Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council affirms public engagement direction on low‑rise housing, asks planning commission to favor 3‑story limit
Summary
After extended public comment and debate, Ann Arbor City Council approved a resolution asking the Planning Commission to recommend a 35‑foot (roughly three‑story) limit for proposed low‑rise residential areas in the comprehensive land use plan update.
Ann Arbor City Council voted to affirm the results of community engagement to date on the comprehensive land use plan update and requested that the Planning Commission recommend a 35‑foot height limit (about three stories) for areas labeled as “low‑rise residential.” The resolution, moved by Council Member Jane Dish and seconded by Council Member Regina, passed on a roll call vote 8–3.
The resolution asks the Planning Commission to use the outreach already completed — which city staff say involved thousands of respondents and several hundred in‑person participants — as a basis for the next round of public engagement and for zoning guidance that preserves neighborhood scale. Council supporters described the measure as a way to “reset” public discussion after weeks of contentious debate; opponents called the step premature because the plan draft had not yet been published.
In debate, speakers on both sides emphasized process and trust. Brandon Dimchaft, who had testified earlier, urged the Council to use “stories” rather than feet for height limits so creative three‑story designs are not restricted. Opponents warned the draft plan (not yet released publicly) had been mischaracterized in some community messages and said the City should allow the Planning Commission to finish its review before council direction.
Council members who supported the resolution cited the large body of public input that, they said, showed general support for three‑story forms in low‑rise residential areas and argued a clear statement from council would keep the public conversation anchored. Those who opposed said the Planning Commission and staff should finish and publish the draft plan before council prescriptive language was added.
The vote was: Yes — Gazziadva, Taylor, Iyer, Dish, Harrison, Watson, Malek, Medina. No — Ackman, Briggs, Cornell. The Planning Commission will receive the council request as it prepares the formal draft and the required 60+ day public comment period later in the process.
The action does not change zoning; the comprehensive land use plan is a policy document that guides future zoning revisions, which will themselves require separate public hearings and formal votes.
