Dec 14, 2020 Planning Commission

SEND HIM TO GET ON THE [INAUDIBLE] EVERY DAY.

[00:01:13]

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

THE FIRST THING ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

SO IF YOU ARE HERE WITH US IN THE ZOOM CALL, PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE AND PETER WILL PROMOTE YOU TO A PANELIST SO YOU CAN SPEAK AND GIVE YOUR PUBLIC REMARKS.

IF YOU ARE WATCHING AT HOME AND WOULD LIKE TO CALL IN WITH CALL IN WITH YOUR REMARKS, YOU CAN DO SO AT (517)349-1232.

WHICHEVER METHOD YOU CHOOSE, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS ONE OF TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC REMARKS TODAY, RIGHT NOW AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING.

SO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO.

WE WILL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO RAISE YOUR HAND OR CALL IN AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY ONE. SO WE'LL GIVE EVERYONE A MOMENT RIGHT NOW.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE ON THE PHONES? NEGATIVE, SIR. OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS.

BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO ANY FURTHER ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA.

I WILL TAKE A MOMENT FOR CHAIR PRIVILEGE TO WELCOME OUR NEWEST MEMBER.

CHRISTINA SNYDER HAS JOINED US FRESH OFF OF HER APPOINTMENT FROM THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

CHRISTINA, WELCOME AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

YOU'VE CAUGHT US AT A NICE SHORT MEETING, SO WE'LL, WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU.

AND IF YOU DO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT AND JUST TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOURSELF, MAYBE JUST BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION, I THINK WE'D ALL APPRECIATE IT.

SURE. HI, EVERYBODY.

IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU ALL.

OF COURSE, EVERYTHING'S DIFFERENT IN THIS ERA OF ZOOM AND COVID, BUT I'M STILL HAPPY TO GET TO MEET PEOPLE AND SEE YOUR FACES.

SO I'M BEEN LIVING HERE IN HASLET FOR GOSH SINCE 2008.

SO 12 YEARS.

I'M AN ENGLISH TEACHER, NOT A MATH TEACHER.

SO EVEN SIMPLE MATH CAN BE TOUGH.

JUST KIDDING. SORT OF.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE.

REALLY, I WAS ITCHING TO FIND A WAY TO BE OF SERVICE TO MY COMMUNITY.

AND AS I TOLD, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS AMBER.

I MENTIONED TO SOMEBODY, THOUGH, THAT I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT BEING ON A PLANNING COMMISSION WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO WITHOUT BEING ELECTED, WHICH MAKES ME FEEL A LITTLE BIT SILLY, NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU COULD BE APPOINTED TO THESE TYPES OF THINGS. BUT ANYWAY, I'M JUST REALLY EXCITED TO BE A PART OF THIS AND FORGIVE ME FOR WHAT I'M SURE WILL BE A STEEP LEARNING CURVE AT FIRST.

BASED ON MY INITIAL RESEARCH, I KNOW THAT I HAVE A LOT TO LEARN, BUT I AM A FAST LEARNER AND I'M VERY CURIOUS ABOUT A BREADTH OF TOPICS.

SO I HOPE THAT I CAN BE USEFUL HERE.

THANK YOU. AND WE WELCOME YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

MOVE BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

ANY COMMENTS, CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA? I DO. IT'S ON PAGE TWO OF THE MINUTES, UNFINISHED BUSINESS

[00:05:08]

OK, ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AGENDA SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE, THE MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT UP WILL MOVE TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER CORDILL, YOU HAD SOME CHANGES, IT SOUNDS LIKE.

YEAH, SORRY FOR JUMPING THE GUN ON THAT.

I'M LOOKING AT NUMBER SEVEN, UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

IT'S THE [INAUDIBLE] A, IT'S THE SECOND BULLET POINT.

THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A LETTER FOLLOWING THE NOVEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THAT ADDRESS ISSUES OF CONCERN AS WELL, AND THEY WERE SOUND REASONS FOR CONSIDERING THE REZONING. I JUST WOULD SAY, AS WELL AS WHAT THEY BELIEVED WERE SOUND REASONS FOR CONSIDERING REZONING.

I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE APPLICANT.

SURE. AND JUST THE OTHER THING I NOTICED ON ALSO UNFINISHED BUSINESS, BUT B, AND IT'S THE SECOND TO THE LAST BULLET POINT, JUST A LITTLE TYPO WHEN IT REFERS TO MERIDIAN MALL INSTEAD V AS IN VICTOR, A B AS A BALL.

CBL. CBL.

THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.

ALRIGHT. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? I CANNOT SWEAR TO THIS, BUT I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER RICHARDS VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION AND I THOUGHT THAT THE COMMENT THAT WAS JUST REFERENCED IN THE MINUTES WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIM. AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN WHAT HE SAID.

SO BEFORE WE CHANGE THE MINUTES WITH HIM, NOT HERE TO RESPOND TO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW HE HANDLED THAT, BUT I JUST WOULD HATE FOR HIS COMMENTS TO BE MISCONSTRUED. I KNOW THAT THAT WASN'T.

THE AGREEMENT THAT WASN'T A COMMENT THAT ALL MEMBERS AGREED WITH, BUT HE'S NOT HERE TO SAY, YES, IT WAS MINE OR NO, IT WASN'T SO WANTED TO FLAG THAT BEFORE WE APPROVE THE MINUTES. OK, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? YEAH. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT COMMISSIONER RICHARDS OPPOSED THE REZONING MOTION, BUT I DON'T RECALL HIM OPPOSING THE CPUD AMENDMENT.

THE NEXT TO LAST BULLET POINT WAS ACTUALLY A POINT THAT I RAISED.

YES, IT SHOULD BE CBL, AND I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT THE SECOND PART OF THAT LAST BULLET POINT IS.

CONTRARY TO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SUGGEST.

SO I WAS GOING TO OFFER THAT THAT BULLET POINT SHOULD REFLECT THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL DOES NOT REFLECT THE CAPITAL CORRIDOR VISION, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN THE MASTER PLAN. ALSO MR. NEWHOUSE NAME NEEDS AN O IN THE PRIOR BULLET.

OK. SO I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF CHANGES.

LET ME JUST RECAP.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ONES THAT ARE NOT CONTROVERSIAL IS TO ADD AN O TO MR. NEWHOUSE NAME, TO MAKE THAT THEY HAVE THE CORRECT SPELLING.

IT SOUNDS LIKE COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL'S COMMENT OR CBL INSTEAD OF CVL, THE SECOND TO LAST BULLET POINT ON PAGE THREE OF THOSE MINUTES.

BUT IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH YOU MEANT SORT OF THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS REFLECTED IN THAT BULLET POINT. AND YOUR INTENT IN THE COMMENT THAT YOU MADE WAS TO REFLECT THAT IT WAS NOT MEETING THE CAPITAL CORRIDOR VISION.

CORRECT. OK, AS WELL COMMISSION CORDILL'S EARLIER CORRECTION.

ABOUT CBL. YEAH.

NO TO THE REZONING. THE REZONING.

YOU TALK ABOUT COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? NO WHEN COMMISSIONER CORDILL SUGGESTED THAT THE SECOND BULLET UNDER THE REZONING.

IT SHOULD READ THAT ADDRESS ISSUES OF CONCERN THAT THEY FELT WERE SOUND REASONS.

YEAH, AND THAT WAS THE ONE THAT I HAD SORT OF FLAGGED AS PERHAPS NOT THAT ACTUALLY MAY HAVE BEEN SAID BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, SO.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH TABLING THE MINUTES, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES UNTIL COMMISSIONER

[00:10:06]

I ALSO RECALL THAT COMMENT BEING MADE BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS AS A PART OF HIS REASONING TO VOTE AGAINST THE DENIAL OF THE REZONING REQUEST.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO WAIT FOR HIM TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THAT IF WE SO CHOOSE.

HOW DOES EVERYONE FEEL ABOUT THAT? I'M HAPPY TO WAIT. I AM GOING TO GIVE EVERYONE A SECOND TO OBJECT TO THAT THOUGHT FOR A SECOND, AND THEN I BELIEVE WE NEED A MOTION TO TABLE THE MINUTES IF WE'RE GOING TO DO PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE CORRECTLY.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THE MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 23RD.

OK, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES SAY.

COMMISSIONER FREEMAN, ARE YOU COMMENTING OR ARE YOU SAYING AYE? OK, HE'S VOTING. ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? RIGHT, THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES IS TABLED TO OUR NEXT MEETING.

NEXT UP IS ITEM FIVE COMMUNICATIONS.

WE HAVE NONE. ITEM SIX, WE HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WE HAVE NONE. SO ITEM SEVEN IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS, THE MIXED USE PLANNING AND

[7.A. Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) ordinance review.]

AND THE MOMENT HAS COME FOR OUR ESTEEMED SUBCOMMITTEE TO TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE WORK THEY'VE BEEN DOING.

HI, EVERYBODY. I'LL START IT OFF.

SO THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS MYSELF, DIRECTOR CLARK AND HOLLY, SORRY, I'LL BE MORE FORMAL.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL, COMMISSIONER RICHARDS AND COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

SO FIRST, I'D LIKE TO OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY TO ONE OF THOSE MEMBERS TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP. I'LL GIVE ANYONE A MINUTE IF THEY WANT TO SPEAK UP.

EITHER CORDILL OR PREMOE, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP OR LEAVE IT TO PETER? WHY DON'T WE HEAR PETER'S OVERALL PICTURE OF IT AND THEN WE COULD JUST GET INTO IT. AND FEEL FREE TO SUPPLEMENT, I GUESS SO I'LL TAKE A SHOT AT IT THEN, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN. SO THERE'S A MEMO ON PAGE SEVEN IN YOUR MEETING PACKET THAT JUST PROVIDES A SUMMARY. THE COMMITTEE DID MEET IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, VIA ZOOM, TO GO OVER THIS ORDINANCE. IT'S NOT IT'S A BIG IT'S A BIG TASK.

I GUESS THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF IN IT AND IT'S JUST A LOT OF INFORMATION TO GET THROUGH.

AND I THINK MEETING ON ZOOM WAS, YOU KNOW, JUST A FURTHER COMPLICATION FOR THIS.

SO WHAT I WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IN THE MEMO HERE, WE REALLY TRIED TO OR AT LEAST MY PLAN OF ATTACK WAS DIVIDED INTO THE DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDINANCE.

SO AND THEN STICK TO THOSE TALK ABOUT IT AND THEN MOVE ON TO ANOTHER ONE.

AND WHAT I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR TONIGHT IS I'LL BE PROVIDING JUST A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE GENERAL IDEAS THAT WE CAME UP WITH AS A GROUP TO THAT MIGHT BE WORTH LOOKING AT TO CHANGE.

SO NOT NECESSARILY PRESCRIBING ANYTHING THAT HAS TO BE CHANGED.

BUT I STARTED AT LEAST.

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES AND THEN HOW DO THOSE ISSUES RELATE TO THE ORDINANCE AND WHAT CAN WE CHANGE TO ADDRESS THEM? SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE ITEMS, NOT ONLY AGENDA ITEM AND IF I DRONE ON AND ON.

PLEASE INTERRUPT ME, BUT I THINK IT'S A WORTHWHILE ENDEAVOR TO GO THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ITEMS HERE, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE YOU'VE HEARD THEM.

AND I JUST THINK IT'S GOOD, GOOD OVERALL DISCUSSION.

SO THE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW WAS ONE OF THE FIRST ITEMS THAT WAS DISCUSSED RIGHT NOW.

THE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW, IN MY OPINION AND MY EXPERIENCE IS KIND OF SECONDARY TO THE PRIMARY REVIEW THAT WE DON'T GET.

NEITHER DOES THE TOWNSHIP NOR THE APPLICANT REALLY GET A GOOD EXPERIENCE FROM THE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW. AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE EXPECTING ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS TO COMMIT OPINIONS ON PROJECTS AT THAT EARLY OF A STAGE.

IT'S MORE OF A HERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FEEDBACK BEFORE YOU GO SPEND TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ON AN ENGINEER.

THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THERE ARE SOME WAYS THAT THE COMMITTEE THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME WAYS THAT THIS PROCESS COULD BE IMPROVED.

SO IT DEFINITELY ADDS A LAYER OF TIME TO THE PROJECT, ESPECIALLY SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO

[00:15:01]

THE THOUGHT WAS MAYBE LIMIT THEM TO ONE OR THE OTHER GROUP.

AND I THINK YOU'LL KIND OF SEE AN OVERALL THEME HERE OF HOW DO WE SHORTEN THIS PROCESS WHILE STILL KEEPING EVERYBODY INVOLVED AND GETTING ALL THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO SHARE THEIR DEFINITELY WORTHWHILE OPINIONS ON A PROJECT ALONG THE WAY.

NOT AN EASY TASK, BUT.

SO YOU CAN SEE A COUPLE OF THE ITEMS HERE, I LEFT A LOT OF THE NOTES IN THE MEMO AND THAT WAS TO SHOW WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE CONSIDERED AND THEN HOW WE ELIMINATED THOSE THAT ARE COMING TO A CONCLUSION.

BUT SO THE IDEA HERE WAS.

DOES THE BOARD AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION BOTH NEED TO SEE A CONCEPT PLAN? I MEAN, IDEALLY, SURE, BUT WITH THE TIMING ISSUE IN MIND, HOW DO WE HOW DO WE TACKLE THAT? SO THERE WAS THE IDEA OF MAYBE WE LIMIT IT, LIMIT THE CONCEPT PLAN BASED ON THE PROJECT, EITHER WHERE IT'S AT OR WHAT TYPE OF PROJECT IT IS.

MAYBE IF IT'S PHASED, THEN YOU NEED A [INAUDIBLE] PLANNER VIEW VERSUS ONE THAT HAPPENS ALL AT ONCE, OR MAYBE IT ONLY GOES TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AND IT GOES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS AN FYI.

SO YOU KNOW IS THAT FYI WORTHWHILE TO IS IT WORTH YOUR TIME IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE COMMENTING ON IT, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO LIMIT THAT TO ONE MEETING AND STILL BE ABLE TO SEND WORTHWHILE COMMENTS? THOSE ARE SOME QUESTIONS I THINK ARE WORTH DISCUSSING, BUT THAT WAS REALLY KIND OF HOW THE COMMITTEE AND WAS LIMITED TO ONE OR THE OTHER GROUP AND PROBABLY JUST THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ONLY SINCE THEY ARE THE FINAL ARBITER IN THIS PROCESS.

AND ONE OTHER COMMENT WAS, I THINK THIS IS WORTHWHILE.

THE AMENITIES NEED TO BE SHOWN IN THE CONCEPT PLAN.

THAT'S ANOTHER THEME THAT CAME UP ALONG THE WAY WITH AMENITIES HERE.

OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT GETTING WHAT WE WANT OUT OF THE AMENITIES, I THINK IT'S JUST A BROAD STATEMENT, BUT ALSO THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT FOCUSING ENOUGH ON THE AMENITIES AND THIS WHOLE PROCESS ISN'T TIED.

THE AMENITIES TEND TO BEING KIND OF AN AFTERTHOUGHT.

AND WE REALLY THINK THAT THEY SHOULD KIND OF LEAD THE DISCUSSION AND LEAD THE PROCESS.

SO, OK, THAT'S CONCEPT PLAN, AND THEN WE HAVE TWO CHOICES, EITHER I CAN BARREL ON OR WE TALK ABOUT EACH ONE AFTER I FINISH.

MR. CHAIR. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION? YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO BEFORE.

SO WE DON'T GET BOGGED DOWN WITH ALL OF THE CONTENT THAT YOU GUYS HAVE WORKED ON.

LET'S JUST TAKE IT SECTION BY SECTION AND GET SOME FEEDBACK ON SOME OF THE CONCEPTS AND ITEMS. OK, AND FOR WHAT I PLANNING ON DOING IS I'M GOING TO I'LL FINISH UP EACH SECTION.

I'M GOING TO HIT MUTE SO I CAN TYPE BECAUSE I'M VERY LOUD TYPING.

I'M SO IF YOU SEE ME DISAPPEAR, THAT'S WHAT I'M THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE NEWER TO THE PROCESS, I WONDER IF PETER COULD REMIND US OF THE TIMING THAT KIND OF DRIVES SOME OF THE URGENCY IN THE PROCESS.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE'S A ONCE THE APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED COMPLETE, THE CLOCK STARTS TICKING AND THAT'S WHAT LIMITS WHO CAN MANAGE TO SEE WHAT.

AND I THINK IT'D BE USEFUL TO HEAR THAT.

SURE. THANKS, BILL.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

OK, SO THERE ARE SOME TIME LIMITS, SO SOME SHOT CLOCKS ALONG THE WAY HERE AND IT DOES COMPLICATE DECISIONS.

AND I THINK THE SHOT CLOCKS ARE PUT IN FOR GOOD REASON TO GET PEOPLE ROLLING ON THESE PROJECTS AND THE SENSE OF URGENCY WITH OUR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS, SO.

BASICALLY, I'M JUST GOING TO GET TO THIS POINT IN THE ORDINANCE, AND IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING ALONG, IT'S UNDER.

UNDER FIVE [INAUDIBLE].

SO ONCE THERE'S A ONCE WE HAVE A COMPLETE APPLICATION, PLANNING COMMISSION HOLDS A PUBLIC HEARING, ONCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU'VE GOT WITHIN 60 DAYS OF IT BEING PLACED ON YOUR AGENDA, WHICH I'LL JUST CALL THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT IT.

SO IT'S NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE BEFORE IN TERMS OF THAT TIME FRAME.

SO YOU'VE GOT 60 DAYS.

THE BOARD AFTER IT GETS TO THE BOARD.

THEY HAVE THEIR PUBLIC HEARING. THEY HAVE 30 DAYS.

SO IT'S A LITTLE TIGHTER SCHEDULE ONCE IT GETS TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

AND THEY CAN IN BOTH INSTANCES, IF ONE AN APPLICANT'S WILLING TO ALLOW AN EXTENSION ON TIME, THEY REALLY JUST HAVE TO SPEAK UP AND SAY IT'S FINE.

AND SO I GUESS WHAT HAPPENS IF THOSE TIMEFRAMES ARE NOT MET, PETER? SORRY, I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO MUTE YOURSELF AGAIN.

OH, NO, I JUST I HAVE A MECHANICAL KEYBOARD THAT'S VERY, VERY LOUD.

IF I TYPE. I NEVER RAN INTO THIS BEFORE, MARK, IF YOU WANT TO CHIME IN WITH ME AS WELL, I DON'T THINK THEY AUTOMATICALLY GET APPROVED, THAT'S FOR SURE.

IT MAY JUST END THE PROCESS.

[00:20:04]

IS THAT THE CASE MARK? I THINK THE PURPOSE IS TO GIVE SOME GUIDANCE TO THE BOARD AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DO THESE, AS PETER SAID, IT'S NOT IF YOU DON'T ACT, THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED.

YOU DO HAVE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD.

AND I THINK THE BOARD'S, YOU KNOW, PURPOSE IS THEY GOT TO THEY GOT TO ACT ON IT.

SO IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC, BUT IT'S.

GUIDANCE MORE. OK.

THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE'S REAL PUNISHMENT BOILED INTO THAT.

MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH THEY ARE BENEFITED.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY BY RUNNING OUT BY THE CLOCK RUNNING OUT.

BUT I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I'M READING THAT BACKWARD.

BUT I SAW COMMISSIONER BLUMER'S HAND.

OH YOU'RE MUTED COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

I HOPE I'M NOT OUT OF ORDER HERE, BUT SINCE WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE IS TIMING AND THE LENGTH OF THE PROCESS.

YOU MIND IF WE SKIP AHEAD TO YOUR SECTION? THAT'S CALLED PROCEDURES AND LENGTH OF PROCESS, BECAUSE I HAD A PROBLEM THERE.

AND I THINK IT MAY AT LEAST SOMEWHAT RELATE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YEAH, I MEAN, DO WE? I DIDN'T HEAR ANY COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPT LAND GENERALLY, CAN WE CAN WE HOLD OFF ON THE QUESTION UNTIL WE GET TO THE PROCEDURE, PERHAPS, AND THEN WE CAN GET THROUGH THE.

YEAH, LET'S GET THROUGH THE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FIRST.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS ON THE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW OR ANYTHING THAT OUR SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS WANT TO ADD TO WHAT PETER PRESENTED? FROM A DEVELOPER STANDPOINT, SORRY TO INTERRUPT, SO TELL ME IF I'M INAPPROPRIATE, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

[INAUDIBLE] THE TIMELINE IS VERY HELPFUL FOR THEM.

MOST OF THE TIME, I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR EVERY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

AS WE KNOW, THERE'S ONE COUPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE NOT GONE OFF VERY QUICKLY, BUT MOST OF THE TIME A DEVELOPER WANTS TO COME IN AND GET THE PROJECT OFF THE GROUND.

RIGHT? IN THE NORMAL CLIMATE, IN AN ENVIRONMENT, THEY HAVE THE MONEY AND THEY'RE BACKED BY WHATEVER FINANCING.

AND IF THEY HAVE OTHER FUNDING RESOURCES LIKE STATE OR FEDERAL, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN TIMELINES TO ME. SO I THINK THE TIMELINE IS ALSO, FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, SOMETHING TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE THEM TO GET THEIR PROJECT OFF THE GROUND AND FOR THEIR BENEFIT.

SO IN A WAY, IT IS KIND OF FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE.

JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.

THANK YOU. THE CONCEPT PLAN, I AM A LITTLE, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THE COMMITTEE COULD HELP CLARIFY THE ROLE OF THE CONCEPT PLAN IN THE DECISION.

RIGHT, WE WANT TO SEE THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE'RE ADVISED THAT IN CERTAIN INSTANCES IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO JUDGE AN APPLICATION FOR REZONING ON A SPECIFIC CONCEPT PLAN.

SO.

SO, YEAH, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS NOT RELATED TO A REZONING REQUEST.

IT'S A MIXED USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE CONCEPT PLAN MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE QUITE A BIT TO LOOK AT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT APPROVING THAT. COMMISSIONER CORDILL? OH, JUST TO ADD TO THAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONCEPT PLAN, PARTICULARLY FOR PHASED PROJECTS, BECAUSE THEY TEND TO BE MORE COMPLICATED, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO NAIL DOWN THOSE AMENITIES SO IT'S NOT AN AFTERTHOUGHT.

AND THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT'S KIND OF FIZZLING OUT OF MY MIND.

OH, GOODNESS. IF ANYONE ELSE CAN THINK OF IT FROM THE COMMITTEE, JUMP IN.

BUT SO IT'S THAT AND IT KIND OF, IN A SENSE, THAT KIND OF THOUGHT THAT.

OK, I'M SORRY, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY IT, SO IT'S THAT THERE AREN'T ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL COSTS BEING INCREASED WITHOUT SOME SORT OF GUIDANCE FROM THE TOWNSHIP. SO DON'T GO UNNECESSARILY.

I'M SORRY. I'M KIND OF TONGUE TIED.

NO, NO PROBLEM. SO I GUESS THE.

[00:25:04]

RIGHT. AND SO WHILE IT'S NOT BINDING, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION OR THE BOARD'S DECISION ON A CONCEPT PLAN BECAUSE THERE IS NO VOTE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THEY CAN PUT IT UP IN FRONT OF US AND THE BOARD AND SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING.

AND IF EVERYONE IN THE ROOM, YOU KNOW, GASPS AUDIBLY BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE WITH THE REST OF THE AREA, THAT'S A GOOD SIGNAL TO THEM.

MAYBE, MAYBE I WON'T SPEND A BUNCH OF MONEY TO GET ARCHITECTURAL PLANS IN GREAT DETAIL THAT WOULD FULFILL THE REST OF THE REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO. I THINK THAT IT DOES HAVE VALUE AND I THINK TO COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S POINT, BEING ABLE TO SORT OF SHOW AND THE AMENITIES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE GENERALLY EVEN WOULD BE HELPFUL. BUT I THINK THE ISSUE OF TIMING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER, WHAT IS AN IMPORTANT ONE HERE. BECAUSE THAT IS AN EXTRA LAYER ON TOP OF THE DOUBLE HOP OF, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC HEARING VOTE THAT WILL COME LATER IN THE PROCESS.

SO ESSENTIALLY, THEY'RE DOUBLING THE PROCESS BY HAVING TO COME AND DO A CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW THAT REQUIRES HEARINGS AND VOTES TO MY REMEMBRANCE OF IT ANYWAY.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE. AS I RECALL, IT'S UP TO THE DEVELOPER TO COME TO US WITH A CONCEPT PLAN AND I'M WONDERING IF THE IDEA HERE WAS TO REQUIRE ONE PRIOR TO THE PROCESS? NO, NO, NOT NECESSARILY.

WE ARE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, WHAT WOULD BE AN EASIER WAY TO DO IT AND I ALSO HAD ONE OTHER CONSIDERATION WAS DIFFERING FEEDBACK.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD, AS YOU CAN SEE WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT CASES, END UP ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE REQUESTS.

SO WHERE YOU GET YOUR FEED, WHERE WHERE YOU GET YOUR FEEDBACK MAY MATTER.

SO WILL THEY COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OR GO STRAIGHT TO THE BOARD'S THE DECISION MAKER. MAYBE THE BOARDS NEEDS TO BE THE ONE THAT'S PROVIDING THE PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT. AND YEAH, AND WHAT THE IMPACT OF THAT? IN OTHER WORDS OF THE BOARD OR THE TOWNSHIP BOARD SAYS, WE APPROVE THE CONCEPT PLAN.

DOES THAT BIND IN SOME WAY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND? NOT NECESSARILY, NO.

AND THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE THERE'S NO APPROVAL DENIAL OF THESE CONCEPT PLANS.

IT'S MORE OF A LIKE CHAIR HENDRICKSON SAID.

IT'S MORE OF A HERE'S WHAT WE'RE THINKING.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? IF EVERYONE RUNS OUT OF THE ROOM, THEY KNOW THEY'RE IN A TOUGH SPOT.

BUT IF THEY GET SOME GENERAL SUPPORT OR SOME GENERAL POINTERS, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF SOME EXAMPLES I'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, OH, WE LOVE THIS, BUT WE REALLY DON'T LIKE THIS.

HOW ABOUT YOU CONSIDER THIS? WELL, I THINK THE I THINK THE PINE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT WAS IS ONE WHERE THEY COULD HAVE REALLY BENEFITED FROM BRINGING A CONCEPT PLAN TO THE BOARD.

RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY GOT THERE AND FOUND, OH, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS NOT WHAT WE WANT IN THIS AREA. AND THEN TO GO MORE OR LESS BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND NOT ENTIRELY BUT RETHINK WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO.

SO A CONCEPT PLAN MIGHT HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IN THAT CASE.

I UNDERSTAND. OK, COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

AM I MISSING SOMETHING, WHY IS THERE THE OPTION OF TAKING IT DIRECTLY TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD INSTEAD OF STARTING HERE, STARTING IT HERE? SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF PLAYING ONE AGAINST THE OTHER.

THAT WASN'T MY INTENT, I WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS THEY HAD IT WAS REALLY JUST OVERALL AN IDEA TO SHORTEN THE PROCESS.

SO IF SOMEONE LIKE IF THEY WANT TO PROPOSE A CONCEPT PLAN, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO TO BOTH GROUPS. AND I GUESS THEY TECHNICALLY HAVE THAT CHOICE RIGHT NOW.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TO BOTH GROUPS WE'VE HAD SOME.

BUT I THINK THE GENERAL IDEA IS AND THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN OR WORDED SAYS THEY WOULD GO THROUGH BOTH. YEAH, I GUESS THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF THE CONCEPT PLAN AS IT EXISTS IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY MAKES ME WONDER WHETHER WE NEED TO SPECIFICALLY SPELL OUT THAT THEY SHOULD GIVE IT TO THE BOARD VERSUS THE COMMISSION.

I THINK GENERALLY AS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER, I WOULD BE FINE WITH IF THEY WERE GOING TO SEND IT ANYWHERE, SEND IT TO THE BOARD AND MAYBE THEY COULD HAVE A MEETING ABOUT IT.

I AM COMFORTABLE WITH IT AS AN FYI, JUST TO GIVE US A SENSE THAT, HEY, THIS PROJECT IS COMING. BUT I GUESS AT THE VERY LEAST, IF WE'RE GOING TO SUGGEST THAT GOES TO THE BOARD AND NOT US, THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ME ANYWAY IF WE COULD RECEIVE SOME OF THE

[00:30:02]

JUST BECAUSE THE FEEDBACK IS NOT HELPFUL TO US AS A COMMISSION, WHEN RENDERING OUR DECISION IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.

ANYWAY THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

BUT I LIKE THE I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING TO SHOW THE AMENITIES, ENUMERATE THOSE.

I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, STRENGTHEN THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS LATER IN OUR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE. OK, COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

I GUESS AND THIS WILL COME LATER, TRYING TO HAVE JUST THE ONE PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE WHOEVER MAKES THE FINAL DECISION IS THE ONE WHO'S HOLDING THAT PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THE COMMITTEE FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONCEPT OF JUST, OUR RECEIVING THE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

NOT THAT WE WOULD OBJECT TO BEING THE DECIDING AUTHORITY, SUCH AS SUCH AS SPECIAL USE PERMITS. IT'S IT'S THE IT'S THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION OF.

OF THE BOARD, [INAUDIBLE] RELINQUISHING THAT FINAL DECISION MAKING.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE ON THE CONCEPT PLAN SECTION? OK, AND LET'S HEAD ON TO APPLICABILITY.

OK, THANK YOU.

SO THE TOPIC HERE IS REALLY THE IN THE ORDINANCE.

IT'S WHERE OUR [INAUDIBLE] IS ALLOWED.

SO RIGHT NOW, WE KNOW THEY'RE ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONING WITH SOME LIMITATIONS. THEY'RE ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL, PRETTY MUCH WITHOUT RESTRICTION.

BUT IN OFFICE, THERE ARE LIMITS TO THE COMMERCIAL USES AND ALSO A LIMIT TO WHERE PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED.

SO APPLICABILITY THERE.

THE IDEA WAS CONSIDERING YOU CAN SEE IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT CONSIDER OFFERING [INAUDIBLE] ONLY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN [INAUDIBLE] AREAS OF THE MERIDIAN MALL.

SO THAT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE FRUITFUL ONLY IN THAT THOSE ARE AREAS WHERE WE DO WANT TO HAVE SOME GUIDANCE ON PROJECTS AND NOT NECESSARILY LIMIT THE USE OF WHAT IS ARGUABLY ONE OF OUR MORE FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS.

AND THEN SO A COUPLE OF OTHER IDEAS WERE TO LIMIT THEM ONLY TO AREAS ELIGIBLE FOR BROWNFIELD FUNDING. THAT'S CHALLENGING ON A VARIETY OF LEVELS JUST DUE TO WHICH PROPERTIES ELIGIBLE AND WHICH ONES AREN'T.

AND AGAIN, WE WANT PEOPLE TO USE THIS.

WE'RE WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE IT.

THAT WOULD CERTAINLY LIMIT IT.

AND THEN ALSO NOT ALLOWING IN GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT.

SO REALLY, THERE WEREN'T ANY MAJOR CHANGES PROPOSED FOR THIS SECTION.

LEAVE IT IN COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY IN OUR ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER BLUMER? AS A NEW PERSON HERE. COULD SOMEBODY TELL ME WHAT PICA STANDS FOR, PLEASE? IT WAS A CONCEPT IN OUR MASTER PLAN THAT WAS POTENTIAL INTENSITY CHANGE AREA, SO IN THE MASTER PLAN THEY IDENTIFIED, I THINK, THREE DIFFERENT AREAS, MAYBE FOUR IN THE ORDINANCE WHERE THESE WERE PRIORITY REDEVELOPMENT AREAS.

SO THEY DON'T HAVE ANY LEGAL BINDING.

IT WAS JUST A CONCEPT IN THE MASTER PLAN OF SOME AREAS WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL. YEAH, THANK YOU.

I HAD ORIGINALLY THOUGHT OF LIMITING MUPDS AND THOSE PICA AREAS AND DISCOURAGING AGAINST GREENFIELD SITES, BUT KIND OF WHAT WON ME OVER TO NOT BEING SO RESTRICTIVE ON WHERE IT WOULD BE APPLIED IS THE DENSITY ISSUE, BECAUSE I HAD SEEN THROUGH MY EXPERIENCE THAT SOMETIMES IT WAS THE GREENFIELD, THE WHERE YOU WEREN'T REDEVELOPING.

IT WAS JUST A STRAIGHT FORWARD DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY WERE SEEKING DENSITY BONUSES.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMITTEE FELT THAT, HEY, IF YOU WANT TO GO AFTER DENSITY BONUS, IT'S AN AREA THAT THE TOWNSHIP IS FOCUSED ON AND PARTICULARLY ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S WHY WE FELT THAT KEEPING THE APPLICABILITY MORE OPEN.

[00:35:03]

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. YEAH, I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION ABOUT THE PICAS, AND IF I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS FOLLOWING ON FORM BASE CODE, THE IDEA WAS THAT IT WOULD INITIALLY BE THE GRAND RIVER CORRIDOR, BUT IT MIGHT ALSO EXTEND TO THE PICAS.

SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THE COMMITTEE HAD SORT OF HASHED OUT WHERE THE PICAS WOULD BE MORE AN MUPD THING OR MORE OF A FORM BASED CODE THING? THEY WOULD DEFINITELY BE MORE OF A FORM BASED CODE THING, BECAUSE THE IDEA WOULD BE TO I SEE THE MUPD AS REALLY GENERALIZED STANDARDS ARE FOR LONG RUN, MAYBE FOR PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF THE PICA AREAS. THIS WOULD BE KIND OF THE EVERYTHING ELSE.

SO AT SOME POINT THIS WOULD BE OUR BACK-SEAT PROBABLY TOOL AS OPPOSED TO THE PICAS SORRY, THE FORM BASE CODE. BUT GENERALLY YEAH, IT WOULD SO IN THOSE AREAS, SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, THOSE ARE PERFECT SPOTS FOR FORM BASE CODE.

CUZ THEY'RE ESPECIALLY THEY'RE CONTAINED, THEY ARE SELF-CONTAINED, KIND OF IDENTIFIABLE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT FORM BASED CODE WANTS.

YEAH. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? I DON'T SEE ANYONE RAISING THEIR HAND.

OK, THAT'S A COUPLE OF THEM ARE NOT EXACTLY EXCITING TOPICS, BUT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

THIS WAS MORE JUST A GENERAL [INAUDIBLE] CASTING IN THAT YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH SOME OF YOU BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF MUPD PROJECTS.

AND THE GENERAL QUESTION IS, DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVE THE MATERIALS THEY NEED TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT A PROJECT? THE COMMISSION FELT THAT, YES.

THERE ARE SOME TWEAKS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE TO THE APPLICATION ITSELF THAT I CAN DO NO PROBLEM. BUT GENERALLY WE'RE GETTING WHAT WE NEED.

WE GET A [INAUDIBLE] PLAN, WE GET FLOOR PLANS.

WE GET INFORMATION, WRITTEN INFORMATION FROM THE DEVELOPER, TRAFFIC STUDY, NATURAL FEATURES STUDY, THAT KIND OF THING.

BUT SO IF THERE ARE THINGS IN THE FUTURE AND NEXT TIME WE TALK ABOUT THIS, AFTER YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT IT, PLEASE DO LET US KNOW.

ANY QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS ON THAT? COMMISSIONER CORDILL? WELL, I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO THAT LIST THAT PETER HAS COVERED SO MUCH, JUST WE ARE GETTING ELEVATIONS OF THE PROJECTS TOO, WHICH IS HELPFUL.

AND CRITICAL, ACTUALLY.

I DON'T WANT I WOULDN'T WANT TO APPROVE AN MUPD WITHOUT ELEVATIONS AND SOMETIMES ASKING FOR MATERIAL SAMPLES OR MORE SPECIFICS, MATERIAL SAMPLES IN THE DAY, IN THIS AGE OF ZOOM, YOU DON'T HAVE THE PRESENTATION IN THE TOWNSHIP ROOM WHERE.

BUT WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN.

HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE BACK TO THAT SOON.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE? YEAH, MY PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THE APPLICATIONS WE'VE GOTTEN.

THEY TEND TO BE QUITE DETAILED.

I SUPPOSE WE COULD REQUEST A LITTLE BIT MORE AS FAR AS AMENITIES.

PROBLEM I HAVE WITH A LOT OF THESE IS THE FOLLOW THROUGH, AND AS FINANCING CHANGES, WHAT WE'VE SEEN AS THE APPLICATION WITH ALL OF THOSE ELEVATIONS AND PROJECTIONS CHANGES SO THAT OCCASIONALLY IT ENDS UP AS SIMPLY A.

HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT HOUSE WITH VERY LITTLE OF THE MULTIPLE USE PIECE OF IT AND I DON'T KNOW, IT'S NOT IN THE APPLICATION REQUIREMENT, IT'S SOMEPLACE DOWN THE ROAD.

WE'RE LOSING CONTROL OF THIS.

YEAH, I THINK THAT I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT LIKELY IN THE AMENDMENT SECTION BECAUSE I HAVE THAT SAME CONCERN. I FELT THAT WAY ABOUT A COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH THAT TURNS OUT, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE CHANGED RADICALLY.

SO LET'S PUT A PIN IN THAT COMMENT AND DEFINITELY CIRCLE BACK TO IT WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THE AMENDMENT SECTION.

BUT WE HAVE EVERYONE'S FAVORITE, UNLESS THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WITH COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION MATERIALS? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO EVERYONE'S FAVORITE SECTION, WHICH IS THE AMENITIES.

SO LOTS OF GOOD CONTENT HERE.

LET'S HAVE PETER GIVE US A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THIS.

YEAH, I THINK THE GENERAL CONSENSUS AMONG PROBABLY EVERYBODY I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE BOARD, BUT THE BOARD, BUT THE IS THE AMENITIES ARE REALLY KIND OF THE ONES THAT THE TOWNSHIP

[00:40:01]

WE'RE LOOKING FOR THESE ITEMS THAT REALLY MAKE THE PROJECT A COMPLETE PROJECT IN THE COMMUNITY. SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS WE COULD TACKLE THIS.

I THINK THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING IS RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T WE DON'T OFFER ENOUGH.

WE DON'T HAVE A BROAD ENOUGH LIST AND ARE DYNAMIC ENOUGH MENU FOR DEVELOPERS TO CHOOSE FROM. SO IT'S REALLY THEY TAKE THE LOW HANGING FRUIT.

WE'RE DOING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.

GREAT. YOU KNOW, AND WHAT THEY DON'T SAY IS THEY WERE GOING TO DO THAT ANYWAYS.

SO THAT BEING SAID, WE LOOKED AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF HOW CAN WE QUANTIFY OR CATEGORIZE THE AMENITIES? I DON'T HAVE A LIST FOR YOU TODAY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON A DETAILED LIST.

PROBABLY SOMETHING A LOT LARGER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

THE COUPLE DIFFERENT OPTIONS WE TALKED ABOUT, HAVING THE AMENITY OF THE SIZE OF AN AMENITY BE DEFINED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OR MAYBE A PART OF THE INVESTMENTS OF THE PROJECTS.

BUT ALSO SO THERE'S THAT, SO IT'S QUANTIFYING WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

SO THE SCALE OF IT IN RELATION TO THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE PROJECT, BUT ALSO THEN WHO DOES IT SERVE? BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION FOR A LONG TIME HAS BEEN THAT IT SERVES THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IT'S NOT A VOLLEYBALL COURT IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, DOES NOT IS NOT THE INTENT OF WHAT THIS WAS. THIS KIND OF HOW IT'S BECOME.

THE IDEA IS THAT IT'S OPEN TO ANYBODY, NOT JUST THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO THAT IS DEFINITELY, IN TERMS OF SCOPE, A VERY BIG PART OF A DEVELOPER'S DECISION AND THEIR INITIAL HOW THEY PRESENT THE PROJECT AND WHAT THEY INCORPORATE EARLY ON.

SO. THE CURRENT BAR IS DEFINITELY TOO LOW.

WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS ONE I'M GOING TO CALL A MENU TOGETHER THAT HAS A LOT OF CATEGORIES OR HAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT AMENITIES AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE MUCH MORE REFINED AND DYNAMIC THAN WHAT WE REQUIRE RIGHT NOW.

THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE AMENITY HAS TO BE BORN BY THE DEVELOPER ITSELF, AND SO NO TAX DOLLARS GOES TOWARDS WHATEVER IS BEING USED.

WE DIDN'T REALLY COME TO A CONCLUSION ON THAT.

I KNOW I'M JUMPING AROUND A LITTLE BIT HERE, BUT THE ONE OTHER BIG TOPIC IS WHAT IS AN AMENITY? SO YOU'LL SEE IN THE.

STAFF AND [INAUDIBLE] WE DIDN'T, ATTEMPTED TO COME UP WITH A DEFINITION THAT SOME OF THIS WAS OVER THE LAST FOUR MEETINGS THAT THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

JUST KIND OF PUT IT TOGETHER AND YOU SEE KIND OF MID PAGE.

THE EXTRAORDINARY PROJECT FEATURE THAT PROVIDES USABLE BENEFIT TO OCCUPANTS OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND REFLECTS THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING PLACE FACILITY, BUILDING OR PLACE THAT'S KIND OF A FRANKENSTEIN DEFINITION.

IT'S NOT PERFECTLY WORDSMITH YET, BUT I HEARD THOSE WORDS IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS AND ADDED A LOT OF DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS TOGETHER.

SO. ALSO, THE AMENITIES NEED TO BE MEASURABLE, VERIFIABLE AND SUSTAINED.

WE TALKED ABOUT HOW MANY HAVE TO BE THERE.

THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD ACCEPT OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS.

SOMETHING I'LL JUST SAY UPFRONT, I'M VERY MUCH AGAINST I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF A DEVELOPER SAYING THEY'LL DO A PARK ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN.

IF YOU LET US BUILD THE PROJECT ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT.

AND THEN A LOT MORE FROM A LOT MORE POINTS HERE ABOUT HOW WE CONSIDER THE AMENITIES.

SO SPECIFIC NUMBER, SPECIFIC SIZE, COMPARISON TO THE OVERALL PROJECT SIZE.

SO THAT'S THE THOSE ARE THE TOPICS THAT THE DISCUSSION CENTERED AROUND, AND I'M DEFINITELY INTERESTED TO HEAR INITIAL FEEDBACK.

ANY MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE WISH TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT? I THINK I THINK ANOTHER ISSUE THAT MAYBE WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED, BUT I WASN'T THERE LAST MEETING, IS THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC AMENITIES THAT ARE PRIMARILY FOR THE PUBLIC USE.

WHO MAINTAINS KEEPS THEM UP? THAT'S PROBABLY AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED IN OUR DISCUSSION, MY, MY LEAN WOULD BE THAT THE THE BUILDER, THE DEVELOPER WOULD MAINTAIN THE AMENITIES IN GOOD ORDER, WHATEVER.

BUT THEY MAY NOT SEE IT THAT WAY IF THEY'RE PUBLIC USE.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD, THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE'LL NEED TO CLARIFY.

[00:45:04]

SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF A GLOBAL TYPE THING, LIKE IF WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE ENERGY SAVINGS AND THEY COULD PROPOSE AN AMENITY THAT ISN'T ON THE LIST THAT EFFECTUATES THAT GOAL WITHOUT BEING IDENTIFIED.

SO A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY IN THAT AND ALLOWS I MEAN, IF WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE COMMUNITY FOOT TRAFFIC, HOW IS THIS GOING TO DO THIS? IS THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT WAYS AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THE LIST CAN ENUMERATE EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT ACHIEVE A GOAL IF WE CAN DEFINE THE GOAL.

AND THAT IS NOT AN EASY TASK IN AN ORDINANCE.

YEAH, I SAW.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE CAN NO, THERE'S ISN'T GOING TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE LIST HERE.

OK, COMMISSIONER CORDILL THEN COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

OH, ACTUALLY, IT WAS ADDRESSED.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? THANKS.

IT IS REALLY HARD TO CODIFY A LIST OF AMENITIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE ENDURING.

THE TOWNSHIP DOES HAVE A NUMBER OF MORE ASPIRATIONAL DOCUMENTS.

THE CLIMATE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN IS REFERENCED HERE.

THE TRANSPORTATION NON MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN IS ALSO, I THINK, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, THE GREEN SPACE PLAN, A LITTLE BIT DATED.

SO IT MAY BE WORTH CONSIDERING A REFERENCE BACK TO THOSE, THOSE OTHER MORE ASPIRATIONAL DOCUMENTS. AND AS COMMISSIONER TREZISE WAS SAYING, THOSE HAVE GOALS AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY PRESCRIPTIVE.

BUT IF AN AMENITY LOOKS LIKE IT'S TRYING TO FULFILL A GOAL IN ONE OF THOSE KIND OF COMMUNITY PLANS, MAYBE THAT'S A WAY TO SOFTEN THE EDGES OF A LIST.

JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR EITHER PETER OR MARK, IS THERE A WAY TO MAINTAIN A DYNAMIC LIST WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ORDINANCE CHANGE EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU WANT TO MAKE AN UPDATE TO THAT? I WOULD THINK WE NEED TO CODIFY AND HAVE [INAUDIBLE] ORDINANCE.

WE DON'T, WE COULD HAVE THAT OTHER CATEGORY LIKE COMMISSIONERS TREZISE MENTIONED, IT'S GOING TO KEEP US OPEN TO OTHER THINGS, BUT TO BE CONSIDERED, I WOULD THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE ORDINANCE UNLESS MR. KIESELBACH FEELS STRONGLY OTHERWISE.

THE ONLY THING IS THERE MAY BE A NEED TO BE SOME CRITERIA FOR THESE AMENITIES SO THAT WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING ANOTHER TYPE THAT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED, YOU HAVE SOME WAY OF JUDGING IT AS TO THOSE THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE LIST.

YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO BE A LITTLE MORE QUICK TO RESPOND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF OF DETAIL THAT YOU HAVE TO GET INTO IF YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND DO AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU WANT TO ADD A AN ITEM TO AN AMENITY LIST. RIGHT.

WE FIND OURSELVES HERE.

THESE AMENITIES THAT WERE THAT ARE CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN ORDINANCE FROM, YOU KNOW, 10, 15 YEARS AGO OR HOWEVER LONG AGO.

THIS WAS THE LAST TIME WE MADE THE CHANGES TO THIS PROBABLY SEEMS LIKE PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXTRAORDINARY [INAUDIBLE] EXTRAORDINARY PROJECT FEATURES AT THAT TIME, BUT TODAY ARE RELATIVELY COMMONPLACE.

SO MY THOUGHT WAS, IS THERE A WAY TO HAVE, LIKE, A SEPARATE DOCUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE BOARD OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, ONE ELECTRIC VEHICLE STATION IS NO LONGER, YOU KNOW, EXTRAORDINARY.

THAT'S ORDINARY. LET'S UP IT TO 10 OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE SCALE MIGHT BE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH AND RUN AN ORDINANCE REVIEW FROM US TO THE BOARD EACH AND EVERY TIME. SO JUST SOMETHING TO CHEW ON, SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT IF THERE'S ANY WAY AT ALL TO DO THAT. I KNOW THAT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FORM BASED CODE, WE THERE WAS THERE WERE REFERENCES TO LIKE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.

BUT I KNOW THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT CODIFIED AND MAYBE WE CAN'T DO IT ANYWAY.

BUT IT WAS A WAY OF SORT OF POINTING AT A DOCUMENT AND SAYING THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ASPIRATIONAL DOCUMENTS LIKE COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE LOOK TO WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THIS SORT OF THING.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER AND THEN COMMISSIONER CORDILL AND SHREWSBURY.

[00:50:03]

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, AND AS LONG AS THAT DOCUMENT IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO, IT'S VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND THAT DOCUMENT CAN CHANGE.

AS LONG AS THE ELASTIC BANDS HOLDING IT TO THE ONE YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH CONTINUE TO EXIST. SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS NOT ILLEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

OK.

IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD SIGN.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL AND COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

I JUST ALSO WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AMENITIES IN TERMS OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. URBAN DESIGN OR STREETSCAPE COULD BE EVEN SCULPTURE, A MURAL. SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS ARE DEFINITELY FOR CONSIDERATION.

BUT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IS, I THINK, A KEY PART OF AMENITIES AND SHOULD, IN MY OPINION, BE THE CENTERPIECE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? PETER, YOU MAY HAVE ADDRESSED THIS AND I MISSED IT, BUT I FEEL LIKE THERE'S STILL A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCONNECT BETWEEN BULLETS TWO AND THREE AND SORT OF THE FACT THAT IT MUST BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BUT THEN IT COULD SERVE THE PUBLIC RESIDENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR BOTH.

IF THERE IS SOMETHING LIKE A GREEN, LIKE ELECTRIC CAR CHARGING STATION, DOES THAT MEAN THAT ANYBODY OFF THE STREET CAN DRIVE UP AND USE IT OR IS THAT IT? AND SO I I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DON'T WANT THEM TO ADD THINGS THAT ONLY BENEFIT THEM AND DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC GOOD.

BUT I THINK THAT THERE COULD BE SOME AMENITIES LIKE GREEN BUILDING OR LIKE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, THINGS THAT, LIKE COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL IS REFERENCING THAT COULD REALLY BENEFIT THE GENERAL PUBLIC BUT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN THE SAME FORM THAT ONE OF THE OTHERS ARE.

SO DID THE COMMITTEE TALK ABOUT THAT AT ALL, OR IS IT THE INTENT THAT THEY'RE ONLY THINGS THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE PUBLIC? WE TALKED ABOUT KIND OF A COMBINATION OF THAT.

I THINK WE RECOGNIZED, FIRST OFF, THAT THERE IS A BIT OF AN IDENTITY CRISIS WHEN IT COMES TO WHO THESE PROJECTS ARE SUPPOSED TO APPEAL TO, BECAUSE OVER THE YEARS I'VE SEEN ENOUGH OF THEM. WE'VE KIND OF DONE BOTH.

AND BUT THERE HAS BEEN THE DRUMBEAT HAS BEEN THAT THIS NEEDS TO SERVE THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

AND I THINK DEVELOPERS HAVE HAD CHALLENGES TO THAT.

HOW DO YOU FIT THAT INTO YOUR KIND OF OUT OF THE BOX PROJECT? WE CONSIDERED A COUPLE OF WE DIDN'T REALLY COME DOWN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT WE DEFINITELY CONSIDERED THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN [INAUDIBLE] ELEMENT MAYBE OF BOTH THAT THERE ARE THERE IS A PROVISION THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE GENERAL PUBLIC, BUT ALSO PROVISIONS OR AMENITIES THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE.

SO MAYBE SOME COMBINATION OF THAT, THAT YOU HAVE AT LEAST ONE THAT DOES THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT SEVERAL THAT OR VICE VERSA, SEVERAL THAT ADDRESS RESIDENTS.

I SAW SOME OF THAT LOWER DOWN, BUT IT FELT LIKE THAT THIRD BULLET MIGHT CONFLICT WITH SOME OF THAT PRINCIPLE.

AND THEN SORT OF A FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT IS.

I NO NEVER MIND, I DON'T SEE IT REALLY IS EITHER OR NECESSARILY SOMETIMES IT SORT OF BENEFITS THE PUBLIC, BUT IT ISN'T LIKE A DIRECT PIECE OF ART THAT YOU CAN SEE, BUT SOMETHING THAT ALIGNS TO THE GOALS OF THE TOWNSHIP AND THE TOWNSHIP'S OTHER PLANS FOR SUSTAINABLE CLIMATE PROTECTION OR SOMETHING LIKE HIGHER TRANSPORTATION THAT'S NOT A MOTORIZED VEHICLE, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT GET US CLOSER TO OUR GOALS, BUT ISN'T A TANGIBLE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AMENITY.

AND I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEING ALLOWABLE IN THIS IN THIS WAY, IF THEY'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND SORT OF THE NORMAL AS A WAY TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT.

I WONDER IF THERE'S A WAY TO MORE EASILY QUANTIFY THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S REQUIRED AND HAVE IT SCALE WITH THE WITH THE PROJECT'S SIZE.

AND THIS IS, BY THE WAY, WHAT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST IS JUST THE TOP OF MY HEAD HERE, BUT SOMETHING TO DO WITH LIKE, HEY, IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, FIFTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, IT NEEDS 50 POINTS OF AMENITIES.

RIGHT. AND THEN YOU GO TO YOUR MENU AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE LIST OF AMENITIES AND EACH

[00:55:01]

RIGHT. AND SO, HEY, YOU KNOW, AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE SPACE IS WORTH, YOU KNOW, HALF OF A POINT. BUT A, YOU KNOW, GREEN SUSTAINABLE BUILDING IS WORTH 10 POINTS.

SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

I MEAN, THIS IS YOU KNOW, THE POINTS ARE ARBITRARY, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT.

I WONDER IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD WORK WHERE WE COULD.

WE COULD WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING A PROJECT, LOOK AT IT.

AND RATHER THAN SAY, WELL, THIS KIND OF FEELS LIKE THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF AMENITIES, POINT TO IT AND SAY, YEAH, ACTUALLY, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND IF WE CAN DO SORT OF A DYNAMIC MENU, THEN IF THE TOWNSHIPS GOALS CHANGE, THEN THE POINT VALUES MIGHT FLUCTUATE OVER TIME TO SAY, OK, WELL, YOU KNOW, ELECTRIC VEHICLES, WE FEEL THAT'S MORE SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO FOCUS ON MORE RIGHT NOW.

AND PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE OVERFLOWING WITH PUBLIC ART.

AND SO WE NEED TO DECREASE THAT FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND SORT OF WORK ON SOME OTHER GOALS ANYWAY.

THAT'S JUST SOME THOUGHTS I'M OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, TELLING ME THAT I'M CRAZY, BUT SOME KIND OF RUBRIC SYSTEM.

MAYBE YOU COULD LET [INAUDIBLE] ON THE COMMITTEE FOR THAT DISCUSSION.

I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S DEFINITELY MERIT IN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT THERE POSSIBLY COULD BE WEIGHTED AND THE MORE DESCRIPTION, THE BETTER.

BUT YET, LIKE WHAT COMMISSIONER TREZISE WAS SAYING, THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO HEM YOURSELF IN TOO TIGHTLY, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT JUST THAT CONCEPT SEEMS QUITE AMBITIOUS. I DON'T KNOW ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE SUCH ORDINANCES AS SOPHISTICATED? AS DEVELOPED THIS KIND OF PROGRAM OF THE MENU AND POSSIBLE? AND I MEAN, I CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, EITHER PERCENTAGE OR WHATEVER TO SAY, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT, YOU'RE OFFERING SO MANY IDENTITIES.

I SEE THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN YOU AND I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE INUNDATED WITH PUBLIC ART.

I WAS JUST USING THAT AS A TOP OF MIND EXAMPLE, THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY.

SURE. AND JUST KIND OF RIBBING YOU.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TREZISE HAS HIS HAND UP.

WELL, I. I LIKE THE IDEA OF RANK ORDERING AMENITIES.

I MEAN, IT'S CLEAR THAT NOT ALL AMENITIES ARE CREATED EQUAL.

AND SO WHETHER WE COULD GET DOWN TO A RIGID POINT SYSTEM OR NOT, THAT PROBABLY IS A LITTLE AMBITIOUS.

BUT CERTAINLY WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH CATEGORIES LIKE IF YOU'RE IN CATEGORY ONE THAT IS A HIGH QUALITY OR A HIGH DEMAND AMENITY, IF YOU'RE IN CATEGORY TWO, IT'S LESS THAN WE COULD SAY THINGS LIKE YOU NEED.

IF YOU'VE GOT YOUR FIFTY THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT, YOU NEED ONE FROM COLUMN A AND TWO FROM COLUMN B OR SOME SUCH THING IN ORDER TO RANK ORDER THEM SO THAT WE ARE GETTING THE AMENITIES THAT WE STRONGLY WANT AND NOT PUTTING IN ADDED OR AN OVERBURDEN ON A SMALLER DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO A LARGER ONE.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE THEN COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

HOW DO WE PREVENT IT? HOW DO WE PREVENT THAT FROM BECOMING AN ARBITRARY DECISION BY 10 COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF THAT? IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT MIGHT SEEM LIKE A REALLY CLASSY AMENITY TO ME MIGHT NOT MAKE ANY SENSE TO ANYBODY ELSE.

I MEAN, IT'S I THINK WE PROVIDE A LIST.

THE WEIGHTING TO ME SEEMS VERY ARBITRARY.

AND I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU DO THAT IN ANY SENSIBLE WAY.

WELL, I THINK ONE WAY WOULD BE TO FOCUS ON THE ASPIRATIONAL GOALS OF THE TOWNSHIP AND SEE IF IT FALLS WITHIN THAT, IT HAS A HIGHER VALUE THAN CERTAIN OTHER THINGS, I'M NOT SAYING IT WOULDN'T BE ARBITRARY, BECAUSE ANYTHING WE DO IS ARBITRARY WHEN WE APPROVE IT OR DENY IT. SO BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME AMENITIES THAT YOU CAN THROW ON THAT LIST AND SAY, I'VE GOT SIX AMENITIES, BUT THEY REALLY DON'T AMOUNT TO MUCH TO BENEFIT THE TOWNSHIP DEPENDING ON THE ONES THEY'VE CHOSEN.

SO ON AND I GET NERVOUS WHERE THEY SAY, WELL, I'VE GOT AN AMENITY, I'VE GOT A PARK BENCH

[01:00:04]

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THEY'RE BUILDING A FIFTY THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND IT'S GOING TO BE ENERGY EFFICIENT, LEED QUALIFIED, WHATEVER, THAT MAY BE AN AMENITY THAT THE DISTRICT OR THE TOWNSHIP FINDS MORE VALUABLE THAN SOME OF THE OTHER MORE MUNDANE OR LESS VALUABLE TYPE AMENITIES, AND I AGREE IT'S A PROBLEM.

AND LIKE IT OR NOT, COMMISSIONER PREMOE, THIS ARBITRARY GROUP OF 10 INDIVIDUALS IS MAKING DECISIONS AT EVERY MEETING THAT.

I AGREE. OF THE TOWNSHIP.

I'M NOT I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT POINT, BUT I'M SAYING.

IT'S THE AMENITIES ISSUES ALWAYS GOING TO BE IN NEGOTIATION.

I WANT A WAIVER. IN EXCHANGE FOR THE WAIVER, WE'RE GOING TO SAY YOU'VE GOT TO DO X, Y, Z, AND IF THE PARK BENCHES ISN'T ENOUGH TO COVER THE WAIVER AREN'T WE'RE GOING TO TELL THEM THAT? I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY UNDER THE CURRENT STATUTE ORDINANCE THAT IF THEY HAVE X NUMBER OF AMENITIES, THEN THEY GET THE ADDED FLOOR OR WHATEVER, IF WE WANT TO BUILD IN THAT FLEXIBILITY.

I'M ALL FOR IT. COMMISSIONER BLUMER, YOU WANTED TO WEIGH IN? YEAH, I. I'M STILL STUCK BACK ON THE OPENING LINE OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION.

I THINK I'VE BEEN LISTENING VERY CAREFULLY TO WHAT EVERYBODY'S BEEN SAYING AND WHETHER YOU REALIZE IT OR NOT, EVERYBODY IS TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC AMENITIES, NOT THE INHERENT AMENITIES TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE PROJECT.

AND I THINK WE WOULD SIMPLIFY OUR WHOLE DISCUSSION IF WE SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT WHAT WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED WITH ARE THE PUBLIC AMENITIES.

IF WHO CARES IF THE BUILDING HAS A WEIGHT LIFTING AND EXERCISE ROOM THAT IS ACCESSIBLE ONLY TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE PROJECT.

WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS PUBLIC AMENITIES.

AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO FOCUS THE STATUE, THE ORDINANCE ON THAT AND SAY IF THE BUILDER WANTS TO PROVIDE SOMETHING THAT MAKES HIS OCCUPANTS MORE HAPPY TO BE THERE, THAT'S HIS DEAL. BUT IF THEY WANT TO PUT UP A PUBLIC CHILDREN'S PARK WITH SWING SET AND A SLIDE, THAT'S AN AMENITY THAT WE MIGHT BE MORE INTERESTED IN.

THE OCCUPANTS OF THE DWELLING OF THE BUILDING CAN USE IT, BUT SO CAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

AND I THINK WE WOULD WE WOULD FOCUS OUR ATTENTION AND CLARIFY THE MEANING OF THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.

IF WE SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT WE REALLY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE PUBLIC AMENITY.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WELL PUT.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT? I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO GO.

YEAH, I THINK TO COMMISSIONER PREMOE'S POINT THAT HE MAKES IT QUITE A FEW TURNS.

IF THE DEVELOPER IS THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BE IN.

RIGHT. AND SO THEY'RE ALREADY INCENTIVIZED TO YOU KNOW, IF THEY BUILD IT, THEY EXPECT THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO RENT IT OR SELL IT OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

AND SO TO YOUR TO COMMISSIONER BLUMER'S POINT THERE.

YES. GOING TO BUILD A WORKOUT ROOM BECAUSE A WORKOUT ROOM IS WHAT'S REQUIRED TO FILL THEIR THEIR SPACE, IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

AND SO I AGREE THAT OUR JOB SHOULD BE TO FOCUS ON AND THE ORDINANCE'S JOB.

I GUESS IT SHOULD BE TO FOCUS ON PUBLIC AMENITIES THAT WE CAN.

YEAH. REQUIRE OUT OF THIS PROCESS.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? I AGREE WITH SO MANY THINGS THAT HAVE JUST BEEN SAID.

WHAT I HEARD WAS THE AMENITIES SHOULD BE PUBLIC.

AND THE AMENITY SHOULD SOMEHOW MEET AN ASPIRATIONAL GOAL OF THE TOWNSHIP AND THE AMENITIES SHOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY.

AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE ENOUGH TO GO ON.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON AMENITIES? I THINK IT'S BEEN A REALLY, REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION.

HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY OFFERS A LITTLE BIT OF DIRECTION TO THE COMMITTEE AS THEY KEEP MORE, KEEP THEIR WORK GOING HERE.

NEXT UP IS DESIGN STANDARDS.

YEAH, IT REALLY DOES INFORM OUR WORK, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.

OK, SO DESIGN STANDARDS.

THE TOWNSHIP, THE ORDINANCE HAS A LOT OF DESIGN STANDARDS, WHETHER OR NOT WE REALIZE IN ALL THESE PROJECTS, BUT WE WE DELINEATE QUITE, QUITE A LOT OF THINGS.

FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, PERCENTAGE OF WINDOW COVERAGE OF THE GROUND FLOOR OR PERCENTAGE OF A BUILDING COVERED BY WINDOWS, THAT KIND OF THING.

SO THERE WERE JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON THIS ONE.

[01:05:01]

IT'S TOO AMBIGUOUS. SO WE'RE GOING TO REVERSE THAT AND PUT A SHALL IN TERMS OF ALLOWING THE USE OF. THIS IS REGARDING USE OF SHEETING OR CEMENT OR [INAUDIBLE] IT'S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT SHALL NOT USE THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

SO JUST PROVIDING MORE DIRECTION ON MATERIALS.

REQUIRED STANDARDS FOR RAILINGS, BENCHES, TRASH BINS, ET CETERA.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF OVERLOOKED ALONG THE WAY RIGHT NOW.

BUT WE NEED TO ACTUALLY GET THAT IN THERE.

WE DO HAVE A STANDARD FOR BICYCLE RACKS.

WE USE THE INVERTED U TYPE.

WE HAVE SPECIFIC SPACING REQUIREMENTS IN OUR ORDINANCE FOR THAT.

BUT SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS RAILINGS, BENCHES, WE NEED TO HAVE STANDARDS FOR HAVING THEM IN OUR ORDINANCE, SOMETHING WE CAN GIVE TO FOLKS THAT SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.

BECAUSE I THINK AND PART OF THIS FALL, I'LL ADMIT PART OF THIS FALLS ON OUR STAFF AND IT'S PRIMARILY ME TO HANDLE THIS, BUT TO HANDLE A LOT OF THOSE THINGS.

BUT IT WOULD REALLY HELP MAKE MY JOB EASIER.

IF I HAD SOMETHING I CAN POINT TO IN THE ORDINANCE, THAT'S VERY CLEAR FOR PEOPLE UP FRONT. SO REQUIRE PARKING LOTS TO BE IN ONLY IN THE SIDE OR THE REAR.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I MEAN, IT'S A POLICY GOAL THAT I THINK WE'VE ALL WANTED TO GET TO, BUT IT WOULD BE A WAY TO CEMENT THIS IN OUR [INAUDIBLE].

IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO AN MUPD THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONSIDER AS PART OF THE PROJECT.

THAT'S IN LIEU OF THE TOWNSHIP ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES THAT.

WHICH WOULD ALSO BE GREAT.

REQUIRING VERTICAL MIXES AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THIS ANOTHER TOPIC, AND THIS IS PROBABLY MORE CONTROVERSIAL ASPECT OF THIS.

RIGHT NOW, THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR MIXING NOT IN THE TRADITIONAL VERTICAL SENSE, BUT ALSO IN HORIZONTAL SENSE.

AND ACTUALLY, YOU SEE THAT LOWER IN THIS COMMUNITY THAN VERTICAL MIX, I THINK REALLY THE ONLY VERTICAL MIX MUPD WE HAVE IS DOWN AT [INAUDIBLE] THERE.

I'M NOT THINKING OF SOMETHING OFF THE TOP OF HEAD.

SO THE REQUIREMENT OF VERTICAL MIXING OF LAND USES AND POSSIBLY PROHIBITING HORIZONTAL MIXING. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS IS THAT NOT ONLY ONE, WE'RE NOT SEEING THOSE PROJECTS, BUT TWO, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MOVEMENT TO INCLUDE EXISTING COMMERCIAL WITH THESE PROJECTS.

AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT THAT, TOO.

BUT I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE AS A POTENTIAL ISSUE AS IT RELATES TO THESE.

DO WE DO WE LOSE OUR INFLUX OF PROJECTS IF WE REQUIRE THE VERTICAL MIXING OR ELIMINATE THE OPTION FOR HORIZONTAL? SO THAT WAS IN THAT CATEGORY AND ON SOME OF THOSE ARE KIND OF BIG TOPICS, BUT.

ANY INPUT YOU MIGHT HAVE WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER? THIS MAY SOUND KIND OF SILLY, BUT ANYWHERE IN OUR STATUTES IS THE FRONT DEFINED? WHAT CONSTITUTES THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY? I HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT I'M, I THINK WE FRONT YARD, WE DEFINE FRONT YARD.

MY ONLY QUESTION IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE THEM TO BUILD THE PARKING LOT ON THE SIDE OR THE BACK, YOU'D BETTER HAVE WHAT A SPECIFIC DEFINITION.

SURE. IT'S A NOTE FOR THE FORM BASE CODE DISCUSSION AS WELL.

I THINK WE DO IN THAT CASE, BUT OK.

ESPECIALLY IF IT'S ON A CORNER.

YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT TOPIC? ON DESIGN STANDARDS.

THOUGHTS TO SHARE? SO I AGREE WITH CERTAINLY THE NOTION OF MAKING THINGS MORE CLEAR BY CHANGING MAYS AND SHOULDS TO SHALLS AND SHALL NOTS.

THAT'S CERTAINLY HELPFUL TO EVERYONE INVOLVED.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE STANDARD.

I MEAN, THAT'S DESIGN STANDARDS, RIGHT? THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF IT.

AND SO PROVIDING GUIDANCE ON VARIOUS THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE BIKE RACKS, WHETHER THAT BE THE RAILINGS OR OVERHANGS OR AWNINGS OR SIGNS.

NOT SIGNS. THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT TOPIC.

BUT RAILINGS ARE OVERHANGS AND FENESTRATION AND WHATNOT.

THAT'S HELPFUL, I THINK, AS WELL.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE ALWAYS WANTED THE PARKING LOTS ON THE SIDE AND THE REAR AND WILL BE SORT OF REQUESTING AND, YOU KNOW, CODIFYING IN THE FORM BASED CODE, TOO.

SO LET'S JUST INCLUDED AS MANY PLACES AS WE CAN, SO LONG AS WE'RE DOING IT.

THEY'RE VERTICAL MIXING, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S GOING TO GET HARDER AND HARDER AS WE EXIT THE THE PANDEMIC, I WORRY ABOUT HOW MUCH COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE WE'RE GOING TO SEE DEVELOPED

[01:10:03]

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE, YOU KNOW, RETAIL COMPANIES REEVALUATING WHETHER OR NOT THEY NEED TO HAVE A STOREFRONT AND THOSE THAT DO ARE GOING TO PROBABLY DOWNSIZE.

SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE THAT GETS HARDER AND HARDER.

AND YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO MIX TO OTHER USES THAT DON'T INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL.

BUT I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONES WE'VE TRADITIONALLY LOOKED AT AS, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AS THEY HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN THE MIXED USE ORDINANCE.

SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE.

AND I THINK YOUR SUMMARY SORT OF SUGGESTED THAT THAT THAT'S WHERE WE ALL KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE, I THINK THERE'S ALSO ONE I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S I THINK IT'S [INAUDIBLE] THE ONE OVER BY THE [INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THEY'VE GOT APARTMENTS UP TOP AND SOME SMALL STOREFRONTS DOWN BELOW.

BUT, YEAH, THERE ARE PRETTY FEW AND FAR BETWEEN THE EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS STORIES WITH THAT. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO PUT DIRECTOR CLARK ON THE HOOK TONIGHT, ON THE SPOT TONIGHT, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL INFORMING THOSE DISCUSSIONS GOING FORWARD TO LOOK AT THE OCCUPANCY RATES OF WHAT WE WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ENVISIONING OF FIRST FOR COMMERCIAL AND UPPER STORY RESIDENTIAL IN THE REGION.

IF THAT MODEL IS NOT KIND OF COMING TO FRUITION, IF PEOPLE ARE PROPOSING THOSE PROJECTS AND IF THEY'RE NOT SUCCEEDING, THAT WOULD INFORM THE DISCUSSIONS SO THE DEGREE TO WHICH THAT VERTICAL MIXING MODEL IS ACTUALLY KIND OF.

COMING TO FRUITION IN THE REGION SEEMS LIKE IT COULD BE USEFUL IN INFORMING DISCUSSION GOING FORWARD. [INAUDIBLE] DOWNTOWN EAST LANSING.

YEAH, I CAN I CAN GET THIS COMMITTEE SOME INFORMATION, BUT WE DID HAVE A CALL REGIONALLY WITH THE CHAMBER LAST WEEK AND WHAT I'VE LEARNED SO FAR SINCE STARTING THIS POSITION IS THAT AMERICA NATIONALLY, WE'RE OVER RETAILED.

WE ARE OVERCOMMERCIALIZED.

BEFORE COVID, THEY WERE ALREADY GOING TO SEE A 20 PERCENT REDUCTION BY 2025.

IN COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL SPACE.

THAT'S JUST WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE INTERNET AND CHANGES IN SHOPPING AND CONSUMERISM.

RIGHT. IT'S WE'RE ALL MOVING TO MORE PERSONALIZED CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND CONSUMER BUYING PATTERNS INSTEAD OF JUST GETTING ONE FOR THE SAME OF EVERYBODY.

NOW, I CAN SHOP SPECIFICALLY FOR MYSELF.

I GET IT DELIVERED RIGHT TO MY HOME.

SO THAT WAS BEFORE COVID. NOW, WITH COVID, I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THAT TO BE, YOU KNOW TO BE MORE INCREASED. BUT I CAN GET YOU SOME FINALIZED NUMBERS ON WHAT THE REGION IS PROJECTING AS FAR AS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL GROWTH.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE? I GUESS IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FACING, I'M WONDERING.

WILL THIS ORDINANCE EVER BE USED IN THE FUTURE? RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE IT'S USED PRIMARILY TO GET HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP . IT'S NOT REALLY DESIGNED FOR THE COMMERCIAL.

AND WE DON'T HAVE.

A LOT OF HIGH DENSITY HOUSING AVAILABLE ON A ZONING MAP ANYWAY, SO I'M WONDERING IF WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME ON SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE RARELY USED IN THE FUTURE.

I HAVE A SUGGESTION RELATED TO THAT.

SO I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.

AND SECOND OF ALL, I DO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS AT LENGTH IN A MINUTE HERE.

WELL I DO LIKE YOUR DESIGN STANDARDS AS A WHOLE.

BUT I'M WONDERING IF WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME ON SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT BEAR FRUIT.

NOT THAT WE SHOULDN'T SPEND A TIME ON IT IN CASE IT BEARS ANY FRUIT, BUT.

IT'S KIND OF DISCOURAGING LOOKING THE FUTURE AS FAR AS THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? I EVEN IF THE PROJECTS ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN, I BELIEVE IT'S WORTHWHILE, IF ANYTHING, YOU'RE NOT ENCOURAGING THE HIGH DENSITY HOUSING WITH NOT A LOT OF SPARKLE, NOT A LOT OF COMMERCIAL. I MEAN, AT LEAST YOU'RE, AT LEAST YOU'RE MAKING CLEAR REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT YOUR COMMUNITIES LOOKING AFTER.

[01:15:01]

BUT THEN AGAIN, IT WON'T BE A PERIOD THAT IT'S BEING MISUSED EITHER.

IT'S TRUE. I'M SORRY, DIRECTOR CLARK? I WAS GOING TO SPEAK TO COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S COMMENTS THAT DEVELOPERS ARE I MEAN, YOU KNOW. A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SEEMS TO KIND OF COME IN BACKWARDS FROM THE WAY THAT WE'RE THINKING. THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR POPULATION, DO THEY HAVE THE NUMBERS LIVING IN A PARTICULAR AREA, ESPECIALLY IF IT COMES WITH DOLLAR SIGNS, WHICH MOST OF THESE DO TO SUPPORT THEIR PROJECT AND THE LONGEVITY OF IT, WHETHER IT'S A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT THAT THEY CAN END UP SELLING OFF AND MAKE THEIR MONEY BACK, OR IT'S A COMMERCIAL PROJECT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO OWN OR THEY SELL AGAIN.

I THINK HAVING TOOLS AVAILABLE TO THE DEVELOPERS TO KNOW THIS IS WHAT WE EXPECT.

YOU'RE GOING TO GET WHAT WE WANT.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO THE CONVERSATIONS THIS COMMISSION HAS HAD ABOUT NOT GETTING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE END THE WAY THAT THEY'RE LOOKING.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN, THEN IT JUST MAKES IT REALLY DIFFICULT FOR A DEVELOPER TO MEET YOUR STANDARDS. SO I WOULDN'T I WOULDN'T THROW THIS OUT BECAUSE WE ARE REDUCING, YOU KNOW, LIKE I JUST KIND OF LOOK AT IT AS AMERICA FINALLY GOING LIKE, OH, OK, WE CAN KIND OF JUST SCALE BACK A LITTLE BIT ON HOW WE USED TO DO THINGS, BUT IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE IT ENTIRELY.

YOU'RE STILL GOING TO GET A DEVELOPER COMING IN SAYING, I HAVE A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT, BUT I'VE ALSO GOT SOME RESIDENTIAL.

YEAH, I ALSO THINK.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR CLARK.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WHILE WE'RE GOING TO SEE A PULLBACK IN COMMERCIAL SPACE AND OFFICE SPACE BEING USED, I THINK THAT WE ARE SEEING SOME OF THESE OTHER PROJECTS WHERE EXISTING BUSINESSES MOVE IN TO A BUILDING LIKE YOU'RE SEEING IN DOWNTOWN OKEMOS.

YOU KNOW I MEAN LIKE, THEY'RE MOVING THE I'M COMPLETELY BLANK ON THE NAME.

THE DOUGLAS J IS GOING TO MOVE FROM ITS CURRENT FACILITY INTO THE THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS FACILITY.

WHICH FREES UP ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR OTHER THINGS.

AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE EXISTING COMPANIES MOVE INTO SOME OF THESE SMALLER AREAS.

SO WHILE IT MAY NOT BE A NET POSITIVE NECESSARILY, IT DOES PRESENT US AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE OR LESS THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE DESIGN THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, WITH THE AMENITIES THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR BEING ADDED AT THE SAME TIME.

SO THAT'S MY PITCH TO SAY THIS IS NOT A WASTE OF TIME.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CORDILL, TOO, THAT, YOU KNOW, EVEN A RARELY USED ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES GOOD THINGS IS BETTER THAN NO ORDINANCE, BETTER THAN A BAD ORDINANCE.

SO I'M HAPPY WE'RE DOING THIS EVEN STILL.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, I KNOW WE'VE SORT OF STRAYED AWAY FROM THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND COMPONENTS A LITTLE BIT. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE PROCEDURE.

THANK YOU. SO I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES THAT THE OVERALL PROCESS TAKES TOO LONG.

IT'S QUITE A RUN COULD BE FOUR TO SIX MONTHS IF DEPENDING ON HOW MANY MEETINGS IT GOES OR JUST THE WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AT BOTH LEVELS. SO THAT MEANS NOT ONLY JUST OBEDIENCE, BUT THERE'S TIME BAKED INTO THAT FOR NOTICES AND OBVIOUSLY TAKES QUITE A BIT OF TIME.

SO AND THEN AS MENTIONED EARLIER AND AS HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS, I DID SEND THE STATE ACT THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS. THE STATE ACT REQUIRES WHATEVER BODY CALLS A PUBLIC HEARING TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION. SO IT'S THAT KIND OF COMPLICATES THE PROCESS AS WELL.

SO WHAT THE COMMITTEE TALKED ABOUT WAS ELIMINATING THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND JUST HAVING IT WITH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN TALK ABOUT IT [INAUDIBLE] IT MAKES IT, THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN TALK ABOUT IT.

WE CAN EITHER HAVE A DECISION THE SAME NIGHT TO GET SOME PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK, BUT THEN GET IT RIGHT OFF TO THE BOARD.

SO IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU COULD STILL TALK ABOUT THE REQUEST, YOU JUST WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU COULD HAVE IT ON FOR ONE MEETING FOR DISCUSSION, ALMOST KIND OF LIKE A CONCEPT PLAN PHASE AND MAKE US MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND THEN GET IT ONTO THE BOARD.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER? I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE, BUT I'M A LITTLE BIT WORRIED THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE USING IS INVITING A VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. THIS BOARD IS CONTROLLED BY THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT .

ANY TIME WE DISCUSS SOMETHING IN A QUORUM, IT HAS TO BE VIA OPEN MEETING.

SO WHEN YOU WHEN YOU PUT INTO A AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS AND SAY YOU ELIMINATE A PUBLIC

[01:20:05]

WELL, I THINK JUST TO, IF I, THERE MAY BE JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING OF INTENT HERE.

THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE ACT OF HAVING THE FORMAT THAT WE HAVE FOR PUBLIC HEARING, IT'S NOT THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING IT.

NOT IN THE PUBLIC EYE.

RIGHT. WE'RE STILL WE'RE STILL HAVING A MEETING AS PER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ABOUT IT.

I THINK THE IDEA, FROM WHAT I CAN GATHER OF PETER'S DESCRIPTION IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS THAT FORMAT THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, PRESENTATION, APPLICANT PRESENTATION, PUBLIC COMMENT, PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND SKIPPING STRAIGHT TO ESSENTIALLY AT THE SECOND MEETING THAT WE HAVE ON ANY GIVEN TOPIC THAT WE WOULD HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON AND.

JUST NOT REQUIRE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF IT.

IS THAT? DID I CAPTURE THAT CORRECTLY, PETER? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

WE WOULD NOT HAVE WE WOULD STILL DISCUSS THE TOPIC, JUST NOT HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE NOTICES THAT GO FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IT WOULD JUST BE ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION LIKE ANY OTHER POTENTIALLY OTHER TOPICS.

THAT HELP OR HURT COMMISSIONER BLUMER? IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE HANDLED AN OPEN MEETINGS ACT CASE, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE ANYBODY WHO HAS AN AX TO GRIND IS GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR THAT AS AN EASY VIOLATION. YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT IN SOMETHING LIKE INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS WILL BE HELD AT MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE RESULTS OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS FORWARDED TO THE TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, RATHER.

I JUST IT IMMEDIATELY CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WHERE IT SAID ELIMINATE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WAS WHAT IMMEDIATELY CAUGHT MY EYE WITH RESPECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? I HAVE SORT OF A SIMILAR CONCERN, BUT I MEAN, COMING FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE IS.

I GUESS IF I'M GOING TO BE ASKED FOR MY OPINION, FORMAL OR OTHERWISE, I LIKE TO DO IT INFORMED BY ALL OF THE FACTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO ME.

SO. AND SOMETIMES IT'S HELPFUL.

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN SOMETHING COMES TO US.

AND WHAT I HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC DURING A PUBLIC HEARING CHANGES MY MIND OR BRINGS A PERSPECTIVE, EVEN WHAT THE DEVELOPER PRESENTS TO US.

IT HELPS ME SEE THIS DIFFERENTLY.

AND MY OPINION IS DIFFERENT THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD I JUST READ THE BOARD MATERIALS.

AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF WHAT WE GET WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS. AND FOR THEM TO BE VALUABLE TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, THEY NEED TO BE INFORMED.

AND I'M AFRAID THAT I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY FEEL COMFORTABLE GIVING AN INFORMED OPINION WITHOUT HAVING INFORMATION.

AND I THINK SOME OF THAT INFORMATION COMES FROM A PUBLICLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THE PUBLIC WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN THIS, CAN COME AND TALK ABOUT IT PRO OR CON.

AND SO I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO SPEED THE PROCESS BECAUSE I DO AGREE THAT IT CAN BE SLOW. AND THAT'S GOT TO BE FRUSTRATING FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S TRYING TO GET A DEVELOPMENT MOVING. BUT I GUESS IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO HAVE A ROLE IN THIS TO GIVE AN OPINION, WE NEED TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT WE HAVE THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO GIVE THAT OPINION. AND SO IF WE'RE IN THE PROCESS, WE NEED TO BE IN IT IN A WAY THAT WE CAN DO IT MEANINGFULLY.

AND IF WE'RE NOT AND IT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT COMES TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, ONLY THEN I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF IT DIDN'T COME TO US AT ALL.

I DON'T MEAN IT THAT WAY BECAUSE I DO THINK THESE ARE IMPORTANT DECISIONS THAT WE NEED TO BE PART OF. SO I GUESS.

I RECOGNIZE THE TENSION BETWEEN TIMELINESS AND DUTY, BUT I REALLY I FEEL LIKE TO DO OUR JOB WELL, WE NEED TO DO IT WITH ALL THE INFORMATION.

SO I THINK I'VE SAID THAT THREE TIMES NOW.

I'LL LET YOU MUMBLE ON THAT THANKS.

SO. I HAVE A THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, WHICH IS THAT I BELIEVE THE ONLY THING KEEPING US FROM HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING AND DECIDING ON THE SAME NIGHT IS OUR OWN COMMISSION BYLAWS.

MAYBE THERE'S AN UNDERLYING STATUTE THAT REQUIRES THAT AS WELL.

BUT WE HAVE WAIVED OUR COMMISSION HAS WAIVED IN THE PAST THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALLOWS THAT REQUIRES US TO WAIT TO A DIFFERENT MEETING.

PERHAPS A COMPROMISE COULD BE STRUCK HERE WHERE WE COULD HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND DECIDE ON AT THE SAME NIGHT IF IT'S ONE OF THESE PROJECTS.

AND THAT MIGHT JUST REQUIRE A BYLAW CHANGE OR A RECOGNITION THAT WE HAVE TO WAIVE THAT.

YOU KNOW, I THINK A BYLAW CHANGE WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO DO IT RATHER THAN HAVING TO

[01:25:01]

I SAW COMMISSIONER TREZISE AND THEN COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY JUST ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID, THAT AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY THAT I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF PUBLIC COMMENT.

THESE ARE GENERALLY LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS.

THEY'RE NEW FOR THE AREAS OFTEN, AND SO I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF NOTIFICATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING ON THESE OR NOT A HEARING, BUT A DISCUSSION ON ALL OF THESE, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTIFY THOSE THAT ARE IMPACTED BY IT SO THAT THEY CAN BE THERE AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION.

I AGREE. IF WE WAIVE OR CHANGE THE BYLAWS SO THAT WE CAN VOTE ON IT THAT NIGHT, IT'S ONLY ADVISORY AND SEND IT ON TO THE TOWNSHIP COMMISSION FOR FINAL FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN DECISION A WEEK LATER OR TWO WEEKS LATER.

I THINK IT ACCOMPLISHES AT LEAST A TWO WEEK REDUCTION IN THE PROCESS, AND I THINK THAT MAY BE WORTHWHILE. YEAH, I WOULD ECHO THE COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY AND COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

I THINK FOR MANY PEOPLE WHO ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING.

IT MAY BE THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME THAT THEY DO THAT BECAUSE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN PROPOSED NEXT DOOR TO THEM. AND THE DIALOG THAT GOES ON AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL WITH RESIDENTS AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND APPLICANTS, I KNOW INFORMS TOWNSHIP BOARD CONSIDERATION LATER ON.

SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT SHORTENING THE PROCESS BY VOTING THE SAME NIGHT, AND I THINK THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS IS USEFUL.

THAT'S SOME GOOD FEEDBACK ON THAT TOPIC.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON PROCEDURE AND LENGTH OF PROCESS? COMMISSIONER CORDILL? THERE IS VALUE OF HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING AT OUR LEVEL AND MORE INFORMATION IS HELPFUL AND I THINK MAYBE I'D BE LIKE COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY WHERE WITH ALL THAT WITH MORE OF THAT INPUT, I MAY NOT BE ALL INCLINED TO MAKE A DECISION THAT NIGHT.

AND IF IT DOES.

IT DOES YOU KNOW MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT.

MAYBE WE JUST HAVE AN MUPD ORDINANCE THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SHORTEN IT.

I MEAN, WE COULD SUSPEND THE LAW, WE COULD SUSPEND OUR BYLAWS.

AND DECIDE IF THERE'S OVERWHELMING SUPPORT, BUT AND THAT WOULD THAT WOULD PUSH IT ALONG, BUT MAYBE WE REALLY WANT TO GET AFTER AMENITIES AND OTHER NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE ORDINANCE AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A LITTLE INEFFICIENT PROCESS HELPS IN THE LONG RUN.

YEAH, I THINK I THINK IF WE CAN FIND A WAY TO STRIKE A BALANCE, TO GIVE OURSELVES THE OPTION TO SHORTEN IT.

AND I KNOW THAT I JUST SANG A SONG AND VERSE, CHORUS AND VERSE ON SHALLS VERSUS MAYS, BUT SOME WAY TO GIVE US THE OPTION TO VOTE ON THE SAME NIGHT SO THAT IF AN APPLICANT COMES WITH A SLAM DUNK PROPOSAL THAT MEETS ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS AND THE PUBLIC IS SHOWING UP TO SING ITS PRAISES THAT WE COULD VOTE ON THAT SAME NIGHT, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, IF THERE'S ONE THAT WE NEED TO DELAY, WHETHER THAT'S BY TABLING IT TO THE NEXT MEETING OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, JUST SORT OF GIVING OURSELVES SOME OPTIONS SO THAT WE CAN SHORTEN THE PROCESS, UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO.

BUT DON'T HEM OURSELVES IN TO REQUIRE THAT.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE? SEEMS TO ME THAT.

THE WHOLE IDEA OF SUSPENDING BYLAWS GIVES US THAT OPTION, AND IT ALSO GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT IT.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, IF SOMEBODY THINKS IT'S WORTHY, WE NEED TO PUSH IT FORWARD.

SOMEBODY MOVES TO SUSPEND THE BYLAWS TO DO THAT.

THEN THE DECISION IS THEN WE ARE BEING SERIOUS ABOUT THE DECISION OF IS IT WORTHY ENOUGH TO MOVE FORWARD NOW? AND IF IT IS, WE SUSPEND OUR BYLAWS.

AND I THINK GOING THROUGH THAT EXERCISE IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR ME.

IN FACT, I THINK IT'S GOOD TO DO IT THAT WAY.

[01:30:04]

I THINK IT ALSO TAKES CARE OF THE OPTION TO MOVE FORWARD IF THERE'S NOTHING STANDING IN THE WAY. SO FOR ME, THE EXERCISE OF SUSPENDING BYLAWS IS A GOOD THING.

AND I THINK WE JUST LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE AND DO WHAT WE DO.

YEAH, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I THINK THAT'S A POINT WELL TAKEN.

I WHAT I WORRY ABOUT IS THAT.

THERE'S A CONSCIOUS DECISION THAT WILL HAVE TO BE MADE TO SUSPEND THE BYLAWS AS OPPOSED TO THE EXPECTATION THAT IT GET DONE TODAY AND WE CHOOSE TO DELAY.

AND I WONDER WHICH IS THE PROPER, THE PROPER MOTIVATION MOTIVATING FACTOR FOR US? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO I MEAN, JUST IN PRACTICE, WE DON'T ROUTINELY SUSPEND OUR BYLAWS TO CONSIDER TO CONSIDER THESE THINGS.

AND SO. APPLICANTS DO OCCASIONALLY ASK FOR A DECISION THE SAME NIGHT? RIGHT? I THINK I'VE SEEN IT ONCE IN TWO YEARS.

IT'S NOT FOR NO, THAT DOESN'T NEVER HAPPEN.

YEAH. WE GENERALLY DISCOURAGE IT JUST TO NOT TO ONE NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT AT THE MEETING. BUT AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE BYLAW AND IT'S JUST OUT OF THE ORDINARY.

SO WE'VE HAD SOME FOLKS THAT HAVE, I GUESS, [INAUDIBLE] IT'S RELEVANT, RIGHT? WHEN SOMETHING'S A RUSH AND WHEN IT'S NOT.

WE'VE HAD A COUPLE THAT HAVE REQUESTED IT.

IN SOME INSTANCES, A PLANNING COMMISSION WAS WILLING TO GRANT IT.

THERE'S ONLY REALLY ONE I CAN THINK OF.

AND MOST GENERALLY THEY ARE NOT.

AND I WOULD ADVISE GENERALLY TO KEEP IT, TO NOT GRANT THEM.

BUT. YEAH, JUST AS A PROCEDURAL QUESTION FOR PETER, I GUESS, IS IT FEASIBLE TO MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS SAME NIGHT, IF YOU'RE.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, BECAUSE USUALLY WHEN WE OFTEN WHEN WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, WE DO OUR STRAW POLL TO GIVE PETER SOME GUIDANCE AS TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO ON IT, NOT HAVING A RESOLUTION.

TO VOTE ON SAME NIGHT WOULD, WHAT KIND OF PROBLEMS MIGHT THAT CAUSE? I GUESS YOU'D BE FORCED TO BE FORCED TO CREATE TWO RESOLUTIONS, BE [INAUDIBLE] AVOIDING THAT SITUATION, WE MAY BE ABLE TO AVOID DOING A RESOLUTION ALTOGETHER FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, PART OF IT.

BUT MAYBE WE COULD JUST DO A SIMPLE MOTION TO [INAUDIBLE] RECOMMEND OR NOT RECOMMEND? I SEE. SO WE CAN LOOK INTO IT, I DON'T THINK WE'RE OBLIGATED TO DO RESOLUTIONS IN EVERY INSTANCE, MAYBE JUST WHEN ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING AT THE BOARD LEVEL.

BUT WE'VE TALKED INTERNALLY ABOUT THAT, AND THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD WANT TO TALK TO MARK ABOUT OFFLINE. BUT.

SURE. COMMISSIONER TREZISE? OCCASIONALLY CONDITIONS ARE PLACED INTO DECISION MAKING BY THE COMMISSION.

AND THAT GETS YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE PREPARING ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTIONS, YOU CAN ANTICIPATE ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU WANT TO PUT IN AND IT MAY COME DOWN TO A SITUATION WHERE IT IS NOT YAY OR NAY.

IT'S YES, BUT.

WITH THESE CONDITIONS OR NO, UNLESS YOU DO THIS AND THOSE MAY BE SITUATIONS WHERE WE WOULD SAY WE'RE GOING TO DEFER THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING BASED ON THESE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE ADDING, BUT WE COULD GO AHEAD WITH THE VOTE ON A SIMPLE YES OR NO AFTER HEARING IT THAT NIGHT, WHETHER WE DID IT THROUGH A WAIVER OF THE BYLAWS OR FOR AN ASSUMPTION THAT.

OR THIS TYPE OF PROCEDURE WE CAN VOTE THAT NIGHT RATHER THAN AND IT WOULD BE A WAIVER OF THAT BYLAW TO ADJOURN TO ANOTHER MEETING BECAUSE OF OTHER ISSUES.

I MEAN, THERE'S TWO WAYS TO DO THIS.

EITHER YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO VOTE THAT NIGHT AS A REGULAR BASIS, BUT WE CAN EXTEND IT TO THE NEXT MEETING OR WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND IT TO THE NEXT MEETING OR WAIVE OUR BYLAW. AND I DON'T HAVE A PREFERENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I DO THINK PREPARING

[01:35:06]

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? COMMISSIONER TREZISE MADE MY POINT MUCH MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I COULD HAVE. OK, ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? OK, DON'T SEE ANY HANDS, WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO THE NEXT SECTION, WHICH IS WAIVERS.

THANKS, EVERYONE, I APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS.

THESE ARE NOT EASY DECISIONS TO MAKE.

REALLY, WE'RE GIVING CONTRASTING IDEAS HERE AND TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF IT.

SO WAIVERS.

GENERAL CONSENSUS IS WAIVER CRITERIA IS TOO BROAD, THEY'RE TOO EASY TO OBTAIN.

OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE NOT DONE ENOUGH TO TIE THE AMENITIES TO THE WAIVERS, IDEALLY AND AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE.

THE WAIVERS ARE MIXED WITH AMENITIES.

SO THEY REQUEST AND THEY REQUEST A WAIVER AND THEY PROVIDE AMENITY IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT.

I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN AWAY FROM THAT.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO EITHER WE BAKE IT BACK IN, EITHER WE SOMEHOW BAKE IT INTO THE ORDINANCE OR AT LEAST JUST HAVE THE MINDSET MOVING FORWARD THAT THAT'S THE WAY THIS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

IS THE EMPHASIS ON THE UP FRONT SUBMITTAL OF AMENITY INFORMATION GENERALLY, AND THEN THE WAIVERS, AMENITIES SHOULD HAVE A ONE TO ONE RATIO.

SO THEY OFFSET ONE ANOTHER.

SO JUST GETTING THESE INTO THE ORDINANCE, I THINK IS OR AT LEAST THE APPLICATION ARE, IS CRUCIAL MOVING FORWARD. YEAH.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND GET IT STARTED ON THIS ONE.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF TYING THE WAIVERS TO AMENITIES AND GETTING BACK TO THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I THINK IT'S WORTH DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE AMENITIES THAT WE WOULD ALREADY REQUIRE FOR A PROJECT AND THAT THE WAIVER TO AMENITY RATIO WOULD GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT. SO IF YOU KNOW, AGAIN, JUST TO.

GO BACK TO MY CRAZY, AMBITIOUS NOTION, IF IT WAS, YOU KNOW, A PROJECT OF SIZE, X REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT OF COLUMN A, A LITTLE BIT OF COLUMN B FROM THE AMENITIES, IF THEY'RE ALSO REQUIRING, YOU KNOW, THREE WAIVERS, IT'S NOT IT'S A LITTLE BIT A LITTLE BIT OF B AND NOW SOME FROM COLUMN C, LIKE, YOU'VE GOT TO ADD ADDITIONAL STUFF.

NOT JUST YOU CAN'T JUST RETROACTIVELY GO BACK AND SAY, OH, WELL, THESE WAIVERS, THOSE APPLIED TO THE AMENITIES THAT WE PROPOSED AT THE BEGINNING.

AND SO I THINK FINDING A WAY TO QUANTIFY WHAT'S REQUIRED OF A PROJECT OF ANY PROJECT AND THEN SAY IF YOU'RE REQUESTING WAIVERS, HERE'S THE ADDITIONAL STUFF.

YOU HAVE TO ADD THAT'D BE MY THOUGHT ANYWAY.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER, THEN COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

I LIKE.

PETER'S SECOND OPTION, BETTER MYSELF, AND THAT IS I'M NOT SO SURE THAT I WOULD AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD BE TIED INTO THE ORDINANCE.

I THINK IT'S MORE OF AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE FOR HIS DEPARTMENT AND THEY CAN NEGOTIATE WHATEVER THEY WANT. THE PUTTING IT IN THE IN THE ORDINANCE MAY ACTUALLY RESTRICT YOUR ABILITY TO DEMAND CHANGES RATHER THAN ENHANCING IT.

AND I THINK IT'S MORE JUST A NEGOTIATION TECHNIQUE THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE TO THE ENFORCEMENT UNIT. I MEAN, THE WAIVERS THEY ARE DECIDED ON BY THIS BODY BEFORE THE BEFORE IT EVEN COMES TO FRUITION, DOES IT NOT? WELL, YEAH, BUT MY POINT IS THE WAIVER IS AS A RESULT OF OUR DISCUSSION AND EXAMINATION OF THE PROJECT PLAN.

IF THEY. I'M JUST I'M A LITTLE BIT WORRIED ABOUT SPECIFICALLY TYING WHEN YOU CAN GIVE A WAIVER AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS AND HOW YOU DEAL WITH IT.

WHEN YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO GIVE A WAIVER INTO THE STATUTE, IT SERIOUSLY LIMITS YOUR ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE SOMETHING UNUSUAL OR SOMETHING BENEFICIAL THAT YOU DIDN'T ANTICIPATE AHEAD OF TIME.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE? OH I, IT WAS MY RECOLLECTION THAT THE WAIVERS ARE CONTINGENT ON AMENITIES NOW IN THE ORDNANCE, AND THE BIG PROBLEM IS OUR AMENITIES ARE SO WEAK THAT WAIVERS ARE ALMOST AUTOMATIC.

AND THERE ARE TO TIE IT ONE TO ONE, A WAIVER FOR AN AMENITY.

MAY NOT MAKE SENSE DEPENDING ON THE QUALITY AND IMPACT OF THE AMENITY BEING PROVIDED.

SO UNTIL WE GET A, I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THIS UNLESS WE HAVE.

A MORE ROBUST UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT AN AMENITY IS AND A LIST AND AN APPLICATION PROCESS

[01:40:06]

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? I FEEL LIKE WE'RE KIND OF GOING BACK AND FORTH THIS EVENING ON WHAT COUNTS FOR WHAT.

I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE NOTION OF A ONE FOR ONE, AS COMMISSIONER TREZISE SAYS, THESE ARE APPLES, ORANGES.

THAT'S CHALLENGING.

BUT IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THEN YOU'RE KIND OF STUCK WITH.

WELL, WHAT'S EXTRAORDINARY.

AND I GUESS IN ONE SENSE, YOU CAN JUST PUT THAT MONKEY ON THE ON THE ON THE APPLICANT'S BACK AND SAY CONVINCE US THAT THE THING THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING AS AN AMENITY IS SUFFICIENTLY EXTRAORDINARY, THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER WAIVING A REQUIREMENT THAT WE NORMALLY APPLY. AND THAT DOESN'T GIVE HARD AND FAST GUIDANCE TO A DECISION MAKING BODY.

DID YOU MEET THE CRITERIA AND OR NOT? BUT I FEAR THAT TRYING TO BAKE IN A LIST OF KNOWN AMENITIES, WHETHER THEY'RE LEED STANDARDS OR ANYTHING ELSE, IS UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTING, AS COMMISSIONER BLUMER SAID, OR GOING TO GET OUT OF DATE VERY QUICKLY AS AS THINGS THAT WE CONSIDER AMENITIES EVOLVE.

SO. MAYBE THE EXTRAORDINARY STANDARD IS.

WELL WORTH CONSIDERING.

YEAH, I THINK MY MY CONCERN WITH IT ALL IS THAT WE SEE THE SAME WAIVERS COMING BEFORE US EACH AND EVERY TIME. I MEAN, IT'S PARKING, RIGHT? THAT'S THE PARKING ORDINANCE IS RESTRICTIVE.

AND WHEN WE REQUIRE AS MUCH PARKING AS WE DO, THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO COME TO US FOR A WAIVER. AND SO I GUESS.

I, BARRING A CHANGE TO THE PARKING ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS US TO GET AROUND THAT WAIVER EVERY TIME, HAVING SOME CLEAR DIRECTION IN TERMS OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, A PARKING WAIVER OF 10 PERCENT REQUIRES A, YOU KNOW, COLUMN A AMENITY, PARKING WAIVER OF 50 PERCENT REQUIRES A COLUMN B, THAT TO ME.

IT'S JUST IT'S SO MUCH MORE HELPFUL IN SORT OF MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION ON, YOU KNOW, HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON WHY I FELT THAT WE NEEDED TO SORT OF TIE IT A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICALLY TO AMENITY LIST.

AND THAT'S PROBABLY JUST PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT I THINK THAT I HOPE IT'S MY HOPE THAT WE GO THAT WAY. BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I AGREE THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DOWNSIDES TO THAT STRATEGY.

MAYBE SOME OF THAT IS SITUATIONAL.

I MEAN, WHEN YOU MENTION, LIKE 10 PERCENT REDUCTION IN PARKING, IF YOU'RE ON A CATA LINE, IF YOU'RE SERVED BY CATA WITHIN, YOU KNOW, SO MUCH DISTANCE FROM YOUR PROJECT, THAT SEEMS REASONABLE THAT PEOPLE MIGHT TAKE PUBLIC TRANSIT AND THEREFORE NOT NECESSARILY NEED THE AMOUNT OF PARKING.

BUT IF YOU'RE NOT SERVED BY CATA OR WHATEVER, WHY ARE YOU WANTING TO REDUCE IT SUCH THAT IT MIGHT BE A BURDEN TO OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES? I DON'T KNOW. BUT THINGS LIKE THINGS LIKE ARE YOU BEING SERVED BY PUBLIC? IS YOUR ARE YOU BEING SERVED BY PUBLIC TRANSIT? MAY NOT. I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT TOO COMPLICATED WITH THE TABLES AND COLUMNS.

I MEAN, WE NEED TO BE CLEAR IN WHAT WE WANT, BUT A LOT OF THINGS WILL BE SITUATIONAL.

AND SOME PROJECTS CAN'T YOU KNOW, SOME DEVELOPERS CAN'T I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY PETITION, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY PETITION TO CATA.

HOW DOES CATA DECIDE WHERE A LINE SHOULD BE OR WHERE A STOP SHOULD BE? THAT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING, USEFUL THING TO KNOW.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT TOPIC? COMMISSIONER PREMOE? I THINK THAT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT.

SELLING WAIVERS FOR AMENITIES BECAUSE IT TENDS TO.

ALLOW US TO.

SKIRT OUR NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE FOR THE WAIVER.

I MEAN, WHY?

[01:45:01]

I THINK THAT I THINK THAT WE HAVE BEEN TO LIGHT SOMETIMES ON WAIVERS.

I THINK THAT FOR ME, I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH WAYS TO PUSH A LITTLE HARDER AGAINST THE BUILDERS AND TO DEMAND FIRMER RATIONALE THAN WE'VE DEMANDED IN THE PAST.

BUT THAT'S MAYBE JUST.

YEAH, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, AND IN FACT, I'M NOT TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT WE REMOVE OUR DECISION MAKING OUT OF THE PROCESS BY OFFERING THE I'M JUST MY SUGGESTION, I THINK, WAS MORE AS A GUIDE TO IT.

BUT I DEFINITELY THINK WE STILL NEED TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT TO THE OVERALL PROJECT AND WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT.

I'M NOT TRYING TO MOVE US FROM THAT PROCESS AT ALL.

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GETTING [INAUDIBLE] AN HOUR, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO PHASING UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT.

PETER, HOW ABOUT PHASING? OK, SO SHOULD BE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE WOULD REQUIRE A CONCEPT PLAN FOR PHASE PROJECTS MAYBE, BUT NOT FOR OTHER ONES. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT EARLIER.

SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A [INAUDIBLE] ISSUE AT THIS POINT.

EACH PHASE HAS TO INCLUDE AMENITIES, SO MAKING THAT A CLEAR REQUIREMENT FOR EACH PHASE.

RATHER THAN JUST THE PROJECT AND THE IDEA THERE IS TO AVOID THE PROJECT STARTING AND BASICALLY US NEVER GETTING THE PROMISED AMENITY.

AND THEN THERE WAS A COMMENT EARLY ON ABOUT REQUIRING A PROGRESS REPORT ON PHASING TO ENFORCE PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK GENERALLY THE TAKEAWAY TO ME WAS THAT EACH PHASE HAS INCLUDED AN AMENITY.

I THINK THAT'S THE MOST PRACTICAL ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCE AT THIS POINT.

SO THE NEXT COUPLE, SORRY, ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? NO, I SEE A LOT OF NOT RAISING HANDS, [LAUGHTER] WHICH I WILL TAKE TO MEAN AGREEMENT WITH THAT PARTICULAR NOTION.

AND LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO DENSITY.

OK, NEXT COUPLE OF THESE ARE COULD BE LONG.

DENSITY. SO THE WHOLE IDEA IS WHAT.

WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH DENSITY RIGHT NOW? SO RIGHT NOW, IT'S THERE'S THERE'S A SPECIFIC LIMIT.

SO IF YOU AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE ORDINANCE, IT'S IF IT'S REDEVELOPED, IF IT'S A NON, IF IT'S THE NEW CONSTRUCTION GREENFIELD SITE, 10 UNITS PER ACRE REDEVELOPMENT 14.

AND THEN THE OPPORTUNITY, IF YOU PROVIDE UNIQUE AND EXTRAORDINARY AMENITIES TO GO UP TO NO I'M SORRY FOUR ADDITIONAL AMENITIES, GO UP TO 18 [INAUDIBLE] PER ACRE.

SO WE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS RELATED TO DENSITY.

LIMITING DENSITY BASED ON SITE CONSTRAINTS VERSUS A SPECIFIC NUMBER AND WHAT I CALL THIS THE BACKING INTO A DENSITY NUMBER.

I HAVE THIS IS ME, PERSONALLY SPEAKING.

I'VE ALWAYS FOUND THE 14 18 TO BE KIND OF SUPERFICIAL.

HOW DO WE GET THOSE NUMBERS? I DON'T KNOW. BUT SO INSTEAD OF HAVING A SET NUMBER, LOOK AT IT LIKE WE'RE DOING LIKE WE'VE DECIDED TO DO IN THE DOWNTOWN OKEMOS PROJECT OR DOWNTOWN HASLET, LOOK AT ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS AND SEE IF THE NUMBERS MAKE SENSE FOR ANY GIVEN SITE.

YOU KNOW IF THAT DEVELOPER CAN MAKE TRAFFIC WORK, MAKE THE SITE FUNCTION.

DOES IT MATTER HOW MANY UNITS ARE THERE AS LONG AS EVERYTHING ELSE IS WORKING.

IT'S JUST A THOUGHT.

OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN DEBATE OVER COUNTING THE NUMBER OF UNITS VERSUS THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. I THINK THE LOGIC THERE IS THAT ANY GIVEN PROJECT.

YOU KNOW A PROJECT WITH 20 4 BEDROOM UNITS OBVIOUSLY HAS MORE PEOPLE IN IT THAN A PROJECT WITH 20 SINGLE OR DOUBLE UNITS IN IT.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE DO THAT, BUT IT'S JUST A TOPIC THAT'S COME UP OVER THE YEARS.

SO ALSO ELIMINATING THE DENSITY BONUS FOR GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS.

SO IF YOU ARE BUILDING NEW, YOU WOULD NOT GET A DENSITY BONUS.

SO THAT'S BASICALLY JUST AN INCENTIVE TO BUILD IN OTHER AREAS OF THE TOWNSHIP.

ELIMINATE DENSITY BONUSES ALTOGETHER INSTEAD OF INSTEAD OF THE BONUS SYSTEM THE WAY IT IS

[01:50:02]

SO A BONUS FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT ELEMENT.

SO LIKE ONE BEDROOM UNITS OR A CERTAIN SIZE OF A UNIT OR A MIXING OF UNIT TYPES.

SO THAT'S SHIFTING WHERE THESE DENSITY BONUSES, IF WE KEEP THEM, WOULD BE.

AND THEN ANOTHER THOUGHT TO ADD, I SAID A SECOND AGO, BUT LAST YEAR, MAYBE THE YEAR BEFORE, WE DID THE ZONING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW INCREASED DENSITY, BUILDING HEIGHT IN DOWNTOWN OKEMOS AND AND DOWNTOWN HASLET, BUT ALSO MAYBE ADDING THE MERIDIAN MALL TO THAT.

NOW, THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE ZONING AMENDMENT.

BUT WELL WE COULD DO IT AS PART OF THIS, ACTUALLY.

SO ADDING THE MALL TO THOSE SPECIAL AREAS.

IT COULD DO THAT THROUGH THIS AMENDMENT? YEAH, IT WOULD BE WE DID IT THROUGH A ZONING AMENDMENT LAST TIME, SO IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS. IT'S PART OF THIS ORDINANCE.

GOT IT. ANY THOUGHTS OR THOUGHTS ON THAT? DON'T ALL JUMP AT ONCE.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? I GUESS THIS CIRCLES BACK TO MY THOUGHT EARLIER ON ABOUT FORM BASE CODE AND MERIDIAN MALL SITE, AT LEAST IT'S GRAND RIVER M43 FRONTAGE.

SO JUST BRINGING UP.

I PARTICULARLY LIKE THE ELIMINATING THE BONUS FOR GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT, AND I LIKE ADDING THE MERIDIAN MALL SITE, CERTAINLY IF THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE UNITS VERSUS NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH PRACTICALLY WE SEE THAT DIFFERENCE, BUT CERTAINLY WORTH THINKING ABOUT. COMMISSIONER TREZISE? I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF LIMITING DENSITY BASED ON THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOCATION.

THAT WOULD INCLUDE, IN SOME CASES, LIMITING THE DENSITY BASED ON THE POTENTIAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.

IF THAT WAS A LIMITING FACTOR, IT MAY INVOLVE DETERMINING DENSITY BASED ON AVAILABILITY OF CATA.

I MEAN, THERE'S THERE'S VARIOUS THINGS THAT COULD COME INTO THAT, BUT IT COMES DOWN TO LOOKS AT THE SITE AND SAYS WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR THIS SITE.

PROBLEM ON THAT, THOUGH, IS HOW DO WE MAKE A DECISION OF WHAT MAKES SENSE? AND THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DRAFT.

IN THE ABSTRACT. BUT I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF LOOKING AT THE SITE AND DETERMINING DOES THIS REALLY SUPPORT TWO HUNDRED UNITS ON THIS 60 ACRES OR WHATEVER BASED ON THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LAND? THE FIGURES THAT WE GET OUT OF THE PLANNING STAFF.

PETER WILL ADMIT OUR GROSS NUMBERS BASED ON ACREAGE REDUCED BY PROJECTED WETLANDS AND SOME PRETTY ARBITRARY NUMBERS, SO I'M NOT SURE HOW TO.

HOW TO GET TO LOOKING AT THE SITE TO DETERMINE DENSITY, BUT I DO LIKE THE IDEA IN A CONCEPTUAL BASIS.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS? LET'S CARRY ON THEN TO COMMERCIAL COMPONENT.

THANK YOU. SO THE THIS IS GOES BACK TO COMMISSIONER TREZISE'S POINT BEFORE, AND I THINK I BROUGHT THIS UP EARLY IN THE PROCESS.

DOES THE FUTURE OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDE COMMERCIAL EVERY TIME AND MAYBE THE ANSWER IS NO.

DO WE WANT TO BROADEN THIS ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AND GRANTED THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME OTHER UNDERLYING CHANGES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE TO OUR ORDINANCE, BUT WHICH ARE NOT POSSIBLE, BUT TO ALLOW AN MUPD.

DIRECTOR [INAUDIBLE] CHRIS BUCK WAS HERE AS OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

HE HAD TALKED ABOUT DOING BECAUSE WE WERE SEEING THESE MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECTS, WHY NOT JUST CALL THEM WHAT THEY ARE AND JUST STRAIGHT UP PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

NOW, I KNOW WE HAVE A PLANNING DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, BUT WE CAN STILL CALL IT A COMMERCIAL ORDINANCE OR A.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT DOES, MATTER WHAT THE NAME IS, BUT DOES IT HAVE TO ALWAYS INCLUDE A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT? AND WHAT THE APPETITE FOR THAT IS, BECAUSE I THINK [INAUDIBLE] PROBABLY REALIZE THAT MAYBE WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE IT, AND WHEN WE DO SEE IT, IT CAN BE

[01:55:01]

RIGHT? SO THAT'S THE POSSIBILITY TO ELIMINATE REQUIREMENT FOR NON RESIDENTIAL SPACE AND JUST THIS THE MUPD THEN TURNS KIND OF MORE INTO A PROCESS TO REVIEW A LARGE DEVELOPMENT.

AND I USE THE WORD COMMERCIAL BECAUSE I DO ALSO INCLUDE MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECTS ARE COMMERCIAL IN A WAY.

THEY'RE NOT THE SAME AS RETAIL SPACE, BUT THEY'RE DEFINITELY NOT STRAIGHT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. SO ANOTHER COUPLE OF IDEAS ARE BOUNCED AROUND.

OR DO WE ESTABLISH A MINIMUM SIZE FOR COMMERCIAL COMPONENT? OBVIOUSLY, IT'S CHALLENGING TO ENFORCE THIS [INAUDIBLE] COMMERCIAL SPACE.

BEST EXAMPLES, RED CEDAR FLATS.

THE TOWNSHIP WAS SOLD ON A TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL SPACE RENTAL ON GRAND RIVER AND HAS NOT HAPPENED.

AND THE TOWNSHIP HAS GIVEN LEFT WITH VERY LITTLE OPTIONS ON WHAT TO DO.

DO YOU FORCE THE DEVELOPER TO JUST KEEP THAT SPACE VACANT? YOU ALLOW THEM TO USE IT IN THIS CASE FOR A EXERCISE ROOM FOR THE TENANTS IN THEIR BUILDINGS? SO THAT'S JUST NOT IT'S NOT AS EASY AS IT COULD BE.

WE TALKED ABOUT ELIMINATING THE RESTRICTIONS ON PO ZONED, MUPD COMMERCIAL SPACES.

SO RIGHT NOW, A PO ZONE MUPD, YOU'RE LIMITED AND IT'S NOT REALLY EVEN THAT LIMITED.

YOU'RE LIMITED TO A COUPLE DIFFERENT TO A SMALLER POOL OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES THAT YOU WOULD BE IF YOU WERE TO COMMERCIAL MUPD.

COMMERCIALLY ZONED MUPD.

WE TALKED ABOUT ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT FOR ANY SEPARATE SPECIAL USE, FOR EXAMPLE, WORK IN THE FLOOD PLAIN. THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO IN OUR COMMERCIAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, THE CUPD ORDINANCE.

THAT I THINK PEOPLE FIND TO BE VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THOSE SEPARATE PROCESSES. AND IF WE'RE TALKING TIMING, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO DEVELOPERS.

NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR OTHER KINDS OF WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING ALL UNDER ONE UMBRELLA ANYWAYS.

THERE WERE COMMENTS ABOUT CLARIFYING THE COMMERCIAL SPACE AS NOT JUST LEASING OFFICE OR FITNESS ROOM THAT HAS HAPPENED MULTIPLE TIMES AND PROJECTS HERE IN THE TOWNSHIP.

BUT AGAIN, PEOPLE AREN'T PROVIDING COMMERCIAL SPACE IS THAT.

IS THAT REALLY A GOOD OPTION AT THIS POINT? SO HOW DO WE MEASURE THE COMMERCIAL SPACE? DO WE REQUIRE X AMOUNT SQUARE FEET? DOES HAVE TO BE A PERCENTAGE OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT? SHOULD IT BE A PERCENTAGE OF THE FIRST FLOOR? DO WE ALLOW THE USE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE IN A PROJECT? THERE WAS THE THOUGHT TO ONLY ALLOW EXISTING COMMERCIAL IF IT'S PART OF A VERTICALLY MIXED CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL.

AND THEN FINALLY REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUPD IF THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REDUCE A PROMISE TO COMMERCIAL SPACE.

SO THERE'S A LOT TO CHEW ON THERE.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? I LIKE THE CONCEPT OF AMENDING THE MUPD IF THEY REDUCE TO THE PROMISED COMMERCIAL SPACE, BUT QUITE OFTEN THAT SORT OF INFORMATION COMES TO US AFTER THE PROJECT IS ALREADY BUILT OR NEAR TO BUILT. AND SO IF WE'VE ALLOWED THEM A FOURTH FLOOR OR SOMETHING [INAUDIBLE] FOR SOMETHING ELSE, IT'S REALLY HARD TO TAKE THAT BACK.

IF THEY DON'T FILL THE COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT THEY INTENDED TO WHEN THEY BROUGHT THE PROJECT, SO CONCEPTUALLY I LIKE IT.

REALISTICALLY, I'M NOT SURE IT'S DOABLE EXCEPT TO TELL THEM THAT THEY'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EVEN.

DID THE COMMITTEE TALK ABOUT THAT OR HOW THAT WOULD WORK, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE? NO, WE DID NOT.

AND YOUR POINT IS VALID, IT'S NOT THERE'S NO EASY WAY TO BRING IT BACK BECAUSE AT WHAT POINT DO YOU DENY THE CHANGE AND ALL THE PROJECTS ARE [INAUDIBLE].

YEAH.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? AT THE RISK OF HOPSCOTCHING THROUGH OUR AGENDA, I WONDER IF.

LOOK AT THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS PROJECT AND THE CHANGE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED NOW IS INFORMATIVE IN TERMS OF.

THIS. TREND TOWARDS WANTING FIRST FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND THEN FINDING THE MARKET DOESN'T SUPPORT IT. I MEAN, IT CERTAINLY IS AN EXAMPLE OF A PROJECT WHERE THEY HAD THE AMBITION WAS TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF MIXED USE, BUT THE REALITY SET IN AFTER THE FINANCING DISCUSSIONS WERE MADE.

[02:00:03]

BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE SITUATIONS WHERE WE DON'T YOU KNOW, WHERE WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT OR IT'S NOT A FINANCING DECISION SO MUCH AS IT IS A WE DON'T WE CAN'T FIND ANY TENANTS FOR THE SPACE DECISION.

SO I THINK I THINK YOU'RE GONNA RUN INTO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE, CERTAINLY, AND ONE WHERE WE THEORETICALLY COULD USE AN AMENDMENT PROCESS TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT SOMETHING MORE THAT WE WANT OUT OF A PROJECT FOR A REDUCTION IN COMMERCIAL SPACE.

BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BEST POSSIBLE CASE THAT WE COULD SEE, I THINK, COMPARED TO SOME OF THE CASES THAT COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY IS TALKING ABOUT.

DIRECTOR CLARK? IT'S AN OBSERVATION ABOUT.

YOU KNOW, THE COMMERCIAL SPACE ASPECT, AND I GUESS I WASN'T NECESSARILY HERE WHEN WE TALKED WHEN THIS COMMISSION TOOK ON A LOT OF THOSE MUPDS, BUT WHEN THEY BROUGHT THE REQUEST FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT THEY ALWAYS HAVE A TENANT, BECAUSE IN THE DISCUSSION WITH THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS, THEY DO HAVE DOUGLAS J.

THEY HAVE THE LARGER I THINK IT WAS, THEY HAVE PROPOSED A LARGER SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE FIRST FLOOR IF THEY'RE REDUCING IT NOW AND DOUGLAS J IS GOING TO TAKE HALF.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE CONVERSATION SHOULD BE THAT IF THEY'RE IF THEY ARE PROPOSING A MUPD THAT THEY HAVE A TENANT AND THEY HAVE SOME WAY TO VERIFY THEIR TENANCY.

BUT WHO THEIR TENANT IS AND HOW MUCH SPACE THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE UP AS FAR AS THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT AND I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.

THIS COULD PROBABLY KICK ME LATER ON IN A PROJECT WHERE I'M LIKE, HEY, GUESS WHAT? I WAS THE ONE WHO SUGGESTED YOU HAVE TO VERIFY YOU HAVE A TENANT.

BUT I THINK THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WHEN I THINK OF MIXED USE, I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING IN THIS BUILDING THAT I CAN USE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.

AND THIS IS USED THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON IN THIS BUILDING.

AND THERE'S THERE'S TWO THINGS KIND OF OR THREE THINGS GOING ON IN THIS BUILDING.

AND EACH OF THOSE SPACES ARE KIND OF ISOLATED, BUT IT'S WORKING TOGETHER.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE A COMMERCIAL SPACE, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME WAY TO VERIFY WHO TAKES UP THAT SPACE.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CERTAINLY WOULD LOVE THAT, AND I THINK THE DEVELOPERS ARGUABLY WOULD LOVE THAT EVEN MORE IF THEY COULD LOCK IN A TENANT BEFORE A PROJECT, BEFORE A SPACE HAS BEEN BUILT. WE SAY THEY WOULD CERTAINLY LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

FOR VILLAGE OF OKEMOS, YEAH, THEY HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH DOUGLAS J THEY WERE GOING TO MOVE IN THERE. AND THERE ARE CERTAIN EXAMPLES, I THINK, FROM OUR REGION WHERE YOU SEE THAT ALSO HAPPENING. RIGHT.

I'M THINKING ABOUT IN EAST LANSING, THERE'S THE BUILDING THAT NOW HAS THE 7-ELEVEN AND THE PIZZA PLACE THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE FIRST FLOOR, WHICH WAS PART OF THE NEGOTIATION FOR GETTING THE LAND, WAS THOSE TENANTS WOULD BE ABLE TO OCCUPY THE FIRST FLOOR.

BUT WHAT WE SAW WITH VILLAGE OF OKEMOS WHEN IT CAME IN FRONT OF US WAS THEY SAID, HEY, DOUGLAS J IS GOING TO BE IN HERE.

AND THEN HERE ARE THESE FOUR OTHER SPACES THAT WOULD BE PERFECT FOR A COFFEE SHOP OR A SMALL BREWERY OR, YOU KNOW, A BANK FACILITY OR SOMETHING AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

AND SO WHILE THEY HAD AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO SEE THERE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S TOUGH TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, BIGBEE, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO LOCATE IN THIS BUILDING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE BUILT THREE YEARS FROM NOW? YOU'RE JUST GOING TO. I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE TO FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO SIGN ON FOR THAT, BUT.

YOU NEVER KNOW. I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT CERTAINLY I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW FEASIBLE THAT IS. COMMISSIONER BLUMER? DOES IT HELP AT ALL TO NOT TO JUST REMOVE THE WORD COMMERCIAL AND JUST SAY NONRESIDENTIAL SPACE. I MEAN, SUPPOSE THEY WANT TO MAKE A DEVOTED AS A CLASSROOM FOR SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN OR THEY WANT TO HAVE A SMALL PUBLIC ART MUSEUM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SOMETHING THAT'S NOT COMMERCIAL BUT IS NOT RESIDENTIAL.

DOES THAT SOFTEN THE ISSUE? NO OK, THOUGHT IT WAS ME.

PROBABLY DOES. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, SINCE SOME OF THOSE THINGS MAY BE AVAILABLE USES IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING, IT MAY NOT TECHNICALLY BE MIXED USE.

BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, DO WE CARE?

[02:05:01]

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT? OR ON COMMERCIAL SPACE IN GENERAL? OK. LET'S CARRY ON THEN DOWN TO AMENDMENTS.

[INAUDIBLE] BACK TO PROCEDURE.

GO QUICKLY HERE, SO.

RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE A WIDE RANGE OF AMENDMENTS THAT ONE CAN MAKE TO A PROJECT WITHOUT GOING BACK. I THINK THE BEST THE GREAT EXAMPLE, AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING AT ALL THAT THIS SHOULD, THIS SHOULD BE DIFFERENT.

BUT THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS IS ABLE TO CHANGE QUITE A BIT OF SPACE WITHIN THE PROJECT AND COME BACK AND QUALIFY FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT.

ALSO, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT, NOW KEEP IN MIND THERE'S NO FOOTPRINT CHANGES TO THAT PROJECT. SO IT MAKES SENSE.

IT'S REALLY JUST CHANGING THE INTERIOR HERE.

THEY'RE CHANGING PARKING, SHOULD THAT BE A PROJECT THAT HAS TO RUN THE GAMUT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BACK TO THE BOARD.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME THAT WOULD ARGUE NO.

AND THAT'S IN THIS CASE, THEY DON'T QUALIFY JUST BASED ON OUR MERIT TO DO SO.

BUT THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS QUITE A BIT OF ROOM TO EXPAND A PROJECT.

IN THIS CASE THAT'S NOT HAPPENING, BUT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO THERE IS SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT SORT OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, REVIEWING THAT LIST AGAIN AND HOW THOSE SHOULD BE DOLED OUT BETWEEN MINOR AMENDMENTS, MAJOR AMENDMENTS, AND THEN WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE.

SO RIGHT NOW, MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS REQUIRES BOTH PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWNSHIP BOARD APPROVAL. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT POSSIBLY HAVING MAYBE JUST THE PLANNING COMMISSION HANDLE AMENDMENTS TO PROJECTS OR JUST THE BOARD.

ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS AND REDUCE THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR MAJOR AMENDMENTS.

SO BASICALLY JUST MAKING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS EASIER AND FASTER.

BASED ON THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.

AND PETER, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT THE CURRENT PROCESS OF DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS A MINOR AND WHAT IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT? I THINK THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

YEAH, YEAH.

LET ME PULL IT UP HERE. I'VE GOT IT. OK.

IT STARTS ON THE PART I OF OUR TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW.

A MAJOR AMENDMENTS, THERE'S A THROUGH G.

SO ANY BUILDING ADDITIONS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.

SO THAT WOULD BE BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE AFTER YOU APPLY SETBACKS TO A PROPERTY, WHAT YOUR BUILDABLE AREA. SO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S APPROVED WOULD BE A MAJOR AMENDMENT.

BUILDING ISSUES REDUCE ANY SETBACK.

SO IF YOU'RE ALONG THE STREET THAT HAS, LET'S SAY, 100 FOOT SETBACK, IF YOU WOULD ENCROACH INTO THAT SET BACK, THAT'S A MAJOR AMENDMENT.

YOU GO BACK THROUGH.

BUILDING ADDITIONS IN EXCESS OF TWO.

SORRY, THIS IS JUST A LONG ONE.

BUILDING ADDITIONS IN EXCESS OF TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR BUILDINGS THAT ARE UNDER TWENTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OR 10 PERCENT OF AN EXISTING BUILDING OVER TWENTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. SO THAT'S TALKING ABOUT WHAT ARE THE THRESHOLDS, [INAUDIBLE] BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING WRITTEN IN A VERY ROUNDABOUT WAY.

EXPANSIONS OF A USE THE RESULTS IN AN ADDITIONAL ONE HUNDRED OR MORE VEHICLE [INAUDIBLE] DURING PEAK HOURS.

PEAK HOURS IS THE KEY THERE, I LOOK AT A LOT OF TRAFFIC STUDIES, THAT'S A BIG THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO A PROJECT TO BOOST PEAK HOUR TRIPS BY A HUNDRED.

ADDITIONS OF THE LAND TO A MUPD EQUAL TO OR MORE THAN TWENTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR EXISTING SITES THAT ARE LESS THAN FORTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AN AREA OR TWO TIMES THE ORIGINAL SITE SIZE FOR SITES THAT ARE OVER FORTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

AND THAT'S WHEN I FOCUS ON, IT ALLOWS THE PROJECT TO DOUBLE IF IT'S OVER FORTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

SO, SO MORE OR LESS THE BAR IS REALLY HIGH TO MAKE IT BACK IN FRONT OF ANY KIND OF REVIEW BOARD. THAT IS NOT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

BECAUSE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ESSENTIALLY THE EVERYTHING ELSE IS HANDLED BY DIRECTOR KIESELBACH AND THE REST OF THE PLANNING TEAM.

RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT, AND THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THIS, AND IT DOESN'T JUST HAPPEN IN OUR DEPARTMENT WITHOUT ANY KIND OF.

NO, NO, NO.

NO I'M JUST EXPLAINING IT SO EVERYBODY KNOWS.

WE DO HAVE A HEARING. AND FOR EXAMPLE, THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS, WE'LL HAVE A HEARING.

TYPICALLY, DEPENDING ON THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, IT'LL BE IN THE AFTERNOON DURING THE BUSINESS WORK WEEK. IN THE CASE OF THE VILLAGE, WE'RE GOING TO BE HOLDING ONE IN THE EVENING BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THAT PROJECT, WE'LL HAVE IT SOME EVENING DURING A WEEKNIGHT.

BUT THERE IS A PROCESS THAT WE GO THROUGH FOR THESE, EVEN WHEN THEY'RE NOT SOMETHING THAT

[02:10:01]

YEAH, SO JUST AS A GENERAL RULE, I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE A LITTLE MORE.

THAT CONSTITUTES A MAJOR AMENDMENT.

AND A LITTLE FASTER PROCESS FOR HANDLING THOSE AMENDMENTS.

SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO BE VAGUE ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK IF YOU COULD REDUCE IT FROM A TWO HOP PLANNING COMMISSION TOWNSHIP BOARD TO JUST ONE OF THOSE BODIES MAKING A DECISION, BUT ALSO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ENDS UP THERE, THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, WHERE WHERE I WOULD HOPE TO GO WITH THIS, BECAUSE I DO WORRY THAT THERE ARE MASSIVE CHANGES TO THE PROJECT THAT WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN OUR CURRENT DEFINITION OF MAJOR AMENDMENTS.

RIGHT. CHANGING OR REDUCING THE COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS BY 50 PERCENT.

FEELS LIKE OR AND THAT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, BUT REDUCING IT BY HALF FEELS LIKE A MAJOR CHANGE. AND, YOU KNOW, CHANGING FROM UNDERGROUND PARKING TO ABOVEGROUND PARKING WITH A RAMP FEELS LIKE A PRETTY MAJOR DESIGN CHANGE FROM WHAT WAS PROPOSED.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU QUANTIFY ALL OF THOSE THINGS INTO A LIST FOR MAJOR VERSUS MINOR, BUT IT FEELS TO ME LIKE SOME OF THOSE MIGHT BE OR MAJOR CHANGES THEN, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU THINK OF A MINOR AMENDMENT.

THAT'S MY TWO CENTS ON THAT, I DON'T HAVE SPECIFICS, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I CAME DOWN ON IT.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? I'M JUST KIND OF BRAINSTORMING HERE ON A MECHANISM TO TRIGGER THE MINOR MAJOR AMENDMENT.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT HAPPENS AT A BOARD OR COMMISSION LEVEL OR PUBLIC INPUT LEVEL. BUT IN SOME WAYS, IT SEEMS ODD TO EXPECT TOWNSHIP STAFF TO KIND OF. COME TO THE DETERMINATION THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS MINOR OR MAJOR WITHOUT A PUBLIC BODY WEIGHING IN ON THAT IN SOME WAY.

WELL, HAVING A VERY DISCRETE LIST OF THINGS THAT GETS YOU THERE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT SAVED THAT PROCESS FROM BEING TOO SUBJECTIVE IN THE PAST.

IS THERE A WAY FOR THE PUBLIC TO? I MEAN, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AN APPLICANT COMES AND SAYS, I BELIEVE THIS IS A MINOR AMENDMENT AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAYS, WELL, WE'RE NOT SURE.

IS THERE A WAY FOR THAT TO YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION AND GO AHEAD, YOU KNOW, NO BIG DEAL. BUT IF SOMEBODY SAYS, NO, WAIT, WAIT A MINUTE, I WANT TO SEE THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE SCRUTINY. I DON'T KNOW THE MECHANICS OF THAT SOUNDS REALLY COMPLICATED.

MAYBE PETER CAN WEIGH IN ON THAT.

UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCE, I MEAN, THE CRITERIA WE HAVE, WHILE I'M SAYING IT'S VAGUE AND ALLOWS FOR A LOT OF, ALLOWS FOR A LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM ON AMENDMENTS IN TERMS OF WHEN ONE IS REQUIRED, NOT SO MUCH WHETHER I MEAN GETTING OUT OF IT, BUT JUST IT ALLOWS A WIDE RANGE OF PROJECT CHANGES TO QUALIFY.

LET ME SAY THAT.

RIGHT NOW WE JUST REALLY WE REQUIRE [INAUDIBLE] SO QUANTIFY IT, SHOW US THAT IT MEETS, SHOW US THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THESE THRESHOLDS.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE USE RIGHT NOW, WE USE THE CRITERIA THAT WE'VE GOT AND WE REQUIRE, IF IT'S AT ALL, IF IT'S NOT AT ALL CLEAR, THAT WE REQUIRE DOCUMENTATION IN SOME MANNER.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL, I SAW YOUR HAND UP.

OH, I THINK I THINK WE PROMISED OUR NEW COMMISSIONER IT WAS GOING TO BE A SHORTER WEEK.

WE'RE NOT KEEPING TRUE TO HER.

THAT'S TRUE. BUT I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.

BUT ANYWAY, SOME THINGS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE.

AND I MEAN, IF YOU SPELL THOSE THINGS OUT LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN.

IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT SOME OF THOSE INTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCE OR BUILDING USE CAN BE FLIPPED IN THE FUTURE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK OF LIKE HISTORIC REHAB.

YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS HAVE CHANGED.

IF YOU THINK OF LONGEVITY OF A PROJECT AND HOPEFULLY THAT WILL HAVE A LONGEVITY OF A PROJECT. YES, THANK YOU.

[02:15:11]

YEAH, THANKS, THIS WAS JUST THIS WAS A COMMENT, I THINK, FROM CHAIR HENDRICKSON EARLY ON ABOUT HOW THE TOWNSHIP ENFORCES MISREPRESENTATION FOR A PROJECT OR DEVIATION FROM APPROVALS. AND I THINK THE EXAMPLE WAS RED CEDAR FLATS, LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER.

I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A LOT WE CAN DO ONCE THE IS UNDER WAY OTHER THAN I MEAN, THEY'RE USING THE SPACE FOR NOT THE PURPOSE THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED, BUT IT WASN'T LIKE THEY DID A BUILDING ADDITION TO SOMETHING THAT WASN'T SOME SORT OF OTHER DEVIATION.

SO YEAH [INAUDIBLE] OF HANDS TO BE TIED IN SOME SITUATIONS LIKE THAT.

WE CAN ALWAYS START USING THEIR WORKOUT FACILITY, THOUGH.

YEAH, RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. OK, SO LET'S GO AHEAD.

LET'S GO AHEAD UNLESS ANYONE'S GOT A STROKE OF GENIUS ON PENALTIES.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON FROM THIS.

AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GOOD DISCUSSION.

I THINK IF THE WILL IS THERE FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO KEEP MEETING AND FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE PROPOSED TONIGHT.

AND MAYBE, PETER, MAYBE AFTER GIVING PETER A FEW WEEKS TO CATCH UP ON DRAFTING SOME OF THIS STUFF. WE'LL START FRESH IN THE NEW YEAR.

YEAH REALLY QUICK, WHAT I'LL DO IS SUMMARIZE OR SYNTHESIZE NOT SUMMARIZE OR BOTH, THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN HAD TONIGHT, THE [INAUDIBLE] TONIGHT.

AND THEN MY ORIGINAL GOAL WAS TO HAVE A DRAFT ACTUAL ORDINANCE, BUT HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY STARTING TO SEE IT. IT'S NOT I THINK I WAS LITTLE.

MY APPETITE WAS A LITTLE TOO STRONG.

AND I THOUGHT I COULD GET ALL THIS INTO AN ORDINANCE FORMAT A LOT FASTER.

BUT ONCE I GOT INTO IT, IT BECAME CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT WAS NOT GOING TO BE THE CASE FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT HOPEFULLY WERE IDENTIFIED TONIGHT.

SO ANYWAYS WE'LL PRESS ON.

BUT I APPRECIATE ALL THE FEEDBACK.

AND PREEMPTIVELY, THANK YOU TO PETER.

WELL, I GUESS MY THANKS TO PETER FOR HELPING TO WORK WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND FOR THE WORK THAT WE EXPECT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO TO UNSCRAMBLE OUR SPAGHETTI OF DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD. JUST SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP ON THAT.

THANK YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON THEN TO AGENDA ITEM 8A, WHICH IS OTHER BUSINESS,

[8.A. December 21, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.]

I TALKED TO PETER ABOUT THIS AND THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS WE MAY BE ABLE TO SEEING NO OTHER BIG AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING.

JUST GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO CANCEL THAT MEETING AND PLAN TO MEET AGAIN IN EARLY OR EARLY TO MID JANUARY.

SO UNLESS ANYONE'S GOT SOME COMPELLING TOPICS TO TALK ABOUT NEXT WEEK AS OPPOSED TO THREE OR FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW. I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE THAT I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CANCEL THE MEETING NEXT WEEK.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE, DO I HAVE A SECOND? I THINK THAT IS.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

ALL IN FAVOR OF CANCELATION OF THE DECEMBER 21ST MEETING, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.

THIS WILL BE OUR FINAL MEETING OF THE OF THE 2020 YEAR THEN.

THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 8B, WHICH IS THE 2021 MEETING SCHEDULE.

[8.B. 2021 Meeting Schedule.]

WELL I GUESS I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE A MOTION ON THAT AS WELL.

I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE SCHEDULE AS PRINTED.

THANK YOU. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MEETING CADENCE? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE? ALL RIGHT, MOTION CARRIES, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, LAST UP ON OTHER BUSINESS IS 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS.

[8.C. 2021 Planning Commission goals.]

I KNOW THAT LAST YEAR OR THIS YEAR, I GUESS WE HAD GOOD INTENTIONS OF GETTING THOSE GOALS OUT EARLY. AND I THINK IT WAS MARCH BY THE TIME WE OR RIGHT BEFORE THE PANDEMIC HIT, BEFORE WE GOT OUR GOALS ACTUALLY CODIFIED.

SO IF WE COULD STRIVE TO GET THAT DONE IN JANUARY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL TWO MONTHS.

IF YOU TOOK A LOOK AT THE 2020 GOALS.

YOU SAW THAT WE SORT OF WE SWUNG FOR THE FENCES AND WE'VE MADE A LOT OF GOOD PROGRESS, BUT

[02:20:03]

BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME STUFF THAT WE CAN RECYCLE AND SOME STUFF THAT WE HAVE MADE SOME PROGRESS ON. SO IF YOU DO HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO BRING TO IT, I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO BRING THAT TO THE JANUARY 11TH MEETING AND WE'LL REVISIT THAT TOPIC.

UNLESS EVERYONE'S GOT A STRONG DESIRE TO GET INTO THAT FOR ANOTHER HALF AN HOUR TONIGHT.

OH DEAR. [LAUGHTER] OK, LET'S GO AHEAD AND THEN WE'LL WE'LL MOVE PAST THAT AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 9A.

[9.A. Township Board update.]

PRINCIPAL PLANNER MENSER.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE FOR US? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, I FORGOT TO PULL IT UP, I'M SORRY, I'M PULLING IT UP RIGHT NOW.

I WAS AT THE MEETING.

BOARD MET DECEMBER 8.

WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE COMMERCIAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR MERIDIAN MALL AND THE REZONING FOR DTN.

SO DEFINITELY WATCH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE MEETING.

IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE OR WHAT KIND OF ITEMS THE BOARD MENTIONED AND WHERE THEIR CONCERNS OR SUPPORT MAY BE ON THOSE ISSUES.

THE BOTH OF THOSE WILL BE BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THEIR MEETING AND THE MALL MAY NOT BE UNTIL THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY, AND DTN WOULD LIKELY BE ON THEIR FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY, WHICH I THINK IS THE FIFTH FOR MORE DISCUSSION.

BUT THEY HAVEN'T STATED WHICH WHERE THEY FALL ON EITHER OF THEM YET.

ALSO, THERE WAS A AGENDA ITEM, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING A ZONING AMENDMENT TO RIGHT NOW CAR DEALERSHIPS ARE.

I'M GOING TO GET THIS WRONG. THEY'RE ALLOWED IN C2 AND C3 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

[INAUDIBLE] C3 [INAUDIBLE] RIGHT BY C2 SPECIAL USE PERMIT? THEY'RE, WHAT THE BOARD'S CONSIDERING IS NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS ARE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN C2 SUBJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL.

IN C3 NEW AND USED CAR DEALERSHIPS ARE USED BY RIGHT.

WHAT THE BOARD IS PROPOSING THAT IN C2 THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE THE FINAL DETERMINATION ON THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS AND IN C3 NEW AND USED CAR DEALERSHIPS WOULD BE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AGAIN, SUBJECT TO THE BOARD APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT ON JANUARY 5TH AND POSSIBLY INITIATE THE AMENDMENT AND REFER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND WOULD THAT WOULD THAT COME TO US AS QUICKLY AS THE 11TH, OR WOULD THAT BE LIKE WITH THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY? PROBABLY THE SECOND BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO NOTICE THAT PUBLIC.

OH, SURE. YEAH.

I'M THINKING IT MIGHT BE MORE LIKE YOUR FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

OK, ANYTHING.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR PETER ON THE BOARD MEETING? GOING ONCE GOING TWICE.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO LIAISON REPORTS, ANY COMMITTEES MET SINCE WE LAST SPOKE?

[9.B. Liaison reports.]

ATTRACT DEVELOPERS WHO SHARE THE VISION THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS EXPRESSED.

THERE'S ALSO THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION HAS BEEN PONDERING, AND I BROUGHT THOSE UP AT A PREVIOUS MEETING, BUT WE HAD A PRETTY HEAVY AGENDA, SO I DIDN'T REALLY PRESS THE ITEM.

SO AT SOME POINT WE'LL WANT TO GET FUEL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ITS APPETITE TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AROUND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE.

WHETHER THAT HAPPENS AS PART OF A FORM BASE CODE OR A MUPD, I'M NOT REALLY CERTAIN WHERE THAT. WHERE THAT FALLS, THE.

LAST BIT WAS THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS APPROVED A GRANT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION IS CONSIDERING HOW TO IMPLEMENT THAT PROGRAM.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE? YEAH, THE EDC MET IT WAS EITHER LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE I LOSE

[02:25:05]

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY DID WAS APPROVE A SOME FUNDS TO ASSIST IN THE DEMOLITION OF THE FOUR CORNERS BUILDINGS WITH THE DOWNTOWN OKEMOS PROJECT TO TAKE THOSE BUILDINGS DOWN.

YET THIS WINTER AND THE LANDSCAPE AND BRING IT UP TO GRADE.

AND THEN THEY HAD A DISCUSSION AND I BELIEVE I HAD TO LEAVE EARLY, ACTED ON SOME POTENTIAL GRANTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE TOWNSHIP TO HELP DEFRAY THE COSTS OF THE CLOSURES AND COVID ISSUES SO.

ANY OTHER LIAISON REPORTS? NO. OK, JUST ONE QUICK NOTE, YOU'LL NOTICE ON YOUR TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR THE 11TH, THAT COMMITTEE LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS.

OUR COMMISSION LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS ARE BACK ON THE AGENDA.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VOLUNTEER FOR ONE THAT YOU'RE NOT CURRENTLY A PART OF OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT INTERESTS YOU IN PARTICULAR, MAYBE IF YOU COULD EMAIL PETER AND PETER, IF YOU COULD FORWARD ME THOSE, I'D APPRECIATE IT.

THAT WAY WE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT PREPARED FOR THAT.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TETRIS GAME THAT COMES WITH MAKING SURE EVERYONE GETS A COMMITTEE AND IS INTERESTED IN.

SO GO AHEAD AND SEND THOSE OVER TO PETER AND WE'LL GET THAT READY FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

AND THEN ALSO ON THE NEXT AGENDA ARE GOING TO BE ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2021.

SO IF ANYONE IS ITCHING TO BE AN OFFICER IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BE PREPARED TO THROW YOUR HAT IN THE RING, BECAUSE THAT'S THE MEETING TO DO IT.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION TO ITEM 10 PROJECT UPDATES.

[10. PROJECT UPDATES]

WE'VE GOT ONE. AND WE WILL GET NOW TO THE FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

SO IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND YOU HAVE HUNG WITH US THIS EVENING, THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YOU CAN GIVE US A CALL AT (517)349-1232.

OR YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND IN ZOOM MEETING AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO SPEAK UP NOW IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND CHAIR HENDRICKSON, I RECOGNIZE ALL FOUR OF THE ATTENDEES IN THE ATTENDEE AREA AND DON'T REALLY EXPECT COMMENT FROM THEM, AND WE'RE HEARING NO TELEPHONES RINGING ON THIS END AT ALL.

SO YOU SHOULD BE GOOD TO CONTINUE, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND THEN CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT SAY AYE.

AYE.

OPPOSE? COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED.

HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY, EVERYONE, AND WE WILL SEE YOU IN THE NEW YEAR.

STAY SAFE AND STAY HEALTHY.

PETER, ARE WE ON FOR?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.