Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Height Exceptions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning committee to advance narrow 'all‑electric' clarification for height bonus, tables broader overhaul
Summary
The ordinance‑revisions committee agreed to advance a limited amendment that replaces 'capable of being all‑electric' with a requirement that developments be 'all‑electric' and to retain the 60% solar footprint standard for the sustainability height exception; commissioners agreed to defer larger policy changes until comp‑plan implementation.
The Ann Arbor Planning Commission ordinance‑revisions committee voted informally to forward a narrow, clarifying amendment to the full planning commission that would tighten how projects qualify for a sustainability‑related height bonus.
Planner Leo said planning staff "continues to recommend changing the definition of sustainability component to an all‑electric building," arguing that the existing wording allowing "capacity" or "electric readiness" has let projects claim the bonus while falling short of the city’s sustainability goals. Office of Sustainability and Innovation staff suggested keeping a 60% solar requirement, requiring heat‑pump heating and cooling, and adopting Appendix CC of the state energy code, the planner said.
The committee’s debate split along timing and policy lines. "I don't think this should proceed at all," Commissioner Adams said, arguing the topic should be folded into forthcoming zoning work tied to the comprehensive plan. Other commissioners favored a smaller, quicker fix to address what they described as a drafting loophole without sidelining the larger policy discussion.
After discussion, members coalesced around a middle path: advance targeted edits that (1) replace the phrase "capable of being all‑electric" with an actual "all‑electric" requirement, (2) retain the existing 60% solar‑footprint expectation for projects using the sustainability path, and (3) postpone more extensive changes to the bonus structure until the comp‑plan implementation and related rezoning work. Planner Deo said the two wording fixes are "quick enough" to advertise for a public hearing and could be included in a staff report to the planning commission.
Supporters said the limited change addresses an immediate enforcement gap — making compliance verifiable at permit review and building completion — while preserving staff and commissioner capacity to study larger, consequential policy tradeoffs, such as whether the affordability bonus should rise from 15% to 100% of units and whether fossil‑fuel backup generators should be permitted for high‑rise life‑safety systems. The building official had cautioned against banning non‑electric backup generators because current code and local utility reliability can make diesel or natural‑gas options necessary.
Ken Garber, a public commenter, urged the city to adopt Appendix CC and to require heat pumps rather than less efficient electric resistance systems. "The height exception UDC 51814D is broken," he said during public comment, calling for verifiable compliance at final inspection.
Next steps: staff will prepare ordinance language reflecting the narrow edits for public hearing before the planning commission; broader amendments to the height‑bonus program will be revisited as part of comp‑plan implementation.
