>> IT IS 7.00 PM SO WE WILL CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
[00:00:04]
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 22ND, 2021 TO ORDER.FIRST ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS PUBLIC REMARKS.
THERE ARE TWO WAYS FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE JOIN OUR CONVERSATION THIS EVENING AND THERE WILL BE THREE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.
RIGHT NOW AT THE END OF THE MEETING, AND ITEM SIX A ON OUR AGENDA, THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU DO WANT TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC REMARKS YOU CAN USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE IN ZOOM OR YOU CAN GOES A PHONE CALL AT 5173491232.
FOR THOSE WHO JOIN US FOR PUBLIC REMARKS, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES AND PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AT THE TOP OF YOUR COMMENTS.
WITH THAT SAID, WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.
>> THERE IS ONLY ONE PERSON IN YOUR ATTENDEE AIRY SIR AND THE HAND IS NOT RAISED.
WE'RE HEARING NO TELEPHONE CALLS COMING TO THIS TIME.
>> VERY GOOD. THEN WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE,
[3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.IN EMOTION. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER COR DELL.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].
ANY CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA?
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AGENDA SAY I.
[OVERLAPPING] ANY OPPOSED? THEN THE AGENDA PASSES.
WE'LL THEN MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM FOUR A WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WE DO HAVE ONE SET OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY EIGHTH WHEN PEOPLE PHONED IN ONE REGULAR MEETING.>> WHILE THE CHAIR IS FROZEN, I RULE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS CIRCULATED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MR BOOMER.
>> THE LAST ENTRY ON THE MINUTES WAS A COMMENT THAT I MADE ABOUT SOMETHING STRANGE HAPPENING WHEN I TRIED TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE.
I'D LIKE TO EITHER AMEND OR RETRACT THAT BECAUSE IT TURNS OUT I ACCIDENTALLY FELL INTO SOME KIND OF COMMERCIAL THING.
WHEN I WENT BACK AND DID IT AGAIN I HAD NO PROBLEMS AT ALL.
>> [OVERLAPPING] ON THE AMENDMENT.
>> THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO REMOVE MY COMMENT AT THE END ABOUT HAVING TROUBLE DOWNLOADING THE TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE OKAY. WITH THAT AMENDMENT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES SIGNIFY BY SAYING I [BACKGROUND] POSED.
>> [NOISE] CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME AGAIN? I THINK I'M BACK.
>> MY APOLOGIES. I MOVED MY COMPUTER AND I FORGOT TO SWITCH OVER TO MY OTHER NETWORK BUT I AM BACK.
SOUNDS LIKE WE APPROVE THE MINUTES WHILE I WAS TEMPORARILY ABSENT. [LAUGHTER].
>> WE'LL THEN MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM FIVE, WE HAD TWO COMMUNICATIONS THIS EVENING.
I THINK ONE OF THEM WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT A LITTLE BIT
[5.A. Yingxin Zhou RE: recreational marihuana]
FURTHER LATER ON IN AGENDA ITEM PAGE A, SO WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A FEW MINUTES.NEXT, WE'LL GO ON TO AGENDA ITEM 6A WHICH IS OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING.
[6.A. Zoning Amendment #21010 (Township Board), amend the Code of Ordinances to require Township Board approval of special use permits for motor vehicle sales and service establishments and automobile dealerships in the C-2 and C-3 (Commercial) zoning districts.]
WHICH IS ZONING AMENDMENT NUMBER 21010 FROM THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.COMMAND THE CODE OF ORDINANCE IS TO REQUIRE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD APPROVAL, ESPECIALLY USE PYRAMIDS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS IN AUTO DEALERSHIPS IN THE C2 AND C3 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:04 PM, AND THEN WE'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO PRINCIPAL FORM. YOU PUT YOU HANDS UP?
>> HELLO, EVERYONE. GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL VIRTUALLY TONIGHT.
SO TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ZONING AMENDMENT, THAT IS BEFORE YOU.
AT LEAST OUR STAFF MEMO STARTS ON PAGE 10 OF THE PACKET.
THE GENERAL IDEA AND I WON'T DRAG IT OUT, JUST GENERALLY RIGHT NOW, THE TOWNSHIP ALLOWS, NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND OUR C2 ZONING DISTRICT, WE ALLOW NEW AND USED CAR DEALERSHIPS,
[00:05:03]
BY RIGHT IN THE C3 DISTRICT.PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW CONTINUE TO ALLOW THE NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS IN C2 BY ESPECIALLY INSTRUMENT, BUT THE DIFFERENCE BEING INSTEAD OF THE PROCESS ENDING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY WOULD GO ON TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.
SO PLAY IN COMMISSIONED BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AND INSTEAD THE FINAL DECISION WOULD BE GOING TO THE BOARD.
THEN FOR C3, THEY WOULD NOW INSTEAD OF BEING BY RIGHT, THEY'D BE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND ALSO SUBJECT TO TOWNSHIP BOARD APPROVAL.
THERE WERE SOME OTHER TWEAKS DONE TO THE LANGUAGE AND I BULLET POINT HERE, WAS REALLY JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE GENERIC TO REFERRED AUTOMOBILES RATHER THAN JUST CARS THEMSELVES.
WE DID APPLY SOME STANDARDS FOR THE DEALERSHIPS AND CREATED A NEW SECTION ON A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE ORDER ON DIFFERENT ARTICLE [LAUGHTER] OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD HAVE SOME DETAILS ON OPERATIONS AND STANDARDS.
THAT IS THREE CLASS THAT WAS INITIATED BY THE TOWNSHIP BOARD TO MAKE THE CHANGE ON THE ORDINANCE.
FOR ZONING AMENDMENT, THIS IS THE PROCESS OF PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION TONIGHT, HAVING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO DO SO, AND THEN AT THE NEXT MEETING MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND THEN IT WOULD GO ON TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION AND FINAL ADOPTION.
IF THE BOARD ADOPTS IT, THERE'S A 2-STEP PROCESS FOR ADOPTION, FIRST STEP IS INTRODUCTION AND THEN FINAL ADOPTION THAT HAPPENS AT TWO MEETINGS BACK TO BACK.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, MY MEMO, AND THEN THERE IS THE DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT NEWS IN RED, AND THERE YOU'LL SEE SOME STRIKEOUTS, AND THEN A BRAND NEW SECTION AT ED 6660.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH PETER. SO TYPICALLY, AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD HAVE THE APPLICANT SPEAK IN OTHER FORMATS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND I DO SEE THAT WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD HERE IN OUR ATTENDEES AREA.
I WANTED TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO US IF HE WOULD LIKE TO.
MR. TRUSTEE [INAUDIBLE] IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN JOINING US, PLEASE FEEL FREE.
OTHERWISE, WE'LL GO ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER THAT.
JUST LIKE HE IS NOW A MEMBER HERE SO, WELCOME.
>> YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR [INAUDIBLE] AND THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'LL JUST SPEAK VERY BRIEFLY, I THINK PRINCIPAL PLANNER ROMANCER DID A GOOD JOB, OVER VIEWING THE AMENDMENT.
ORIGINALLY, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT SUPERVISOR'S STRIKER AND I PUT BEFORE THE BOARD.
SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT ON WHAT HAD HAPPENED WITH THE ORDINANCE BACK IN 2007.
IT WAS ALL SURROUNDING A REASONING REQUEST OR THE VOLUME'S AUTO DEALERSHIP ON JOLLY ROAD, THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE ARMIES IF EVERYBODY KNOWS WHERE THAT IS.
AT THAT TIME THE EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIP WAS IN C3, AND THEY HAD REQUESTED TO REZONE SOME C2 ADJACENT TO THE EAST IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE AUTO DEALERSHIP, AND AT THAT TIME THE PLANNING COMMISSION LECTURE THE BOARD, I FORGET THE ACTION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOOK, BUT THE BOARD WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THE REZONING AND INSTEAD ELECTED INTO AMENDMENT ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PERMIT THE DEALERSHIP TO EXPAND INTO THE C2.
[NOISE] WHEN SUPERVISORS STRIKE AND I LOOKED AT THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THIS, THAT STRIKERS IS ODD BECAUSE IT WAS BASICALLY A ONE-OFF ZONING AMENDMENT OR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT CREATED THE PROSPECT OF AUTO DEALERSHIPS SPREADING THROUGHOUT C2, WHICH IS OUR MOST PROMINENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR COMMERCIAL.
C3, IS PREDOMINANTLY CONTAINED WITHIN THEM ALL, AND CENTRAL PARK AND THE MIRE AREA.
THAT WAS A PRETTY BIG CHANGE FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE AND ALLOWING AUTO DEALERSHIPS TO EXPAND.
THEN THE OTHER PRIMARY FACTOR THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS HOW INTENSIVE OF DEVELOPMENT AUTO DEALERSHIPS ARE.
SO THEY DO NOT TRIGGER THE 25,000 SQUARE FEET SPECIAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE THEY BASICALLY HAVE A SMALL SHOWROOM, AND THEN THEY TYPICALLY HAVE THEIR MAINTENANCE FACILITIES, PERHAPS A CAR WASH, THINGS OF THAT NATURE ON SITE.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS AREA DUE TO THE SURFACE PARKING THAT THEY PUT IN, THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR TO A TRADITIONAL BIG BOX.
SO WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE, RATHER THAN TRYING TO DETERMINE IF THEY SHOULD GO INTO C2 OR S3, WE THOUGHT THE MOST APT THING TO DO IS JUST TO PROVIDE BETTER OVERSIGHT, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE MASTER PLAN REALLY FOCUSES ON
[00:10:02]
TRANSFORMING MOST OF OUR C3 INTO A MORE TRADITIONAL TOWN CENTER.SO THE OLD ZONING ORDINANCE WAS PUSHING AUTO DEALERSHIPS TO THE MALL AREA.
IN THE CURRENT MASTER PLAN THAT WE ADOPTED IN 2017, WE REALLY IMAGINE RE-ENVISIONING THAT AREA AND MAKING IT MORE WORKABLE AND AUTO DEALERSHIPS RUN IN DIRECT CONTRAST TO THAT OVERALL MISSION IN THE MASTER PLAN.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BACKGROUND. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TRUSTEE RANSOMER.
AT THIS POINT, WE WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ONCE AGAIN, FOR THOSE WHO ARE JOINING US IN THE ATTENDEES AREA, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND, OR IF YOU'RE AT HOME AND WOULD LIKE TO JOIN IN THE CONVERSATION, YOU CAN GIVE US A CALL AT 5173491232.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES AND PROVIDE US WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE TOP OF THE REMARKS THAT SAID, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE FLOOR [NOISE].
I SEE COMMISSIONER CORNELL'S HAND, GIVE US JUST A MOMENT.
STEPHEN, IS THERE ANYONE ON THE PHONES?
>> YOU HAVE NO PHONE CALL, SIR.
>> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I WILL MOVE ON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND I SEE COMMISSIONER CORNELL'S HAND.
>> YES. THANK YOU. TO MAKE NEW AND OR USED CAR SALES, ESPECIALLY USED PERMITS, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR MOVING THAT DECISION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD?
>> COMMISSIONER CORNELL, I'M GUESSING THAT WAS DIRECTED FOR ME?
>> I THINK JUST HAVING GREATER OVERSIGHT OF VERY INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS SIMILAR TO THE 25,000 SQUARE FOOT, SPECIAL USED PERMIT THAT ALSO COMES TO THE BOARD.
>> COULDN'T IT BE SOMETHING ACHIEVED THE SAME WAY, BUT JUST LIKE MOST SPECIAL USED PERMITS THAT WE DEAL WITH, THAT WAS AN INSTANCE.
>> THE LAST TIME AUTO DEALERSHIPS WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR AMENDED WAS IN 2007.
AT THAT TIME, C3 WAS USE BY RIGHT.
THERE WAS NO ABILITY TO OPERATE AN AUTO DEALERSHIP IN C2 AT ALL.
AND THAT ZONING AMENDMENT STEMMED FROM THE WILLIAMS AUTO DEALERSHIP RE-ZONING APPLICATION.
IF IT DIDN'T COME UP ORGANICALLY ON ITS OWN AS A POLICY CHOICE, IT STEMMED FROM ONE APPLICANT TRYING TO EXPAND THEIR AUTO DEALERSHIP TO A C2 PARCEL.
I'M JUST WONDERING WHY IN 2021, THERE'S A NEED FOR CHANGE OTHER THAN MAYBE TO CONSIDER THEM AS BOTH SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
>> ONE CONSIDERATION WAS ALSO THE LAFONTAINE DEALERSHIP AND THE WAY THAT THEY KIND OF ABANDONED THE COMMUNITY AFTER GETTING THEIR SPECIAL USED PERMIT AND CLEAR-CUTTING THAT SITE AT PELO ROAD AND GRAND RIVER AND LOOKING AT JUST HOW VAST C2 IS, ALONG THE BORDER AND HOW MANY UNDEVELOPED SITES WE HAVE.
THAT WAS ONE OTHER DISCUSSION PLAN OF THE BOARD, IS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE GOOD OVERSIGHT ON STRICT AND STRINGENT OVERSIGHT AND SUCH INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT.
>> SURE. WE NEED OVERSIGHT ON WHETHER THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE LAST WORD ON A SPECIAL USED PERMIT FOR THE BOARD.
THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME, FOR NOW.
>> YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO WEIGH IN THE LOGIC OF EXTENDING THE EXTENDED OVERSIGHT OF VOLUMES 25,000 SQUARE FEET AND OVER AN THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF A CAR DEALERSHIP.
IT MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT THOSE TWO THINGS ARE KIND OF EXTRAORDINARY AND WOULD COME UNDER THE SAME LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT.
>> COMMISSIONER BAKER, I SEE THAT YOU'VE INCLUDED SOMETHING IN THE CHAT.
[00:15:02]
WOULD YOU MIND VOCALIZING THAT SO WE CAN HAVE IT FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME?>> YES. IN READING THE PROPOSED NEW LANGUAGE IN SECTION 86-2, THERE ARE DEFINITIONS PROPOSED OR AUTO DEALERSHIP NEW AND AUTO DEALERSHIP USED.
I'M WONDERING IF IT'S A TYPO BECAUSE THOSE TWO HAVE AN IDENTICAL WORD-FOR-WORD DEFINITIONS.
WE'LL CHECK THAT OUT, COMPARE IT TO THE DRAFT LANGUAGE.
>> I WANTED TO CALL THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT IT APPEARED TO ME THAT THEY WERE.
>> ONE THING, THE DIFFERENCE TOO IS WE HAD TO HAVE A DEFINITION FOR NEW BECAUSE ONLY NEW DEALERSHIPS ARE ALLOWED IN C2, WHEREIN C3, YOU COULD HAVE JUST A USED CAR DEALERSHIP BY ITSELF WITHOUT ANY NEW CARS, SO WE HAD TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO AND YES, THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR THE DEFINITIONS.
>> I THINK COMMISSIONER BLOOMER'S POINT IF I CAN STEP IN ON HIS BEHALF HERE, WAS THAT THEY'RE SO SIMILAR THAT THEY'RE EXACTLY WORD FOR WORD IDENTICAL.
I THINK IN ONE CASE FOR THE USED, YOU SHOULDN'T SUBSTITUTE USED FOR NEW IN THAT SECOND LINE OF THAT DEFINITION.
WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT, AND WE APOLOGIZE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CORNELL.
>> HI, IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TRAINING THE TRUSTEES HAVE.
DO THEY HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO GET ANY LAND USE TRAINING FROM THE MSU EXTENSION OR THE MAP SEMINARS THAT MANY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, INCLUDING MYSELF, HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN? I GUESS IF THE PLANNING BOARD GETS MORE AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAND-USE DECISIONS, THE SHIFT FROM THE TRADITIONAL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THEM TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AS MANY TRAINING SESSIONS AS POSSIBLE TO MAKE SOUND PLANNING DECISIONS.
>> YES. I DO KNOW EACH BOARD MEMBER GETS A STIPEND FOR SEMINARS AND OTHER TRAININGS THAT OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
I KNOW THAT TRUSTEE JACKSON AND TREASURE DUSHANE HAVE DONE QUITE A FEW, I DON'T KNOW HOW SPECIFICALLY ON THOSE TWO.
BUT I'M A NOW MTA, THE PLANNERS ASSOCIATION, I KNOW THAT VARIOUS BOARD MEMBERS, ALL PARTAKEN IN THOSE TRAINING AND SEMINARS.
>> OKAY. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SINCE THERE'S A SHIFT.
WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THERE'D BE A SHIFT IN THE DECISION-MAKING. THANK YOU.
>> I WILL GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT PART OF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING SMELLS A LITTLE BIT LIKE YOU'RE NOT TRUSTING THE COMMISSION TO DO WHAT THEY'RE CHARTERED TO DO, AND YOU THINK YOU CAN DO A BETTER.
>> I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT, DAVE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT.
RYAN AND I TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
WE TALKED ABOUT, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO ELIMINATE C3 ENTIRELY SINCE MANY OF THE C3 PARCELS, AT LEAST IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR MIXED CORE, SO AN AUTO DEALERSHIP RUNS COMPLETELY COUNTER TO A MIXED CORE MODEL.
NOBODY WANTS TO WALK THROUGH 12 PLUS ACRE AUTO DEALERSHIP TO GET TO THE NEXT MIXED AND USE.
BUT C2 JUST BEING SO VAST THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP, WE FELT WE'VE ONLY HAD ONE AUTO DEALERSHIP APPLY UNDER THAT 2007 AMENDMENT.
THAT 2007 AMENDMENT HAS ONLY HAD ONE APPLICANT OTHER THAN THE ONE-OFF APPLICANT BACK AT THAT TIME, AND THAT WAS THE LAFONTAINE DEALERSHIP AND THE TREE CLEARING DID SPARK RYAN AND I TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE AMENDMENT.
THAT AMENDMENT HAS ONLY BEEN PUT TO USE AT ONE OCCASION,
[00:20:04]
BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP, C2 IS HIGHLY PREVALENT, AND SO HAVING THAT CHANGE OF ALLOWING DEALERSHIPS IN C2, WE FELT IT WAS PRUDENT TO HAVE MORE OVERSIGHT IF WE WERE GOING TO ALLOW IN C2.THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD, WHEN THEY STRUCTURED THE 2007 AMENDMENT DIDN'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT THROUGH.
I THINK THE BOARD AT THAT TIME WAS ALSO KIND OF KICKING IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY REJECTED THE APPLICATION TO RE-ZONE THAT EASTERN PARCEL ADJACENT TO THE WILLIAMS AUTO DEALERSHIP.
THEY DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO SEE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT COME BACK TO THEM.
I THINK IT'S ALSO THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF IT.
TRADITIONALLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MALL AREA, MEYER AND THE BIG BOX SCORE THAT IS OUR C3, IT WAS INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USE AND SO DEALERSHIPS FIT VERY NICELY, AND NEITHER THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOR THE BOARD HAD A ROLE IN.
THE LAFONTAINE DEALERSHIP IS REALLY THE ONLY DEALERSHIP WHERE THE BOARD OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ANY ROLE IN.
WE WERE LOOKING AT IT MORE FROM ESSENTIALLY STARTING FROM SCRATCH.
WE HAVE THREE DEALERSHIPS AND THEY WERE ALL BUILT BY US PYRITE AND THE TOWNSHIP.
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS IS ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE-OFF AMENDMENT THAT WAS MADE IN 2007.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A REACTION TO LAFONTAINE AND I WILL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT DIDN'T TURN OUT THE WAY EVERYBODY EXPECTED.
BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW CHANGING THE LEVEL OF AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR DENY UP TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES WOULD HAVE CHANGED THAT OUTCOME IN THIS SITUATION.
MAYBE A BETTER TECH WOULD BE TO DEFINE WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE IN C2 TO ALLOW A DEALERSHIP IN MORE DETAIL.
I COULD APPRECIATE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES WANTING CONTROL OVER THIS AND FINAL DECISION BECAUSE IT IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA.
BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS AMENDMENT CHANGES THE RESULTS THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER CORNELL, I SAW YOUR HAND AGAIN.
>> YEAH. I PUT IT DOWN, BUT I WAS SAD TO SEE THE SITE LEFT THAT.
BUT IS THAT NOT A PLANNING ISSUE, BUT IT'S MORE OF A BUILDING ISSUE, A BUILDING DEPARTMENT ISSUE?
>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE A QUESTION FOR PETER, PERHAPS.
>> MARK, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER IT OR DO YOU WANT ME TO?
ONCE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVED, THEN THE NEXT STEP IS SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
ONCE THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND LAFONTAINE HAD SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THEN THEY CAN GET THEIR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, THEIR BUILDING PERMITS TO START WORK ON THE SITE, AND THEY DID HAVE THE [NOISE] APPROVAL TO GO AHEAD AND START GRADING AND DOING THEIR PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE QUERY TOOK PLACE
>> IT DOES SOUND LIKE IT'S MORE OF A BUILDING ISSUE THAN IT IS A PLANNING ISSUE.
>> RIGHT. BECAUSE IT'S LEFT UP TO STAFF THROUGH THE PROCESS.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. [BACKGROUND] [NOISE]
>> YEAH, I MEAN, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I CAN CERTAINLY SEE THE NEED FOR GREATER OVERSIGHT ALLOWING THIS AS A USE BY RIGHT IN ANY COMMERCIAL ZONING WOULD BE, I THINK A MISTAKE.
I DO AGREE THAT [NOISE] MISS LAFONTAINE CASE, I DON'T KNOW THAT CEDING AUTHORITY TO ANYONE WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE AS WAS POINTED OUT, THEY DID HAVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
IT WAS APPROVED AND [INAUDIBLE] AND HERE WE ARE.
BUT, I THINK MORE EYES ON IT ARE BETTER.
I ALSO THINK THAT WE'RE AT OUR BEST WHEN EVERYONE IS WORKING TOGETHER ON IT.
I CAN CERTAINLY SEE SOME VALUE IN BRINGING THE BOARD INTO THIS PROCESS AND I THINK THAT HAVING
[00:25:04]
THE 25 THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT SIZE AS JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY THAT IS A VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.I DON'T KNOW IF I'M COMPLETELY ON BOARD WITH GIVING THAT AUTHORITY AWAY BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THE BOARD IS ASKING FOR IT, YOU KNOW, I TRUST THAT THEY'RE STILL TAKING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE MAKE THEM ON THESE SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE CURRENTLY SEVERAL FORMER PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ON THE BOARD.
I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] THAT I'M SURE THAT WE ALL HOPE THAT AS LAND-USE DECISIONS ARE A MAJOR PART OF WHAT WE SENT TO THEM THAT EVERYONE'S TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE TRAINING AVAILABLE.
SO I THINK I'M GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BASED ON WHAT I CAN SEE HERE, I'LL BE INTERESTED TO THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE ON IT AS WE MOVE FROM THIS TO OUR NEXT MEETING AND AS THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION SHAPES UP.
BUT I APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF CERTAINLY THE ZONING RESTRICTIONS, AND I'M CLOSE TO SOLD ON THE FINAL DECISION-MAKER AS WELL.
AND YEAH, I DO SEE TRUSTEE HAVE SOME REALLY LOOKING TO WEIGH IN AS WELL.
>> JUST ONE OTHER THING TO SHARE.
I MEAN, ONE THING THAT WE DID TALK ABOUT WAS TAKING THE C2 AND JUST REMOVING THE C2 I MEAN THE C2 WAS PUT INTO THE ORDINANCE ON A ONE-OFF INSTANCE FOR ONE PARCEL ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING C3 AUTO DEALERSHIP.
I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE C2 MAP, YOU'RE HARD-PRESSED TO FIND MANY PARCELS WHERE THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE BENEFITED BY HAVING AN AUTO DEALERSHIP.
SO THAT WAS ALSO SOMETHING WHERE THE BOARD WAS SAYING, WHEN WE LOOK AT C2, THERE'S PRETTY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHERE WE WOULD EVEN WANT AN AUTO DEALERSHIP AT THIS POINT.
I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD PROBABLY CONCUR THERE, BUT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM WHAT GIVES US THE GREATEST FLEXIBILITY.
THE OTHER WHERE I THINK, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP, WHERE AUTO DEALERSHIPS WOULD REALLY FIT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIPS.
IN THAT HIGH-INTENSITY COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR WRAPPED BY MARSH WROTE, CENTRAL PARK, AND GRAND RIVER, SO TO SPEAK.
SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR FLEXIBILITY AND HOW I DRAFTED IT.
I THINK THERE'S THE CASE EVEN TO TAKE C2 OUT OF IT AND JUST REVERT IT BACK TO WHAT IT WAS PRIOR TO THE 2007 ONE-OFF.
WE WEREN'T LOOKING TO BE REACTIVE.
BUT ONE CONSIDERATION ALSO IS THAT LAFONTAINE WILL HAVE TO RE-APPLY AND GET A NEW SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THEIR SPECIAL USE PERMIT WILL EXPIRE.
THE COMMUNITY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THAT SITUATION AND GET TREES PLANTED.
EVERY BOARD AND COMMISSION IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED AS TO HOW FAR THEY CAN MOVE THE FOOTBALL DOWN THE FIELD.
WE'RE TYPICALLY NEVER FULLY SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING THE APPLICANT TO ACQUIESCE TO EVERYTHING THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS.
SO HAVING TWO BODIES REVIEW THAT LAFONTAINE, SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION WHEN IT COMES IN SOMEWHERE POST COVID, BECAUSE COVID IS REALLY PROBABLY WHAT'S HELD THEM UP.
AUTO SALES REALLY TOOK A SHARP HIT DURING COVID.
WHEN THEY REAPPLY, HAVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD WORK TO GET SOME OF THAT SITE REPLANTED AND TO WORK WITH THEM ON SOME PREVIOUS TO IMPERVIOUS THAT BENEFITS THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY ADJACENT TO POLE ROAD, THERE WOULD BE A GOOD.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BLOOMER AND THEN COMMISSIONER SNYDER , [INAUDIBLE]
>> FORGIVE ME BECAUSE AGAIN, I'M NEW HERE, BUT DOESN'T THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAVE OVERRIDE AUTHORITY OVER OUR DECISIONS, ANYWAY? WHAT DOES THIS ACTUALLY CHANGE? IF WE MAKE A DECISION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THEY REVIEW IT AND FIND THAT THAT WAS AN ERROR.
IT WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY NEEDS.
DOESN'T THE BOARD ALREADY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE, THEM?
>> I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. MARK AND PETER CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OVERSIGHT ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR DEALERSHIPS AND C2.
>> CORRECT CURRENTLY IN C2, THERE WOULD BE A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION.
THERE'S VERY FEW SPECIAL USE PERMITS THAT ACTUALLY GO UP TO THE BOARD.
ONE WAS MENTIONED, BUILDINGS OVER 25 THOUSAND SQUARE FEET ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD APPROVAL.
[00:30:01]
GENERALLY, SPECIAL USE PERMITS STAY AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONLY IF YOUR DECISION IS APPEALED BY A MAYBE AN APPLICANT OR SOMEBODY THAT FELT AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WOULD IT GO TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD OR DECISION?>> YEAH. IT'S TOUGH BECAUSE WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DECISIONS THEY'VE BEEN MAKING HAVE BEEN LARGELY SOME OF THESE MPUDS AND SOME OF THE LARGER ITEMS THAT DO GO IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE JUST HAVEN'T HAD A STRAIGHT SUP IN QUITE A WHILE [LAUGHTER] I'D BE PROBABLY HAD TO BE GOING BACK TO EARLY FALL, LATE SUMMER FOR ONE OF THOSE IF MEMORY SERVES.
I SEE COMMISSIONER SNYDER NEXT.
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE I APPRECIATED HEARING TRUSTEE [INAUDIBLE] COMMENTS ABOUT THE C2 SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THE AMENDMENT.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I FOUND MYSELF WONDERING WHEN THIS WHOLE TOPIC CAME UP.
IF, YOU KNOW, BACK IN 2007, WE MADE THIS SPECIAL AMENDMENT FOR ONE PARTICULAR BUSINESS AND THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE THE PROBLEM STEMS FROM.
IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THE C2 AREA ISN'T GOING TO BE A PLACE WHERE WE WANT TO HAVE CAR DEALERSHIPS.
WHY NOT JUST GO BACK AND CHANGE THE ORDINANCE SO THAT IT'S NO LONGER PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THAT WAS JUST WHAT I WAS THINKING AS THIS DISCUSSION WAS EVOLVING, SO I JUST APPRECIATED YOUR COMMENTS AND LETTING US KNOW THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD HAD ALSO CONSIDERED JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.
>> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE HANDS LAST CHANCE.
ALL RIGHT, SO SINCE THERE SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF A DISCREPANCY OR DIVISION HERE ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AS A WHOLE.
IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT AS WE'RE DOING OUR STRAW POLL HERE, TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO SECTIONS, ONE RELATING TO FOLKS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY SUPPORT THE ZONING CHANGES, AND ONE FOR THE APPROVAL PROCESS.
I'VE GOT A STAFF HAS A CLEAR VISION AS TO HOW WE'RE FEELING AS A GROUP.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND I SHOULD POINT OUT FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE WATCHING AT HOME.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THIS IS OUR FINAL DECISION, BUT THIS IS JUST AN INDICATION TO GIVE PETER AND MARK AN OPPORTUNITY TO CRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR NEXT TIME OR EMOTION, I SUPPOSE FOR NEXT TIME.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND WE'LL DO THE ZONING CHANGES FIRST AND WE'LL GO TO COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.
>> AS SAID EARLIER, I FEEL LIKE THE RESTRICTION ON THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND SIZE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA ARE ARCMINUTES RATES SO ON THAT SUBSTANTIVE BASIS, I SUPPORT THE IDEA.
>> THEN, COMMISSIONER SHAFTESBURY WAS ASKING FOR THE TWO POINTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THE FIRST ONE IS DOING SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR C2 AND THE SECOND PART IS THE TWO-HOP APPROVAL PROCESS.
THAT WAS A YES ON THE ZONING FROM COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, COMMISSIONER PRIMO?
>> I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THAT THERE WOULD BE BOTH INSTANCES C2 AND C3 WOULD BE SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND IT'S TAKING AWAY THAT OF RIGHT IN THE C3.
>> THEN THE SECOND ONE WILL BE VOTING ON IS THAT WHO'S DECIDING OR CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT?
>> THE CHANGE TO MAKE THE BOARD THE FINAL DECISION-MAKER.
>> I SEE. WELL, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO MAKE THEM SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER, [INAUDIBLE]?
>> ANGRY AND THE ZONING PIECE.
>> I GUESS I'LL GO WITH I AGREE.
>> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE ZONING CHANGE, SO THEN WE'LL LOOK AT APPROVAL PROCESS.
I WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.
[00:35:03]
>> THE FUNDAMENTAL NOTION OF IMPROVED OVERSIGHT, I THINK IS APPROPRIATE.
I CAN SEE REASONABLE OPPOSITION TO INCREASE RED TAPE.
I'M MARGINALLY IN FAVOR OF INCREASED OVERSIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PRIMO.
>> I WAS CONCERNED WITH HOW THE ISSUE WAS FRAMED, HOW IT WAS PRESENTED.
HONESTLY, I FEEL THAT WAS BASED ON OUR DECISION-MAKING, WHICH I FELT WAS OUT OF OUR CONTROL AT THAT POINT OF WHETHER TREES ARE CUT DOWN OR NOT ARE REPLACED.
BUT THEORETICALLY, THE BOARD COULD DECIDE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AND IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO HAVE ONE AT THE BOARD LEVEL, SO BE IT.
>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE LEANING, YES.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.
>> I AM ALSO NOT 100 PERCENT HERE BUT LEANING TOWARDS YES.
ALTHOUGH PETER, PERHAPS YOU CAN CLARIFY.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING YOU'VE SAID BEFORE THAT THE BODY THAT DECIDES HAS TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SO IT WOULD EXTEND THE PROCESS REQUIRING TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS IF WE HAD ONE ON THEM.
>> NO, I COMMENTED THAT WERE STRICTLY RELATED TO THE PUD ORDINANCE.
>> IN THIS CASE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THE BOARD WOULD NOT HAVE TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING BUT COULD MAKE FINAL DECISION.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
I AM NOT AS NEW AS I USED TO BE, BUT I'M STILL NOT 100 PERCENT ON THOSE.
THESE ARE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH DEVELOPMENTS AND HAVE SUCH AN IMPACT THAT I THINK IT IS AT SOME LEVEL HELPFUL TO HAVE THE BOARD TRUSTEES HAVE OWNERSHIP IN IT.
I'M GUESS CURIOUS TO HEAR THOSE WHO WERE OPPOSED.
I'D LIKE TO THINK ABOUT IT IN THE THIRD ARGUMENT ON OUTSIDE, I AM STILL NOT 100 PERCENT.
>> COMMISSIONER SHAFTESBURY LEANING ON THE FENCE BUT LEANING SLIGHTLY TOWARDS YES.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BLOOMER?
>> NO, I BELIEVE AT THIS STAGE AT LEAST I'M OPPOSED TO THAT CHANGE.
>> I'D HAVE TO SAY I'M ON THE FENCE AS WELL.
IF I HAD TO SAY WHICH WAY I'M LEAVING AT SIMILAR OPPOSED.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]?
>> I AM PROBABLY LEANING MORE OPPOSE ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE C3.
INSTEAD IS A RIGHT AT THIS POINT TO TAKE IT TO BUY SPECIAL USE AND GOING TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, I THINK IT'S OVERKILL.
I CAN SEE A BETTER ARGUMENT FOR THAT TRANSFER IN THE C2 AREA.
>> I GENERALLY SUPPORT THIS FOR THE REASONS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THAT IT DOESN'T DESERVE SOFT NUMBERS BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT FIVE IN FAVOR AND FOUR OPPOSED BY MY TALLY.
I THINK PERHAPS WE WILL TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN IN THE NEXT MEETING AS WE MOVE FORWARD HERE.
HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL ILLUMINATE US A LITTLE BIT MORE.
IS THERE ANY INFORMATION THAT STAFF FOR THE BOARD COULD PROVIDE TO US THAT MIGHT AID IN THAT DISCUSSION NEXT WEEK OR TWO WEEKS FROM NOW? BEFORE I GET TO THAT, I'LL GET A COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL WHO WAS WAITING PATIENTLY, AND THEN I SEE PRESTIGE [INAUDIBLE] RAISING AS HE AND HIS WIFE.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO AHEAD? I'M SORRY?
>> THIS PROPOSAL IS PRESENTED BY THE BOARD AND IT WILL GO TO THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET THE PROCESS AND MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
THE BOARD WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION WHETHER THE BOARD HAS THE
[00:40:02]
FINAL SAY ON SUCH FACILITIES, IS THAT CORRECT?>> THEY WILL GO TO THE BOARD, YES AFTER US.
>> OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. THANK YOU.
>> YEAH. ONE THING THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL AND I DON'T HAVE THE FULLEST IN FRONT OF ME IS TO HAVE STAFF COMPILE A LIST OF ALL OF THE SPECIAL USED PERMIT, AND MOST COMMON ONE IS DRIVE THROUGH WINDOWS, THEN I BELIEVE THERE IS FLOODPLAIN WORK, AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES.
I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE LIST OF SPECIALLY USED PERMITS, THERE IS A PRETTY DISCERNIBLE GAP IN TERMS OF THE SCOPE AND IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THOSE OTHERS AND AUTO DEALERSHIPS.
SO EVERY DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW THAT YOU SEE IN THAT C3 AREA, CHICK-FIL-A, THE MAYOR PHARMACY, TACO BELL, BURGER KING, WHICH IS NOW CLOSED, BUT THOSE WERE ALL SPECIAL USED PERMITS.
BUT AN AUTO DEALERSHIP HAD NO SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
I WOULD SAY THAT OUR ORDINANCE WAS NOT VERY MEASURED WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES.
SO HAVING STAFF COMPILE THAT LIST OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND BALANCING THOSE OTHER SPECIAL USE PERMITS AGAINST A DEALERSHIP WHICH USUALLY DEVELOPS 12 PLUS ACRES, IS SOMETHING TO LOOK AT. THANK YOU.
>> I CAN PUT THAT LIST TOGETHER FOR YOUR NEXT MEETING.
>> THANK YOU, PETER. ANYONE ELSE, BEFORE WE MOVE ON? ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:41 P.M. THEN WE WILL MOVE ON.
AND OUR AGENDA TO ITEM 8A, WHICH IS THE 1999 SAGINAW HIGHWAY, WITHIN OTHER BUSINESS, AND FOR THOSE FOLLOWING ALONG IN THE PACKETS.
THIS IS RELATING TO THE LETTER THAT WE
[8.A. 1999 Saginaw Highway.]
RECEIVED FROM JAMES PHILIPICH OF THE MERIDIAN COMPANY.THIS IS JUST AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION I THINK, THAT TO HELP THE TELL PETER AND OTHERS RESPOND TO MR. PHILLIPICH.
HE MAY BE HERE WITH US, I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S ATTENDEES AREA, BUT.
>> I THOUGHT I SAW HIM POP IN EARLIER BUT HE EITHER WENT AWAY AND NEVER CAME BACK. I'M NOT SURE.
>> BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE HE HAS ACCESS TO THE MEETING.
HE KNEW IT WAS COMING AND WE'LL MAKE SURE HE HAS ACCESS TO IT AFTERWARDS.
>> PETER, WHY DON'T YOU GIVE US A LITTLE PRIMER HERE.
>> OKAY. WELL, THANKS, MR. CHAIR.
IF YOU HOPE YOU'VE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE LETTER THAT WAS IN YOUR PACKETS, TO LETTER FROM MR. PHILLIPICH.
IF NOT, I'LL BREAK IT DOWN FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.
SO THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES, ACTUALLY I'M GOING TO AN UNPRECEDENTED MOVE.
SHARE MY SCREEN. UNPRECEDENTED FOR ME AT LEAST.
>> I'M WORKING ON MY SITE, BUILT A COMPUTER OVER CHRISTMAS. CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN?
>> OKAY, GOOD. YES, GOOD DEAL.
ANYWAYS, I BUILT A COMPUTER OVER CHRISTMAS, AND NOW I HAVE A NEW COMPUTER TO USE FOR THIS KIND OF STUFF.
HOPEFULLY, YOU CAN ALL SEE AN OVERVIEW MAP.
WHAT I'M SHOWING HERE IS THE AREA ALONG SAGINAW HIGHWAY, WEST OF MARSH ROAD, NORTH OF TOWN OR SOUTHEAST OF SAGINAW HIGHWAY, SO I'LL CUT OUT OF THIS.
IN 2018, THE PARCEL IN RINGED IN THE DOTTED RED LINES HERE, SO THE GREEN IS 1999, SECOND OHIO, IM78 BUSINESS ROUTE, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, WHENEVER YOU MOVED HERE, IS SHOWN IN GREEN HERE.
THEN RIGHT NEXT TO IT AS ANOTHER SMALL LITTLE PIECE UNDER AN ACRE.
ALL OF THIS WAS REZONED UNDER TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS BACK IN 2018 FROM INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL, C2 COMMERCIAL, AND THERE'S HOME THAT WAY NOW.
YOU'LL SEE I DID SOME LABELING ALONG THE WAY.
MERIDIAN COMPANY IS WHERE SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW IT AS MERIDIAN PLUMBING.
THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO BE BROADER BUT IT'S MERIDIAN COMPANY IS ON THIS PARCEL.
THEY ALSO OWN THE PARCEL IN GREEN.
THEN THE PARCEL IN WHITE SAYS EVENTS ABOVE IT IS OWNED BY ANOTHER PARTY.
LONG STORY SHORT, MERIDIAN COMPANY BEEN LOOKING INTO OPTIONS FOR THEIR FUTURE THEIR BUSINESS WHERE THEY WANT TO BE LONG-TERM, WHICH DOES INCLUDE THIS AREA IN THE TOWNSHIPS, THAT'S NOT A CONCERN, BUT THE AREA IN GREEN THEY WERE CONSIDERING WHAT TO DO.
ONE OPTION IS THEY BUILD ON THE GREEN HERE, BUT TO DO THAT MERIDIAN COMPANY IS ZONE INDUSTRIAL, AND A BIG PART OF THAT IS TO CONTRACTORS ESTABLISHMENT, AND THAT IS A USE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED IN C2, BUT IT IS ALLOWED IN INDUSTRIAL.
IN CONSIDERING MAYBE BUILDING SOMETHING ON THE SCREEN PROPERTY, THE ZONING COME INTO PLAY BECAUSE IF THEY WANTED TO DO WHAT
[00:45:01]
THEY DO ON THEIR CURRENT PROPERTY ON THE NEW ONE, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO.SO THE THOUGHT ON THEIR END IS AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THAT LETTER REALLY IS A QUESTION THAT POSING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS, ARE WE BETTER OFF PURSUING OR REZONING OF THIS GREEN BACK TO INDUSTRIAL, OR WOULD WE BE BETTER OFF REQUESTING THE TOWNSHIP TO CONSIDER AND AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO THEIR CONTRACTOR ESTABLISHMENT BACK IN C2? WE HAVE TALKED, I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AT ALL.
BUT INITIALLY, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT MIGHT BE A CONSIDERATION, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSS TONIGHT IS THE POTENTIAL FOR HAVING CONTRACTORS ESTABLISHMENTS AND I THINK MERIDIAN COMPANY IS A GREAT EXAMPLE, AND YOU CAN PROBABLY THINK OF MANY MORE THAT WOULD BE ALL THE ONES I SHOWED IN THE PREVIOUS MAP.
BEING ALLOWED IN C2, AS DISCUSSED IN THE LAST AGENDA ITEM, C2 IS PREVALENT IN THIS CORE OF OUR COMMUNITY.
ON THE SCREEN NOW IS THE ZONING MAP FOR THIS AREA, YOU CAN SEE THAT WHOLE BLACK IS C2, FOR THOSE TWO PROPERTIES OR THOSE PROPERTIES OF A REZONE.
THEN THE REST OF THIS AREA HERE, OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY FRONTS ON MARSH IS ALL ZONE I INDUSTRIAL.
OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, SHOWS THAT WHOLE BLUE AREA, AGAIN, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS RESIDENTIAL PIECE THAT FRONTS ON MARSH AS THIS BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE MASTER PLAN BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY THERE'S FOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, FOR THE TOWNSHIP AND REGION.
THESE AERATION SERVE THE COMMUNITIES NEED FOR RESEARCH FACILITIES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OPPORTUNITIES, OR CORPORATE CAMPUSES.
IT TALKS ABOUT CONTINUING RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES, CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LIKE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS, NON RETAIL BUSINESS USES.
SO IT'S NOT INTENDED TO DIRECTLY PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK FOR THE MOST PART THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE SEEN DEVELOP.
NOW, I GUESS WE DIDN'T TIME FRAME.
IT DIDN'T DEVELOP BASED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. BUT I THINK THAT FITS THIS AREA RATHER WELL.
THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU AND I ARE [INAUDIBLE] DOESN'T CONSIDER A LOT OF REQUESTS LIKE THIS.
YOU AREN'T OFTEN GIVEN THE TASK OF HELPING SOMEONE DECIDE KIND OF THE PATH FORWARD, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED TONIGHT.
I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW IF THIS IS RESULTING IN A VOTE OR IF IT'S JUST SOMETHING YOU WANT TO CHAT ABOUT, JUST BASED ON PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF AND WITH SOME FOLKS IN THE ADMINISTRATION, DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A ZONING AMENDMENT IS PREFERRED.
MAY JUST WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO REZONE ANY NODE THAT PROCESS BACK THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BACK THROUGH TOWNSHIP BOARD, OR ANY ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION THEY CAN IDENTIFY THAT MAY HELP THIS PROPERTY OWNER.
>> I'VE TWO THOUGHTS. I PERSONALLY WOULD SAY WE ARE JUST REZONING.
>> BUT I ALSO WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT IF HER OR THE PERSON ASKING US TO GIVE AN OPINION TO KNOW, THIS IS JUST AN OPINION AND THAT WE MAY DECIDE AT A LATER DATE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
IT'S AN OPINION.I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
BUT MY OPINION IS THAT I THINK JUST REZONING TO INDUSTRIAL MAKES SO MUCH SENSE.
>> THANK YOU. AND YES, I HAD THAT WRITTEN DOWN, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR GIVING THE DISCLAIMER FOR ME [LAUGHTER].
OKAY. I SEE COMMISSIONER BLOOMER, THEN RICHARDSON CORE DELL.
>> THANK YOU. JUST LOOKING AT THE CURRENT US MAP THAT MR. [INAUDIBLE] PUT UP, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT WHAT THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING HERE IS CONSISTENT WITH MUCH OF WHAT'S AROUND HIM ON THAT PROPERTY ALONG THAT STRIP.
I DON'T SEE THAT IT'S GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE EXISTING USE IN THAT AREA AND IF THIS CAME IN THE FORM OF A PETITION, TO REZONE TO ALLOW HIM TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, I THINK I WOULD PROBABLY VOTE TO APPROVE THAT CHANGE.
>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.>> YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PRIMO THAT ACTUALLY THE C2 SITS IS SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL.
SO I MEAN, IN ITSELF ARGUABLY IS KIND OF A SPOTS ZONE AS IT SITS.
SO I THINK FOR CONSISTENCY PURPOSES,
REZONING BACK TO INDUSTRIAL MAKES SENSE. >> COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]
>> CAN YOU PLEASE REPEAT WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE IS FOR THIS AREA?
>> IT'S ALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY.
>> SO AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES A CONTRACTOR.
[00:50:01]
>> YEAH. SO THE BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY IT TALKS ABOUT IN THE MASTER PLAN, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, RESEARCH FACILITY IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR CORPORATE CAMPUSES LIKE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS, NON RETAIL.
>> SO CONSIDERING IT AS A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE LIKE FABRICATING AN AGE BACK.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE A COMPANY AS WELL [OVERLAPPING]>> I CAN TELL YOU, THOSE ON THE USE IF THAT WOULD HELP AND APOLOGIZE IF I GLOSSED OVER THAT.
IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH I MEAN, THERE ARE A FULL SERVICES HVAC BUSINESS AND I GUESS WE SHOULDN'T IN THIS CASE, WE ARE DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH THEIR PROPERTY, BUT JUST GENERALLY, THE CONTRACTORS ESTABLISHMENTS ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME POTENTIALLY PART OF THE BUILDING MAY USE FOR SALES FLOOR.
YOU'VE BEEN IN PLACES LIKE THAT TYPICALLY WOULD HAVE MAYBE A DREAM KITCHEN SETUP OR YOU COULD PICK THE TILE OUT IN THAT KIND OF THING.
75, 80% OF THEIR BUSINESS IS GOING TO BE ON-SITE WORK.
SO THEY MAY HAVE THEIR FLEET OF VEHICLES THERE, THEIR EQUIPMENT, THEIR PARTS.
SO YOU COULD PROBABLY POP INTO A STORE LIKE THAT AND GET APART.
BUT TYPICALLY, YOU WOULDN'T, I THINK IS THE GENERAL IDEA THAT THEY ARE MORE OF A SERVICE SET UP.
>> BUT WHEN YOU SAY ON-SITE, THAT MEANS ON THIS SIDE OF THE CUSTOMER.
>> SO THEY'RE NOT RELYING ON ME TO DRIVE IN AND BUY A [INAUDIBLE].
THEY'RE MORE INTERESTED IN SELLING [OVERLAPPING] A NEW KITCHEN OR HVAC OR WHATEVER.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATIONS.
>> COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] THEN COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.
>> PETER, YOU'RE NEAR ME THAT THAT'S GOING TO GET ALL OF US TONIGHT [LAUGHTER].
>> YEAH WE MUST ALL BE UNIFORM IN OUR CONSISTENCY HERE.
I DON'T SEE A REASON TO AMEND THE C2 ZONING PROVIDED FOR THIS GIVEN THIS C2 SO WIDESPREAD THROUGH THE DISTRICT COULD HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT A FEW MINUTES AGO WITH REGARD TO AUTO DEALERSHIPS AND THE C2, IT SEEMS TO BE A ONE-OFF TYPE AMENDMENT WHICH COULD HAVE RAMIFICATIONS DOWN THE ROAD THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE TOWNSHIP.
SO I PREFER THE REZONING BACK TO INDUSTRIAL.
>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. THANK YOU.
>> YEAH, THANKS. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A SORT OF A PHILOSOPHICAL POINT THAT I DON'T FULLY GRASP WHAT BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY MEANS.
BUT MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] COMPANY IS THAT THEY ARE DOING A LOT OF TECHNOLOGY AND IN THIS DAY AND AGE, THEY'RE SUPPORTING THE BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY SERVICE MY HOME AND MY HOME IS WHERE MY BUSINESS HAPPENS SO I'M A LITTLE FOGGY ON THOSE DISTINCTIONS AND SUPPORT WHAT CAN HELP UP A LOCAL, SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS TO THRIVE.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? YEAH, GENERALLY I SUPPORT THE REZONING AS AN OPTION AS OPPOSED TO MAKING IT CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE.
I THINK THAT HITS A FAR MORE TARGETED SOLUTION, ESPECIALLY SEEING IT ON THE Z SURROUNDING ZONING MAP.
THAT IT IS IT WOULD BE IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE ON SPEC BASED ON THE SURROUNDING USES CAN'T SAY HOW I WOULD VOTE WITH THIS TO COME BEFORE US AS A PROPOSAL AS COMMISSIONER PRIMO MENTIONED.
BUT GENERALLY, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE.
SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT A RELATIVE CONSENSUS AROUND THAT.BUT I THINK PERHAPS IF PETER, YOU WANT TO LET HIM KNOW THAT I'M SORRY COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] BEFORE I GET TO MY SWEEPING BROAD POINT, LET'S HEAR IT [LAUGHTER], LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
>> IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME PETER, AS YOU WERE SHOWING US THE MAP.
THERE WAS A LITTLE CORNER OF THAT SITE THAT WAS NOT THEIR BUSINESS.
WOULD THEY BE IMPACTED BY REZONING AND WOULD THAT BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON AN EXISTING BUSINESS? [NOISE]
>> YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT'S 0.42 ACRE SITE THAT WOULD REMAIN COMMERCIAL.
LOOK, I CAN BRING THAT BACK TO YOU, BUT INITIALLY, THEY COULD OPERATE AS IS, I MEAN IF THEY WANTED TO EXPAND, THERE MIGHT BE SET BACK ISSUES.
>> OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T.
I DIDN'T STATE THIS BUT I INTEND TO AGREE WITH THE REASONING
[00:55:01]
IS AS MOST OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT HELPING ONE.IF WE WERE TO GO THAT DIRECTION, IF THAT DIDN'T HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SOMEONE ELSE.
>> I WILL BE SURE TO NOTE THAT IF IF THE RE-ZONING APPLICATION COMES THROUGH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
ALRIGHT. THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM EIGHT B, WHICH IS THE MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REVIEW.
>> BUT CAN I SUMMARIZE MY REAL QUICK ON THE LAST ITEM?
>> SORRY. I JUST WANTED TO SAY I WILL REACH OUT TO, UNLESS SOMEONE HAS A DIFFERENT IDEA.
I'LL REACH OUT TO THE GENTLEMEN THAT SENT THE LETTER AND REFERENCING TO THIS VIDEO IF HE WANTS TO SEE IT THEM SELF BUT OTHERWISE WILL PROVIDE A SUMMARY.
HOPEFULLY THAT'LL GIVE HIM THE DIRECTION.
I BELIEVE HE WROTE THE SAME LETTER TO OUR SUPERVISOR AND SO THEY MAY HAVE A SIMILAR CONVERSATION.
THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS ON IT.
[8.B. Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) ordinance review.]
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN THINGS NOW TO OUR MUPUD SUB-COMMITTEE AND HOW THAT HAS ALL BEEN GOING.I GUESS AS WE DO OFTEN WILL LET PETER GO AHEAD AND GET US KICKED OFF.
>> I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THE FLOOR WITH SOMEONE ELSE FROM THE COMMITTEE.
LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING.
>> IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD. WE [INAUDIBLE] BUT YOURS DO A NICELY PRESENTATIONS SO WHY DON'T YOU KICK US OFF [LAUGHTER].
>> I WASN'T GOING TO SAY A LOT. ON THAT SUBCOMMITTEE WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET OUR SCHEDULES TOGETHER UNTIL LAST WEEK.
WE DID IN THE LAST, I THINK IT WAS LAST TUESDAY.
TALKED ABOUT, I MEAN REALLY THE FOCUS WAS ON AMENITIES.
WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DENSITY.
SO I'M GOING TO INCORPORATE THOSE COMMENTS INTO THE NEXT DRAFT AND WE'LL HAVE THAT FOR YOU AT LEAST TO CONSIDER AT THE MARCH EIGHTH MEETING.
ONLY TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT EVENING AS WELL.
I AT LEAST HAVE A NEW DRAFT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
>> REMIND ME IT WAS OUR INTENTION AND OUR GOALS TO HAVE THIS DONE MORE OR LESS BY THE END OF Q1 AND MOVED ON, RIGHT? KIM, IS IT POSSIBLE DO WE THINK WE CAN GET THAT TOGETHER FOR A PUBLIC HEARING THE FOLLOWING MEETING AFTER THE EIGHTH?
>> THE WAY THE CALENDAR FALLS, WE WOULD HAVE TO, ALTHOUGH BECAUSE OF NOTIFICATION, I'D RATHER HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN OFF ON THE DRAFT BEFORE SENDING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'D HAVE TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THAT SO THERE MIGHT BE A GAP OF ONE MEETING IN BETWEEN THERE BUT YES.
>> IF YOU GUYS ARE READY WITH THE LANGUAGE.
>> I DON'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE BUT I WILL SAY THAT IT SEEMED AS THOUGH WE'VE HAD CIRCLED AROUND A RELATIVE GOOD CONSENSUS AT THE LAST TIME WE ALL CAME TOGETHER ON IT.
I'M SURE THAT IT'S A LOT OF GOOD WORK THAT'S BEING DONE ON THE SUB-COMMITTEE TO IMPLEMENT THOSE CHANGES.
BUT I MEAN, I'VE GOT TO SEE IT FIRST, YOU'RE RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MUPD ORDINANCE FROM EITHER THE SUB-COMMITTEE MEMBERS OR ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON THEN TO AGENDA ITEM
[9.A. Township Board update.]
9A THE TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE. LET'S GO FIND AMEND SIR.>> OKAY. PLANNING COMMISSION LAST MET ON THE EIGHTH.
SINCE THAT TIME THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HELD A STUDY SESSION ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16.
IT WAS ABOUT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS, A LONG PROCESS OF ADOPTING, CONSIDERING ADOPTING A MEDICAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCE.
WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE THEN WE'VE HAD SOME APPLICANTS FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
THERE WERE A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, FROM THE POTENTIAL OPERATORS ABOUT WANTING TO SET UP, HAVE THE TOWNSHIP RECONSIDER RECREATIONAL.
THE TOWNSHIP ORIGINALLY OPTED OUT AND NOW THEY'RE LEAST CONSIDERING OPTING IN AND DOING A RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCE.
LOT OF MOVING PARTS TO THAT AND EXACTLY HOW IT WOULD HAPPEN.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW THAT CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING BUT THAT WAS IF YOU'D GET A CHANCE CHECK OUT THAT MEETING AND YOU'LL SEE THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BOARD CONSIDERING THAT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY DETAILS TO SHARE RIGHT NOW.
IT'S NOT THE END OF THE CONVERSATION.
THEY'LL HAVE IT ON AT A FUTURE MEETING.
IN-FACT I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE IT FOR THEIR MEETING ON MARCH TWO.
MARK, IS THAT CORRECT, YOU REMEMBER? IF AND WHEN THEY ADOPT AN ORDINANCE, IT'LL PROBABLY BE, I SAY PROBABLY BECAUSE WE REALLY JUST DON'T KNOW.
[01:00:02]
I MEAN, IF THERE'S THE ATTORNEYS ARE CONSIDERING THINGS AND JUST DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DIRECTION THAT WILL HAPPEN.BUT VERY LIKELY IT WOULD COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE THERE IS A ZONING ELEMENT TO IT.
RIGHT NOW, THE MEDICAL USES ARE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT GO THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.
AND IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIALIST FROM IT, THEY HAD TO GET A LICENSE FROM OUR DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS REALLY THERE'S AN APPLICATION PROCESS AND THIS REALLY JUST A LOT OF CONFIRMATION OF DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF HAVING MARIJUANA OPERATION.
MARTIN STAY TUNED, MORE TO COME.
>> UP HERE BEFORE WE MOVE ON FROM THAT, JUST ONE THOUGHT I WAS HAVING AS I WATCHED THAT LAST WEEK.
IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT SINCE I KNOW LAST TIME, AS WE WERE PASSING OR CONSIDERING THE MEDICAL COMPONENT OF THIS WE RAN INTO FOUR OR FIVE SITUATIONS WHERE IT WAS, THAT WE HAD QUESTIONS THAT SEEMED AS THOUGH THE BOARD COULD ANSWER THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HELPFUL.
IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT IF THE IF THE REST OF THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED TO HOLD A JOINT WORK SESSION DOWN THE ROAD.
AS WE AS WE APPROACH CONSIDERATION OF THIS, IF THAT'S WHERE THIS IS GOING SO THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THEM WHAT THEIR INTENT IS ON SOME OF THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE.
NOT IMMEDIATELY, BUT WHENEVER THIS MAKES IT OUT OF THEIR PREVIEW AND BACK INTO OURS.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR PETER ON THE TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE?
>> SOME MORE MINUTES TO GO. I'LL BE FAST.
ACTUALLY, THEY HAD A BOARD RETREAT THIS LAST SATURDAY AND TALKED ABOUT STRENGTHENING THEIR GOVERNANCE TEAM.
THEN THE BOARD MEETING DOES HAPPEN AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.
ON THE AGENDA, THERE REALLY AREN'T ANY PLANNING RELATED ITEMS. SOME OF THESE THINGS WILL COME IN.
THE ZONING AMENDMENT WE TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT AND THEN THE SPECIAL USEFULNESS THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING AT THE NEXT MEETING, THOSE WILL ALL GO BACK THROUGH THE BOARD AS WELL, SO ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> AM SORRY, DID YOU SAY GOVERNANCE TEAM?
>> THEY HAD A STUDY OR [LAUGHTER] A BOARD RETREAT CALLED CONTINUING AND STRENGTHENING THE MERIDIAN GOVERNANCE TEAM.
IT WAS COORDINATED OR FACILITATED BY A FORMER MEMBER, I BELIEVE, OF THE MTA, MAYBE THE PRESIDENT OF THE MTA.
>> INTERESTING. ALRIGHT. SOUNDS LIKE A HOOP.
>> ALRIGHT. EXCUSE ME, WHAT'S THE MTA?
>> MICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS ASSOCIATION.
>> ALL RIGHT. THEN WE'LL GO ON TO LIAISON REPORTS.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY REPORTING FROM MEETINGS THAT THEY'VE ATTENDED? A LIGHT COUPLE OF WEEKS FOR MEETINGS IT LOOKS LIKE.
ALL RIGHT GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. WE'LL GO ON TO AGENDA ITEM TEN, NEW APPLICATIONS.
[10. PROJECT UPDATES]
WE HAVE TWO SIDE PLANS RECEIVED, WE HAVE NONE SIDE PLANS APPROVED.WE HAVE NONE. WHICH BRINGS US TO OUR FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.
ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU ARE IN OUR ZOOM MEETING, GO AHEAD AND RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
OR IF YOU ARE AT HOME, YOU CAN GIVE US A PHONE CALL AT 517349123.
REMEMBER TO LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS AT THREE MINUTES AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS.
WE'LL GIVE EVERYONE A MOMENT TO GIVE US A CALL OR RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> YOU HAVE NO ONE ON THE PHONE, SIR.
>> ALL RIGHT. THEN IN THAT CASE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 12, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
FROM COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, WE HAVE A SECOND.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BLOOMER.
>> ANY OPPOSED? AND THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED AT 8:04 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.