, today, she has no pathway, either existing r1 or two to do that,
Speaker 1
02:15:50that's correct. Okay. And again, as I think we mentioned last week, the the only kinds of similar uses that are permissible in r1 and r2 are what the zoning Enabling Act refers to a state licensed residential facilities. This would either be an adult foster care home for one to six adults or a child caring institution for one to six children. And the state has said, if you're if your ordinance allows a house on a by right basis, then you have to allow a one to six person, A, F, C, adult foster care home or child caring institution to go in there we're looking at an area where you can't even have a one to six person state licensed residential facility because the zoning doesn't allow for single family dwellings in the PD, in the PD, in the current PD,
Speaker 3
02:16:50the current PD. So I guess we kind of misspoke a little bit. There is an avenue for her to do it today. I'm sorry if we go to our two but she has to go through the state. She just can't operate it as a private non state license.
Speaker 1
02:17:06She would be able to if she chose to operate as either an adult foster care home or a child caring institution. She does that with the blessing of she could be licensed by the state. The city has no basis on which to say no, under our tomb, her proposal was for a different kind of group living situation that is specifically having to do with returning citizens being able to live together.
Speaker 3
02:17:41Okay? I think that, think we're all at least. I think we went through it okay. I have no further questions commissioners. Commissioner Russell,
Speaker 11
02:17:50I'd like to make a motion to accept staff's recommendation.
Speaker 3
02:17:55Thank 
you, Commissioner Ross, do we have a second? Thank you, Commissioner Esparza, all in support of approving staff's recommendation as presented for the 11 sites. You know, let's do a roll call. Director Todd, can we do a roll call for this? Certainly. Mr. Chair, thank you.
+2
you, Commissioner Ross, do we have a second? Thank you, Commissioner Esparza, all in support of approving staff's recommendation as presented for the 11 sites. You know, let's do a roll call. Director Todd, can we do a roll call for this? Certainly. Mr. Chair, thank you. Unknown Speaker
02:18:28Commissioner Bennett, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Esparza motion, Commissioner Harrison support, Commissioner Lewis nay, Commissioner Russell support.
Speaker 3
02:18:52Harris Smith. Can I support with additional language statement? Come back, I want to add additional language to the motion. Do I support it and add or I gotta add it to it after it that
Speaker 2
02:19:03would have been appropriate under discussion before taking the vote. Support, all right, and commissioners Markowitz and udavi are excused. Mr. Chair, the tally comes out to six votes for and one against.
Speaker 3
02:19:25Okay. Thank you. So that motion passes. Can I give staff some I guess recommend, recommending action follow up, action and staff investigate and look at the impacts of potentially allowing transitional housing. Well, if we can include transitional housing group one through six, seven through 13, I think seven to 13 and adult Fauci Can we just holistically look at those kind of ancillary housing options in the r1 r2 and r3 just maybe across the board, let's just get a sense of what we can and can do. Yes, and maybe, let's throw child care in there, just for holistic view at it. Commissioner Lewis, yes,
Speaker 10
02:20:15Mr. Chair, I, I just wanted to state that I was looking at the fact that she was a budding Telegraph Road. Now, if something came before the commission to allow transitional housing and all those kinds of things throughout the city of Detroit are one r2 then I would personally have to rethink that, because I do know that there in most communities, folks are really kind of not in my neighborhood. My thought was that since the young lady was right there at Telegraph and that she did appear, that perhaps we could do something for her, especially in light of the fact that we just allowed an SD one not knowing what's going to happen, that we could, you know, we're right now, I feel like we're establishing the winners and the losers. So, but I appreciate, Dr Bulger, you know, I appreciate very much everything that you present. I just wanted to go to bat for that young lady Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank
Unknown Speaker
02:21:32you, Director Todd,
Speaker 2
02:21:35thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to Commissioner Lewis and hearing her loud and clear. Want to give you just a little bit of further comfort at least, or at least explanation to fully address your point. One of the differences between this particular site and the site of the first public hearing is the vacancy. That area is largely vacant. The city controls the land, so there is an opportunity to assemble and offer and potentially control the land, working with the community in this area, despite the fact that there was a failed development, the area is by and large intact. The dwelling still stand, and they are mostly occupied. We're not looking at an area that is unstable, looking for development, we're now trying to support the development that was previous, the existing development that was previously slated to be demolished. So that would be the difference. It True enough. If it were the same circumstance, staff quite well would have recommended the same zoning. But that's the difference. It's not just its locale, with respect to the street activity and the other uses, adjacent or budding, but it's also the condition. And the other thing when it comes to the particular use that she's pursuing, this is a use that we get calls about, and BC gets calls about a lot, and it is one that is typically highly objectionable, and it's why we're saying this would need to undergo its own separate hearing and approach, so that the other property owners, her neighbors, even though she says she has some support, would also have the opportunity to speak to it in terms of Any injury, any concerns that they might feel. Again, we're very much sensitive to it because, as you just said, you know, this is a NIMBY type, type use, most certainly, but it is definitely a use that we need to be providing for. And just checking with Deputy Director Gulak, as we've indicated, this pro housing grant that we're hoping to utilize to really focus more in on changes to the ordinance to support all forms of housing would allow us, we believe, to look at that particular housing type among all of the other typologies and uses at that time.
Speaker 10
02:23:51Thank you, Director Todd, I appreciate that explanation. It's very helpful.
Speaker 3
02:23:57Thank you. All right. Dr Balder, can you close us out with next steps
Speaker 1
02:24:04at this point, now that the vote has been taken, the ordinance can be submitted to, can be prepared and submitted to, first off, to the sick, to the survey Bureau at City engineering and Department of Public Works, because this is going to be quite the legal description for this rezoning Given the 11 sites. So we're likely to see a good number of weeks and perhaps months go by before we get the signature on the legal descriptions, which are integral part of the map amendment ordinance. That map amendment then gets put together and submitted to the Corporation Counsel for a review and sign off. Once that is done, then your recommendation is prepared and submitted to city council for its action, it can then take up the take up the issue in committee and schedule a public hearing on the ordinance. Okay?
Speaker 3
02:25:10Thank you again. Appreciate you all on all your hard work on correcting these. PDS, I know it takes a lot of time and effort, so thank you. Thank you. All right, our second unfinished business item, this is the consideration of the request of rock development, rock economic development group, to amend article X, V, I, I, Section 5017, three, district map number two of the 2019 Detroit city code chapter 50 zoning for a PD modification, to modify the terms and conditions of the PD zoning classification established by ordinance 42 dash 95 for the properly commonly known as 1326, Saint Anton, generally bounded by San Anton Clinton Avenue, I 375, and Macomb Street. Mr. Jeffrey, are you here with us?
Speaker 12
02:26:02Say on Mr. Chair, and I'm promoting the development team. We will be very brief, as I believe most of your questions have to answer. If somebody can help me, just promote the folks that have their hands raised from the development team. I believe Lillian Mike marks and I believe Sam Ross just joined. So again, Kimani Jeffrey of CPC staff, we're going to go through this very quick slide deck, just to recap, this is as this is in relation to the gracious site where we, many folks, have come to call it the failed jail site, but now being proposed for the start of an innovation district. So this is the first building that's being proposed for this district is the Gratiot Life Sciences building. We have our Petitioner rock economic development group, if they want to introduce themselves.
Speaker 18
02:27:04Hi there. I'm Sam rouse with bedrock here, representing rock economic development group. My camera seems to not be working, but I'm here.
Unknown Speaker
02:27:13Thank you, welcome.
Unknown Speaker
02:27:16Oh, go ahead. Lillian,
Speaker 19
02:27:18oh, sorry. Hi Lily and Hila, architect with bedrock, good to see you all.
Speaker 20
02:27:24Thank you and hi Michael Marks with kipples, Webster, the civil engineers and surveyors on the project.
Speaker 12
02:27:32So 
So, thank you, Mr. Chair. So very quickly, just to recap, this is the site just off of Gratiot and I 375 site is currently zoned. PD, we're looking at the portion that's in the hash blue line. This was proposed to be rezoned. This is modifying a previous plan development that allow for the youth, juvenile detention center that's currently being demolished. You can see that on the right hand of this slide, and just to there was pretty much all of the questions were answered, except for except for a handful. And so the developer put these responses together, and we just want to briefly go through them and just touch on them high level, to respond to the Commission's questions from the last meeting. So we have someone from the development team
+2
So, thank you, Mr. Chair. So very quickly, just to recap, this is the site just off of Gratiot and I 375 site is currently zoned. PD, we're looking at the portion that's in the hash blue line. This was proposed to be rezoned. This is modifying a previous plan development that allow for the youth, juvenile detention center that's currently being demolished. You can see that on the right hand of this slide, and just to there was pretty much all of the questions were answered, except for except for a handful. And so the developer put these responses together, and we just want to briefly go through them and just touch on them high level, to respond to the Commission's questions from the last meeting. So we have someone from the development team Speaker 18
02:28:30that's going to help us with that. Sure I can, I can go through it. Thanks again for your time today. One of the questions was asking about how we who are engaging on the project for because of construction work, and how we plan to engage the local community and hiring Detroiters and regional and local community folks. So we did award a construction manager to Turner Construction through an RFP, the demolition of the existing facility that Kimani showed a picture of was we're into the Pharaoh group, which is the local Detroit company. And just want to say, while Turner brings national experience, subject matter and you know, and expertise and processes to to these types of projects. They do hire local subcontractors, and those are the folks who will be performing with the work. They'll be local to the metro Detroit area, so they don't bring in outside subcontractors from other other places. And then, and then lastly, I just kind of wanted to emphasize that I mentioned it last time, and want to restate that, you know, we're, we're committed to ensuring, you know, local community benefits from the project, and we are actively partnering with workforce development agencies. We'll be participating in local job fairs and posting opportunities through local colleges, and encouraging local apprentice hiring through trade unions, and active, actively seeking local vendors. And I'll just add to that that we have, actually, we're hiring a group to do this for for us via, via an RFP. So go the next slide. I think another question was, was, does band health have existing partnerships locally? They do. We work with them to to understand this a little bit better. They do collaborate with with all health systems and academic systems throughout state of Michigan. And they want this type of care to be accessible and affordable to all. And one of the ways they do that is they receive patient referrals. And I'm just kind of reading from the words here, because they're put put together pretty well, but so if a for example, they're working with a.if a patient's working with a doctor from corewell health or Henry Ford Health, then they may be referred down to about Vamp for specific treatment that Banff can provide that one of those others couldn't. And then the reverse is also true. A Banff will refer to those institutions, and they'll collaborate on that. And then, as far as facilitating access to care for Detroit residents, that's the goal of banff's expansion in Detroit, is is, is to care for Detroit residents, and so they plan to work with local and regional health systems and community leaders to achieve that. I think we went through these. We just wanted to kind of recap them in words that we, you know, we've we've received support from the downtown Detroit partnership and Greentown neighborhood partnership, and we've reached out the Lafayette West, and we'll look forward to being open and engaging with them regarding the plans, when we can get a meeting scheduled up with their management. Regarding sustainability, we're pursuing LEED certification for the project. We're excited about that. It's we're on track to achieve that with the designs as they are now, and regarding water reuse in the building, I thought this is an interesting one. I had to dig into it a little bit with the civil engineer. With the civil engineers, but so we the entire site, as we mentioned last time, will be served by a district stormwater tank. And inclusive to that design, is an automated control valve that will close out the structure to retain stormwater for non potable reuses in the park above, as we can use it and then, and it'll automatically release water prior to a rain event. So to do you know, to ensure there's adequate detention capacity that that that isn't that we can catch the new rain into the into the detention tank,
Speaker 12
02:32:29so that this concludes the outstanding questions that the Commission requested responses for, just to quickly recap the master plan is this. This proposal is conducive to the city's master plan. The site is currently zoned PD. It will remain PD for the time being, and we are the petitioners requesting a PD modification. So the old Terms and Conditions permitted for the juvenile detention center, the new PD will permit for this development. But in addition to that, we are proposing, as we've done recently, the Commission might recall the PD for the Renaissance tower 600 where we, we drafted the ordinance to allow for the b5 uses. We've done that a few for a few different projects in recent history. We're proposing to the do that, just because we know that. You know, sometimes some things can shift. And this is not the developer speaking, but this is City staff speaking. As some things might shift, we want to make sure that there's no implications on, you know, the uses being so specific that the developer doesn't have any opportunity to shift programming if anything changes. And so we just want to allow for the b5 uses to be in that PD, and just as the parcels to the west are all zone b5 This would allow this building to be have that the same flexibility of those uses, but still has control over design, site plans and elevations. So that's what we are proposing. So staff would recommend approval of this item with these following conditions that the developer will continue to work with the surrounding property owners and community during construction. Specifically, that's a typical condition that we include in PDS, that the developer will also mitigate any possible, you know, concerns and continue to work with CPC staff to further refine any aspects of the project's design that allows us to have a little bit of flexibility. If you know, design is to change somewhat, if there was a major change, we would bring it back to the commission, but we just want to make sure that there's some level of flexibility so that minor changes don't impact timelines and things of that nature. And then the third condition would be that the developer, which we typically require that they submit final site plans, elevation, landscaping, lighting, signage plans to CPC staff before submitting for building permits. And that's just to make sure that you know sometimes, sometimes there might be a long gap between when something is approved and when a developer actually submits for building permits. We don't expect that in this instance, but that's our typical condition, to make sure that everything is in alignment with what's been approved by the legislative bodies. So those are recommended. Our recommendation is for approval with those conditions, and with that, Mr. Chair, if there's any questions, we can entertain those at this time. Thank you.
Speaker 3
02:35:58Mr. Jeffrey thank you for your presentation. As this is an item that has been before us before. I'll see if my commissioners have any questions, Commissioner Lewis and then Commissioner Harrison,
Speaker 10
02:36:12Mr. Jeffries, I just have one quick question, what was the original PD?
Speaker 12
02:36:22Through the Chair to Commissioner Lewis, the original PD allowed for the current jail that's currently being board the juvenile detention center that's currently being demolished now. So that was built, but now it's being demolished, and then the rest of the site is where the failed jail, what we know as the failed jail, is currently existing as parking, surface parking, but that's where that site was to, just north of the juvenile center,
Speaker 10
02:36:52okay? And with this modification, it would allow the petitioner to place a medical type facility there that correct. So we're not changing the PD. We're just modifying it Right,
Speaker 12
02:37:05correct. The site is PD now will remain PD, just with new terms, conditions and site plans attached to
Speaker 10
02:37:11it. Thank you. Mister Jeffries, mm, thank
Speaker 3
02:37:14you. And for clarification, the only uses technically that would be permitted are the former juvenile center use and the current proposed research facility use. Or are we completely getting rid of the juvenile use altogether?
Speaker 12
02:37:31Yes, that would no longer those. We essentially wipe the sake slate clean, for lack of a better term, and rewrite what the new terms and conditions are with this ordinance.
Speaker 3
02:37:44Okay, so any further changes outside of this particular footprint within the PUD would come back to us for review. Correct, okay, Director Todd and then Commissioner Harris. Thank
Speaker 2
02:37:59you, Mr. Chair. Just wanted to take this opportunity to add one additional point of clarity with respect to this, but that particular aspect of it the former Wayne County Juvenile Detention Center when the petitioner was looking to demolish the facility in order to allow that to go through without formal modification or to advance the proposal that is before you now, they produced a letter indicating that they were relinquishing development rights. So the understanding was that at that point they were relinquishing the existing development rights for the juvenile detention center and would then be coming before you, as they are now and then, subsequently, city council in order to modify the PD for this new use.
Speaker 3
02:38:48Was there an internal concern that kind of ushered them to do that, or was that just kind of something they offered through community negotiations, through to
Speaker 2
02:38:59you, Mr. Chair and the Commission, this was something that we offered in order to get beyond the inability to sign off on the PD, without there being the typical requisite change via ordinance, Gotcha, okay, or some other provision within the PD that would allow
Unknown Speaker
02:39:18it Okay? Thank you, Commissioner Harris,
Speaker 8
02:39:21thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to ask the question when the petitioner was before us before I asked a question specifically about whether they had taken any consideration to the design to consider factors that might mitigate bird collisions concerns as an additional element of of environment, I'm wondering if the petitioners have, have, have took that did they take that into consideration? Um, like to hear response,
Speaker 18
02:39:53yes. Thank you very much. We, we are taking that into consideration the we're going through design development plans, and it was brought up in our most recent design meeting with the architects that we we need to make sure we, you know, adhere to the zoning and any I uh, any codes related to the, you know, keeping birds safe. I think we can all agree just just to be serious, that we don't want birds on the ground in front of our facility when people are coming there to get treated. So we will be definitely looking at that. And we have the architects engaged in making sure they're researching types of glass and types of frit patterns that are good for the folks inside to look through and look out and see the beautiful park, but also good for the the animal life, so that they don't choose to fly into the windows. So yes, thank you for bringing that up, and we continue to study what the best frit pattern is to keep the birds safe. Thank you.
Speaker 3
02:41:01Thank you. Commissioner Harrison staff question, we approving the site plan with this modification at this we are at the same time. Okay, gotcha All right, any other questions of commissioners? I see none. This is not a public hearing, so this is a continued item. So we did hear staff's recommendation. So the floor is open for a motion. Commissioner, Esparza, Chairman,
Speaker 14
02:41:27I'm ready to make a motion. You just have a question for our planner, Kimani Jeffrey, the conditions that you stated previously was there a condition that is requiring that their final design documents are subject to your review? Staff, review
Speaker 12
02:41:51through the chair, through the chair to Commissioner Esparza, that is correct, that condition number three does list that requirement.
Speaker 14
02:42:03Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman. I'd like to make a motion that we accept the recommendation by our planner, Kimani Jeffrey, for this agenda item.
Speaker 3
02:42:12Thank you. Commissioner Esparza, do we have a second? Commissioner Bennett, thank you for your second all in support. You have questions.
Speaker 8
02:42:19Well, just, just, just a just a comment. As it relates to this item, I would like to ensure that Mr. Jeffries is a part of that final review sort of look at those factors that take into account mitigation of anything that might impact birds or, you know, taking into account any design elements that could enhance the safety and ensure that that's considered. But
Speaker 3
02:42:41we just want to make sure commodities in the room as this moves forward. So what does that what I'm hearing Commissioner,
Speaker 14
02:42:48yes, okay, would agree that we are very explicit with what Commissioner Harrison has added. Very much. So
Speaker 3
02:42:57thank you adding that to your motion. Yes, please as a fourth or fifth condition.
Speaker 2
02:43:01I think fourth right. We can, we can include it in the listing. Thank you. Thank you. All right,
Speaker 3
02:43:07so there is a motion by Commissioner as far as a second, by Commissioner Bennett in support of staff's recommendation and the additional listed items, all in support of approving the motion as presented, indicate your support with the sign of aye, aye, aye. And all in opposition assign them Nay. Alright. There are no nays The ayes have it? So the motion has been approved with the conditions and line items as recommended by staff. Alright, Mister Jeffery, you want to close us out with some next steps and what you'll be working on next.
Speaker 12
02:43:41Thank you. We'll be submitting a an ordinance to the to the law department for review, and then from there, we'll be going to city council once we are approved, the staff ordinance was approved.
Unknown Speaker
02:43:57Awesome. Thank you, Mr. Jeffer, thank you.
Unknown Speaker
02:44:02Alright. Thank you all.
Speaker 3
02:44:05Thank you. Alright. So we have that concludes all of our unfinished business. Next, we have one new business item. This is a consideration on of the request of Holcomb development on behalf of 6465 Sterling LLC for a PD extension or a residential rehab property at 6465 Sterling Street. Mister Gulak, will you be supporting us with this item this evening, whenever you're ready.
Speaker 21
02:44:46Thank you. Mr. Chair Chris, good luck. CPC staff. We also may be joined by the petitioner online. Mr. Andrew Casa motivated and Mr. Chair, with your permission, I have a brief slide show given an overview of this request. Yep,
Unknown Speaker
02:45:04whenever you're ready,
Speaker 3
02:45:14you I do see the applicant in the zoom. I don't know if he wanted to introduce himself while you get situated.
Speaker 22
02:45:23Good 
evening. Andrew says, I'm managing partner of Holcomb development. Appreciate your time this evening and looking forward to rehabbing this 100 year old department building. All right.
+1
evening. Andrew says, I'm managing partner of Holcomb development. Appreciate your time this evening and looking forward to rehabbing this 100 year old department building. All right. Unknown Speaker
02:45:38Thank you, Mr. Gula, whenever you're ready. Thank
Speaker 21
02:45:40you, 
Mr. Chair, yes, staff submitted a report regarding this request. It's it involves a building at 6465 Sterling street on zoning map seven, shown as the black star on the map. It's located right next to Henry Ford Health System. It shows a map of the location. You can see West Grand Boulevard here at the north part of the screen. The red.is the proposed it's a subject building just south of the Cancer Institute. Zooming closer this this yellow box outlines the triangular shaped building as Mr. Because that says, it says it's been there over 100 years. This is located on the west side of sterling Street, just north of Holden, south of the Henry Ford facility. This shows a view from the street. The building has been vacant for a number of years. I believe it used it was built in the 1926 with about 26 units, and now they're over the years, it was reduced to 20 units. Developers proposing to rehab this building and reopen it with the 20 units. The one challenge is it's kind of part, it's part of a PD. So council may recall, back in 2014 Henry Ford, at the time, proposed a Grand Trunk crossing project which involved Well part of it was to Well part of it, it was to rezone land for the Cancer Institute, but also part of it was to rezone part of it to PD for the Grand Trunk crossing project, which included building several new residential structures, rehabbing this particular building. So over there was over 100 units proposed along Sterling Street, north of Holden. So you can see it on the map here the so the east and west sides of sterling were resolved by council to plan development as part of that 
project, which was over 10 years ago. And over the years, Henry Ford has had challenges with the project developing it. So in 2016 they asked for a minor modification from city council to that PD, and they reduced the number of units, I think, to about 7070 plus units. And yeah, here just they reduced it from 154 units to 77 units. But it still included rehabbing this particular building. But the rest was new construction that was in 2016 and you recall PDS kind of this three year window. So that was within the three year window, and then in 20 and then in November of 2026, years after the approval. Henry Ford also gave an update on the project to the commission and council, and then at that point, they asked for additional time, and the CPC recommended that the grand truck PD be extended for four years until November 2024 and Council passed a resolution for that in january 20 in january 2021 and as well, then it turns out, I think Henry Ford had a change of plans. And in 2022 they sold this particular building to the current developer before you tonight. And then, as the commission is aware, in 2024 Henry Ford announced the big future of health project, which is a partnership with the pistons and to really redevelop this area and east of the lodge, you know, as a with a lot of residential uses, mixed use and additional healthcare facilities. So that was in 2024 and so at that time, they asked to rezone much of the land east of Australian Street, all the way to the lodge, to be five, unfortunately. So that kind of removed half of the PD. So at the time, so the PD on the west side Australian street remained. In hindsight, we probably should have asked Henry Ford, how do you want to deal with this? PD that we created for them in 2014 but we didn't. So this particular building is kind of stuck in this PD, on the west side of sterling. So the the future of health is moving forward. You can see it being built, you know, near West Grand Boulevard in the lodge, which is good news. We understand that Henry Ford doesn't have immediate plans now for this Grand Trunk crossing. I think they're willing to sell parts of the of the land. You know different developers, but nothing is concrete. But this particular developer, before you bought the building, and they would like to rehab it. And they need, they basically need an extension of the PD again. So that's what they're requesting the planning commission, city council. So the proposal is, the group is called Holcomb development company, proposed and rehab the building with 20 units. Unfortunately, all they bought from Henry Ford is just it's the footprint of the building. So regarding parking, Henry Ford's building that large new parking deck next to the building, and I think they have an agreement, if residents want parking, they would be able to pay for parking in that structure. So the developer is asking the one option is to amend the PD, but that would take four to six months. So staff has determined with law departments that another extension, or question requesting of another extension to the PD is appropriate, and that's what we're recommending. So we're we're recommending a 24 month extension to the PD to allow this project move forward down the road, we probably will try to work with Henry Ford to resolve this PD, but I can answer any questions or turn it over to developer if they want to anything that I may have missed. Thank
+4
Mr. Chair, yes, staff submitted a report regarding this request. It's it involves a building at 6465 Sterling street on zoning map seven, shown as the black star on the map. It's located right next to Henry Ford Health System. It shows a map of the location. You can see West Grand Boulevard here at the north part of the screen. The red.is the proposed it's a subject building just south of the Cancer Institute. Zooming closer this this yellow box outlines the triangular shaped building as Mr. Because that says, it says it's been there over 100 years. This is located on the west side of sterling Street, just north of Holden, south of the Henry Ford facility. This shows a view from the street. The building has been vacant for a number of years. I believe it used it was built in the 1926 with about 26 units, and now they're over the years, it was reduced to 20 units. Developers proposing to rehab this building and reopen it with the 20 units. The one challenge is it's kind of part, it's part of a PD. So council may recall, back in 2014 Henry Ford, at the time, proposed a Grand Trunk crossing project which involved Well part of it was to Well part of it, it was to rezone land for the Cancer Institute, but also part of it was to rezone part of it to PD for the Grand Trunk crossing project, which included building several new residential structures, rehabbing this particular building. So over there was over 100 units proposed along Sterling Street, north of Holden. So you can see it on the map here the so the east and west sides of sterling were resolved by council to plan development as part of that 
+1
project, which was over 10 years ago. And over the years, Henry Ford has had challenges with the project developing it. So in 2016 they asked for a minor modification from city council to that PD, and they reduced the number of units, I think, to about 7070 plus units. And yeah, here just they reduced it from 154 units to 77 units. But it still included rehabbing this particular building. But the rest was new construction that was in 2016 and you recall PDS kind of this three year window. So that was within the three year window, and then in 20 and then in November of 2026, years after the approval. Henry Ford also gave an update on the project to the commission and council, and then at that point, they asked for additional time, and the CPC recommended that the grand truck PD be extended for four years until November 2024 and Council passed a resolution for that in january 20 in january 2021 and as well, then it turns out, I think Henry Ford had a change of plans. And in 2022 they sold this particular building to the current developer before you tonight. And then, as the commission is aware, in 2024 Henry Ford announced the big future of health project, which is a partnership with the pistons and to really redevelop this area and east of the lodge, you know, as a with a lot of residential uses, mixed use and additional healthcare facilities. So that was in 2024 and so at that time, they asked to rezone much of the land east of Australian Street, all the way to the lodge, to be five, unfortunately. So that kind of removed half of the PD. So at the time, so the PD on the west side Australian street remained. In hindsight, we probably should have asked Henry Ford, how do you want to deal with this? PD that we created for them in 2014 but we didn't. So this particular building is kind of stuck in this PD, on the west side of sterling. So the the future of health is moving forward. You can see it being built, you know, near West Grand Boulevard in the lodge, which is good news. We understand that Henry Ford doesn't have immediate plans now for this Grand Trunk crossing. I think they're willing to sell parts of the of the land. You know different developers, but nothing is concrete. But this particular developer, before you bought the building, and they would like to rehab it. And they need, they basically need an extension of the PD again. So that's what they're requesting the planning commission, city council. So the proposal is, the group is called Holcomb development company, proposed and rehab the building with 20 units. Unfortunately, all they bought from Henry Ford is just it's the footprint of the building. So regarding parking, Henry Ford's building that large new parking deck next to the building, and I think they have an agreement, if residents want parking, they would be able to pay for parking in that structure. So the developer is asking the one option is to amend the PD, but that would take four to six months. So staff has determined with law departments that another extension, or question requesting of another extension to the PD is appropriate, and that's what we're recommending. So we're we're recommending a 24 month extension to the PD to allow this project move forward down the road, we probably will try to work with Henry Ford to resolve this PD, but I can answer any questions or turn it over to developer if they want to anything that I may have missed. Thank Speaker 3
02:51:24you. Thank you. Mr. Good luck. I just had one question. Thank you. Articulated, but I just visual. What is the scope of the PD, of the boundaries of the PD that this project is currently in
Speaker 21
02:51:39if you look on the map. Thank you, Mr. Chair for the question. Well, the PD footprint used to be on the east and the west side of sterling, north of Holden, but now it's the scope is just these two blocks on the west. I mean, the boundaries are, now, are the the two blocks on the west side of sterling, north of Holden, so the PD, half of all I see, yeah, it was a PB block, right? And they used to be, used to be two more on the other side of the street these. This was the original PD, which was four blocks here I see. And then, okay, future both health remove these to rezone these to be five on the side. So these two PDS remain, yeah,
Speaker 3
02:52:21oh, I see they took all of that PD on other side of sterling and made it be five. Okay,
Speaker 21
02:52:25all the land is through, sure. All the land is vacant on these both sides of the street,
Speaker 3
02:52:31okay, um, the extension. Thank you for that. That catches me up. The extension is 24 months, and the residential apartment building is already permitted within the PD, they just need the extension so they pull apartments today. That's true,
Speaker 21
02:52:44and I understand they've pulled some permits to kind of secure the building to address health and safety issues, but they would like to get their permits approved. The permits are being held now until the Council and the Commission the council act, yeah, I would like to
Speaker 22
02:52:59add, given the extension, the project is fully funded, we have our loan in place, and we are just about finished through the B seed permit process. So we have every intention of of completing the project well before the the the 24 month extension expires, we are as close as it can get to shovel in the ground. In fact, we're already mobilized at the site, just securing the building from further damage. We've put a new roof on and stabilize some structural elements that were damaged in a significant fire during vacancy. So
Speaker 3
02:53:40thank you. And I do see on on the agenda, there's recommendation for action this evening. Do you have a recommendation?
Speaker 21
02:53:48Yes, Mr. Chair staff, would would recommend approval of the 24 month extension to the PD for the rehabilitation of 64 65 trillion Street. Okay,
Speaker 3
02:54:03and for clarification, this the first time it came to us in this fashion. Or do we have to do anything? We have to do any waivers or anything? No,
Speaker 2
02:54:15through the chair, no. Again, this is certainly something that has been before you in the past, on at least, I believe, four other occasions.
Speaker 3
02:54:22Okay, sounds good, at least three. Thank you, commissioners. Do we have any questions of staff or the applicant? I see no questions. So staff has provided us a recommendation and is looking for some form of action this evening. So the floor is open for a motion. Commissioner, sparser,
Speaker 14
02:54:41Chairman, I'm ready to move. I just have a question for Deputy Director, just based on the fact that been quite a journey for this property, and also based on the world that we live in now and all of the surprises, would it be appropriate if I were to amend your recommendation to 30 months versus 24 I want to be assured that he has every opportunity and time is not a limitation.
Speaker 21
02:55:17Through the Chair, I don't think we're opposed to extending it to 30 or 3036, months or three years or
Speaker 2
02:55:2530. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Esparza to add to Mr. Gulak's response. Again, you will recall, as part of the sixth general text amendment, we are eliminating the lapse provisions, and we will be coming back to you to develop further policies around the PD, consistent with all of the work that we have been doing from stemming from Dr bulges work. So it is our hope that later on this year, an extension will no longer be even necessary. But we appreciate the belt and suspenders that you'd like to put on it, and I know the developer would appreciate it as well. So we certainly would not object 30 months, 36 months, but I know that he hopes to be done by then
Unknown Speaker
02:56:10we do 36 Yes, 36 Yeah.
Speaker 14
02:56:17So Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the recommendation by Deputy Director for this agenda item with the revision to allow for three years extension.
Unknown Speaker
02:56:32Thank you.
Speaker 3
02:56:33Thank you. Commissioner Esparza, do we have a second support? I'm sorry, Commissioner Harrison. Commissioner Harrison, thank you for the support. All in support of staff's recommendation and the revised language to include 36 months, indicate your support with a sign of aye, aye and all in opposition. Sign of Nay. There are no nays. The motion passes. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, Mr. Gulak and the applicant, Mr. Gula, can you just give us some close us out with some next steps? Yes,
Speaker 21
02:57:08Mr. Chair, the next step is for us to do a quick memo and resolution to submit to council as soon as possible, so to get on their agenda for consideration. Okay, I'm good. Thank
Speaker 3
02:57:18you. Best of luck to the applicant. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Thank you. All right, that concludes our new business. So moving forward, committee reports, I think we're tabling committee reports that would or we have committee reports. Commissioner Lewis, table, okay, so we'll table committee.
Unknown Speaker
02:57:44Director Todd.
Unknown Speaker
02:57:46Go ahead, Director Todd, thank
Speaker 2
02:57:48you, Mr. Chair. In your table packet, you have a communication that was presented to the special committee from HRD regarding proposed modifications to the public facility rehab component of the neighborhood Opportunity Fund.
Speaker 3
02:58:05Which one we all we are looking
Speaker 10
02:58:14Director Todd, I don't think the letter was, I didn't see the letter in the packet, yeah,
Speaker 6
02:58:20neither. The letter was emailed to the Commission earlier this afternoon.
Speaker 3
02:58:27Yes, it was. So it's in our email. It's not in our packets, right? Yeah, yeah, it is not in our package. All right,
Speaker 2
02:58:41we'll make sure that you get hard copies as needed. The fact of the matter is, is that that communication may likely be revised. In short, what we wanted to do today was as part of the committee reporting out to provide the full commission with that document. And let me quickly skip ahead with regard to the other item that is still on the agenda, and that being the continued discussion with regard to the Citizen Review Committee being again re thought, and the approach that we're heading with now is increasing grassroots involvement in the process in some way that will be taken up at the next meeting of the special committee. Due to some technical issues and some very robust discussion, we were unable to get to that. But this item, which is certainly also important to HRD, and is a timely one, what we would like to do is bring it formally BEFORE YOU at your next meeting on the 15th, if not then, then the meeting, first meeting in June. Director Schneider was here earlier. She is unable to be here at this point in time. But in short, what they would like to do, and commissioners may recall, in 2022 I believe when Black grant came before you, there was a project that Mr. Gulak had been working on, or I should say there were those. There was a PFR proposal that was related to a project that Mr. Gulak had worked on in the past, by IFF for daycare. And there were other public facility rehab proposals that were being considered that evening. And there were a number of questions about how they were selected, why they were selected, and why they were given the various awards that they were that the administration was proposing. And it was at that time, the number of concerns that were raised by the Commission and then subsequently city council, that HRD recognized that there was a need to provide a little bit more structure to that program, and very quickly for the Commission's reminder and the benefit of the public. Public facility rehab is one of the programs under the neighborhood Opportunity Fund that allows the city to award funds to those nonprofits that are conducting viable activities that benefit the city for the purpose of rehabbing the facilities facility or facilities in which they operate. So in this case, or even for some limited new construction in association with such activities, what they have determined, after years of this being an issue in one form or another, is that they would like to take that pot of money and provide pre development dollars in order for there to be a better evaluation of the feasibility, as well as the extent of the repairs and improvements the rehabilitation that needs to be done at a given facility. And once that is determined and it is determined to be viable, the city makes a commitment, and then would be able to fund the actual work with greater clarity as to what in fact, needs to be done and a greater surety that it can be done in a reasonable time timeline. So what they're suggesting is that that pre development component would not come before the Commission as the others do. Staff would work with them. That would go directly to city council, and then at such time, you know, after that work has been done, and now the actual project would come back, following the traditional route with PFR that the actual proposal for the given rehabilitation work would come before you for evaluation as it has in the past, and the thinking, of course, being at that point, it's coming before you with much greater certainty and an understanding of the work to be done, the cost associated with it, and the timeline, etc. So that's essentially what they're proposing. And I believe they're again, they will make themselves available to come and provide further information, answer any questions that you have. And one of the questions that did come out of the continued discussion at special committee was to specify the role that CPC staff would play so that commissioners are assured of our involvement, the extent thereof, and whatever oversight that we would have. So I did mention that to Director Schneider when she stopped in earlier, and they're more than happy to address that in a forthcoming communication and to address anything else that you may raise this evening in order to be efficient with the matter when it returns BEFORE YOU at your next meeting or the meeting after that.
Speaker 10
03:03:36Thank you, Director Todd. And I would like to say that it was the it was a very productive meeting with Director Schneider and HRD, and I did have some concerns relative to the tracking of it, I do understand there is a great need for pre development, and when you're dealing with an agency that is not a developer, and our main concern is ensuring that we that what We do results in a better quality of life. And my thought is that by taking these actions, when the PFR comes to us, it's ready to go, I did have a concern relative to when those funds are invested, and maybe you find that is not the best opportunity, but when I weigh the benefits, I just I truly feel that this would be an excellent opportunity for HRD to move forward quickly on those types of facilities, and just ahead of time, I do highly recommend that the commission, if our approval is required, that the commission would approve it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 3
03:05:09Thank you, Commissioner Lewis. Thank you Director Todd, certainly staff reports. We have any staff reports, Director,
Speaker 2
03:05:25commissioners, one item that would like to just report out on, and we'll be coming back before you at the next meeting with a further update, as we've alluded to in at recent meetings, we are advancing toward a re engagement with community and with stakeholders on the zone Detroit project, again, that being the revision to the city zoning ordinance, we are looking to enter into a short term contract with our original consultant, in order to co studios, in order to further refine the draft that we've been working toward, in order to have something that is more reflective of the additional things that We have learned since they completed their original work, and that will help us to engage the community independently as CPC, and also in conjunction with the work of our colleagues at PND, along with plan Detroit, the Master Plan Amendment, and again, as I spoke to earlier with regard to the pro Housing Grant, working again with HRD, but with those HUD funds, we will be looking to issue probably a number of RFPs for the different things that will that that those funds will be used for. We will probably be issuing one RFP to bring on a consultant team to allow us again to go back into the zoning ordinance, deal with issues of equity, deal with issues further again, of Master Plan compliance, but focusing by and large on housing, how we can better facilitate affordable housing again, the various housing types, even going back again to what we were discussing with regard to housing for returning citizens, adult foster care, etc, and that will take us, I think that that will get us over. I we all hope the final hump, if you will, so that this proposed amendment or revision to the zoning ordinance will be as comprehensive as possible, given that we didn't start off with the intention necessarily doing that it was going to be refreshing, rethinking, updating the document, but Given that we had limited funds, we were not anticipating the extent to which we are now looking to do that. But again, now we have those funds, so we'll be reporting out further to you. We are meeting with council members in order to provide them the update and prepare them for what actions may be coming before them relative to these new contracts and again, we will be coming before you in the very near future with full update and our proposed plan of action for the next few months again in order to re engage on zone, Detroit,
Speaker 3
03:08:32okay, thank you for the update. Member reports. See no member reports. Okay, communications. Do we have any additional communications director?
Speaker 2
03:08:45We do not. Again, we will provide you with a full update and distribute copies of what we have received at your next meeting.
Speaker 3
03:08:52All right, as there are no communications and we're at the end of the agenda, it is 827 I will, but John this week.
Unknown Speaker
03:09:02Thank you, commissioners,
Unknown Speaker
03:09:03thank you, staff.