On any general item, please raise your hand now.

Uh if you are uh calling in or here for a particular um public hearing, you will have an opportunity during that portion of the meeting to give your comments, but so I'm just asking you to please reserve your your time for that moment.

But if you're calling about anything in general uh that's on the agenda or just in general, period, please raise your hand now.

I think I saw two hands in the committee of the whole.

All right.

Uh going once, going twice, going three times.

Collection of public comments have now concluded.

Uh Ms.

Caprice, good morning to you.

Good morning, sir.

We have 14 callers online, two in person.

Okay.

So it takes us to uh 16 callers.

As I mentioned, we have uh quite a number of public hearings today.

So we want to move briskly.

I'm gonna give everyone uh a minute for general public comment.

And we're gonna allow our two individuals to come to the microphones who are in the committee of the whole currently.

And just as a word of advice, if uh when you get to the microphone, you want to push that button at the bottom and let the all let the red turn uh green.

Oh, we have one.

Okay, sorry about that.

We have one person who wants to speak.

And we're gonna have to give everyone the same amount of time, so please be mindful of the clock.

And your time begins now.

Good morning.

Good morning.

How is everybody doing?

Doing blessed.

I'm Reverend Cheryl Clark, and yes, we all are blessed because we woke up this morning.

Um, my property is 13845 guided.

Um, which is sits in R2 area, and so I'm here to get recognition for that community to be a part of this uh advancement in development with the condos.

Right now they are two sitting on Lumpkin, and I don't know if they I don't know what, but anywhere it's two sitting, two condos sitting on Lumpkin.

So that's how I became aware of the fact of what's happening over there.

So that's all I have to say.

The citizens that well, that's not all I have to say.

The citizens that live in that area have been there for 50 and 60 years, and they should not be left out of this development.

Again, I'm Reverend Cheryl Clark.

My address is 13845 guided 48212.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right, we shall now go to our folks who are calling online.

Who's our first caller?

Our first caller is Owner Papa.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute, general public comment.

Good morning, and through the chair, may I be heard?

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, one minute is really not enough to give the public for general comments.

Um this this whole this whole committee has been a fraud.

What you have planned is to take the money from citizens, property taxes, and fill holes for the things that you have been planning and doing.

I think it's a moral you must be morally bankrupt to come to the people in the city after you've bankrupt their city and then turn around and take their surplus property tax dollars and use them to feel the shortfall for corporate America.

You all ought to be ashamed.

But I know that there's no shame in your game because you're playing a game with the people.

Okay.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Karen Winston.

Uh Karen Winston, the floor is yours.

You have one minute general public comment.

Yes, hello.

Hello.

Uh thank you um for the 60 seconds today.

Um I just during the debate last night, uh, Council President mentioned that two years in a row, 13 checks went out to the retirees.

Well, that was on to police and fire.

The general retirees did not get a 13th check.

We got 464 dollars this past May.

So that was not truthful.

Now, not being not being truthful.

I'm having a hard time believing anything, council president says to be truthful.

Um, so we need to concentrate not on fast track, not on fast flies and fast talk.

We need to concentrate on getting these retirees, getting me and the other retirees um uh you know, making us right.

Um inflation is skyrocketed.

Um got homeless issue, uh, but there's nothing being done to help the retirees except fast talk, fast track, fast wise, but we're catching them.

Thank you for the 60 seconds.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Before we go forward, like to call the 10 to 15 public hearing and recess it to the call of the chair.

We're now back at our public comment section.

Who's our next caller, please?

Our next caller is Galaxy S22 Ultra.

Galaxy S22 Ultra.

The floor is yours.

We have one minute, general public comment.

Yeah, I also watched the uh uh uh the show.

It was a show last night, and uh I don't know why Sheffield was throwing a lot of curveballs at people saying what she did, and on uh it's sad, you know.

It's sad that we over on the east side get penalized from Christ for getting 15,000 for inhaling all this poison over here, and when we put in for a grant, they said we got 15,000.

We weren't eligible for it.

It's so sad that they penalize us for something that uh that Chrysler did, and the city is penalizing the people over here for as trying to get Gretz for their home, which is saying don't let Doug dictate everything that go on in the community because he's leaving.

He's from Livonia.

Crane said that was one of the racist places in the uh uh uh uh the world.

Lavonia, and he comes here.

Why don't you get a uh a job out there?

And all right, thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is iPhone.

IPhone, the floor is yours.

You have one minute general public comment.

Uh good morning.

This is Betty A.

Barner, president of the Soda Elsewhere Black Association here to share some information about another program I found out about that will assist people to stay in their homes and provide services and help you with your chores.

They do uh food food prep, uh light cooking.

Uh they do the house chores.

They even uh will be a companion for those who are lonely.

Uh please call 313-484-3808, 313-484-3808.

This is a very unique program.

Some they have different programs.

Some uh you do do need to be on Medicaid, some you don't, some are income-based, some aren't.

So call, speak to a Mrs.

War at 313-484-3808.

Mrs.

Roy.

Thank you so much.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Miko Williams.

Nico Williams, the floor is yours.

You have one minute, general public comment.

Mika Williams, are you there?

Let's put Mr.

Williams at the end of the queue and go to our next caller, please.

All right, our next caller is caller ending in 482.

Caller ending in 482.

The floor is yours.

You have one minute, general public comment.

Caller, are you there?

All right, we're having some Zoom challenges, it sounds like this morning.

Caller, are you there?

All right, we're gonna put that caller at the end of the queue as well and go to the next caller.

No, I don't need to see more to the end of the queue.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Jake June, you're a fraud.

You call Kenisa's mother.

Say what you said.

I wasn't the right representative.

So now I'm gonna represent on you.

You're a fake, you're a fraud, you're a TV man public official.

Janison JB Durant.

You called Kamisha's mother in 2023.

The daughter was murdered in 2020 by Charmaine McCloud.

Uh Jake Jr.

You're a whole fraud.

I'm gonna expose you.

That's my word.

Did you hear that clearly?

Joker.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Tyson Gersh.

Tyson Gersh.

The floor is yours.

You have one minute.

General public comment.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi.

Um, I know this is for the public hearing scheduled later, but I I think we've got some issues.

A lot of people seem to be very confused because they were looking for the CPC calendar, which canceled its meeting tonight, which made everybody think that that was canceled.

And I just uh this is messy.

I don't have a good solution.

I'm just putting it on record and hopefully making you aware to address that issue to whatever extent you're able to.

Okay, thank you.

Uh next caller, please.

Our next caller is Julia.

Julia, the floor is yours.

You have one minute general public comment.

Julia, are you there?

Julia, are you there?

Okay, we're gonna put that caller at the end of the queue and go to the next caller, please.

Our next caller is William M.

Davis.

William M.

Davis.

I know he's here.

Floor is yours, sir.

Yeah, one minute general public comment.

Good morning.

Can I be heard?

Yes, sir.

Okay, I like to start off by saying I also watched the debate.

And uh I also uh agree that we did not get a third chain check.

We got a partial check, and hopefully soon we get another partial check.

Also, I'd like to thank Betty A.

Bernard for uh ongoing comments that helps that helps many of us here in the city of Detroit.

Uh also I would like to say I thank the city of Detroit absolutely can do more to help the city chart retirees.

Uh so far, I would give the city of Detroit a D minus on that effort, which has been failing.

We need to do more to help us, the city chart retirees.

This whole recovery has been on our backs and continue to be on our backs with the new declar back.

And I would venture to say if Dugdan doesn't do anything to help him before he leaves, he will not be governor.

There's enough of us retirees throughout the state and our family, not friends that could vote against him.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is caller ending in one two four.

Caller ending in one two four.

The floor is yours.

You have one minute general public comment.

Good morning, maybe heard.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, thank you.

I watched most of the debate last night.

Mary Sheffield told a big fat one saying that she has served with integrity.

How is it integrated when a neighbor of mine authorized her to speak with me?

We had a meeting about some trade actions by the land bank.

They learned I was on the call and they dropped me from the Zoom call.

So don't trust Mary Sheffield.

I call her office, they rarely answer.

I could show emails that they don't respond to.

And so please, I mean, I don't believe that the elections are fair anyway.

And see that's another proof.

She won't look into it, won't look into the lies they told about me and to me.

And you know, this stuff about ramming through the zoning ordinance things when the people have not had adequate time to meaningfully study it.

Your own the district manager people haven't even read it because I asked them and then they don't answer my question.

Mute me and give me some other hub abubba.

Like I'm so shocked at the behavior of this city and the disrespect of the resident.

Thank you so much.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Cindy Dara.

Cindy Dar, the floor is yours.

You have one minute general public comment.

Cindy Dara, are you there?

Let's put Ms.

Dara at the end of the queue and go to the next caller, please.

Our next caller will be Mike Ely.

Mike Ely, the floor is yours.

You have one minute general public comment.

Caller, are you there?

Yes, I'm here.

Sorry about that.

I was on mute.

Um, yeah, I'm here.

Uh I'm a resident at the Broader Tower.

Uh been there for a year and a half of my life.

Uh, been in Detroit most of my life.

Uh love the city, and um you love Santa the broader, and it was a motion for uh renovations on the broader or some kind of program.

We would we just approve that.

We think it's a good idea.

We'd like to see that uh the building isn't used.

Um whatever, you know, what about the planning?

We approve we think it's a good thing.

Thank you for my channel.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller will be Melissa Love.

Melissa Love, the floor is yours.

You have one minute general public comment.

Ms.

Love, are you there?

All right, we're gonna put Ms.

Love at the end of the queue and go to the next caller, please.

Our next caller will be Miss Marguerite Scarlet Maddox.

Next Marguerite Scarlet Maddox.

The floor is yours.

General public comment.

Morning.

Um let's make suggestions.

Come.

Come.

Um call.

Please make sure the microphones are all comments.

I'm not going to repeat.

Yes, hey.

Um, and the time.

Yes.

Get the debate.

How's it to be more?

So it's um that we do not know what to make.

You've become the same.

So we should have raised a clear.

And that we can we all be welcome city.

I would be missing another comment.

Doing the human.

I'm then.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

All right, sir.

We are back to Mikal Williams.

Mr.

Miko Williams, the floor is yours.

We have one minute general public comment.

Miko Williams, are you there?

Going once.

Going twice.

Yes, hello.

Hi.

Uh, I was trying to unmute and I don't see the clock, but council member always late.

James Tate Jr., you could give us 30 seconds.

30 more seconds.

You did start this late, this meeting late.

Um, my comment is no matter what was said in that debate, Detroit is still broken.

And it's broken more than ever.

Uh, the lady had an opportunity to show her leadership, and she debelled in partisan attacks.

It's not cool.

But you know, this is the way Detroit is negative and toxic.

It's terrible.

We can't fix our city because we got individuals who think they're better than us.

But the grassroots, the progressives, the people who've been left behind, they will have the final say.

And we don't need any more debates and conversations.

I think everybody knows what to do, and that's to vote for righteousness.

Vote for Ken Locke.

It's the only way possible to get us out of this mess.

Thank you for taking my comment.

Thank you.

Um next caller, please.

We are back to Julia.

Julia, the floor is yours.

You have one minute general public comment.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

I just wanted to call and say that I'm um in support of the tax abatement for Broderick Tower and the planned uh update.

Okay, thank you so much.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Cindy Dara.

Cindy Dara, the floor is yours.

You have one minute.

You have one minute general public comment.

Cindy Dara, are you there?

Yes, I am.

Uh one minute.

It's too much for me.

I watched that debate.

I still don't know what I'm gonna do.

Honestly, God, I hear people talk.

I want to know what the walk is.

And uh see actions, and I really don't, I really don't know what to do.

Because I I feel like we can lock sometimes sound good, but other times I look at him and think he's a demagogue.

I really uh and I want to keep a separation of church and state.

I don't want to get uh I mean it's all right for people to be religious, but even like when you did the implication, and so as the Christian one I always said, if I was gonna be real religious, I'd be a Muslim because I could stretch my back out five times a day.

And I don't know.

I really don't know what I'm I may write my own name in there.

I really might.

I really might thank you.

Uh next caller, please.

Our final caller is Melissa Left.

Yes, Lisa Love, the floor is yours.

You have one minute general public comment.

Ms.

Love, are you there going once?

Going twice.

Going three times.

Unfortunately, we're gonna have to move on, Miss Love.

If you would like to provide your comments to the clerk's office, they will be placed on to public record.

All right.

We should now uh reconvene the 1015 public hearing with the parties who are participating.

Please cue up.

The 1015 public hearing is a request to amend chapter 50 of the 2019 Detroit City Code Zoning by amending Article 17 zoning district map, section 50-17-20, excuse me, but district map number nine to revise the zoning classification for seven parcels, generally bounded by Rosa Parks, uh Boulevard, Burlingame Street, Woodrow Wilson Street, John C.

Lodge Freeway, the East West Alley First North of Lawrence Street, and Lawrence Street, commonly known as 11534 Woodrow Wilson Street.

Uh also three other parcels on Lawrence Street and two on Burlingame.

Uh additionally on Burning Burlingame from the existing R2 district to and in our six district zoning classifications to an SD1 district in the special development small scale mixed use zoning classification.

Well the parties who are participating when you see yourself on the screen, please introduce yourselves for the record.

Oh, Mr.

Chair, uh keeping mind of Jeffrey of CPC staff.

If your staff can help me uh promote Leander King and Woodrow.

Uh Mr.

Woodrow should be on the line as well.

We're working through that now.

No, we'll just ask them to raise their hand.

Uh, but if you would like, Mr.

Chair, I could go ahead and get started while they are being yes, please.

Thank you.

I will share my screen if I can get permission.

We're gonna provide you permission.

The ability to share your screen.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, did he say Daniel R.

King?

No.

No.

Woodrow.

With Row Hankins.

Okay.

All right, Mr.

Jeffries.

You you you may proceed.

Like I said, when it's their time, we can make sure we bring them on.

Okay.

I believe you can see my screen now.

Yes.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This is the request uh for the rezoning of 1630 1636 Lawrence and 1551 Burlingame.

Um by Leander King and Woodrow Hankins.

And then also a co-petition by the City Planning Commission for other parcels that are not currently owned by those petitioners.

Detroit Farm Incider, uh owned by Leandra King is an initiative aimed at fostering educational experiences for youth in Detroit.

The site seeks to serve as a hub for youth equestrian workshops and help certain farm animals such as chickens for programming with local school district students.

The proposed map amendments being requested at 1636 Lawrence to permit retail sales for farm insider operations that will conduct cider pressing and farm the table dinners.

The program is also planned to be supported by a residential units and a bed and breakfast.

So the rezoning is being requested to specifically allow for the commercial and retail sales components of the project.

Separately, and this is a separate petition.

So in addition to that, the CPC is petitioning for the remaining parcels, which we'll go through.

Um just to keep zoning consistency and keep some uniformity in the zoning scheme for this area.

Like to call the three, excuse me, like to also recognize that we've been joined by member vice chair Durha.

Good morning, sir.

I'd like to call the 1035 public hearing and recess it to the call of the chair.

We are now back at the 1015 public hearing, Mr.

Jeffrey.

The floor remains yours, sir.

You sir.

So I will breeze through uh some slides just giving you a sense of the area.

So this is the proposed rezoning area.

You'll see R6, R2, and R5 zoning classifications that are proposed to be rezoned to an SD1 special development mixed use small scale district.

This is just the footprint.

So this is the block, I believe you can see my cursor, but the block uh between the alley and Lawrence Street, um, between Burley Game, um to the south of Burlingame, just off of Lawrence Street, that entire block face is proposed to be rezoned as well as uh just east of Woodrow Wilson, if you can see my cursor.

Um, and this just shows the current zoning classifications, which are R2, R5, and R6.

Um, and those are proposed to uh be rezoned to an SD1 special development district, small small scale mixed use, uh, which generally provides for a more pedestrian transit-oriented neighborhood type of development, um, allows mixed use development and the activities that are being proposed by these two petitioners.

This is just an area of the site.

Um, you can see Detroit Farm and Cider uh currently not operating, but looking to begin operating uh if approvals are granted, and then this is the existing church.

Uh again, Detroit Farm and Cider.

Um, and just to quickly give the details of what happened at during the hearings for this, um, the planning and development department did submit a letter that said that says this area is the proposed zoning classification is generally consistent uh with the master plan for this area, which is the neighborhood cluster six of the Durfee area.

Um there was a public hearing, one person spoke in support.

Nobody spoke in number jeffrey.

I don't know if you're still speaking, but it sounds like you may have been.

Petition submitted by Detroit Farm Cider, um, which had I think uh can you hear me?

Uh you you your audio did go out for a minute, but you are back now, sir.

Okay, I think I'm having some connectivity issues, so sorry about that.

Um we did receive a letter of support and a petition, uh letter of support from Cass Community Social Services on behalf of Detroit Farm and Cider.

And then we also received a petition from the surrounding uh residents in support of Detroit Farm and Cider for what they are proposing.

And again, nobody spoke in opposition at the public hearing.

Um then just wanted to talk about parking very quickly as it relates to parking.

The petitioners uh do have an abundance of off-street parking that they are proposing to use, uh, but then additionally, there are land bank uh properties adjacent to their to their um building and operations that they may potentially seek to uh use for parking in the future that are currently vacant, and then also um just want to note that before they pull permits, any required parking um through the zoning ordinance would have to be provided before they could pull a permit for any of the uses that they are proposing.

Um and also just generally speaking, um they are in adherence uh to those approval criteria, and because of that, the CPC did recommend approval on in March of uh of this year uh to recommend approval for this petition.

And because of that, the CPC did recommend approval on in March of this year to recommend approval for this petition.

And with that being said, Mr.

Chair, if we may, I was gonna allow the uh petitioners just to briefly speak on their uh proposals and what why they're petitioning for uh this request today.

Good morning, Mr.

Mayor proceed.

Ms.

King.

Good morning.

Morning.

Um my name Ms.

Leandra King.

I'm the owner of Detroit Farm and Cider.

Um we have a youth program, uh for each chartered program that specializes and teaching children about agriculture, um, self-sustainability, and um just healing in general in relation to trauma.

Um and so our goal is to cultivate that more with this rezoning and be able to other life skills such as um e-commerce and um be able to um fund our our youth program um a little bit better with uh the lodging aspect or element of what we're trying to do.

Um and so you can see here that we have um we've had goat yoga in the past, we've had our farm to table dinners, um we're just trying to be in compliance with the city of Detroit and um you know do what we need to do and take the appropriate steps necessary to function and um run our programming.

Um here is the site map uh or our site plan for um what we're doing currently.

Um, like Mr.

Jeffrey said, we're currently closed down, but um we still grow annually.

And so you can see our orchard, we have 103 fruit trees.

Um we also have the capacity to be completely off grid with solar.

Um here you see the proposed um lodging units that will offset some of the financial um stress of running the youth programming.

Here is the uh petition and support um letter of support from all of our surrounding neighbors.

Um so over the past 10 years, we've garnered support from each and every last neighbor that is adjacent to us, uh both on Burlingame and on Lawrence.

Um of the five residents who live on Lawrence, three of them currently work at Detroit Farm and Cider.

Yeah.

And through you, Mr.

Chair, uh, if we could allow Mr.

Hankins to speak to his proposal.

And then we will close out.

Hi, good morning.

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Okay, uh, yes, this is uh Witro Hankins, and uh I'm a member and a friend of uh Jehovah Shalom Church of God.

And uh we are also just um looking to uh expand the use of our our facility and uh uh you know it's it's uh it's uh pretty embedded in the community.

Um we uh you know, in this in the worship services, uh we have uh social events anyway, but uh we would like to uh to uh to an extent um you know commercialize, like in other words, offer you know some of those events for um to be had you know on a pay basis along with uh using it for along with using it for um our facility for um like uh child child care uh preschool type purposes.

Um we we it's a pretty diverse uh facility that can be used also for as as uh commodity shows here for um uh bookstore and coffee shop.

And so we just really want to revamp and uh just really uh uh improve the the usage of the facility in the community.

Well about that, Mr.

Chair, uh Mr.

Hankins, if you want to speak on engagement, and then we can close out.

Well, yeah, again, just like I said, uh in terms of community engagement, uh being able to uh host a uh like uh social groups that uh want to come together to to speak on um you know things that are going on uh in in the area in the community.

Uh a lot of times uh people rent halls and such.

Uh a lot of times uh people rent halls and such, and we we we feel that we could uh uh serve that our area, not just for not necessarily just for a gathering as a rental, but just really just to uh you know, a place where people can come together, share ideas and and and plan and strategize to to uplift the the neighborhood that the area.

We we think we're strategically located right off the expressway, and uh so that's that's basically it.

And three, Mr.

Chair, just to close out, uh Mr.

Hankins has presented um information in the past that some of their parishioners are live in proximity to the church and also have supported uh rezoning proposal.

So just wanted to make sure that's stated on the record.

And with that, Mr.

Chair, we can uh entertain any questions that the dishonorable committee may have.

Thank you.

Oh, there we go.

Thank you so much.

Let's get that full screen on with every all the faces on there.

Ms.

King, if you can also turn on your your screen uh your video, that would be appreciated, appreciative.

Well, I'm I'm breastfeeding right now.

Do you still want me to turn it on?

Uh at your leisure.

Uh just it it's always just helpful to see the individual who's speaking to us.

So when you get an opportunity.

All right, thank you.

All right, uh, colleagues.

Questions, concerns regarding this particular item.

Umson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I don't have any um concerns.

I did just want to say thank you to the City Planning Commission and working with uh Detroit Farm and Cider in particular to address the challenges that were raised last year, I believe, um, so that the work that she's been doing can continue.

I haven't personally had an opportunity to visit the establishment, but I have uh girlfriends who have, and they speak highly of the farm and the food to table uh work that was being done there.

Um I do have a similar operation, although it's a restaurant uh in District 4.

So and I did have a number of constituents who do farming in District 4 express support in the work that's being done at Detroit Farm Insider.

Um I did have a question.

So I understand that they are co-petitioners only because they both submitted an application for this general area roughly around the same time.

Are you too familiar with the work that the other does or the interest that the the uh church has in um addressing or making some changes to the the facility and would love to see the two of you perhaps working together if this moves forward if if I may, uh yes, uh uh had the chance to uh uh get to visit and chat with uh Miss Leandra and uh very excited about uh you know the activities that they're doing or proposing to do, and uh I definitely would see a uh a nice uh uh uh relationship there uh because I I think it goes hand in hand, community engagement.

Yeah, for sure.

We're we're definitely open to some collaboration.

All right, excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, and I'm glad we're at this point.

Uh Ms.

King, we've got nothing but uh positive things that I've heard about your um operation uh while we were working through the animal keeping ordinance even prior to that.

It's been a challenge getting to this point, but I'm glad we're here today um and looking forward to uh being able to support uh this project in in the in this way uh through zoning.

All right, colleagues, any additional seeing none, we shall now go to public comment.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak on the 10-15 public hearing, please raise your hand now, going once, going twice, going three times.

Collection of public comments have now concluded.

All right, team.

How many callers do we have?

And who do we have first?

We're gonna give everyone a minute for public comment during the public hearings today.

We have seven callers, Mr.

Chair.

Our first one being Samsung SM.

You know, I take that back.

Let's give a minute 30 for the public hearings.

This is a public hearing.

Minute 30.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line items at five.

1015 public hearing.

Caller, are you there?

All right.

Let's put that caller at the end of the queue and go to the next caller, please.

Our next caller is Cindy Dara.

Cindy Dara, the floor is yours regarding the 1015 public hearing.

Ms.

Dara, are you there?

Yeah, I am.

Um, I I drank about a half a gallon of cider last night.

I love cider.

But I uh there's a state law that you can't homogenize it.

You have to homogenize it.

In other words, and then it's hard to make heart cider, but if you put um raisins and uh on unpasteurized cider, it's really uh then it need a uh balloon, I think, because uh it's uh create so much so it'll pop the thing off the top.

But I I really I'm thinking, you know, when I watch that debate, the thing that bothered me.

It's not general public comment.

This is it has to be on the actual hearing, the the interest of the hearing that we have before us.

This is not my rules, this is open meetings act rules.

So I'm gonna give you another opportunity.

Yeah, we have to focus on the actual hearing that we have before us.

The floor remains yours.

Let's open it back up for Ms.

Dara, please.

Ms.

Dara.

Miss Cindy Dara, are you there?

She's not on the case.

I guess she muted me.

That's why you didn't hear me.

Okay.

What I'm trying to say is the thing that bothers me is that we need more of this collaboration where people are really working together in the community.

We can't just elect a people and think we've elected Jesus Christ and they're gonna save us and just sit back and our leaders have got to do everything for us.

So that's what I like to see.

And to me, that's the answer.

It's not the answer that we can uh that the government's gonna save us and do this or that.

We have to figure out how to make where we work together as a community and the government uh, you know, responds and helps the community be successful.

And uh that I think that's one reason to me why we've had some thank you so much.

Just want to remind everyone the public hearings must be germane to the topic at hand, that is the public hearing, uh the substantive information, and for this one, it is the information that's been provided for line item five, and then it's the 1015 public hearing.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is William Davis.

Mr.

William M.

Davis, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the 1015 public hearing.

Uh good morning.

Can I be heard?

Yes, sir.

I like many aspects of this.

I especially I think that the church should be able to expand and what have you.

Uh also as it relates to uh the apple cider um operations.

I was wondering, you know, I'm I'm really pleased about uh the solar complaint component where they're not you know using a fossil fuse or uh and not using as much fossil fuels as they possibly could be using.

Um they mentioned anything about anything about is there any water runoff?

Is any water from that?

Uh the farm area going going to the Detroit uh system.

Uh yeah, is there any fertilizer being used to possibly go into the system?

Uh is it possible there's gonna be uh an older problem for some of the neighbors in that area?

And are they also advertising or will they be advertising for uh people to be able to get jobs if if opening would give them Detroit this first preference?

Uh those are my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is owner papa.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the 1015 public hearing.

Uh good uh morning.

And through the chairman, I'll be heard.

Yes, Carolyn Hughes.

I am in I I question why you want to change an R6 high density residential to something else.

Um I I thought that we needed housing.

We have lots of spaces everywhere, and you know, we used to have a state fair where things like this could have been housed.

Um I'm not sure if we should continue to dismantle the housing in our areas because these are the people they say they want to target.

The church wants to expand and they want to have programs.

I want to know who their target audience is, age group.

Uh what kind of programs will they run out of this church?

And who will be running these programs?

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is don't rush massive zoning changes.

All right.

Caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the 1015 public hearing.

Caller, are you there?

All right, we're gonna put the caller at the end of the queue and go to the next caller, but before we do that, like to recess the 1015 public hearing to the call of the chair.

I'd like to call to order the 1055 public hearing and recess it to the call of the chair.

Let's now call back to order the 1015 public hearing.

And who is our next caller?

Our next caller is Douglas McRae.

Mr.

Douglas McCray, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the 1015 public hearing.

Apologies.

I'm logged in on the wrong account.

That's not the correct name.

Um is this just regarding the cider mill and the church proposals?

Is that the only one public comment is on?

Okay, thank you very much.

I will cede my time.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is caller ending at 482.

Caller inning 482.

The floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the 1015 public hearing.

Caller, are you there?

Yeah, I'm right here, JK Jr.

And over with LLC, that's correct.

Yeah, I'm right here, man.

And I'm just coming in on public comment to express my um total dissatisfaction.

Thank you.

Total dissatisfaction with what's going on with the committee means planning economic development committee.

Sir, gonna give you another opportunity regarding this particular project.

Excuse me, this particular request that it's again line item 1015.

We don't have to do this every week, but I'm just gonna give you another opportunity, please.

The floor remains yours.

Are you still there, Ruben?

Okay, yeah, you've given me so you want me to tell you that this is these hearings that I'm listening to and been listening to for years now.

It's all fraudulent.

All right, thank you so much.

As I mentioned, it has to be germane to this particular hearing, not hearings, not any general rant.

We will move on to the next caller.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Miss Marguerite Mattox.

Miss Marvey Maddox Carl, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the 1015 public hearing.

Yes.

Um with them.

So my second question is just project.

Going to be exactly everyone.

I'm gonna thank you.

Next caller, please.

We are back to Samsung SM Aladale.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the 1015 public hearing.

Carl, you're the are you there?

Going once.

Going twice.

Caller, are you there?

Going three times.

Unfortunately, we're going to have to move on.

If you would like to provide your comments to the clerk's office, they will be placed onto public record.

Who's our next caller, please?

All right.

Our final caller is don't rush massive zoning changes.

All right, caller.

The floor is yours.

You have one minute 30 seconds regarding the uh 1015 public hearing.

Are you there?

Going once.

Going twice.

One three times, caller.

Are you there?

Unfortunately, we're gonna have to move on.

You if you would like to provide your comments to the clerk's office, they will be placed onto public record.

And that takes us to the end of our public comments.

We want to give our presenters an opportunity to respond to the questions presented by the public.

And uh whoever would like to begin, uh you may proceed.

And I believe that the other is not on the screen, Mr.

Wilson.

This is uh Woodrow Hankins.

Uh my apologies about my video.

I uh tried to turn it back on and it won't turn it on.

So but I'm still here.

Uh there was a question about who uh would be um uh working uh in certain things.

So in terms of uh um like uh child care preschool, uh we would definitely be uh licensed by the state of Michigan.

We already have a couple of members who are licensed, and uh and we would uh train and and make sure certifications correct things are uh uh are uh obtained for uh certification for any child care activities we may have at the church and and and preferably uh local in the community.

Mr.

Hankins, I think one of the other questions was what who's your target audience, just to give a little bit more uh color to the uh question.

Yes, so in terms of uh child care, uh it would be like mothers who need to go to work um that need child care in the in the in the neighborhood, and also um some of our uh especially some of the folks that may be visiting the farm, uh even though I know they'll be offering uh cider and such, we may also offer refreshments, uh kind of a uh kind of a cafe type style uh uh facility.

All right, thank you.

Ms.

King, any uh response to any of the questions that may have come your way.

Yeah, um, in regards to the runoff, our farm has been using a no-till method for about nine years.

Um no-till is a technique that helps reduce runoff.

Um actually almost uh to 80 percent reduces runoff.

Um we also have buffer strips and nutrient management plans.

Um, in regards to the smell, we've garnered um signatures from all of our neighbors uh adjacent to the farm on um north, east, west, west, and south of us.

Um there is no smell because our animals um when we did have animals, they um were open pastured, and so they ate grass, they didn't eat man-made food.

Um, or they ate what we grew up actively.

Um trying to think the other concerns were um employment that we currently employ four um individuals from the neighborhood, and as soon as we have more job openings, we of course will um only employ detraiters.

Um refresh my memory.

I'm trying to think if there was any other can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

There was a question about parking.

Oh, we have more accessible parking, and uh there are uh folks who have mobility issues and how you may be able to address those concerns.

Of course.

So my fiance is a civil engineer, and he specializes in um drafting and designing ADA accessible um parking structures and facilities throughout the city of Detrade.

So that's actually his his forte.

Um, and so he recently drafted a traffic report in regards to um the parking concern, us being able to have um have people park on the street, and then we have a site plan for um on-site parking um and an architectural rendering that we submitted to the building department um last year that shows um that shows a uh a parking lot on site uh west of our orchard that would support fixed cars.

Hold on one second.

As of now, we don't plan on being open to the public, the general public outside of what we are doing with our youth program.

So our youth program houses 12 spots for youth.

And we don't plan on having massive amounts of people on the farm.

Um until until we are able to uh get license to press cider because we're currently not licensed to breastfighter, which is a whole process, like the one caller mentioned.

Um because we do plan on uh pasteurizing our cider once we do, and um that's further down the road.

We've been so set back um for the past nine years on trying to get the youth program up and running that's um that that's our primary focus right now.

Okay, I believe that takes us to all of the questions, colleagues opposed by the community.

Are there any additional questions, comments, concerns?

Uh member vice chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh just no questions, but just one again uh kind of uh big up the work that they're doing over there.

Uh it's very transformative for uh that community uh and very welcome by a lot of the residents over there.

So they are doing an amazing job over there.

Uh happy to support this project.

And they have a very nice family uh as well.

Uh and so to have you know something that's family oriented, I think this these are the type of stories that we want to be able to have in the city.

Uh and so, but that just wanted to make sure I put that on the record, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, I have no further questions and would like to make a motion to send to a formal uh with a recommendation to approve.

I think this is are we introducing this one in the I'm sorry for the introduction of set.

Well, we're in the public hearing now.

So it's not for the introduction of setting.

My bad, you're absolutely right.

So, colleagues, is there that um can you please restate that motion?

Uh yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I move to send a formal with a recommendation to approve.

There's a motion to send line item five, the 1015 public hearing, a formal with a recommendation to approve.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Thank you so much.

Thanks again, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, this now closes out the 1015 public hearing.

We would now like to call back to order the 1035 public hearing with the parties who are participating, please cue up.

The 1035 public hearing is public hearing regarding the uh request to amend chapter 50 of the 2019 Detroit City Code uh zoning to revise the published published no public notice requirements for consistency with the Detroit City Charter and State Law.

There's a number of items, and I'm not gonna run through all of this.

I'm gonna allow Ms.

Jamie Murphy, who have who has joined us to walk us through what this request is as well as the presentation and the floor is yours.

Please introduce yourself for the record.

Good morning.

I'm Jamie Murphy with the City Planning Commission staff.

Do you have a short presentation if it's okay to share my screen?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Okay, so I'm here today to talk about what we're calling the sixth general text amendment to the zoning ordinance.

Um, and of course, right now we have a lot of text amendments proposed to the zoning ordinance before the city council.

So first I want to make clear what this amendment is not.

Um so it's not the screening and fencing ordinance, it's not the um adaptive reuse for institutional buildings ordinance.

That hearing's coming up in a couple weeks.

There's a third one for it's been called a lot of things, housing and parking or let's build more housing.

It's not that.

This is much more boring than that.

We're calling it the sixth general tax amendment because it's more of just like a an update to catch things up in the zoning ordinance.

So um most zoning ordinance tax amendments are limited in scope.

They use usually just deal with one use or subject.

Um, but since the last rewrite of the zoning ordinance back in 2005, we've done five of these broader text amendments that cover a lot of things.

Um these usually catch up with development trends or fix shortcomings of the ordinance, and we haven't done one of these general text amendments since 2018.

So we're kind of overdue for one.

So the changes in this ordinance come from a list that we keep of um things that come up in the ordinance that are inconsistencies that require correction or requests from city departments, sometimes city council members have requests.

Um so we picked uh as many things as we could to put into this ordinance that seem non-controversial and not not major enough to have their own text amendment.

So there's two categories of change in this proposed amendment.

There's substantive changes, so policy change, such as the allowability of a use or change to a regulation, and then there's a lot of non-substantive changes.

It's not a policy change at all.

We're just kind of correcting an inconsistency.

So there's a total of five, or I wish there was only five.

There's 17 substantive changes in the ordinance, and I'll go through them quickly, but I think it's important to go through all the actual changes just so everybody knows what's in this.

So the first one is a PD or plan development approval lap.

So PD is a special zoning district where there's a very specific approval with a site plan and use and elevations, not like a normal zoning district where you have a whole set of uses.

And right now, those planned development approvals expire if you don't finish the project within three years.

This has been a problem for a lot of these projects because it takes more than three years usually to build a big development.

So we're proposing to get rid of that approval lapse.

Of course, if we want to initiate a rezoning at any time, we don't need authorization in the zoning ordinance.

So taking this out doesn't really take away the option to rezone these away.

It just saves us a lot of administrative work of redoing these PDs that expire that we don't want to expire.

The second thing is to allow lofts conditionally in R1 and R2 districts.

So a loft is a dwelling unit and a principal dwelling or principal building that is constructed for other than residential use.

They're currently prohibited in R1 and 2 districts.

So when a non-residential is located building is located in R1 or 2, they're really difficult to repurpose, and we usually have to do a rezoning.

So we thought if we can allow lofts conditionally in these buildings, it would at least give people one option that they wouldn't have to go through a rezoning to reuse this building, and it would still be a residential use, so it's not introducing commercial into residential areas.

And when we first started talking about this, a lot of people were concerned that then people could convert their garages into dwelling units and call them a loft, but that was not the intent of this, and so one of the future changes is to change in this ordinance is to change the definition of loft so you can't do it in your garage.

The third thing is to allow a lofts in mixed use developments by right in B2, 3, and 4 districts.

So they're currently conditional, which means you have to go to building safety engineering and environmental department to go through a public hearing process, and it's pretty lengthy.

And they tell us that they almost never deny these uses when they come in.

They almost always get approved.

That's usually a good sign that they should be a by-right use.

This could also encourage some more residential development on commercial corridors that might not support modern commercial development, whether they're too shallow or whatever reason.

And then a minor change that comes as a result of this is that loss would be by right in traditional main street overlay areas, even when they're not combined with a commercial use right now.

You can only do it by right with a commercial use.

The next thing is to revise the allowability of body art facilities, which are basically tattoo parlors.

So we've been working on this amendment for over a year and a half now.

So when we originally started this, we were gonna we were proposing to allow these tattoo parlors in B2 and B3 districts conditionally, where they're not allowed right now.

Um but as we got more into the process, another request came in for an SD4 district, and we thought we really needed to look comprehensively at all the districts and see where they should be allowed.

Since tattoos aren't really as taboo as they used to be, so we thought that um allowing them conditionally in B2, B3, and SD1 districts, allowing them by right instead of conditionally in B4 and SD2 districts, and then finally allowing them by right and SD4 districts.

That is the proposal that made it to this amendment.

The next proposal is to change the permissibility of brew pubs, microbreweries, small distilleries, and small wineries.

Um these are regulated pretty strictly right now as an alcohol use, but um in most cases they don't seem to have the same spillover effects as like a bar or a liquor store.

So we are proposing to kind of treat them a little less strictly and newly allow them in B2 districts where they're not currently allowed, but it would be a conditional use, so you'd still need a hearing at B seed.

Um allow them by right in B3 districts where they're currently prohibited, and then newly allow them by right in B4, 5, and 6 districts outside the central business district.

Um they're also currently considered what's called a regulated and a controlled use, which is two separate sets of regulations and spacing requirements, and it makes it really hard to cite these, and you usually need some waivers.

So we're proposing to just consider them regulated but not controlled.

Um the next one is a really kind of a small change.

This is changing the name of a use from kennel commercial to animal care facility.

So right now, the um the use of animal shelter doesn't appear in the zoning ordinance.

Um when one came into BC to get a permit, they had to decide what it was close to, and they correctly I think pick commercial kennel because it's all taking care of animals.

And this also came out in our Zone Detroit project, which is our rewrite of the zoning ordinance that's been going on for quite a few years.

Um that work proposed to combine all these uh pet uses under animal care facility, and so we decided to move that forward with this ordinance just to eliminate confusion.

Um the next change is to allow miniature golf courses conditionally in SD1 and ST2 districts.

They're currently prohibited there.

Um, the outdoor recreation uses were originally seen as too low density for these mixed use districts.

Um but as we get more and more SD2 around the city, it's become apparent that they they could be appropriate in these areas and support some neighborhood activity.

So we're proposing to newly allow them in SD1 and SD2, but conditionally, so you still need a public hearing.

And then further changes to miniature golf, um, they're very strictly regulated right now.

They must have been a nuisance in the past, but we don't really see it as much anymore.

So we're proposing to take out a requirement that you're 500 feet from residentially zoned land, um, which is similar to like a pawn shop or a liquor store, so we didn't think that that was really appropriate.

So we're proposing to eliminate that, and then also to reduce the off-street parking.

Right now, you need two off-street parking spaces per hole, which seems like a lot.

So we're proposing to put it down to one uh parking space per hole, which is the same as a golf driving range.

Getting close to the end.

Um, this is another pretty minor one.

So gateway radio thoroughfare overlay areas.

Um they're the the five radios that come into downtown.

In the original definition, whenever they were put into effect, only referred to B4 districts.

As time has gone on, we've realized that they should be applied to all zoning districts, and so we're proposing to change the definition just to update that.

And then secondarily, right now you can appeal some of these to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and that was not the intent, so we're just adding some language so that you can't do that anymore.

Um, research and testing laboratories, another kind of minor change.

This use is allowed in B4 districts, but you can't use large animals.

So we thought that this was a good regulation to explain expand it to B5 districts, which is downtown.

We probably don't want large animal testing downtown, but you'd still be able to do the large animal testing in B6 and M districts.

Uh the next one is to clarify the height bonus.

So buildings in B3 and B4 districts, um, which are located on wider streets, can be can get some extra height.

Um currently stated in the ordinance as the width of the street, which leads to some confusion about whether that's like the curb to curb with the actual street or if that's like the right-of-way width from property line to property line.

So we just want to say with the the right-of-way so people aren't confused with the street.

Um, the next one is the permissibility of loading space in an alley.

Currently, if you're establishing a retail service or commercial use, uh, you can use the open adjacent alley for your loading space.

We're proposing to expand that to residential uses.

Of course, most residential uses don't require a loading space, but if you have more than 24 units, you do.

So if they can utilize an adjacent alley, it um saves some space for them.

The next one is also about parking.

Um, expand the distance allowed for use is to claim credit for public parking.

So right now, if there's a city-owned public parking lot within a hundred feet of a site, you can credit that um part of that parking to satisfy your off-street parking requirements for your business.

Um, and there's an exception for SD1 and ST2 zone properties where they can go up to a quarter mile away.

We got a request to extend that increased distance to traditional main street overlay areas, which seems to be consistent with the provision of TMSO areas of walkable commercial corridors, so we're adding that also to this proposed amendment.

These are some very specific uh requests from planning and development about architectural and site design standards, about screening roof mounted equipment, um, permitting architectural metal panels and corrugated panels.

It's pretty specific stuff that usually only applies in uh traditional main street overlay areas.

This one is a little bit of a bigger one.

Uh, we're proposing to revise the definition of family.

Currently, um unlimited numbers of unrelated or related individuals.

So related individuals, there's no limit on the the number to be called a family, but you can only be two unrelated individuals living together in like a house or apartment to be considered a family.

If there's three, then you're more of like a rooming house or group loading situation.

We feel like this isn't really reflecting the current um trends, household trends in society.

A lot of other cities are increasing this.

So we're proposing to make it four unrelated people can live together and still be considered a family.

It seems like a good small step, going from two to four.

Um finally, this is one that I touched on earlier with lofts in accessory structures.

So we're proposing to change the definitions so you can only do it in uh principal buildings.

You can't do it in accessory buildings but as part of a residential use, so that people wouldn't be able to convert their garage to a loft.

Uh truck stop definition.

This was another specific request from a business that was uh kind of operating as a truck stop, but they didn't have they didn't sell fuel.

Our ordinance requires you to sell fuel to be a truck stop, so they were in this cycle where they couldn't get approval, they just kept getting violations.

So we're proposing to expand that truck stop definition so that you can do any of a a number of uses catering to semi trucks, but not um you don't have to sell fuel.

You can just have like overnight parking and showers and things.

Um the last thing on this list is uh to add the cleanup text amendment.

So we had a tax amendment back in 2022 that went through the planning commission and never made it to council.

It was mostly very administrative stuff, like um complying uh making a section consistent with state law, changing stuff from sales oriented to service oriented.

It was basically the same sections we already had in here, so we just added that in.

Then there's also some non-substantive changes.

I'm not gonna go through the detail of them, they're very very boring.

Um, but they're in the report if anybody's interested, or the ordinance.

Um as far as the city planning commission process, so for a text amendment to the zoning ordinance, a public hearing is required at both the planning commission and council.

Uh, we held a first public hearing back in May of 2024.

Um a lot of feedback came in, and so we kind of rewrote the ordinance and added a bunch of stuff over the summer, and then we had a second hearing in October of 2024, and that's when the planning commission voted to recommend approval of the amendment.

And that is all I have.

Thank you so much.

All right, colleagues.

Questions, comments, concerns.

I'll start with just one because I know you know when I saw it, it uh it kind of made me go, what?

The uh large animal testing.

So, how often does large animal testing happen in the city of Detroit and the need truly to um to change the zoning for that?

Probably not a big need.

I don't remember it ever coming up.

Um we don't, I don't think we're seeing a lot of it, or if we do, they're they're very under the radar.

Okay.

Uh it just if it did come up, I mean, so much of zoning, it feels like it's getting ahead of things and making sure, trying to make sure that uses aren't nuisances, and it just seemed like a bad idea to allow large animal testing in the downtown.

Yeah, no, for sure.

I just hadn't heard heard it uh in my time here on council.

All right, colleagues, any additional questions, comments, concerns?

Uh member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, thank you for going through those because initially I was looking thinking, okay, we have a lot of amendments that are being requested that are coming to us, and um I don't always feel like we fully understand what they are.

So uh I appreciate you going through them.

I do have a question about the lofts in R1 and R2.

I believe you indicated that it's primarily for buildings that um may have a non-residential use on the ground floor, but giving them the ability to add a loft.

This would be more like um having a non-residential, like non-conforming building that maybe has been vacant for a long time where they would be okay with doing residential units, but like in R1 and R2, you can only do like a single family or two family house.

So this would allow them to do more units in a bigger building, but still no commercial uses unless they had some sort of existing non-conforming use that they were considered continuing.

I see director Todd jump up, but uh Yeah, the reason why we're having some folks who say they can't hear.

So I'm gonna ask the uh media services to turn the mic up just a little bit.

That middle mic is always a little challenging.

Uh say a couple of words, uh Ms.

Murphy.

Hello, test, test, test.

Let's take it up just a little bit more.

Hello?

Hello.

All right, we'll let you continue and they'll adjust the the mic as we move forward.

Remember Johnson, the floor remains yours, ma'am.

Thank you.

Um, so to clarify, are we talking about existing buildings that are in R1 and R2?

Yes.

Help me to understand that.

So it it would have had to have been maybe either prior prior to the zoning code.

Yes, or so we have give me an example of this because uh my mind is saying, okay, this does not make a lot of sense.

Um, and and it may not sound right.

But when I think of R1, R2, I think about the street that I live on.

Right.

And I'm trying to understand where there are instances where there's something that's non-residential that's in an R1 or R2 zoned area.

That even makes sense, first of all.

But secondly, where now we are given the ability to add residential.

It doesn't come up that often.

There's one in particular over in Southwest Detroit.

It used to be like a small industrial building.

It's usually areas that are older and were developed before zoning.

So this building was kind of just a little two-story building, maybe like 3,000 square feet.

It's an R2 district.

Sorry, now I'm echoing.

And they couldn't really do anything with it.

It had been conservative to a church at some point, and they wanted to put some units in it, and it just wasn't allowed because lofts aren't allowed.

And if it's a non-residential building and you want to make it residential, that's a loft.

So they were kind of stuck, like either we had to rezone it or this amendment had to go through.

So I mean it doesn't come up that often.

Like schools are the big one, but there's already an adapter for use for schools, and then there's the new adaptive reuse for all institutional buildings coming.

And when we first started thinking about this, we thought those amendments would be really far apart.

We thought this one was way out ahead of it.

So I thought it would be like a stop gap for like churches or something that or public utility buildings, anything that just ended up in an R1 or R2 district for some weird reason, and then they wouldn't have to go through a rezoning just to convert to residential.

Got it.

It always makes me wonder how these things happen when I do see like a utility building in a residential neighborhood without them going through the process to zone it differently to erect that building and then you know have us have a better understanding or sense of um the use that was at that site.

Okay.

All right, my other question is relative to the miniature golf.

Okay.

Um just eliminating the spacing altogether.

So you said initially it was 500 feet.

Tell me why, because I I would think that I wouldn't necessarily want a miniature golf right next door to my house.

Right.

That's true.

Um, there is still a spacing requirement of 50 feet.

50 playing area to a residential lot line.

So you're right, that's not very much if you have um a zoning district close to your house that would allow miniature golf.

Um lost my train of thought.

So yeah, it it just seemed a little strict to require 500 feet.

Like, I mean, we allow industrial uses to locate right against the people's houses without doing a neighborhood petition.

So miniature golf just it seemed crazy to treat it that strictly, like a liquor store or a motorcycle club or something.

And it is allowed in what zones?

So right now it's allowed in B4 and then the M districts or the industrial districts.

We're proposing to add it to the mixed-use zoning districts of SD1 and SD2.

Okay, so it would essentially be within a commercial area.

It just does not have to be uh 500 feet or 50 feet away from the residential area, okay, which is probably the alleyway or something.

Got it.

A little more than the alley.

Okay.

Um, and then my other question was in regards to the quarter of a mile parking requirement.

Um, it sounds like, and I and I've heard a lot of conversations around um relaxing the parking requirement.

Um, and it sounds like this is helping to further that conversation.

I'm still on the fence about it because I think in order to do that, I think a number of things need to happen in the city.

We need to have a mass transit system or a transit system that's highly effective.

Um we have to recognize the mobility challenges that people have and still maybe encourage people to use alternative methods of travel uh other than a car that most people or majority uh of people have.

And I know we're trying to get to the walkable neighborhoods.

Um I'm not certain that we're there yet, even from the perspective of diversifying the commercial that we have within our neighborhood.

So right now, like East Warren is an SF.

I love the progress that we're making, but what I'm seeing is a lot of different restaurants.

When you go to a restaurant, you go eat one time.

You don't go from one restaurant to the next to the next, um, unless it's a small plate, some kind of tapas uh restaurant.

But I'm not seeing necessarily the retail uh coming to our neighborhoods that then would encourage me to go from this establishment to the next one to the next one, and then I go eat, and then I walk back home.

So I think 1,320 feet is a lot.

Um, and I think it it relaxes the requirement so much that um we are going to see a lot of um maybe a lot of challenges and a lot of a lot of communication coming from residents when we activate properties, but we're struggling trying to figure out where people are parking, or that we have encouraged people enough to use alternative methods of travel.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Member Johnson.

Yeah, the the fear always is that folks are gonna start parking on the on the neighborhood streets.

You know, it spills out into the neighborhood.

Um, and we've got to be concerned about that on the front end as opposed to responsive to the concerns of folks afterwards.

So definitely a discussion that we have to continue to have.

Um I I think it's on the minds of all of us, you know, as we listen to our constituents.

Any additional questions, comments, concerns, colleagues?

Seeing none, we'll go to the public.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item, that is the 1035 public hearing.

This is a presentation that you just witnessed.

Please raise your hand now.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak online item six, that is the 1035 public hearing.

Please raise your hand now, whether you're in the committee of the whole or at home, going once, going twice, going three times.

Collection of public comments have now concluded.

I see two individuals in the committee of the whole.

How many callers do we have online team?

Mr.

Chair, we had 12 callers before you cut off public comment.

Okay.

All right.

Um, just want you to be mindful that we have to give everyone the same amount of time.

So once your time is up at that one minute, 30 seconds, you will have to release your mic uh to the next individual.

And I'll start.

I'm a gentleman, I'm sure you are as well.

We'll go with ladies first.

Floor is yours, Pastor.

Hi, I'm Reverend Cheryl uh Clark.

I live in the R2 area.

After listening to this young lady, I don't totally understand what's actually going on in R2 and R1.

I I know there are two condos already on Lumpkin, two blocks over from me.

And they weren't old um commercial buildings, they were lots where homes were.

So I need to understand what's actually going on here.

So you're asking with those properties fall into this particular ordinance?

Yeah, I mean, okay they actually stopped the development, I guess, because it's not zoned for that for eight to twelve unit condos to be built.

So I I just need some understanding.

What's that address again so they can look it up while we we get the rest of the questions coming through?

Okay.

What's the address?

Oh, the address of those properties.

Or the intersection.

It's between it's on lumpkin between um Victoria and Davidson.

Okay.

All right.

We're noting that information.

We'll have uh response when we get into the answer part of this um public hearing.

Thank you.

You're very welcome.

Sir, good morning.

The floor is yours.

Good morning.

Uh hit that microphone to the red turns green that button.

There you go.

Okay, thank you.

Uh my name is Martin White.

I'm president of the Indian Village Association.

Um there are a couple of sections uh in here that uh we have opposition to.

There have been uh email statements sent to uh members of the council from a number of the historic uh committees.

I'm sure you've been in receipt of those.

On this particular item, no, sir.

I can't recall no, sir.

Okay.

I may be misinformed on that if they haven't been set.

But you have the you have the mic now.

What wouldn't uh feel free.

The sections uh regarding uh R1 uh are of some concern uh for the historic areas.

Um Indian Village itself uh was founded to um back in 1937 to shut down the rooming houses that had proliferated throughout the village.

Um we're presently zoned R1 uh single family housing.

Um these sections that affect that to remove um I think the one area is the revived the public published public notice requirements for consistency with the city charter to remove the section regarding lapse of approval for planned developments to allow law.

Time is up, sir.

I think maybe you may be looking at a different ordinance that or amendment.

That's why we we weren't familiar with that.

Uh your comment.

So you uh you may have another opportunity as we move forward, but I think you're speaking on a different different item.

This is 1035 a.m.

Yes, sir.

This is the item that uh she just read.

We're we're gonna allow Miss Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Duly note it.

We're gonna continue to move forward.

What's we heard your comments?

We allowed you to continue with your minute 30.

Uh, we're going to make sure that we respond to your your comments.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Are we going to go now to the callers who are calling in for uh comments on this item?

Our first caller is Charlotte.

Charlotte, the floor is yours.

We have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Hello.

Um, as she mentioned, this makes commercial combined with residential by right rather than conditional.

This removes public notice hearing and the appeal process.

She said it was uncontroversial and mentioned a place in Southwest that needs this to go through.

Uh there's another place on the border of gateway in Boston Edison that is highly controversial and has been publicly opposed by many of the residents and in litigation with the city for multiple years.

This or and an appeal.

Um, this meeting wasn't on the calendar yesterday morning, so I didn't have time to modify notify most of them in advance.

But this um creates a situation there where you've got commercial right next to residential, and they're putting 49 units in.

Uh, and combined with the other policies um that are either in this amendment or in other amendments currently being considered, it removes the parking requirements or it reduces the parking requirements dramatically, it removes the setback requirements, the screening requirements, and basically strips residents of their protection.

Um there's other things in here that are kind of crazy too, and some things that are really cool, but this is a very significant change, very controversial in some cases, and very well tailored to eliminate those cases and just make them by right removing residents' ability to really weigh in on the matter.

Um, I was also surprised to see the tiny or the um auxiliary dwelling unit thing is for up to three units.

Uh family thing's a huge change, kind of cool, but this is a big deal.

And I thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Michelle Matthews.

Michelle Matthews, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Good morning, council members.

Thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Michelle Matthews.

I'm here on behalf of Katrina Lockhart, who is a proud resident of Detroit.

She's also the founder of Karasi Storytelling Museum and Urban Birdies Pudding Course.

Miniature golf may seem small, but it represents something powerful.

Community connection, joy, and creative use of our land.

It transforms like vacant lots into places where families, children, and neighbors can gather safely, learn uh patients, focus, and perseverance.

The same skills that build strong communities.

Detroit has many areas that are thriving.

Let us continue to take opportunities to grow our neighborhoods towards the 21st century, opening doors for future growth for all Detroiters.

I urge you to vote yes on this amendment, not just for miniature golf, but for innovation, wellness, and the unity at the neighborhood level.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Tyson Gersh.

Tyson Gersh, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Thanks.

Um I guess first and foremost, I I don't think that it is uh justifiable in any way, shape, or form to try and rush a uh uh large-scale zoning ordinance text amendment package before an election.

Um the zoning ordinance, that's like the rules that the entire city operates on and relies on for people who have already made investments.

You know, us the residents, the the taxpayers, the people that have been here.

Um you can't just change all the rules rushed through before an election.

There is it is it is like absurd that there are four text amendment packages being considered currently.

Uh I I do not think these will hold up if challenged in court purely because you've disabled the public's ability to participate.

Um I don't think you should be doing it this way.

Two, um, you would be removing like I don't even have enough time, right?

Like this process is broken.

Like I object, I contest to the the proposed text amendment, the public parking credit thing.

That's gotta go.

Absolutely.

Like, and in combination with the other text amendment being proposed.

Like, do you think that the motor city doesn't have people who need cars?

Like it's 2025.

Who do you know that doesn't have a car?

Uh loading spaces and alleyways for residential, absolutely not.

Uh, that's right up against other people's homes that use the thank you.

The next caller, please.

Our next caller is don't rush massive zoning changes.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Warwick, are you there?

Are you there?

We're at the end of the queue and go to the next caller, please.

Our next caller is owner Papa.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Good morning, and through the chair, may I be heard?

Yes.

Carolyn Hughes.

This is this is absurd.

This is definitely up uh a fascist kind of system.

And um, I I would say this body is that's why they bring it to you to disallow the public from having anything to say, the residents to have anything to say about what's coming in their community.

And you already have you know, projects that you want to tailor the rules to so that they can circumvent them.

Your job is to protect the people.

What you are doing is leaving the people and the residents mostly open to whatever whim somebody wants to come into your neighborhood and do.

We have a process already in place.

We do not need you to change our rules.

We are already in a stew, and the people don't know that the fire is heating up.

You better look around.

Stealing our tax property tax dollars to to uh plug uh uh corporate America is is is a sign of this committee and its inability to protect the people and and and work in concert with the people for what the people want and need.

We need housing.

You're tearing down housing in in favor of things that could be implemented in other places.

This is a Santa Romero project.

This has nothing to do with demolition, just for the record.

There's no demolition involved in this particular uh request from CPC.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Ara.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Hi, Cha here, resident of Indian Village.

I agree with Mr.

Gersh that this is a rush, and I'm strongly opposed in urge to vote heck no to allowing conditional loss and commercial uses in our win's own historic districts and neighborhoods.

Our community was intentionally designed to preserve Detroit's residential character and our architectural heritage, not to become a business district, allowing lofts and similar uses, would it invite carriage houses conversions, short-term rentals, and commercial activity that erode the purpose of historic preservation and our neighborhoods.

Safety is already a concern.

I live on Kirchable and Seminole.

We've had multiple accidents, cars speeding, people drinking, walking through my neighborhood, walking through my yard, and it's only getting worse.

The presence of bars and microbreweries near homes and churches has created unsafe transient parking and disruptive conditions that do not belong in our residential neighborhoods.

Relaxing our R1 zoning requirements comes up often.

And we are constantly fighting with our public officials to protect our residential communities for folks that want to make decisions but aren't impacted by these ridiculous decisions.

When we are going to when are we going to stop and protect our neighborhoods?

I do not want a miniature golf course, 50 feet from my residence.

I'll go downtown for that.

How about five to seven miles from our residents?

We are not New York City or Chicago.

We are Detroit.

We do not follow trends.

We set them.

Our neighborhoods are strong because we protect what makes them special.

Safety and historic integrity.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Lynette Nett Robert.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, good morning, everybody.

This is Lynette Roberson.

I am the president of the Laura Northean Association.

And these past several weeks have been really crazy for me right now.

There are too many text amendments on the floor.

I'm trying to understand them.

I can't understand half of them.

We've been in meetings with District 5 managers, trying to understand why wasn't the uh uh community involved in any of these text amendments.

Some of these amendments is like they just woke up and just said, hey, this is gonna be a text amendment for the day.

Let me add it, let me add it to the list.

I am opposed to any of this right now.

Um allowing mixed use residential uh by right of the business zone parcels is that's a really big deal.

Um, and even the uh open alleyway.

It this is a lot, and I I say that I'm opposed to this.

I think that this should be tabled until the community is involved and able to just just express how they feel about this.

I don't think no one wants to have a bar next door to them.

My mom stays on the block with me.

I do not want a bar next door to me or any putt-putt golf.

I don't care about it.

I I just don't, and I I think we have other issues that we need to deal with outside of these text amendments.

These amendments are crazy, and that's it.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is caller ending in 039.

Caller ending in 039.

The floor is yours regarding line item six.

Caller, are you there?

They lowered their hand.

Our next caller will be Cornelius Harris.

Cornelius Harris, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Caller, are you there?

All right, let's put uh the caller at the end of the queue and go to the next caller, please.

Our next caller is iPhone.

IPhone, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Hi, uh, my question is uh I heard something about in regards to the loss and something about uh the uh amendment language would not be for someone like taking a having a garage and turning it into a law.

Now I don't know of anybody who's doing that, but if for some reason uh someone has a garage and that's turned it into a law, would they be grandfathered in if this language was approved or amended?

Or has anybody thought about that?

What would be the penalty for having a garage and having it turned into a law?

That's my question.

Thank you for this time.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is community engagement.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Can I be heard?

Yes.

Yes, and good morning to all.

Thank you for inviting us.

Um, I oppose the proposed changes presented here.

I agree with Mr.

Gersh.

There is no need to rush the passing of these text amendments right before an election.

I the residents, I'm a 40-year-old legacy resident.

There is no need to rush this right before the election.

The residents don't even understand all of the proposed text amendments.

We should be given a printed guide as to how these are going, how these text amendments are going to affect our lives and our residents.

As a 40-year legacy resident, we have not been properly informed.

Uh Nette Roberson is the president of our block club, North End, and she has not been properly informed.

We don't need cut cut golf courses.

We do need to maintain our parking and our peace of mind in our residences in our residential areas.

We need a printed guide sent to our residents for the clarification of the many proposed changes.

Once again, there is no need to rush this.

The it should also be possibly be put on the ballot, but we need to have a clear understanding of how this is going to impact our neighborhood.

And we are taxpayers, please protect us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is caller ending in one two four.

Caller ending in one, two, four.

The floor is yours regarding line item six only.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, there may be an echo because I don't know why you can't hear me through the Zoom extra excellent meeting myself.

Anyway, I agree with the previous callers.

I absolutely oppose this.

And if member Latisa James, who was on the BVA herself, admitted that you don't understand these things sometimes.

Imagine the average resident who doesn't just is not paid to read 192 pages or whatever this is.

In some of the community meetings, I asked the district five managers who were just pushing the administration's talking point if they had actually read that.

And of course, they did a pivot and said blah, blah, blah, and didn't answer my question.

And then they muted me so I couldn't speak.

So like that this is if you pass this, it shows you absolutely do not respect residents or their rights to meaningfully participate in the that what happens in their neighborhood, as is demonstrated by the disgusting non-inclusive master plan update process.

And it's like a conspiracy to violate people's due process rights uh for people who are opposing some development, some of which were like secretly planned on people, and then you wonder why we're upset.

So if you do this, then frankly, if you vote for this, then just please step off the council because you will have shown that you don't have respect for residents.

These should be put up for like months for people to see and understand instead of what thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Karen Winston.

Karen Winston, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding line item six.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Hello.

Okay, yes.

Um, I agree with everything the previous call was said.

This is a monogamy of projects and of amendments, and we don't know who's on first.

We don't know.

You know, we've talked about everything from large animal testing to put pet golf.

So these amendments can just need to be separated and then have a hearing on each one of them.

Because when we group them all together, even with the greatest 90 seconds that could give us um program tapes, we still have a hard time separating you know who's on first from who's on second.

It's just just a just a big uh cluster is what it appears to me.

Thank you for taking my call.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Miss Marguerite Maddox.

Ms.

Marguerite Maddox, the floor is yours regarding line item six.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll be listening.

We're just taking because we we do not need.

We do not leave.

My question is right.

And your neighborhood.

And there's a person.

And look in every edge, every amendment.

We need to get out.

Let's get in.

And then we need more houses.

I'm again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Mr.

Chair, we are back to Cornelius Harris.

All right, Cornelius Harris.

Cornelius Harris, the floor is yours regarding this 1035 public hearing.

Yes, I want to echo some of the concerns that other people had concerning the multitude of things that are listed in here.

I'm also very curious.

One of the things that was not mentioned in the presentation, but I'm seeing here written down is that there's another thing in here adding crematories and pet crematories in PD districts.

That wasn't mentioned.

I have no idea what that's actually in reference to.

You know, again, there's things that are in here that weren't actually spoken about.

The other thing is in terms of the parking we've already and I'm sorry, just for clarification, uh a money scramble of our uh near Woodward in uh near the Milwaukee Junction North End uh area for the Gramble of our business association.

And we've got a situation where there's all kinds of uh land that has been turned into empty parking lots, uh supposedly for Henry Ford and for who whoever else, uh, but they tend to be pretty much empty.

It contributes to the uh uglification, I'm gonna say, of the neighborhood and of the area.

And so this idea of extending this and allowing more of this uh doesn't seem to be something that's gonna contribute to the revitalization of the community.

So I just wanted to put that out there and say that yeah, I oppose this as it stands.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

That concludes our public comment.

Thank you.

All right.

That takes us to the end of our public comments.

And Ms.

Murphy, this very light touch doesn't sound light at all, according to the folks who called in.

Um we you know, let's be honest.

We have a number of folks who call it, no matter what we do, no matter what we say, they are going to say no, and they're not pleased.

And I'm just being honest.

But to hear some other folks calling who you know, call from various neighborhoods, and had some real pretty legitimate concerns.

And I'm not saying that all of them weren't legitimate, but that really perks the ears.

In particular, with the historic districts, and when we talk about uh North End.

I know some folks are also kind of mixing some of the ordinances up that we have uh before us.

I want to give you an opportunity to clarify, but some of them were very clearly about what you you spoke on.

So giving you the opportunity to discuss or provide responses.

And Director Ty, uh, thank you for being here as well.

Please introduce yourself for the record, and then you both may answer the questions that the public presented.

Thank you, Mr.

President Pro Tem.

Um good morning.

It is still morning, uh, to you and to the members of this honorable committee.

Uh Marcel Todd, director of City Planning Commission.

Joining Ms.

Murphy this morning, recognizing the um complexity of this sixth general text amendment, and chiefly, of course, as you've alluded to and Ms.

Murphy tried to address at the very beginning the fact that you do have what we see is somewhat unprecedented uh time where you've got four rather complex uh text amendments that are before you at the same time.

We recognize the challenge both to you uh this honorable body as well as to the public.

This was certainly not designed by any stretch of the imagination.

Uh and as it concerns one of the con uh item uh the what the the one of the recurring comments, um what you have before you in this particular ordinance, as Ms.

Murphy indicated, has more than two years of history uh with community engagement uh throughout it is only the come to you at this late hour because of the demands on the law department to review uh not only our work but the work of various uh other agencies, and because there's so many other things.

So all of these amendments are coming because of the lack of capacity in the law department to deal with them in a more expeditious and timely fashion, consistent with the way in which we originally look to roll them out, and that is not a dig at the law department, it is just a reality.

And certainly let me let me acknowledge that law department is aware of it and is trying to address the issue.

Um so these items do have history as it concerns uh some of the comments that were made, particularly with regard to the historic districts.

I do believe that while the speaker was in fact making reference to components of this ordinance, the letter that he was referencing, at least as I understand it, was drafted as a response to the COO proposed zoning amendments, which are subject of uh subsequent line item.

So we uh recognized in the email that we sent to you a short while ago that we expected unfortunately this confusion to um uh to come about.

We'll do our best to parse through what is COO at the appropriate time, but certainly make clear what is uh separate and unique with this sixth general text amendment.

By and large, what you have in here are some requests that come directly from members of this honorable body.

They come from members of the community, uh truly I can say Detroiters, not outsiders.

In some cases, these are individual business owners, folks who are uh entrepreneurs, people who have been looking to do things for some time that have been waiting for some of these provisions to go forward.

Even the putt-putt golf course is something that has been in the works for years, and that is a Detroiter who has been trying to fulfill this dream for the youth in the area, uh, et cetera.

Um and uh we've had many a discussion on that uh issue uh in and around community.

Uh so with that I'll allow Ms.

Murphy maybe to go through some more of the specific responses, but that's a general one, and we do hope to be able to parse to parse through them through your satisfaction and the communities because we do very clearly respect the confusion that exists.

So just a little bit more.

I know this is a two-year ball that's been rolling here and it's been going through the um uh process here at at City Hall, if you will, or uh Common Young Municipal Center.

What's been the community engagement again to try to make sure that people are pretty firm on what's being presented in this particular item?

And I recognize again when you're you you throw one in there and it looks similar to the other, it has some of the same language and R2s, and uh quite honestly, a lot of folks are not familiar with this language.

So when you kind of jump it all, you know, lump it all in together and uh on an agenda or in this time in uh history of this of this session, it just confuses a lot of folks.

So specifically about this uh request here.

What's been the engagement uh with the community on it in in these two years has been rolling?

I don't think we did any like outside of planning commission meetings.

It came to the planning commission for two different public hearings and was on the agenda at least one other time in addition to that.

And for our for our commission meetings, we um for tax amendments we mail out uh to a mailing list of about 1,200 people, like paper notices.

Um we also have an email list that's about 6,000 people that all of our notices go out to um we did not do a DON cast on this one.

Um we certainly did the some of the individual components of it had outreach specific to the component.

For example, again the putt putt.

Um and I'm blanking right now on again some of the other specific items, but I think again, as Ms.

Murphy indicated, they come from a number of sources, in some cases, issues that have been heard at BCD or BZA, and we're responding to those instances, the feedback that was gotten um uh uh by BC or BZA in some of those instances.

So it's a combination of of uh of input over the period whereby we were putting it together, but also the input received prior to that, which led to those items being suggested as changes.

So uh, but in this case, as Ms.

Murphy indicated, we do not have a series of uh of uh DONCAST or outside public sessions, as we have on other uh dedicated topics.

Again, I think that's one of the issues with the sixth general, because it doesn't have a single theme or focus.

It is bringing together in what we hope to be an efficient manner, maybe counter to one of the other public comments.

You couldn't have 17 different public hearings for each one of these issues.

It wouldn't really be efficient for the commission, for counsel, for the clerk.

This is why we try to package them up in such a way that they can all be heard at one time.

Uh and why and again, why we do the general text amendments to begin with, to fix things that are in error, to respond to changes in public law, public policy, uh, and to again respond to requests that have been coming that maybe did not fit into any other previous uh text amendment.

Thank you, sir.

Uh Ms.

Murphy, you want to go through some of the responses?

There are a couple of really specific questions that I wanted to answer.

Um, one was about existing lofts and garages and whether they would be grandfathered in.

Of course, if those were um done with a permit legally, they would they would in fact be grandfathered in and would still be legal.

Um Mr.

Harris talked about crematories in P D P D districts.

Teach right, we didn't mention that because that's one of the non-substantive changes.

So um our use table was just missing a little L in the PD column saying you could do a crematory in a PD district.

Um, but you could have done it anyway because um those go through commission and council, they require public hearings.

It's not a biorate use at all.

Um just explain crematory forum.

Oh that's where um pet crematory.

Yeah, pet crematory is uh where you would take your deceased pet to have it um reduced to ashes for um keeping in an urn or whatever or bearing.

Um then the last one.

Oh Reverend Clark, the first commenter talked about condos um on Lumpkin.

It sounded like that was new construction.

So this ordinance wasn't about new construction at all, it's only existing buildings, non-residential buildings that you would be able to convert to residential.

Um I will look more into that address.

I didn't see anything right off the bat.

I don't think there were any other specific questions.

Are we missing any okay?

All right, any additional questions, comments, concerns on this item, colleagues?

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um so I do appreciate you all um attempting to address and respond to several of the residents who called in.

I I do while I hear you, Director Todd, say it's this has been a process for you all for a couple of years.

Um the timing is a bit of a challenge because of the other proposed amendments that have been presented to us.

Um I think if we're listening closely, we hear the sentiment from the community relative to some of those.

Um but I do still have a concern about the quarter of a mile parking requirement.

And I would like to ask if we can remove that and maybe have some greater discussion about it, because I think there needs to be I need to have a better understanding of the plan.

What's the plan for the future uh as it relates to parking as relates to activating more of our neighborhood commercial corridors and what the city is looking to do to alleviate the community from just having a barrage of out I won't say outsiders, a barrage of vehicles that now um permeate the community.

And if you live near commercial corridor, then you probably have a lot of angst relative to this.

But I think we need to have a plan before we actually make that amendment, um, so that we're supporting our residential uh areas as well as the businesses and as we're encouraging more businesses to come into our neighborhood corridors.

Um I think that is that is it that I wanted to share, but I do hear the um I won't say confusion, but because another amendment that is being proposed has been shared.

Um, I guess fairly broadly throughout the city, people are responding to that, although that's not before us today.

Um it just says to me the work that I think we need to do relative to the other amendments that will be put before city council.

Um, and so that is my only request that we maybe extract that uh quarter of a mile and then have some greater conversations about making that amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

Any reflections on that, uh, Director Todd?

Certainly, thank you, Mr.

President Pro Tem, through you too, member Johnson.

As it concerns that particular one, that is one that is tied to the traditional main street overlay districts and is one that also has had a great deal of discussion because in those instances, what we were trying to do is begin to move toward more of a district approach to it so that those particular corridors can function as one and not have the limitations of where parking might otherwise be restricted in terms of how far you could go with remote.

So that was the gauge there.

True enough, that same quarter mile distance, which is what the uh uh linear uh measure works out to is kind of consistent with walkability um um strategies that we've been talking about and certainly have been employed elsewhere, and is also part of the COO proposal as well.

So uh so that is certainly an area where the public is right, you are right that both are referenced there uh as we as Ms.

Murphy indicated.

We expected this ordinance to have been before you and dealt with probably back in the spring.

Um it was in the spring that the administration came to us with the COO proposal.

So uh again, unfortunately, here we are where they're all coming before you for uh public engagement for for public hearing at the same time.

But we would be happy to remove that item if that is the will of the committee.

Uh law department could be so directed to do so and revise the ordinance.

And if that if with that you be prepared to advance it or with any other changes, uh we could return with a corrected uh ordinance to substitute what is before you.

Member Johnson.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I did recognize the TMSO.

Um, of course, I have one in District 4 that is being reactivated.

Uh, and I think it's great.

It's wonderful.

I love it.

I would love to have more community conversations and engagement around that one, the one that exists in District 4.

Um, because I I'm not certain that residents even are aware of it, while a percentage of our residents that live nearby would be open to walking to East Warren.

I'm not sure how far people are interested in walking from, right?

So I would just like to have some uh community engagement around that particular area because I would imagine there are some folks in District 4 who have been also advocating for this change.

Uh but just want to see community engagement.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And I know I've also my office, we submitted a request uh dealing with tattoo parlors, right?

Uh, we know that that's been a challenge for many of our uh particularly our young entrepreneurs that are looking to grow their business um and they've outgrown some spaces and now are looking to uh expand.

So that one I will say we specifically ask for in our office to to your credit, you're getting these requests from council members and members of the community as well.

So this is not just in a vacuum to the public uh with CPC, they're not making this stuff up, it's coming from various sources, various locations.

It's just a very challenging time right now, and that's the issue that we're we're dealing with.

Uh member vice chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And I I I kind of look at the parking in a different way, uh, through you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh and I do can I like I said, I can understand the concerns of residents, uh, particularly adjacent to these commercial corridors, uh the sensitivity of folks who may frequent these businesses, possibly parking on the side streets.

Um, but what I will also say, a lot of that happens and exists because we just simply don't have enough parking here in the city of Detroit, as is.

Uh, when we talk about our commercial corridors, whether that be downtown or now commercial corridors we're trying to build in uh there them being adjacent to the neighborhood, let me say that.

When you look at other communities uh around the country that have vibrant commercial corridors, a lot of them, or you don't even have to go that far, you can go to Dearborn, about 10-15 minutes, they have parking structures.

Uh and at some point here in the city of Detroit, is my belief, we do have to become more of a walkable city.

Uh everyone does not drive, everyone does not own a car.

Uh when we talk about the environment and becoming more environmentally friendly.

When we talk about uh how we change traffic patterns, when we talk about noise in the community and quality of life for residence, uh all of those things have to be taken uh into consideration.

Uh and I do believe you've got to start somewhere.

Uh I often I also believe that if you have the opportunity to speak to folks who want to develop on some of these commercial corridors, they look at requirements relative to parking as a hindrance to start that business.

You may buy uh a parcel here in the city of Detroit, and we know that there is nowhere that's contiguous to that, so you can have somebody park.

Some places may have a lot next door for sale that you can have your your customers park in, but some may not.

And so now we're looking at a coffee shop potentially, who may be a very popular great pot uh coffee shop, but current parking is only four to five cars that can fit there.

And so we're limiting the capacity and the opportunity for business as well when we have uh such requirements.

So, you know, I I I again I get where we're going.

And I've talked to many folks across the city of Detroit.

Some folks uh, as we heard today, are not excited about having vibrant commercial corridors or businesses adjacent to their neighborhoods.

But I more likely hear folks that want those amenities, that want to have the opportunity to have a dry cleaner's or coffee shop, maybe even a tattoo parlor, uh close to them.

Uh and I think that's how we start to reimagine Detroit and start building a place that even is for families.

And remember, these are adjacent to our neighborhoods.

It helps better our neighborhoods, creates more opportunity for jobs, more uh entrepreneurship, small business.

Um we I think we've got to create that here though.

Uh and it may not be today with all these zoning uh or text amendments, but I do think we surely need to take the step to ensure that our city uh is not caught in the 1930s and 40s uh of the hustle and bustle thinking that everybody's just gonna drive and have a car.

Yes, we are the motor city, yes, we want folks to buy cars.

But we also want to have greater and better transportation here, public transportation.

We talk about that all the time.

How do we create walkability here in this city?

Uh and and so I look at a couple of these ordinances as taking that step, also creating the opportunity to find productive uses for the land that we have uh and spark kind of uh again uh the opportunity for vibrant commercial corridors.

So that that's my two cents on it.

Uh while why I'm supportive of it, uh again, I know there are vast opinions on it.

Uh, but I do again, Mr.

Chair, I think we've got to start somewhere.

Thank you.

Thank you, Member Vice Chair.

And I and I don't disagree with a thing you just said.

I think the challenge is that how do we bring the people along board while we're doing it, you know, uh along the way.

I mean, when you talked about the um uh parking structures, man, and when you go out to some of these suburban communities, like these are municipal parking structures that are free for a period of time, and after those two hours, you pay X amount of whatever.

We have none of that here.

That I don't think is going to work in our neighborhoods, though.

You know, at least at this moment, we don't have that structure built.

That's all I'm saying.

We don't have the the we don't have the process.

We have not begun to have the at least no one's made it aware to me that we've begun that process.

Um and again, I think that's where the challenge becomes where we have a lot of ideas, and then we have the community who are going to have to live this and as as well as us as well, but having the time to have the conversations, that's where I think the the challenge has become, at least now in this last you know, number of weeks until this um the session wraps up.

Uh, I do want to bring up before I I I hand it back over to my colleagues, uh there is a question, you know.

Uh Attorney Anderson, we ask you to draft this document here.

Um we talk about unresolved matters at the conclusion of the legislative turn.

We might as well bring it up now because it may be applicable to this one, let's be honest, as we have this discussion.

Um if this is an item that goes, you know, uh uh we're talking about bringing it back in next session, and I'm not saying that's what I'm thinking of, but oh putting everything on the platter so that we can have a full truth conversation while the public's listening and watching.

Can you walk through this uh just briefly?

And I know we the clock is ticking, uh, but giving you the opportunity.

We I have not had an opportunity to read it uh because it was sent um yesterday, last night, and I didn't get a chance to read it.

So walk us through this uh document again, being mindful of the time, sir.

Thank you.

Yes, through the chair Graham Anderson Law Department to be as swift as possible.

Uh but as we move up on the new legislative term for city council, it essentially to uh the long in the short is everything is going to fall to the floor and start new.

Meaning that if we if uh for example uh uh line item six here, if uh this body chooses not to move it forward to formal session, we either you know we bring it back TE TBD or you know, with two weeks now and then another two weeks, then eventually you know we get to the end.

Um but that item will fall to the floor and it will need to be re-escribed, refiled uh at the start of the 2026 um uh new legislative term.

And there's a few reasons for that.

Can I pause you there though?

Yeah, go ahead.

So so let's say that happens.

It all falls to the floor.

Yes, everything has been created at this point, right?

Every we've gone through all of the steps.

I know you may have to go through some of those steps again, but in terms of like the document and what your plans and what it looks like, it now has been created.

How difficult is it to raise it back up off the floor?

Seeing that we have now a document that you know will be completed but just not voted on at this point.

Through the chair, I would say it depends.

It depends on the item.

Um things I think it's going to be, I think a swift uh pick back up and it might be able to hit the ground running and pass it quick in January, because as you said, you know, maybe the the groundwork's already been established, um, everything's been written.

It's easy to pick it right back up and and move right into it again.

But I know that won't be for everything.

I know, you know, uh this is obviously political world we're in, some things might change um from now um till January.

Um different council members, this will be a different um uh uh committee.

Um uh not just because we will be missing council member Durhall, of course, but we will also potentially not have uh councilmember Johnson or uh council member uh uh pro temptate on this committee next year as well.

Um it could be completely different.

Um there'll be a different will of the body.

Um if I will, I want to take that out of it because this is the body is the body is the body is the body.

Yes.

Whether you talk about members being elected and and they're sitting on this, whoever it is, there's a committee.

And it still has to go through the process.

So I want to take the individuals out of it and just keeping in mind that we still have the structure of PED uh in particular.

You're gonna have three members, you're gonna have a chair, regardless.

Um so all of these items, again, as we talk about them, and there's a lot of confusion with folks.

A lot of confusion.

What where do we believe that we'll find difficulty in raising it back up and putting it before, putting these items before the new configuration of council, uh, if we come to that conclusion today through or as we move forward?

Through the chair procedurally, that there shouldn't be much to that point.

That it will be the same procedure um that we did um this year.

The only difference is is we're gonna we're just gonna have to start.

So we we, for example, for this one here, typically we know you have to hold one public hearing um to amend the ordinance to move things forward.

In this case, though, let's say, for example, this item does not move forward.

If we were to bring it to refile it again in January, we would have to have an additional new public hearing.

Everything starts new.

It's uh you know, it's pressing new game in a video game essentially.

Um it it's all uh brand new.

Okay.

Member vice chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and and while I I appreciate you, I I think the body is the body.

Um one thing I can say about you is you have always been fair on putting public hearings up, whether it was something that you supported or you didn't.

But the absolute reality is is that you're you may not be the chair here next year, and we may not have that same type of grace uh here.

So when we talk about specific issues, there are possibilities for those to die based off of individuals or who may come in and serve or who are even currently serving, depending uh on what their appetite is.

Uh because there still is a possibility as the chair that they don't call a public hearing on it.

Then you don't hear it, or they'd wait to schedule it, and then that dies, and it can get kicked down the road.

So uh I am a firm belief, and maybe I'm a little bit biased because I'm the only one here that won't be here next year.

Uh not in this capacity at least.

Uh what I would say is is that some breaking news?

Oh no, no, I'm saying I'm gonna I'll be here, I'll be living.

There you go.

That's what I'm saying.

God willing.

No, no, no, no.

Uh you'll be the first to know though, Mr.

Chair.

Uh but what I'm saying is there's a possibility that this there's not an opportunity for this to come back up.

Uh and that's why I do I do think it's important uh to have these heard and and for us to possibly take action uh on this.

This council has been a uh a great council uh that has been very thoughtful, and it has always been uh my position at least that at least coming out of committee, and it gets in front of the entire body, that is when that decision will be made.

Um and I I think we do our due diligence here in this committee to make sure that that happens, and I would hope that with these ordinances that we have, a couple other ones.

One, I'm gonna be a sponsor I am a sponsor of that's coming up.

Um it is my hope that we give the entire body the opportunity to decide uh what they want to do with it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Todd, I believe you wanted to chime in.

Thank you.

Thank you again, Mr.

President Pro Jim.

Through you two uh two through and to you and the members of the committee.

The only thing I guess I would like to add just for clarity's sake, we do understand from the law department what the direction is, so therefore, anything that was not acted upon by your honorable body, we would be looking to resubmit.

So therefore, anything that was not acted upon by your honorable body, we would be looking to resubmit.

And it's our further understanding that as long as it is within the period of viability, the 120-day clock or any extensions of that, say for um uh screening and fencing, which we know has been extended.

Uh, as long as it is within that period, it would not have to start over from scratch with the commission.

It would still be viable so we could resubmit it to the new council.

However, the only other bit of clarity would like to add is that if in fact something does go forward uh and is voted down, then that will be the final, and it will actually have to start over completely from scratch with the commission.

We'll have to go back, hold all of our hearings uh and engagement on each and every one of those items.

So that would be the difference uh for something that does take that you know that path and with um and being and ends up being denied by the honorable body.

Thank you, sir.

All right, colleagues.

Uh we still have one additional hearing left and in a full agenda.

Uh what say you on this particular item?

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I would like to make a motion to remove the amendment relative to the parking requirement.

There's a motion to remove the element regarding the parking requirement.

Any objections from this particular uh resolution?

Any objection?

Objection.

Showing one that action shall be taken.

All right.

Any further motion discussion?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I move that we send line item six, our 1035 a.m.

public hearing to formal with the recommendation to approve as amended.

There's a motion to send line item six to 1035 public hearing to formal with a recommendation recommendation to approve as amended.

Any objections?

See none that action shall be taken.

Thank you.

Mr.

Todd, Director Todd.

Thank you again, Mr.

President Pro Tim.

We will get with law department and hopefully they'll be able to turn that around expeditiously.

Uh, should it not be ready for next week?

We'll let you know, and then hopefully we'd be ready the following week for action if there is in fact a delay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you all for the hard work.

This now closes out the 1035 public hearing.

And I'd like to call back to order the 1055 public hearing with the parties who are participating, please cue up.

The 1055 public hearing is a request for a PA 146 certificate.

We've seen this project before.

It's for an obsolete property rehabilitation certificate on behalf of Wayne Tower LLC in the area of one to zero zero sixth street, Detroit, Michigan, in accordance with public act 146 of 2000.

With the parties who are participating, you see yourself on the screen screen.

Please introduce yourself for the record.

Good morning.

My name is Jalen Hannah.

Good day.

E back generally housing and revalualization department.

I'm sorry.

Good day.

Good morning, everybody.

My name is Maha.

I'm with Black Acre.

Good day.

Rakisha Barclay for LPD.

Good day.

Good afternoon.

Alton Williams, Detroit Economic Growth Corporation.

Good day, sir.

Good afternoon, Nevin Chokar, uh consultant to the developer.

Good day.

All right.

Uh who would like to begin?

Okay.

Thank you.

Through the chair, we have Wayne Tower, LLC requesting an absolute property rehabilitation exemption certificate in the area of one two zero zero sixth street.

And this is an application for a certificate.

And this is the final hearing before this honorable committee before the certificate may be approved in issue.

I would now turn it over to my fellow colleague, Mr.

Al T Williams with the DGC.

And we have the petitioners present as well for any questions or concerns.

Mr.

Williams.

Thank you.

To the chair, may I share my screen, please, sir?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh so today we have come before this honorable body to request an obsolete property rehabilitation exemption certificate for the 12006th Street project being led by the Black Acre Development Team.

Built in 1972, 1206th Street consists of two office towers totaling 613,000 square feet of vacant commercial space.

The 71.8 million dollar redevelopment will convert the property into a vibrant mixed-use community with 354 rental apartments, including 71 affordable units, 10,500 square feet of commercial space, and 100 uh a 114 room boutique hotel.

The obsolete property rehabilitation act provides a reduction on the future increase in property taxes as a result of the rehabilitation of existing obsolete commercial and residential properties.

If you turn your attention to year zero, you'll see a small dark green bar representing the amount of taxes currently paid on the property.

This works out to be approximately $35,000 per year.

Moving on to year one, you'll see that this bar increases, and that represents the total amount of taxes that we project based on the substantial investment that will be made into this project.

Upon completion of the project, the assessor will reassess the property, and as a result of the improvements, the property's value will increase.

The owners will then be responsible for paying a piece of that increase in taxes represented by the teal portion on the bar graph.

The total taxes that first year will be roughly $2,039, and the abated portion will be approximately $1.4 million, represented as the yellow bar on the graph.

Through the life of the abatement, the owner will pay the dark green and the teal portion shown on the bar graph.

And this equals roughly $600,000.

Assuming that they receive the full term of the abatement in year 13 after the abatement has expired, they will be responsible for the entire amount of taxes, which is right around 2.5 million dollars.

This development is located in an existing obsolete property rehabilitation district that was established earlier this month.

The developer before you today is requesting a certificate.

On October 9th, the assessor's office wrote a letter confirming that this project meets the eligibility requirements for commercial rehabilitation exemption certificate.

We have completed our underwriting and net fiscal impact analysis, and the project demonstrates a financial need for the abatement.

Based on this review, we recommend the approval of the certificate for 12 years on this project.

That concludes my presentation, Mr.

Chair, and I will now turn it over to the development team to offer some more detail regarding the project.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Dalen Hannah.

I'm the founder and CEO of Black Acre Management.

We're the developer of the proposed Wayne Lofts.

Black Acre specializes in adaptive reuse.

We're transforming vacant buildings into vibrant mixed-use communities.

We're completing historic redevelopments right now in Pontiac, Southfield, and Troy.

We've created hundreds of jobs and countless new housing units.

But we are going to be applying all the lessons learned and converting that property into this project.

Wayne Lofts will receive I'm sorry, we'll revive one of Detroit's last dormant skyline properties.

It's going to deliver new housing, uh including substantial amount of uh affordable units with an emphasis on accessibility, energy efficiency, and uh universal design.

Um I spent uh about four years at Wayne State in Detroit, and I've always admired Detroit's uh resilience, and we're very honored to be a part of uh a part of that, even if it's in a small role with this property.

Uh with that, I'm happy to introduce my partner Maha Banna, who's also on this call.

She oversees operations and property management for Black Acre.

Yeah.

Hi, everybody.

My name is Mahabano, and I am the president of Black Acre.

Um, and as Dale mentioned, I oversee development financing and construction management as well.

And I'm very excited for this development as this will re-energize the neighborhood, um, add much needed uh housing and create new economic and community opportunities for Detroiters.

Uh, someone who's lived and worked in the city of Detroit.

Uh, it's always been one of my favorite places, and I loved being part of the community, and I'm really excited to come back to the city and now contribute true growth to the city as well.

And we're very proud to bring this property back to life.

It's such an iconic Detroit property, and we're here to answer any questions that the committee may have.

Thank you.

Also, I I don't mean to uh step out of line, but if we go back to that last page, I'm happy to uh you know mention these items, these are bullet points.

Obviously, they're in front of everybody, but I'm also happy to answer any questions that may not be reflected here.

Um, it is a big property.

There's a ton of parking.

Um, I know that right now it says 468.

The property as it stands has over 900 spaces.

Um we're gonna be creating over 300 construction jobs, uh, several permanent jobs within the property.

Um, and then of course, the building itself will be barrier-free, universal design, fully ADA compliant, but 88 compliance for us is a minimum.

Universal design is really where our focus is.

And the the nice thing about converting a commercial building, a building that was built and designed for the state of Michigan and its thousands of employees that worked in the building, is that um it is a building that has wide floor plates and large corridors, and and of course, uh 88 compliant elevators.

So the the building it kind of lends itself to an easy conversion with regards to universal design.

Um everything else about the conversion is very complicated, but as far as having uh a lot of elbow room and and and space, uh that's something that we are very lucky to have in this property.

Um, and of course, we have a lot of other features.

The building will be brand new, it'll be built to spec on 2025, 2026 uh standards, of course, um, with a lot of modern amenities.

Um, and again, I'm I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

Um Ms.

Barcliff.

Yes.

You have before Une Tower LLC seeking an Oprah certificate for the redevelopment of 1200 Sixth Street, a 613,000 square feet commercial building situated on a 2.758 acre lot.

It was built in 1972.

It's the former executive um plaza complex, the former location of the various state of Michigan offices before they move their operations to Cadillac Place and New Center in the 2000s.

Since then, the big building has remained mostly vacant.

The proposed project includes the conversion of this 21-story and 11-story two-tower office building into a mixed-use development consisting of 354 loft-style residential apartments, a 114-room hotel, and 10,500 square feet of commercial space.

Um, the apartment units consist of one and two bedroom apartments.

The one bedrooms is totaled up, there'll be a total of 243 units, 49 of those which will be um affordable units.

Um the average size is um six eight hundred and twenty-eight square feet with a rent of the affordable rent at 15 um 100,000.

Excuse me, 1,515.

The two bedroom units will be there will be a total of 111 units.

20 of 2022 of those will be affordable with the average square feet of 1,000 45 square feet, um, with the add 1,818 dollars.

The building would undergo um comprehensive in interior and exterior renovation, which includes the upgrades of the HVAC system, plumbing and electrical system, roof and elevators.

The estimated total capital investment for this project is 71.9 million.

The sources of fund for the project are through owner equity, grant funding, and permanent financing.

It is also estimated that the completed project will create one developer job, two tenant jobs, and 333 temporary construction jobs.

The total value of the 12-year Oprah tax saving is estimated at 18.8 million.

Based on the investments and jobs, this project is estimated to bribe the city of Detroit with a net benefit of 4.3 million dollars, and all of the impact jurisdiction um jurisdictions combined of a net benefit of 12.4 million dollars of the 12 years of the Oprah tax abate.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

That concludes your presentation.

The colleagues questions, comments, concern.

Again, this is the certificate phase.

We've seen this project come before us.

Uh seeing no questions at this moment, we shall now go to public comment.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

Going once.

And again, it's uh for uh to be specific, that is for uh the 1055 public hearing uh presentation that you just saw.

Uh going once, going twice, going three times.

Collection public comments have now concluded.

Uh, how many callers do we have?

And who do we have first?

Mr.

Chair, we have five callers.

Our first one being don't rush massive zoning.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding uh the 1055 public hearing.

Caller, are you there?

All right, we're gonna go to the next caller and that one at the end of the queue.

Alrighty.

Our next caller is owner Papa.

All right, caller.

The floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the 1055 public hearing.

Uh good afternoon, and through the chair, may I be heard?

Yes.

Carolyn Hughes.

Um I'm looking at the agenda and I see various projects that are terminated because you did not fulfill.

I think um we have 22 units that we're gonna get out of it at um uh some kind of affordable rate, and that is $1,800.

I don't know if it's a one-bedroom or a two-bedroom, but I think we should put all of these projects on hold until we can do a feasibility study in terms of how they have effectively help the housing problem and if our money is being spent in uh in a in a more uh deliberate manner.

Uh you're talking about reducing the amount of the general fund while we're stealing from the general fund.

Um this is monies that we use to provide services for the city.

And I'm wondering how all of these projects are impacting um garbage pickup.

How do they um how do we account for almost a million dollars in savings in the first year?

Um I think it was two million with the savings of uh one million and something.

Um how do we um replenish these tax deductions that are occurring on a regular basis through this body?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Dorothy Bennick.

Dorothy Bennick, the full the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the 1055 public hearing.

Carler, are you there?

Good afternoon.

Um, my name is Dorothy Belly.

About three blocks from the building.

My concern basically is with construction going under.

Um that would be um six and um congestion off of the lodge and says also where the bus station is.

Um I just have a concern to make sure that residents will be able to get in and out of the neighborhood because we'll probably be looking at Michigan Avenue also being under construction from uh personally am in favor of the building since it has been empty for a very long time.

And I appreciate the vote, the developers that are doing this project.

Thank you.

Okay, ma'am.

You still had a few more seconds on the clock.

Uh your your your audio went in and out.

Was there a question that you had in there?

No question.

I'm sorry.

Hello.

Did she did she drop?

No.

Are you still there, ma'am?

Yes.

Okay, there we go.

That sounds much clearer.

Okay, did you have a question?

Because your your audio, your audio went out, Miss Bennick.

The question basically would be as to the control area since um we also probably have Michigan Avenue under construction.

We need to get residents in and out of the neighborhood.

All right, member vice chair.

Uh is it just my ears or did you get the question?

Mr.

Chair, I did not gather it all the way either.

So I don't know.

It's just your ears.

It's kind of just combined related.

Yeah, the the unfortunately, Miss Bennick, the the audio for your your question is is is dropping in and out.

We're gonna put you at the end of the queue, give you another opportunity to ask your question.

Maybe it'll clear up by then.

Uh so we don't want to just bypass your question.

Uh so we'll go to the next caller.

We're we're gonna bring you back at the end of the queue, though.

Our next caller is Karen Winston.

It's Karen Winston.

Uh the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the 1155 public hearing.

1055 public hearing, excuse me.

Yes.

Have I?

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Um, I I have several concerns.

One is going to be environmental.

And I'm wondering um about uh I think I heard the building was uh built in 1972.

So I'm assuming that it's probably gonna have asbestos rep um heating and cooling pipes.

I'm also figuring it's probably gonna have lots of lead pipes in for the water service.

So I'm hoping all that'll be has been considered, and we're gonna take care of all that in the construction of this building rehab of this building.

Um especially the asbestos.

Now that's gonna come gonna demand that we uh you know set up some type of curtain to stop the azebestas and and any lead uh debris from pre permeating into the neighborhood during this construction.

So I'd like to make sure that's in uh in your plans.

But we we can't see the clock either, Mr.

Chair.

Um, and I'm wondering what type of community benefits will be um given to the project.

Or could we do a supermarket or something, or maybe donate some instruments to some neighborhood schools or something for the community can see some type of benefit from our tax money constantly going out?

Um yeah, so community benefits, uh the environmental issues, and I'd like to see more affordable units too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Miss Marguerite Maddox.

Miss Margaret Maddox, Scarlet, the floor is yours regarding line item seven.

Yes, MC.

Thank you.

Um the cotton child and let's start though.

Tell me you think we're trying to do this and health because we need clothes.

That we just all under one roof.

And if we're gonna be dying.

Yeah, you uh yes.

How many of those units?

And oh one, one legend, right?

One I don't like it.

And again, thank you.

We are back to uh Dorothy Bennick.

Ms.

Bennick, are you you there?

We're gonna give you another opportunity to ask your question.

Are you there going once?

I am.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Um, and this is in for 1055, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

I am in favor of the rehabilitation of the state building, or what we would call the state building.

My concern is to make sure or ask about the traffic flow that will be coming in off the lodge is since it's by the bus station and living in the neighborhood.

We will also probably have MDO working on Michigan Avenue.

I just want to make sure that traffic can be directed so that we can get in and out of our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh that takes us to the end of our public commenters.

We're going to give the presenters an opportunity to respond to the questions that have been presented by public.

And whoever would like to begin, you may proceed.

I'm I'm happy to answer a couple of the questions.

Um the number of units that will be coming on will be about 355.

I know that was asked.

Um as far as ADA compliant units, we're gonna have 30 units that are gonna be fully 88.

And I believe eight of those 30 are gonna be for people with uh hearing and uh and vision uh challenges.

Um the second question was regarding construction concerns.

So it's a good question.

The one of the the benefits of this being a conversion, it's not a ground up project.

There's no crane placement.

Uh it's very minimal uh site work.

So while there will be site work to improve and enhance the property, it's all steel and concrete right now.

We want to bring a lot of green space to the property.

That's just landscaping.

As far as the major heavy lift of the construction, it's all internal, so it has very little effect on the exterior of the building or the neighborhood.

Where there is uh work to be done on the exterior, whether it's removing debris from within the building or bringing material in, we've already started site work with regards to um just fencing off the space and and uh having dust protection around those fences.

So when we do initiate construction, that'll be um it'll collect dust and wherever there's uh uh uh dust creating event, we use uh we use misting, so water misting to weigh down the dust, and you don't have these big clouds of dust, it all comes down to the the ground um on site.

The third question was regarding uh environmental uh concerns, so abatement.

Um we are intending on fully remediating the property and abating the asbestos and any other toxic materials.

Obviously, any building that was built, you know, in the 60s and 70s is gonna have that.

Uh we've dealt with it, we've dealt with it in several of our properties.

Um so we're very aware of it.

We have all of the uh relationships with the uh environmental consultants and remediation companies, and we don't ex encapsulate a lot of developers will I wouldn't say a lot, but many developers will encapsulate uh asbestos, meaning it's there on site, but they will cover it with something like drywall or ceilings.

Uh we fully we fully remediate and abate it and get it out of the property.

So when we're all set and done, this will be a a property that is uh compliant with the all the environmental code on that.

Um and then the last question that I I heard was the community benefits.

Uh we have been in contact with all of the stakeholders that we are able to.

Um everybody from Ford at the train station all the way down to our our local neighbors and the local businesses.

Uh we have the support of the Corktown Business Association.

We've been working with the church that's right behind us.

They actually use our parking lot for Sunday service.

We've been working with the school that that church operates and the clinic as well.

Um other stakeholders include other small businesses in the area who've all shown support for this and agree that it's a it's a blighted property that needs to be uh revamped.

I haven't confirmed, but I think we're the tallest if we're not the tallest, one of the tallest buildings in Corktown.

So it's a prominent building that everybody wants to see uh reactivated.

And of course, we're very cognizant of the fact that we want to do that uh and be cohesive with the neighborhood and not stand out or or be uh objectionable given what's already there.

Um I think that's all the questions I heard.

Uh I think there were some number specific questions that I'll let Alton or Nevin uh touch upon.

Yeah, through through the chair, if I may, um I I call it two more questions.

Um one of those was around affordable housing.

And so um 20% of the units, so 71 total residential units will be affordable.

And so those one bedroom units, they're large one-bedroom units, they're around 828 square feet.

Those will be at uh $1,500 a month in rent.

Uh 22 two-bedroom units will be at 1818 a month.

And that's just for context, that's about $300 a month less than the market rate units for those for those one and two bedroom units.

Uh additionally, there was a question around um, you know, this potential tax incentive requests taking money away from uh general services or I may have heard the schools.

Um I just want to clarify this tax incentive does not take away uh any dollars that are currently being collected by the property uh you know to to the city uh to the general mills, to the schools, or to anyone for that matter.

What this would do is this would freeze uh those those current taxes that are being paid so they stay the same or or potentially even go up as a result of this tax incentive.

Thank you.

The one other question I heard, and this was from uh Ms.

Maddock and talked about the 88 a um uh uh apartments in it, and how are you addressing uh universal design?

If you did discuss that, I apologize.

I missed it.

Um, and she also talked about uh laundry, uh washer and dryer.

Are we talking stacked or are we talking uh side by side?

I'm happy to address that.

So uh we're proud to say that all of our residential units and all of our developments, including this one have NU in unit uh laundries.

Um many of them are stackable given the space constraints, but on ADA units we do side by side units.

Um that's a washer and a dryer.

And again, if there is a side or a space constraint, we'll use an all-in-one system.

Uh and so we're we've been through that in the past.

Um, and then the 88 units, uh, it is, and I apologize if I uh if I skipped over this.

I I have read I have it written down.

We have 38 units, 30 total units in the building that are gonna be fully 88 compliant.

Of those, eight units are gonna be um units that are both ADA and um uh hearing and uh vision uh disabled persons you know, compliance.

So people who are blind, people who can't see, people who uh can't have you know hearing problems.

So I'll give you an example, you know, like the fire uh strobes in those units are worked a little bit differently, different decibels and and and flashing lights, whereas a lot of other units will just have an audible uh siren.

Um all of the units are going to be technically 88 because of the sizing.

We don't like narrow hallways, we don't like 32 inch doors, so all of our doors are in hallways and corridors, even in the units are generally large, especially with this building's floor plates.

We can't afford to do that, and that's what we're fully intending on doing.

All right, thank you.

Colleagues, any additional questions, comments, concerns regarding this particular item.

Seeing none, is there a motion?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'll move that we send line item seven or 1055 a.m.

public hearing formal with a recommendation to approve.

That's a motion to send line item seven to 1055 public hearing to formal with a recommendation to approve.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Thank you so much.

We shall now close out the 1055 public hearing.

Thank you, everybody.

You're welcome.

If we can colleagues, if we can please take line items 8.1, 8.4 uh and 8.7 together.

Some will um uh to for discussion, I'm sorry.

Some of them, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

All right, uh again, that's a line item 8.1, 8.3, and 8.7.

Colleagues, any question, these are unfinished business items that have returned back to us.

We'll take up uh first line item 8.1.

Any questions, comments, concerns regarding this particular item.

See none, is there a motion?

Move to send to formal with the recommendation.

Oh, I'm sorry, for the introduction and setting of a public hearing.

There's a motion to send line items well.

I guess the question is uh pardon me, Mr.

Chair.

This is the 8.1 is the screening tax amendment ordinance.

Yes, but uh uh I don't think a hearing was set for this, so I think it's for introduction.

Yeah, um is eight point five.

Sorry, go ahead.

Pardon me, member Johnson.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

We did have a public hearing for this line item.

This was um being brought back because of some additional requests that my team, Member Santiago Romero's team worked through with the city planning commission, and I believe we are all set to move forward um on this particular item.

Okay.

Is so there is there a motion?

Uh move to send line item 8.1.

8.2.

We have moved uh 8.1, 8.4, and 8.7.

No worries.

8.1, 8.4, and 8.7.

We move together.

And got uh director Todd is joining us.

Director Todd, come forward, please.

All right.

Um thank you, Mr.

President Pro Tem Marcel Todd, director City Plan Commission.

My apologies, still dealing with that other agenda item.

As it concerns screening and buffering ordinance, we do have an update for you.

That and did mention at last week's meeting that uh it appears that a number of the items that have been identified for revision will not require a public hearing.

There is only one which uh law department has now clarified would require a public hearing in the future.

We do have a revised memo that I was going to distribute later today, now that we've had feedback from all of the other participants from planning development department and from law that uh contains these items.

And it would be uh, if so desired.

Um, if you could bring this back in one week, that would allow Member Johnson as well as Member Santiago Romero to review this final version.

Uh, but if based upon our prior conversations, Member Johnson is in fact comfortable.

Um, but we wanted to at least make sure that you saw the exact language that was being put forward and the reasons why the one item would in fact require a hearing which could be addressed by the new council in the future.

All right.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Move for approval on line items 8.1, 8.4, and 8.7.

If none of those have to be received received and filed.

All right, uh, there's a motion to approve line item 8.1 and send a formal with a recommendation to approve.

Any objections, colleagues?

See none that action shall be taken.

I do know that we did receive uh memo uh responses for line items 8.4 and 8.7.

Just want to make sure everyone has those responses.

All right, so we want because they were not filed into East Gribe.

We would like to walk those responses on, colleagues, uh, for new business so that we can receive and file those as well.

Is there a motion to uh move to new business the responses for line items eight point four and eight point seven?

So move.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Is there a motion to receive and file line items 8.4, 8.7, and the uh subsequent uh or corresponding responses to those items that we just moved into new business for approval?

So move.

So move, miss.

Thank you.

See no objections, we shall receive and file the items as mentioned.

Madam Clerk, do you have these uh walk-on responses?

Yes, I received them in the email.

All right, thank you so much.

Those actions shall be taken.

Dropping down to line item 8.2.

A status of council member member uh council member Gabriela Santiago Romero request for information on the development project adjunction and McGraw.

Uh we also have uh responses for those particular items as well.

Uh colleagues, do you have the responses for uh again?

It was sent an email form, and we have to put it on to do business for to receive and file if that is what is desired by the uh committee.

Uh colleagues have the responses just to make sure.

If you're not, then we can just push it off until next week and bring back.

Okay.

Are there okay?

Is there a motion to receive?

So first we is there a motion to walk on to new business the responses for line item 8.3.

So move, Mr.

Chair.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Is there a motion to receive and file the responses for line item 8.3?

Move to receive and file the responses.

Line uh chair.

Thank you so much.

There's a motion receive and file the responses for line item 8.3.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Is there a motion to receive and file?

Line item 8.3 itself.

So move, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Dropping down now to line item 8.5.

Yes, ma'am.

Point of order.

Are you coming back to 8.2?

I thought we did 8.2.

We did not.

Oh, my apologies.

Oh, you are correct.

Thank you for that.

Uh line item 8.2, status of housing and revitalization department.

Uh, this is for PA210 district, establishment of a commercial rehabilitation district for the Broderick Tower LLC in the area of 10 Witherall Street and 1556 Woodward, Detroit, Michigan.

Uh is there a motion to discuss?

So moved.

Thank you.

I know this one was brought back because there were some questions, I believe Member Johnson, you had regarding this particular item.

Uh member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I did have an opportunity to meet with the developer and their team to address the concerns that were emailed to me.

I am fine with moving forward and will make sure that I connect the uh individuals who emailed me with the developer for them to have that direct conversation.

So uh move for approval on line item eight point two.

Thank you, ma'am.

There's a motion to approve and send the formal with a recommendation to approve line item 8.2.

Seeing no objections that action shall be taken.

All right now dropping down to 8.5.

Status of law department to amend chapter 50 of the 2019 uh Detroit City Code zoning, and this is the item that has all those different names that we talked about earlier.

There are two, the COO ordinance, and uh is there a motion to discuss, please?

So removed, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

I see we uh have been joined by a number of folks uh who want to discuss this particular item.

Um one of the challenges that we have, and I said it before is that we have run out of space for public hearings.

And uh as I've mentioned, no, you can come forward, you can come for it.

I've mentioned if you have uh there's an opportunity for a swap, uh, one of the hearings that you would like to drop in place of this particular item.

Uh the chair is more than willing to make that happen.

Uh, but that is the process and procedure.

I've had multiple conversations with others.

Uh many of you who are before us today, and I've made that uh clear.

So I'm not sure if you have, but before we go into any of the discussion, because the reality is we have to have space, and we are already behind in this particular committee.

I know that member vice chair wants to uh provide some comments on the on that particular item.

Um member vice chair, before we do that, do we do we do you have information on the swap?

Okay, cool.

Member Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And as one of the sponsors of this ordinance and having an opportunity to speak with the administration for other ordinances they may have coming before our committee for public hearing, I do understand that we have found something that is equitable that can be swapped for this particular ordinance.

Um and I don't know if we have exactly what that is right now or if it would be germane to talk about it in discussion with this particular ordinance, but uh from our understanding they were going to get the exact hearing to uh you, Mr.

Chair, of which ordin or which public hearing that would be.

Thank you for your work on this as well.

So um yeah, uh wanted to know what what is being pulled or what is the administration looking to uh drop from the agenda or remove request to remove from the agenda to allow this particular item to have a public hearing.

Absolutely, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The administration um is working with the jet team, so the jobs and economy team in the mayor's office, as well as DEGC, the Detroit Economic Uh Growth Corporation, um, to look at the items on November 20th.

There are two public hearings scheduled that day.

We are certain that one of them is able to shift without impacting the finances of that deal.

We would appreciate an offline conversation with you as chair on which of those two projects you would prefer to move.

I don't have a preference certainty.

I'm just saying I don't have a preference.

The the items that we address uh are provided to us.

Um so it is not for me to determine winners losers, it is to determine what is before us.

So it's really up to the up to you all.

I would hope that it wouldn't be a small developer, you know, that's been really trying hard to get uh out of the gate, and as that is something else that I've I've mentioned.

Um but again it the the balls in your court, not mine.

Yep.

Our our top priority is not affecting a development, is choosing a project that could move to next year without any negative impact on that development.

Would the chair allow us 48 hours to confirm which of these top these two projects?

Well, I I will I was hopeful that we would have that by now because that's the whole point of us being here because this it impacts our ability.

We we would we we potentially be talking just to talk if we don't have a space for hearings, and I don't want to do that.

We have to be efficient with our time.

Uh member vice chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And if you would if you would allow uh because I know today again, this is uh still will have to go to formal on Tuesday for uh and be passed for introduction and setting up a public hearing.

Um if we are able to move this out today for formal on Tuesday.

If you don't have that information by uh Tuesday, Mr.

Chair, you have my word, I will ask for it to be removed uh from the agenda.

Uh as a sponsor, it would be my hope they would have that information to you by today, uh by later today.

Um but I I do understand that any delay in this, uh this is really the last date uh seeing facing the schedule that this um can be held uh and does not go in front of uh Tuesday for the introduction and setting up a public hearing.

Not to mention that even if it is introduced and passed by council on Tuesday for the introduction and setting of a public hearing.

Um, you know, there's still the autonomy for us not to do that uh because we you will have the autonomy, Mr.

Chair, to set that date on Tuesday when it comes before the entire body uh as well.

But it is my hope that they uh will get their uh P's and Qs in order, and I could I concur with you, Mr.

Chair.

I I don't want it to be a smaller develop developer, uh, and we are not picking winners or losers either.

So it is something that they put in front of us that I think is decided which one uh is their specific one.

Yeah, I would I was hopeful again that we would have that information before uh we began this particular process because everything is kind of like in the chain, and you know, one weekend link makes the whole thing fall apart.

So we're just trying to keep the chain connected.

Um to the chair and uh for the record, Julie Schneider, director of the housing and revitalization department.

Um there's two public hearings scheduled for that day.

We believe the winder street address is able to carry over into next year without it affecting development.

I believe that is the first one scheduled uh has on that on the smart sheet on the scheduling.

So have you all talked to that developer?

Are you just telling us this right now?

Because I think again, that is respect.

We are the city of Detroit.

We are about to move into a new administration, new session, all of that.

Um these folks have been working on it, and I hope that that's that's been communicated.

Yeah, um to the chair.

That's what we've been working on this morning, is making sure that the development is can actually make it into next year without it being without it being affected, um, giving their their development timeline.

But um that is why we are um want to make sure that we wanted to to confirm um to make sure everything is set, but that is the one that we think can move.

That does sound like a the small developer that I heard earlier that I had some some some concerns about.

So to the chair, we are factoring in that as well as what is the actual development timeline and will it be will it be impacted as well.

So um okay.

All right, so uh let's let's let's talk about what this is.

What's before us?

I think the challenge again is the fact that the community has not, I mean, we've talked about this before.

There's you know, we heard earlier a lot of folks who have some concerns about it.

Um, and I'm not sure why we're hearing those concerns if we've had the massive amount of uh communication and engagement with the community, but we clearly heard with some of the historic neighborhoods that they had some challenges with with this.

I mean, they were conflating it with the other uh amendments that came before us, but specifically it really sounded like they were focusing on this one.

Um and then folks over in the north end as well.

We heard you know from them.

So I'm those today that the concentration have not received, I will say, have not received a lot of letters uh in opposition.

Um but I also again want to ensure that we are moving properly.

Um the question is even with this particular ordinance, and I know member vice chair, I know you're the sponsor on it, but I've got to ask the question again, being the fair guy I try to be, uh, how challenging is this going to be to take off the floor in 26?

If it to if it were to fall in this session, anyone can respond.

So uh to the chair, we're uh doing I think to do a brief introduction of what the proposed changes are, and that is um something that uh director Todd would be starting us off in that conversation.

We can certainly answer that question.

But can we do that first though?

Because again, I'm I'm a I'm a process guy.

We're gonna get through the I've seen all of this part, but now is about now what happens if that's what I have to look at.

So I know Mr.

Anderson, we kind of talked earlier about uh this how how challenging, and Mr.

Todd, maybe you can even assist.

But you know what?

I'll go to Mr.

Todd.

Uh the the chair of uh uh a director of CPC.

How challenging would this be to lift it off the floor, if you will, if it falls to the floor in this particular session of uh council.

Thank you, Mr.

President Pro Tim.

Uh again, as I indicated earlier on the other item.

Should this matter fall to the floor, should it not be acted upon as uh attorney Anderson indicated, should uh it just be moved forward for dates to be determined, etc.

And again, a fall to the floor as a result of their being in action prior to the end of this term of city council, we then would resubmit the item as long as the period of viability, the 120-day clock is still in place.

In this case, should that be uh what happens, uh, we would be free to resubmit this item as is to the new city council in the new year, and it could pick up its processing again.

Um to the extent that the new council would not act on it within the 120-day time period.

A extension would have to be rendered again as would be normal process.

This would not, that circumstance would not require the matter to start over from scratch with the planning commission with new uh series of public hearings and engagement.

However, again, should the matter be voted down, then uh in this term, then it would have to start from scratch uh with the planning commission.

Gotcha.

Um if we can note that we've been joined by member Young, Chair, neighborhood and community services.

Thank you for joining us, sir.

Um we have a full agenda left, and I've got to say that.

And I apologize, we've been working through it as much as we can.

I know that we are already about 15 minutes into uh neighborhood and community services.

Uh um just want to know how you would like to uh just hear the gavel in the gavel out.

I'm not I understand this this big deal.

This is a big deal you guys are talking about.

So I'm not here to intervene or anyway or all messing thing up.

Just gavel in, gavel out.

I'm gonna let you go about your business.

Okay, I appreciate it, sir.

Thank the committee.

I got my own questions, but I'm not trying to take up more of your time.

You already got so you know what I'm saying?

I got my own stuff I'm worried about, but I'm not gonna do that today.

So yes, sir.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Neighborhood community service standing committee will now come into order.

Will the clerk please call the role?

Yes, good afternoon.

Councilmember Coleman and Young.

Here.

Councilmember Andrew Whitfield Callaway.

Councilmember Scott Benson.

Mr.

Chair, we do not have quorum.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And now with that, neighborhood community service standing committee will now stand at recess of the call chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Committee.

Now I'd like to call back to order the planning and economic development standing committee.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council President Pro Tim James Tate.

Here.

Councilmember Fred Durha.

Present.

Councilmember Letitia Johnson.

Present.

Mr.

Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you.

We have a quorum, which means we're now in session.

Okay, uh talk to us about what we have before us.

Mr.

President Pro Tim, I will briefly uh go over the Planning Commission's intro, if you will, and then yield, I believe, to Director Schneider, who will provide a little bit more of the rationale.

And then I uh believe Mr.

Roberson and uh Deputy COL Taverne will provide you with a little bit more of a briefing.

Um traditional slideshow so that the committee and the public can have a better understanding of some of these provisions and further look to set it apart from some of the other ordinances.

Very quickly, with regard to the what is being referred to as let's build more housing or the housing and parking ordinance.

This is a proposal that comes from the uh chief operating officers uh uh office of the city of Detroit.

It is by and large based upon many of the recommendations that have come out of the Zone Detroit project, which of course is the CPC effort to update our city zoning ordinance, which we began back in 2018, and a process that continues under uh uh um uh subsequent uh contract and uh looks to be further continued under the pro housing grant, which we are working on with the housing and revitalization department, something that has also been discussed over the course of uh a couple of meetings earlier in the year.

With this ordinance, it is seen as an interim measure, if you will, in order to address uh the the details, which again Director Schneider will provide, but this is to try to encourage and to allow for an increased capacity for the city to build housing to address chiefly, of course, our affordable housing needs, but really to address the affordable housing crisis.

Uh so this is a subset of revisions to the ordinance that are looked at uh stemming uh stimulating that additional growth.

When we were first approached by the administration regarding this, we were concerned with the ambitious nature of it, the timeline, the scope, any number of what of the items that were originally presented have either been removed and altered.

We find ourselves after two public hearings at the planning commission, one on July 31st, and then another on October 2nd, now before you with an approved uh as to form uh newly approved as to form version of what the commission approved.

Uh it does, as I indicated, uh represent compromises reached uh in the in the working group that included the planning and development department as well as BC, the uh Board of Zoning Appeals and uh also uh the Jets, in addition to, of course, uh CPC and the COO's office.

The uh ordinance is one that not only reflects these compromises, but the uh action of the Commission recognized some of the very same concerns as they heard from the public that you're recognizing in greater volume today.

And as a result, the Commission did take its action respecting the timeline requested by the administration, asking that there would be additional engagement.

And in fact, since the Commission's action, the administration has uh held even more sessions through the Department of Neighborhoods, and there are more sessions that are still scheduled, which can be uh spoken to today.

The Commission also had concerns with regard to the equity that uh they felt was needed for such uh an ordinance.

Are we doing this chiefly to benefit the development community?

Uh certainly again, the administration, the city is looking to achieve this increased ability to build housing through all means necessary, but very much interested in being able in in in seeing that it is a level playing field and that that average property owner, the person who has an adjacent lot, or maybe additional lots down the street that they could benefit in the same.

So the commission also asked that the administration look at initiatives, policies that would further encourage that, and also invited the Detroit Land Bank to the table to have a similar discussion, and as a result, made certain asks of the land bank authority with respect to deed restrictions that limit uh a purchaser's ability to use that property in a certain way, to develop it in a certain way, or to convey that property without getting the land bank's approval.

So the specific ask was that uh the land bank authority consider revising that policy, eliminating it, eliminating those restrictions where they exist.

We did have follow-up meetings subsequent to the commission's actions with the uh executive director, Ms.

Daniels, and uh she does intend to take that to the next meeting of the land bank and would be able to report out to Commission and to this honorable body subsequently.

This was neither of the items that I mentioned were conditions to the Commission's approval, but were these additional recommendations that they wanted to see done, the additional engagement and again policies put in place to ensure and to encourage uh uh equitable uh access and application of these programs.

So, again, with that, the commission did recommend approval of a uh again significantly revised consensed upon version of the uh provisions from what was originally uh considered back when staff was first approached by the CEO.

We are supportive of these measures again, as they are by and large extensions of the work done by zone uh under zone Detroit by our consultant team, also reflective of research and input from the uh housing and revitalization department and the planning and development department.

And with that, I'll yield to Director Schneider.

Good afternoon.

Um being mindful of the the committee's time, I'll keep my introductions relatively brief.

Um so as the director of the housing and revitalization department, one of my chief responsibilities is to see that that housing is constructed within the City of Detroit.

In the last 10 years, as in with just the existence of the housing and revitalization department, approximately 10,090 new units, both market rate and affordable, have been uh constructed or come online from being vacant for quite some time.

One thing we don't often talk about, that's a number we to we talk about, we talk about the number of affordable housing units created, which is about um 3,000 of that figure, is the number of land bank units that were vacant that have come online during that same period of time, which is about 12,000.

So just a little bit short of 12,000.

So when we look at the number of units that have come online within the past 10 years, we're looking at about 22,000.

Uh more than half of that has come online from the Detroit land bank inventory that were vacant that have come back online.

So when I look forward and I think about the growth that we're starting to experience in the City of Detroit, and I think about where is the housing going to come from.

We do not have half of the what allowed us to bring online half of the units that have happened in the last 10 years is not a resource that exists going forward.

Couple that with nine out of the ten units that have been permitted, new units that have been permitted within the city of Detroit in the last 10 years, have been either single family, which is very few, or larger multifamily.

We do not have a mix of housing being created within the city of Detroit.

Add on to that changes and federal funding that has allowed us to achieve some of those numbers going away.

So the ordinance that is before you does uh a number of things to address, both trying to increase the diversity of housing options that are being created in the city of Detroit, particularly in the R2 district.

Umernizing some other areas of the zoning code that I believe will help to increase the housing production in the city of Detroit.

Um also within the proposed changes are both some parking changes that combined with the housing changes as well as the parking requirements will help to expand opportunities for residential developers and small business owners by modifying those those parking requirements and the residential requirements as well.

Director Steiner, I don't mean to be rude.

Again, I'm looking at the time that we were under right now, and uh it sounded like you had some slides as well that you were going to show because if we're gonna do that, let's tandem the the what you're saying with with slides, so we can show the public because again, this is we're wanting at least through through the chair.

We actually given given where we are in the clock, we weren't gonna we were gonna keep uh brief to talk through some of the community engagement that was done to go through that and just a high level, so we weren't gonna go through a present uh a longer presentation today to make sure that you know we're not we're doing as minimal as we can to add to the only reason I say that because you're saying a lot of information right now, and it always is helpful for the public because we're having this public meeting to be able to see all of this.

We're getting criticized because it seems like we're just throwing stuff at folks, and you're not getting criticized, we are.

We're trying to explain to people how the process works, and so we're always trying to be as people friendly as possible, at least in this committee.

And I know my my colleagues who chair committees as well.

That's our our goal to be as people-friendly uh constituent, resident friendly as possible during these hearings.

As we move forward, just keep that in mind.

Um, there's a lot of information you're giving right now, and everyone can't necessarily keep up.

We've we've kind of heard and seen this, we've got this thick document that came before us, and we read it, but the average person who's watching don't have that information.

My apologies, my computer died within the last hour.

Like I didn't bring it with me because it doesn't work anymore.

So my my apologies that I don't have this uh to show you, but um we can move on to um some of the other things we wanted to just go over from a high level today to go over things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I wanted to briefly touch on the community engagement process that we have gone through thus far.

Um we have had a total of 16 community meetings throughout various districts since the city planning commission's decision.

We've had two more meetings, which is the total of which is inclusive of the 16.

Um, approximately over 500 people uh in attendance of those meetings, and we have eight more scheduled uh throughout the rest of the month of October, uh of course, including in your district, uh Councilman Tate, Pro Tem Tate, and uh in the various other districts as well via online and in person.

And last but not least, my name is Andrea Taverna.

I'm the deputy chief operating officer, and I wanted to speak briefly to some of the public comments that you heard earlier.

So during the previous public hearing, you heard comments from the historic districts, so I'll speak briefly to that, and then you heard a number of community members from the lower north end, so I'll cover that as well.

In terms of the historic districts, we've tried to be very clear and expressed throughout this process that this ordinance is not intended to affect development or permissibility in those districts.

The reason for that is that the significant majority of established historic districts are R1.

They tend to have larger lot sizes, and they tend to have very few vacant lots.

So when that combines, the last thing I'll say is also as council knows and as the historic districts know, every single project in a historic district that makes an exterior alteration needs to be approved by the historic district commission, which determines whether it is an appropriate building for the historic district, regardless of any kind of setback change that we might make in our ordinance here.

Um we hear that the historic districts continue to have concerns despite all of those reasons for believing this will not impact them.

So we'd like to make it even more express and simply include in the ordinance an exemption for historic districts.

So we do intend to make that change to provide the level of certainty that they are looking for into the ordinance introduced before this body.

In terms of the lower north end, um, a number of folks spoke with you today who Josh and I have been in extended conversation with.

We joined their meeting for several hours last Monday.

The concern in their neighborhood is that they are an R3 district.

Um 2.7% of the city is in R3 through R6 district.

So it is a small section of the city, but of course very important to those neighborhoods, and they felt that they hadn't been following this ordinance as closely because we're so focused on changes in R2.

So Josh and I will be back with that group on Monday.

We're really trying to find a compromise that their organization would be comfortable with in terms of development in R3 zones and in their neighborhoods in particular.

So again, our our kind of fervent hope is that by the time this did come to a public hearing, we would have some level of understanding, if not ideally consensus with the lower north end on the changes that affect our three zones.

Can I just say that I mean if if if those compromises haven't been made now, they very well may be what's called substantive, which would take us back to starting over again, so to speak, if we're looking to include those changes.

So it kind of puts us in a space where it can't be substantive, but there may be an opportunity.

Just want to again put that on the record for the public as well who's watching, who's gonna hold us accountable, as I mentioned before, Director Child.

Thank you, Mr.

President Pro Tim.

And to that very point, have it conducting the public should the public hearing be conducted, those particular uh revisions, amendments to the proposal could be formally addressed at that time and would then um certainly not wreak any uh issues with the process as it concerns substantive changes.

So as long as we have identified and publicly addressed them, they are germane to the topic at hand, they would be part and parcel of of the notice.

So they those amendments would be appropriate.

Um but again, the best time to do it would be formally at the public hearing with any and all other changes so desired by this body.

Okay, thank you.

See, we got some other folks, a CEO, C O Overyone said this was yours.

It's you've been slapped with the you know uh credit, if you will, or blame, depending on who you talk to.

I I would just say you know, um I feel very proud of what a collective group has has brought forward.

It's really been a collaboration across the city.

Um, and I've really just served as an organizer of all the good work that's come before, and then and then giving this a push here at the end of the uh Duggett administration to something that I think will be beneficial for Detroit for many, many years.

So it comes with sort of a uh a real passion for this city that uh uh that I have and that members of my team have.

Um there's not a a bit of selfishness or self-serving nature in this whatsoever.

It's about I think what's really good for Detroit in the long term.

Um again, we stand behind the work and willing to work up to the very last day as hard as we possibly can uh to make this acceptable uh to this body and to the uh the the greater council.

So I see you've joined us as well.

Never want to lose an opportunity not to speak with you, or allow you an opportunity to speak with us.

Good afternoon, Dave Bell and Director of B seed, and I echo the uh COO.

I believe that this ordinance is gonna be good for the community.

It's gonna be a win for everybody.

I'm looking forward to helping uh get this ordinance passed.

Thank you very much, sir.

Okay.

Colleagues, questions, comments, concerns.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I have two things.

Um, I'm really interested in knowing and understanding what was shared with the community.

Um, in conversations that I've had, we've just broached what was in the ordinance as it relates to amendments.

Um it wasn't until I read through the full ordinance that I really understood the amendments that were being provided to us.

Uh so I'm I'm interested in understanding how it was articulated to the community to understand what's in here.

And the other thing is so we just indicated that we would remove the historic districts from the ordinance or put some language in here that omits them from it, but my thought is if it doesn't apply to them, why even do that?

Because then it makes it sound like the historic districts, because they are organized and vocal, that we are willing to amend the ordinance to appease them, but what about the rest of the city?

For me, it's if it's an ordinance that applies citywide, it should apply citywide.

If the parameters within the ordinance don't affect them anyway, why even remove them?

Um I just feel like if it's good for the city, it's good for the city.

We are all one city.

Um, although I have received the emails, and I know that they are very vocal.

I don't have a historic neighborhood currently in district four.

Um, but I know that I have the most vacant land than any other district in this city, and so this is going to largely impact district four.

Very interested in those two concerns that I have.

So I'll I'm looking to uh Josh because I know he led the effort with the community engagement.

Do the chair um to member Johnson.

So to speak to your first question, uh we presented uh originally we presented four proposals, I believe, and then with collaboration uh with CPC and the COO's office, there were an additional two that were added.

So we went through one round of engagement, and then when the two were added, we went through another round of engagement to inform the community of the additional two that were added.

Um particularly even in District Four, we've had uh two major uh community meetings for district four at large.

We've had some, particularly in Jefferson Chalmers on the Marlborough Street Block Club and the Navajo Algonquin Kitchener Block Club as well.

Um talking to them, of course, as you well know that they have a lot of vacant land in Jefferson Chalmer, so they were really interested with this.

Uh we presented six, we went through each one, particularly uh and individually, and then I performed a exercise, an opinion-based exercise at the end, to ask people if they thought one by one each proposal was a pro or a con.

And we received overwhelming positive feedback from each proposal singularly.

Um again, I wanted to make sure the reason why I was tasked with presenting is because I have a gift of being able to make things that may be complicated simple.

And so um I try my best to simplify the zoning uh changes that were being proposed, and I believe that everyone had a clear understanding of what I was saying in every meeting.

I made sure we even had conversations after it was dismissed that everybody had a clear understanding of what was being said.

Thank you for that.

Before you respond to the next question, I would like to ask if you will go to Maple Ridge and Fox Creek, those are the areas that have the most vacant land in District 4.

Um, but I also think it's important for residents to understand that if there is a vacant lot near their home, whether it's adjacent to them or not, and is still publicly owned, that these items are applicable to them as well.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

And uh through the chair of member Johnson, can you remind me of your second question?

I believe Andy Taverna is about to respond to it.

Okay, got you.

Thank you, Member Johnson.

The the only other piece of information I would share with you is uh to the first question, as a matter of course, the city planning commission makes available draft ordinances as part of their public hearing process.

So a draft of this ordinance has been publicly available since mid-July.

And as we have made changes through that process, we updated it.

So for our second hearing again towards the end of September with the actual hearing on October 2nd, a revised version of the ordinance was publicly available.

But to Josh's point, we do try to explain it in more accessible terms when we do engagement.

Can you pause very quickly there?

Um so I recognize that may be the case, but if people aren't directed to it, they won't find it, they're not going to look for it.

And also it was, I think the document was printed out and provided to us maybe two weeks ago or a week and a half ago.

And it's it's quite at the table.

Correct, at the table is quite uh expansive.

Uh, and so and recognizing that it's ordinance and language, I just don't anticipate that most of our residents fully understand what's included within it.

And so I think it's extremely important that we break things down, um, as Josh says he he's able to, so that residents understand it.

Again, when we met, I never had given thought to if I had a vacant lot next door to my house, that all of these things would apply.

Could happen next door to my home.

Um, I know we've encouraged people to purchase side lots, but there are some people who haven't.

They need to understand that these things could happen adjacent to them.

And that's what I think is most important.

Okay, historic districts.

In terms of the historic districts, so we we have met with their organization, the historic district alliance.

We've had a couple of meetings, and in those meetings, we did go through very specifically neighborhood by neighborhood.

Is your neighborhood zoned R1 or R2?

Are your lots generally above or below the minimum size to build?

How many vacant parcels do you have in your in your neighborhood and how many of those are below the minimum size required to build?

And then are you a designated historic district or not?

So those are the four factors that ultimately lead up to whether you there is any impact from this ordinance on your neighborhood.

We tried to lay that out as clearly a neighborhood specifically as we could.

Unfortunately, we've seen that some neighborhoods that objectively are not affected by this ordinance remain in opposition to it.

Our understanding is that opposition may stem from concern about what might happen in other adjacent neighborhoods.

I'll maybe hand back to Josh to speak about our stance there.

But that was our thought of just including some very express ordinance language.

We all agree that it doesn't affect their neighborhoods, but we saw because of that, we saw no harm in stating that it doesn't affect their neighborhoods.

Can I if I can interject very quickly though?

Um based on what you just shared.

This deal doesn't exempt land that's adjacent to them.

The everything that's within this ordinance, as long as it's not in a historic neighborhood, could still be developed.

Correct?

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Yes.

Through the chair uh to member Johnson.

So it is our stance that um and I and that no other neighborhood, no matter who they are, affects the development of another neighborhood.

Um and what I mean when I say that is that we have 28 neighborhoods in the city of Detroit.

I believe all of them have strong opinions about what they want to see in their neighborhood, and uh we have tried to our best to explain uh what we are proposing that these uh proposals are restorative in nature, that a lot of this stuff already exists as pertains to triplexes and quads and townhomes existing in R2 already.

Off the top of my head, I can I have expressed to the presence of these individual historical districts that um R2 is not existent in Boston Edison, Indian Village, Joseph Berry Sub, um, and I think one more Arden Park.

So um we we again we've expressed uh numerous times, we've had two separate historic alliance meetings.

Uh we've talked to presidents individually about this.

Um they have some concerns of some prior developments or some existing developments that may or may not be online right now as it pertains to parking, but we've tried our best to address those as well.

All right, thank you.

And lastly, Mr.

Chair, I will just state that because there are a number of changes and um impacts the entire city.

Is there a way for us to have a public hearing on a day where we only talk about this that's not on a Thursday where we um have a special um maybe a special PD on a different day where this is the only thing we talk about because I can't see us getting through this even on November 20th without being in session for five hours?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, you you're welcome.

Thank you, uh Member Johnson.

Um we're gonna have to bring this to a close real soon because we still have a full rest of our agenda here.

But I will say that, you know, I'm it sounds like uh let me ask you this question.

How how soon can you get together and do additional community engagement?

Because it sounds as if uh what I've got in a few texts here that there are a number of folks who are watching right now saying I don't know anything about this.

Um and I don't I have I don't have my you know I haven't gone on a computer and map quests or whatever it is to Google maps to see if they are in R2 or not, but getting a lot of uh text from folks who are watching, going, I don't know anything about this.

Someone told me that to tune in and they're watching right now.

So what what does uh community engagement look like between now and potentially next week if we were to bring this back to know even the the hearing that that you're looking to swap so that will give us that opportunity to have that information along with uh additional questions that we it sounds like we still have.

I mean, I know member member young just said he has questions himself before we get to the point where we uh potentially have a public hearing, are we able to address those issues within this week's week of time?

I mean uh and and I'll say this the ordinance that we had here earlier that uh director Todd mentioning was expected to be here a lot earlier, it ended up landing at this time.

This ordinance dropped on your lap around that same time expect, and it's here now.

So it sounds like you are able to move some stuff quickly if if need be.

So just want to get some reflection.

What does that look like?

If it in terms of because I know we've requested for additional meetings in district one, in particular when we had our sit-down.

I don't know if those have been set up yet, but want to give you space to do that.

Uh and again, I got some other folks who are not even in my district who are texting me right now, saying they have some of the same concerns.

Uh, what does that look like if we were to bring this back in one week?

Uh and and I don't disagree with you, uh, Member Johnson, because this is extensive.

Um, I'm not in love with the special PED session as long as we already are here and as much as we already have, but this is the business of the city.

Um give it opportunity to respond.

Before we go to member vice chair.

Okay.

Do the chair to uh pro temptate.

Currently, uh I have a meeting set today in district six.

Um, and I believe I have two more meetings set before the next uh scheduled PED meeting.

Um, and then by the end of October, again, we have another eight, eight or nine meetings already set confirmed uh in each of the individual districts.

Okay.

And I will say that we we do have time uh if we were to bring it back.

I'm looking at the calendar right now.

Do you have an opportunity to bring it back?

Because all it would really be doing is setting a a public hearing that we we have that time frame that's necessary, even if we were to bring it back next week, again for the record.

Uh member vice chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I will say we may have time, but I know it's very limited.

Uh we are we won't be in formal session, which is the issue.

We won't be on formal session on election day.

Uh then Veterans Day is the following week.

So we're losing two formal session days, and we're looking at the opportunity and maybe later in November to have an extension of other session days when council president may plan that, but that may interfere with committee five-day notice for the public hearing as well.

Uh, it was my hope today again to get this to the formal table.

Uh, because if we're not talking about having a public hearing until the 20th as well, that still affords an opportunity for the department of neighborhoods to do it engagement for an entire month.

Uh, and then the last public engagement obviously is the public hearing itself.

Uh and so that was kind of my hope to get it out there so we can get it on the books.

Uh, at least get it introduced and set uh that public hearing.

Uh allow that engagement to occur during that month period, uh, where that public hearing will be set again November 20th, possibly.

Uh I think that affords uh uh enough opportunity within the month.

He says he has I think they have eight more meetings planned.

They've already done 16 and they've done those meetings in a matter of two months, I believe.

So I do think that that one month will for that opportunity to engage into some specific communities that uh even members may want to target uh and and ask for.

So that's my that's my two cents about it.

But I'm looking at the calendar, noting that October is flying, and we're pretty much done with October, but we're gonna lose two session days at the beginning of November, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

So we were to next week looking at the calendar again.

I mean, we may we'll lose me do a moment on the phone.

We lose the fifth and the eleven.

Two Tuesdays.

Mr.

President Pro Tim.

Uh member uh director Todd, yes, sir.

Certainly, thank you.

As we've looked at this, uh, and as Member Durhal said, uh, ideally, if there was comfort introduction next Tuesday would facilitate it, but you actually would have until the 28th, that would still provide ample time for notice and logistics to be addressed for a hearing um uh on the 20th or subsequently shortly thereafter.

So we do have time if we were to postpone it for one week, we can bring it back on the and and if with next week, if this body, if this committee decides to move it out, that still allows us the 28th.

That's why I just want to look on the calendar and uh just put it up as you were speaking.

Member Vice Chair, thank you, Mr.

Chair, and through you, uh, if we were looking at bringing this back, are we talking one week or two weeks?

And then what I would state is what is our expectation for engagement in one week or or two weeks before this comes back to us.

Uh are we expecting how many meetings to occur, where are the meetings to occur and and things of that nature, Mr.

Chair?

Through to you.

I'm sorry, my apologies.

For me, it is one the the groups that we mentioned in our meetings.

Uh, but then I'll also, as I mentioned, have been receiving call or text from folks who have some same concerns, and they're saying that we haven't seen, and these are folks who are not in my district, so I don't know if they even apply to R2.

So I I would have to go back and even look.

Um, but that would be my expectation to to have a schedule and also have a very clear understanding of what's being presented to the community as member Johnson indicated on that Tuesday.

We received a huge stat, probably larger than this that was just dropped on the table, and we had to thumb through it.

The average person is not thumbing through that.

So would love to see what for me, what is also has been presented.

I excuse me.

Uh, because I live this, I don't watch the Doncast, so I'm not sure what was presented at the Doncast.

That's no disrespect whatsoever, because I have seen them, they've been very informative, but that's not part of my normal viewing routine.

Uh so I don't know what that looks like.

Uh, so that would be important for me in particular.

Um, as I also go back to these folks who have texted me and saying, I don't know anything about this.

Why haven't anyone reached out to me?

Can verify it, but it gives me an opportunity to um to have those uh the conversation.

Before I go to you, Member Johnson, uh the floor remains with uh member vice chair.

Yep, and to you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, from our understanding, there's a one-pager on this as well.

I know we were dropped in stack, but there is a a one pager uh that that explains kind of what this process is, who's affected, whether it's through R2 through R through R6.

Um, and then I don't know if that's on the DON cast, I don't know if that's on the website or posted on the website, but obviously uh that is our opportunity to engage the residents and get them that information as well.

So I'm 100% with you.

Um, you know, sometimes you know the devil is in the details.

Um but we've also got to have the opportunity as Josh is articulated to explain to folks what that really means.

Um, you know, uh and and how that will affect them.

Some folks may be up in arms listening to us right now, and they don't know if they're in a R2 or R3, uh, but are scared that they're gonna be affected by something that again may not affect them.

I think Member Johnson said it the best.

Her district is, you know, most of this is going to be happening in her district.

Uh, that is the the majority uh of what we're looking at uh in that area uh where this would affect.

Uh so I mean I am I am okay.

I know we have been now talking about this for about an hour now.

Um, and if we're gonna bring it back, Mr.

Chair, uh I I'd I'd rather just make that motion right now, but I do want to note again that time is gonna be of the essence because we've got we only have two more uh to Mr.

Todd's point, two more day, two more sessions, two more Tuesdays to do this, uh, but then we're gonna lose two Tuesdays too.

So and I never want you know, a lot of hard work to go so-called a waste, and I don't think it would even if it was brought back.

But it's a lot of work that was done to to get to this point, but there's always as we find opportunities to uh improve our process before I go to you, Josh.

Uh colleague member uh Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just very quickly, um, Mr.

Robertson, I would like to invite you to our monthly community meeting on Monday, Monday evening.

Um I will get the information to you and would love to have you do a presentation there.

The other thing is does this and all I need is a yes or no, does this um ordinance do the amendments impact R1 at all through the chair?

The amendments impact R1 indirectly.

The thrust of the amendments is directed at the R2 single family district, but to the extent that there are dimensional changes that we're talking about that look at the developability of all lots.

Um we do have dimensional changes that affect it, but we're not affecting the use.

We're not affecting what can be done in the R2.

We're primarily just affecting well uh what you can do dimensionally in terms of setbacks in terms of height, etc.

And the size of a lot.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

So um is can I get a motion and bring back in one week?

Someone line out of 8.5 move to bring back line out of 8.5 in one week.

Thank you so much.

There's a motion to bring back line item 8.5 in one week.

Hopefully we'll have all the conversations and have just a little something we can show folks as well.

Um see no objections, that action shall be taken.

Thank you all.

All right, felt like this was an actual hearing.

Looking at line item 8.6.

If we can take line items 8.6 and 9.14 together, colleagues.

Is there a motion, please?

So moved.

Thank you so much.

Both of these items, this is a request from my office and the response relative to a comprehensive list of tax abatements uh in district one.

We are um giving the green light to uh receive and file both uh 8.6 and 9.14.

Colleagues, can we get a receive and file on both?

So moved, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, sir.

There's a motion to receive and file both line items 8.6 and 9.14.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 8.7.

A status of member Letitia Johnson submitting memorandum relative to tree screening amendment of uh to chapter 50 of the 2019 Detroit City Code.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

We've already taken up that item.