[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6078710,"mediaKeyId","2959113-363782c24fd5084ed5f475ca35ef7b96","parentId",2959113,"title","Planning commission recommends removing public hearings for many site‑plan reviews, drawing public concern","audioSeconds",5307,"startMs",7939000,"endMs",13246000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2959113-363782c24fd5084ed5f475ca35ef7b96&start=7939&end=13246","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2959113-363782c24fd5084ed5f475ca35ef7b96/thumbnail_7939000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6078710/Ann-Arbor-City/Washtenaw-County/Michigan/Planning-commission-recommends-removing-public-hearings-for-many-siteplan-reviews-drawing-public-concern","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078710-982d1be467b6af5c7bbfb163e1c8b4c6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442898&Signature=cBIpCNg-hFGpWF8LiaQY5lQHRQWGT7DWux4Oo6IhlyQXbADW2arZRo4ksVqyhr0f~9HkLKUSaqo8E3mfGkGk6mgyh1yLgjVkx7RWA1Nqsqc4-dTt5CMaQpWw~AbWKvtYNut8Dhu4RUx3KWWaycH4tVxCC-Be9Ae9nX-bEd-F2DasLjuK-P-VrXI-wkEpYRAxUFeAEnW8lJKDClmuNabNJ2GDIWF8KHWsgZ-2uz84uCkLon-wjm~W4eiIqG6ebaf48p4EtJuNvKBG6j5cuvUTVBfPy2GWXgt4-Sc2wYQ6go~xbr0Ka7e3O9OPOxQiWro~mOY541o2CSgllq0UzLLaUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","CTN Ann Arbor","date","2025-04-01T00:00:00Z","article","The Ann Arbor Planning Commission voted 7–1 on April 1 to recommend that mayor and city council approve amendments to the city's Unified Development Code to remove formal public‑hearing requirements for certain site‑plan and related reviews.

Planning staff said the change is intended to speed up administrative approvals that now require extra notice and scheduling steps. Planning staff member Mr. Leonard said the current process often forces an applicant to wait about \"3 and a half weeks a month\" before a decision can be scheduled and that removing the extra public‑hearing step for by‑right site plans would reduce time, cost and uncertainty for development projects.

Supporters and staff: efficiency and predictability

Mr. Leonard, identified in the meeting as planning staff, told commissioners the code changes follow a council directive to look for ways to \"improve efficiency and alleviate burdens in the land development process.\" He said site plans that comply with code are an administrative function and that the amendments would not remove public hearings for legislative actions such as rezonings, planned unit developments (PUDs) or special exception uses. \"Site plans are approved in numerous ways,\" he said. \"In all of those cases...the same diligence and evaluation by multiple departments and areas of expertise\" would continue.

Opponents: notice, study time and public scrutiny

Several speakers at the meeting told commissioners they opposed removing formal hearings because it would shorten the public's time to review complex plans and make it harder to raise technical concerns. Longtime commenter Ken Garber, who addressed the commission during the item, said the proposed change would cut the public's time to study large projects and singled out the Arbor South proposal as an example that needs more review time: \"I need more than 4 days notice to study this one…starting with watching the November 13 city council work session on this subject,\" Garber said. He urged commissioners to require at least four days' advance notice in bylaws if the amendments pass.

Resident Stacy Harr told the commission, \"Residents, voters, taxpayers need to be able to address city officials in a public forum on large development projects,\" adding that public hearings are a basic way for neighbors to ask questions and seek clarification. Deborah Hour, a remote caller, said she supported Garber's remarks and urged commissioners to turn down the amendments.

Commission discussion and vote

Commissioners debated how public notice and site postings would be handled if hearings were removed. Staff said the city already posts site plans online and that the commission could require petitioner‑posted signage or add a notice requirement in a separate community‑participation ordinance. Commissioner Mills said she would vote against the recommendation unless the notice gap for site postings is filled promptly because the current language removes the explicit city posting requirement.

On a roll call the commission recorded the following votes: Commissioner Adams — yes; Commissioner Weatherbee — yes; Commissioner Mills — no; Council Member Disch — yes; Commissioner Abrams — yes; Commissioner Hammerschmidt — yes; Commissioner Weiss — yes; Commissioner Lee — yes. The motion carried, and the recommendation will now go to mayor and city council for consideration.

What happens next

If the council adopts the ordinance as recommended, public hearings would remain in place for legislative actions (rezonings, PUDs and special exceptions), but many administrative site‑plan reviews and wetland permits would be processed without a formal commission hearing. Staff told the commission it will bring proposed community‑notice language back to the commission (for example in the city bylaws or the community‑participation ordinance) to ensure neighbors receive timely notice when projects affecting their block are submitted.

Ending

Commissioners and staff emphasized the change is meant to streamline approvals for projects that meet existing code. Opponents said the loss of a formal public‑hearing forum risks shortening the time community members have to evaluate complex proposals. The council will hold the next review of the proposed UDC amendments.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ann Arbor City Planning Commission 4/1/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Ann Arbor Planning Commission voted 7–1 on April 1 to recommend that city council approve changes to the Unified Development Code to remove formal public hearings for a number of administrative reviews, including many site‑plan and wetland permit actions.","taxTitle","Ann Arbor City, Washtenaw County, Michigan","taxId",5773,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6078700,"Large Arbor South mixed‑use proposal set for April 15 public hearing before Planning Commission",62,10588000,10650000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2959113-363782c24fd5084ed5f475ca35ef7b96&start=10588&end=10650","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2959113-363782c24fd5084ed5f475ca35ef7b96/thumbnail_10588000.jpg","/articles/6078700/Ann-Arbor-City/Washtenaw-County/Michigan/Large-Arbor-South-mixeduse-proposal-set-for-April-15-public-hearing-before-Planning-Commission","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078700-1896df379fe6eec4a4d7dd72f39e7749/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442898&Signature=MWWaXuIhzhwtP9fXGkqAIzM874o7ZeLFF-ftXWtBEL3EKWe5TTlM4yYg417Od-KVjWAtIAR-6--n-OtWyERZO0KNHd9QFBXh~EmQyrbmScpX46FE2v~WVDJ8aDnX7hrAJ1FePlZ9MBhWp7ylKYqqg0HlpkdTFMWCLhP8c3cds3zc9cb6MJpDTVlJgTw53XdbqsbhoirCEoVfbOTjEmDrBvwcR4a8KPgUJqEgKt65mU6iDFpyrIj9eq9iT1RqX6vNCnST8~LqCWNMUHWcau4AONeq1gKmnC5~~pXJdx95jvu-hX5rceNwV~9gyCWaPefAW2HwPdMW4j8tl~MQw7e7rQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff announced on April 1 that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at its April 15 meeting on the Arbor South site plan, a large, multi‑phase mixed‑use proposal for the 23.5‑acre site at 2845 South State Street.

Project summary announced by staff

Mr. Leonard, planning staff, said the Arbor South project proposes approximately 15 new buildings arranged around two existing structures and would be constructed in five phases. Staff described the proposal as including roughly 93,500 square feet of new commercial space, about 150 hotel rooms, and approximately 840 residential units of apartments or condominiums — of which about 230 are proposed as affordable units. The site plan also proposes around 2,500 vehicular parking spaces and several restaurant and parking buildings. The property is zoned TC‑1 (Transit Corridor 1).

Public reaction ahead of the hearing

At the meeting, public commenters flagged Arbor South as a project that would warrant longer public review time. Ken Garber told the commission that the project (which staff said proposes some 2,500 parking spaces) raises affordability and transit‑corridor questions and urged commissioners to ensure adequate notice and study time. Planning staff said materials for the April 15 hearing will be posted in the public record and on the city's application map so residents can review the site plan prior to the hearing.

What to expect and next steps

Staff said the April 15 meeting will include a formal public hearing on the Arbor South site plan; the commission's review will follow the UDC and site‑plan procedures in force. Because the project is large and to be built in phases, staff advised that interested residents review posted materials ahead of the meeting and noted that subsequent permits and implementation steps will be staged as each phase proceeds.

Ending

The Arbor South filing illustrates the scale of development proposals currently being considered in Ann Arbor's transit corridors. Staff urged residents who want to comment to review the posted application materials before the April 15 public hearing and prepare concise testimony for the commission's formal consideration that night.

","Staff announced a public hearing for the proposed \"Arbor South\" mixed‑use development at 2845 South State Street. The applicant proposes hotel, residential, commercial and large parking structures on a TC‑1 transit corridor site; staff outlined capacity and a phased timeline and encouraged public review ahead of the April 15 hearing.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6078705,"Public divides over low‑rise residential rules as Ann Arbor staff moves to release draft comprehensive plan",7760,281000,8041000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2959113-363782c24fd5084ed5f475ca35ef7b96&start=281&end=8041","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2959113-363782c24fd5084ed5f475ca35ef7b96/thumbnail_281000.jpg","/articles/6078705/Ann-Arbor-City/Washtenaw-County/Michigan/Public-divides-over-lowrise-residential-rules-as-Ann-Arbor-staff-moves-to-release-draft-comprehensive-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078705-7767f410bc5be2a0a5130f5d3a97d25e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442898&Signature=HGFT0D3Kn88kw9OCeClIHEuZMemIGRRUjVuwSOs90kbb1zTz3DWbrj-WvkdVskdn93FEuAol4cxFscouzhhwiL2zMPpm2jBru7gxFMBNYi23EbxWmnVPNIxst-3ugaYgHEYoSjLvP-nlWOxEnoLeiG-tSrzbbaBFZQ3mhBRKN9GrDfgI4OuU5jNMVzwq0qQ0tK~B-kGR~ODwXHYvfib6gnfZVoIlu9H1zj3vdbBMXT9BfueiU6c2hvNjQW-DgcrKNUWL-y8QVIRAdobtTwm99P7Z~0YJTu0ALnHw8slyQd1GCLS1oBRN8T7Gr6s57CxnJt9EBatF6Aannu35GU-7Pw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff told the commission on April 1 that a draft consolidated comprehensive plan would be made public after a brief staff check for factual accuracy and would be posted on the city's new EngageA2 site in the second week of April. The announcement set off an extended public discussion and dozens of public comments that ranged from strong support for upzoning to demands for more process and neighborhood protections.

Staff timeline and next steps

Planning staff member Mr. Leonard said the city received a draft from consultants on March 31 and would perform a short factual review before sharing it with the planning commission, council and the public. \"I am gatekeeping that from you, from the city council and the public for about a week,\" he said, and asked commissioners to expect a public posting and engagement to follow. Staff also described the statutory 63‑day review period that will occur later in the process and said additional public hearings and a city‑council vote will follow.

Supporters: build more housing, meet climate and equity goals

Many speakers urged the commission to adopt a plan that allows more housing broadly across the city. Jim Pike, introduced himself as a Fifth Ward resident and urged the commission to \"actively support policies and plans, including a new comprehensive plan that will enable more housing to be created within the city, within the city limits, as widely and as flexibly as possible.\" Student and renter speakers told commissioners they have been priced out of Ann Arbor and said more housing will ease rents. Jonathan Levine, a resident who also cited carbon‑reduction goals, argued that higher‑accessibility housing reduces transportation costs and emissions.

Nonprofit and workforce housing advocates also spoke. Sarah Lorenz, introduced herself as \"executive director of the new Ann Arbor Community Land Trust,\" and described pending projects with target price points of $125,000, $225,000 and $325,000 for small homeownership units; she asked the commission and council for support to build those homes. Several teachers, library workers and other city employees described making modest wages while struggling to find housing in town.

Concerns about process, scale and neighborhood character

A large group of speakers pressed the commission for more outreach and clearer, less technical outreach materials. Kim Winnick, a resident who opposed the draft as presented, told commissioners: \"The draft proposal of the comprehensive plan is flawed for many reasons… Nearly $800,000 has been spent by us, the taxpayers, to develop a rather scary and ridiculous plan that could have been developed over a long weekend.\" Several commenters argued that the engagement materials had not been explicit about the implications for single‑family zoning and expressed alarm that the public was not given a clear, consistent presentation.

Other speakers raised technical concerns. Tom Rhodes of the Old West Side asked how the plan would affect historic districts and called for clarity about the desired density targets in people per square mile and transportation plans to support added residents. Multiple commenters asked whether the city's infrastructure — sewer, stormwater, gas and electric systems — has been assessed for the higher densities the plan would allow.

Commissioner and council responses

Commissioners debated how to structure their own review. Several members asked that the entire commission, not just the earlier subcommittee, review the draft once released and that the commission hold a sequence of public meetings focused on particular plan sections so the public can give targeted comments. Council Member Disch — who represents the council in liaison remarks — said the draft must be understandable to residents and acknowledged that some engagement materials had been perceived as inconsistent with later subcommittee direction.

No formal vote was taken on policy changes at the April 1 meeting. Commissioners agreed to additional, scheduled review sessions, and staff said they would post the draft and supporting materials on EngageA2 and advance an initial round of community engagement before sending a first set of edits to the consultant team. The statutory 63‑day review period and public hearings will follow later this summer and fall.

Ending

The meeting made clear the two central tensions the plan must reconcile: residents' anxiety about neighborhood change and the advocates' argument that allowing more housing across the city is necessary to improve affordability, equity and sustainability. The commission directed staff to post the draft and begin a structured, public review process that will give commissioners and residents a clear set of opportunities to comment before the plan advances to council for the formal review period.

","On April 1 planning staff said a draft of the consolidated comprehensive plan would be released publicly after a brief internal review. The meeting turned into a multi‑hour public debate over whether the plan should allow taller, denser housing in formerly single‑family neighborhoods, and over whether the public engagement process has been clear.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission recommends removing public hearings for many site‑plan reviews, drawing public concern

Large Arbor South mixed‑use proposal set for April 15 public hearing before Planning Commission

Public divides over low‑rise residential rules as Ann Arbor staff moves to release draft comprehensive plan