Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:01:25]

OK, I'VE GOT 7:00 PM.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER THE MARCH 8, 2021 REGULAR MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE

[2. PUBLIC REMARKS]

AGENDA, WHICH IS PUBLIC REMARKS THIS EVENING.

THERE WILL BE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC REMARKS RIGHT NOW AT THE END OF THE MEETING, AS WELL AS TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

FOR THE REMARKS THAT OCCUR NOW AND AT THE END OF THE MEETING YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC FOR THE TWO THAT COME IN THE MIDDLE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WE ASK THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE TOPICS AT HAND.

WE WILL REMIND YOU THAT YOUR COMMENTS MUST BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES AND THAT YOU PROVIDE US WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, IF YOU ARE HERE IN OUR ZOOM MEETING, YOU CAN INDICATE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC REMARKS BY USING THE RAISED HAND FEATURE.

OTHERWISE YOU CAN ALWAYS GIVE US A PHONE CALL.

AND I'M SORRY.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK STEPHEN IF YOU CAN GIVE ME THE PHONE NUMBER ONE MORE TIME.

517-349-1232.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO CALL IN TO THAT PHONE NUMBER.

AND YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR REMARKS THAT WAY.

ONCE AGAIN, THAT WAS FIVE ONE SEVEN.

THREE, FOUR, NINE, ONE, TWO, THREE, TWO.

THANK YOU.

THAT WAS MORE FOR ME SO I COULD REMEMBER IT FOR THE NEXT THREE TIMES.

SO GIVE US A CALL IF YOU NEED TO.

ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT SAID, WE WILL OPEN UP THE FLOOR OF OUR PUBLIC REMARKS.

AND I DO SEE THAT WE HAVE A HAND RAISED.

WHEN YOU ARE JOINING THE MEETING TO SPEAK WITH US, PLEASE ALSO REMEMBER TO UNMUTE YOURSELF SO THAT THE COMMISSION CAN HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

OK, WE'VE GOT SHAREEN.

SHAREEN YOU ARE ON WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BE SURE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

UNMUTE.

OK.

OK, HI.

SO MY HUSBAND, JOHN [INAUDIBLE] IS GOING TO SPEAK ON OUR BEHALF.

ARE YOU READY? OK, I AM ESSENTIALLY REPRESENTING 17 INDIVIDUAL WHO LIVE EITHER ON KANSAS ROAD OR ON INDIANA ROAD OR ON ROBIN WAY.

THEY SIGNED A PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZONING ON KANSAS WAY .

THE PETITION IS JUST BEFORE I READ THE PETITION, VERY SHORT, I WANT TO RESTATE THAT THE MASTER PLAN STATES THAT PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IS NUMBER ONE GOAL AND NUMBER TWO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL AREAS IS NUMBER TWO.

SO OUR PETITION STATES THAT THESE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SHOULD NOT BE REZONED WITHOUT A CLEAR AND COMPELLING REASON.

THE PROPOSAL FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WILL INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DAILY AUTOMOBILE TRIPS TO THIS PROPERTY FROM [INAUDIBLE] 40 TO A 60 FOLD INCREASE

[00:05:08]

ACCORDING TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

KANSAS ROAD IS A UNIQUE AND VANISHING ROAD IN OKEMOS WITH LOW TRAFFIC VOLUME, LOW DENSITY SAFETY AND WILDLIFE.

A LARGE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING WILL DESTROY KANSAS' ROADS MOST DESIRABLE QUALITIES.

NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE TO JUSTIFY EXCHANGING THE RESIDENTIAL VALUES OF KANSAS ROAD VERSUS THE NEED FOR MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

SURELY THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUCH DEVELOPMENT IN AN APPROPRIATELY ZONED PART OF THIS COMMUNITY.

AND JUST TO MAKE AN ADDITION ADDENDUM RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET ACROSS JOLLY, THERE'S A LARGE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING THAT IS UNOCCUPIED.

THERE IS SPACE, WHICH IS MAYBE ABOUT TWO OR THREE BLOCKS WEST ON JOLLY THAT IS EITHER FOR SALE OR FOR RENT, WHICH COULD BE DEVELOPED INTO A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING.

NOT TO MENTION MANY OTHER SITES IN OKEMOS.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT AND WE DON'T THINK THAT IT'S JUSTIFIED TO TAKE AWAY THE RESIDENTIAL VALUES OF KANSAS ROAD FOR THIS PURPOSE AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

JOHN AND SHAREEN, IF I MISSED IT, I'M SORRY, BUT COULD YOU SHARE YOUR FULL NAMES AND ADDRESS? YES.

WITH US PLEASE.

THE ONE RESIDENCE THAT WE OWN IS THREE FIVE SIX SIX KANSAS ROAD.

AND WE PURCHASED THE END OF DECEMBER, DECEMBER 29, OUR DAUGHTER LIVES THERE.

SO THAT'S THE ADDRESS AND WE ARE ALSO WE HAVE ANOTHER WHERE WE RESIDE IN MERIDIAN, THREE SEVEN THREE NINE ONE SEVEN SHELDRAKE AVENUE.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SURE.

I DO SEE ANOTHER HAND RAISED AND WE'VE GOT C HALM, C.

HALM YOU'RE ON WITH OUR PLANNING COMMISSION.

PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AN YOUR ADDRESS AND BE SURE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

I'M C.

HALM'S HUSBAND, JIM HALM, AND WE LIVE AT 3535 KANSAS.

SO IT'S DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS.

AND JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, I MEAN, WE'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR 40 YEARS AND IT'S STAYED THE SAME.

THE CHARACTER HAS STAYED THE SAME OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

EVERYTHING AROUND HERE HAS CHANGED.

THERE'S HUNDREDS OF SEVERAL HUNDRED APARTMENTS, HUNDREDS OF HOTEL ROOMS, OFFICES, RESTAURANTS, YOU KNOW, ALL OUT THERE ON JOLLY AND IN THE AREA.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO SQUEEZE INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NOW AND WE REALLY DON'T NEED IT, WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE TRAFFIC ANYMORE BLACKTOP.

WE HAD A NICE BUSINESS MOVE IN NEXT DOOR.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD USE FOR THAT PROPERTY.

AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH THAT, THERE'S SOME UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES THAT YOU GET.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF LIGHT POLLUTION AT NIGHT AS A RESULT OF THAT.

AND ANY NEW OFFICE COMPLEX IS JUST GOING TO BE MORE OF THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S YOU CAN'T YOU KNOW IT'S LIKE DAYLIGHT OUT HERE AT TIMES, YOU KNOW, AFTER DARK.

AND THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S BEEN THAT WAY.

WHEN A PROPERTY IN QUESTION ACROSS THE STREET THERE WAS SOLD ORIGINALLY BY THE FAMILY I INQUIRED ABOUT IT WITH THE TOWNSHIP TO SEE WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE USED FOR.

AND THEY SAID IT'S RESIDENTIAL AND IT'S NEVER GOING TO CHANGE.

THAT'S THE WAY IT'LL STAY.

AND THAT WAS PROBABLY 25, 30 YEARS AGO, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID.

EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK, PRETTY MUCH FEELS THE SAME WAY THAT THIS THING SHOULDN'T CHANGE IF SOMEONE WANTS TO USE THE PROPERTY PUT A HOUSE ON IT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS INTENDED FOR.

WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE OFFICE SPACE, YOU KNOW, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE.

SO THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OK, WE HAVE KEN AND BRENDA MILLER.

KEN AND BRENDA, PLEASE REMEMBER TO UNMUTE.

THERE WE GO.

ALL RIGHT, NOW WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER NEIGHBOR SITTING WITH US, CARLENE HOOKER.

SO THERE'S TWO FAMILIES HERE, RIGHT ON KANSAS ROAD.

CAN I HAVE YOUR ADDRESS PLEASE, FOR THE RECORD.

YES, OUR ADDRESS IS THIRTY SIX EIGHTY ONE KANSAS ROAD, AND WE'RE THE MILLERS.

[00:10:01]

CARLENE HOOKER, WHO LIVES NEXT DOOR, IS.

MY ADDRESS IS THREE SIX SIX THREE KANSAS ROAD.

AND WE LIVE NEXT DOOR TO EACH OTHER, WE'RE ALMOST DOWN TO THE END OF THE ROAD.

MY COMPLAINT IS THAT IT'S A LITTLE DIRT DEAD END ROAD.

I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE SEVENTY SIX.

AND SO I'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF CHANGES AND EVERYTHING.

BUT WE JUST DON'T NEED ALL THAT TRAFFIC COMING IN FROM A DIRT DEAD END ROAD, ESPECIALLY LIKE WHAT JOHN WAS SAYING, THE MEDICAL BUILDING IT IS VACANT ACROSS THE STREET.

YOU KNOW, WE JUST DON'T NEED ALL THAT EXTRA TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT.

IT'S HARD ENOUGH SOMETIMES FOR US TO GET OUT ONTO JOLLY ROAD JUST WITH MIDWEST POWER SUPPLY AND THE SEMIS THAT HAVE TO BACK IN THERE.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE BOUGHT PART OF THAT PROPERTY.

AND WHY DOESN'T HE MAKE A TURN AROUND A PARKING LOT SOMETHING THAT HELPS US AS FAR AS PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR SEMIS.

AND THEN WHEN SPRING COMES AND FALL COMES AND ALL OF THIS TRAFFIC FROM ALL OF THE LAWN MOWER PEOPLE COMING AND GOING, THEY ARE LITERALLY TURNING AROUND IN MY CIRCLE DRIVEWAY AT MY HOUSE AND WE JUST DON'T NEED ANY MORE TRAFFIC HERE.

THANK YOU.

AND THE SAME THING WITH OUR FAMILY.

WE HAVE PEOPLE TURNING AROUND IN OUR DRIVEWAY AND THEY DON'T CARE.

THEY DRIVE ON MY LAWN IF THEY CAN'T GET OUT FAST ENOUGH, WHICH IS DISTURBING.

THERE'S NOT A LOT MORE I CAN ADD.

I MEAN, EVERYBODY'S COVERED THE ISSUE.

SO I'M OPPOSED ALONG WITH MY BRIDE, BRENDA, WE OPPOSE THIS WHOLE IDEA.

SO THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE REALLY TO SAY.

AND EVERYBODY'S SAID IT CORRECTLY.

WE DID SIGN THE PETITION, SO.

THANK YOU.

YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OK, WE HAVE SOMEONE CALLED NEIGHBOR.

AND NEIGHBOR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF WITH A NAME AND BE SURE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

NEIGHBOR YOU'RE ON WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THIRTY FIVE SEVENTY FIVE KANSAS ROAD.

SO.

I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR NAME, SIR? PETER LUPA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GO AHEAD.

YEAH.

THIRTY FIVE SEVENTY FIVE KANSAS.

SO OUR HOUSE IS KIND OF ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

AND I HAVE THE SAME FEELING AS THE OTHER WHO SPOKE BEFORE ME THAT CURRENTLY THAT THE WAY THAT KANSAS ROAD IS STRUCTURED, PEOPLE HAVE PRIVATE [INAUDIBLE] AND IT'S KNOWN THAT ANY PAVED SURFACE I ALREADY I'M ON THE HILL.

SO I ALREADY HAD LOW LEVEL OF GROUND WATER DURING THE SUMMER.

AND I'M CONCERNED THAT IN A MORE PAVED GRANT WILL JUST AFFECT THE WATER TABLE AND THE WATER QUALITY.

AND MY OTHER CONCERN IS THAT THE WAY KANSAS ROAD IS AN UNPAVED ROAD, WHICH I THINK WE KIND OF ENJOY, I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, HOW WITHOUT SOME SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER, YOU KNOW, INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE ROAD, INFRASTRUCTURE, MAYBE A SIDEWALK, HOW THE ROAD WOULD SUPPORT ADDITIONAL CAR TRAFFIC.

AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM THE FARTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT IT FITS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNLESS SOME, YOU KNOW, MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS WERE TO BE MADE.

SO THAT'S MY COMMENT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

STEPHEN, ANYONE ON THE PHONES.

THERE WAS A CALL THAT CAME A MOMENT AGO, BUT THEY HUNG UP BEFORE I GOT TO THE LINE.

THERE'S NO ONE AT THIS TIME, SIR.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE A LAST CALL THEN.

STAND BY.

HERE COMES A CALL.

WE NEED SOME HOLD MUSIC.

IS THAT BETTER?

[00:15:23]

THERE YOU GO.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

OK.

YES.

JOEL ACKERMAN, 3521 INDIANA ROAD.

I'M RIGHT NEXT TO THE CHURCH.

I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE I GOT THIS HOUSE IN 08.

I MEAN, I USED TO BE ABLE TO SLEEP WITH MY BEDROOM WINDOW OPEN AT NIGHT, I CAN NO LONGER DO THAT IN THE NICE MONTHS, BUT THERE'S BEEN INCREASED POLLUTION, INCREASED TRAFFIC DECREASED PRIVACY MY DOGS HEAR THE DENTAL PEOPLE LEAVING OR COMING AND HEAR THE DOOR SLAMMING AND WONDER WHO'S HERE.

INCREASED LIGHT POLLUTION TRASH NEAR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAVE BEEN REALLY BAD.

SEEMS LIKE SINCE THE APARTMENTS MOVED IN IT'S A LOT MORE TRASH EVERYWHERE I WALK.

SO I AM OPPOSED.

I DID SEND A LETTER TO THE TOWNSHIP.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE HAVE NO OTHER CALLERS AT THIS TIME, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS THEN AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM OF OUR AGENDA.

THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA THIS EVENING.

[3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA? MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AGENDA SAY AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED.

THE MOTION CARRIES.

WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WE HAVE ONE SET OF MINUTES FROM OUR FEBRUARY 22ND 2021 REGULAR MEETING DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES THIS EVENING.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

ALL RIGHT.

ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? YES, PLEASE.

I'M LOOKING AT THE SECTION ON THE PAGE TWO OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT REGARDING AUTO SALES AND THE FIRST, THIRD AND FOURTH BULLET POINTS.

I CAN TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME, BUT THE ONE THAT STATES THE FINAL DECISION I JUST RECOMMEND, I THINK, FOR CLARITY IS AS I REMEMBER THE MEETING, THAT THE STATEMENT WOULD BE, ACCORDING TO TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

SAME THING WITH THE THIRD BULLET POINT, ANOTHER CONSIDERATION FOR CHANGE, ACCORDING TO TRUSTEE OPSOMMER AND THE FOURTH BULLET POINT INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES, I WOULD ADD, ACCORDING TO TRUSTEE OPSOMMER.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER CHANGES OR DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES? COMMISSIONER PREMOE, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT, VERY WELL THEN, ALL IN FAVOR OF THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS AMENDED, SAY AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED.

THE MOTION CARRIES.

MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEM FIVE COMMUNICATIONS WE HAD 4

[5. COMMUNICATIONS]

COMMUNICATIONS, INCLUDING THE AFOREMENTIONED PETITION THAT WAS AT ONE OF OUR PUBLIC HAD MENTIONED IN THE PUBLIC REMARKS.

THANK YOU FOR PASSING THAT ALONG.

AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON THEN TO ITEM NUMBER SIX, A, WHICH IS OUR FIRST PUBLIC

[6.A. Rezoning #21020 (Martin Investment Properties, Inc.), rezone approximately six acres (three parcels) located on the north side of Jolly Road, east of Kansas Road from I (Industrial) and RA (Single Family-Medium Density) to PO (Professional and Office).]

HEARING OF THE EVENING, WHICH IS REZONING NUMBER 21020 MARTIN INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC.

TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY SIX ACRES OR THREE PARCELS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JOLLY ROAD, EAST OF KANSAS ROAD FROM INDUSTRIAL AND RA SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY TO PO PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE.

WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:18 AND TURN THINGS OVER TO PRINCIPAL PLANNER MENSER.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, SO HELLO, EVERYBODY.

I'D LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 15 OF OUR PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET TONIGHT.

THAT'S WHERE THE STAFF MEMO ON THE PROPOSED REZONING STARTS.

SO I'M GOING TO VERY BRIEFLY WALK YOU THROUGH A PRESENTATION ON THIS.

WE'LL KEEP IT EXTREMELY BRIEF.

SO WE'VE ALL BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS MANY TIMES.

[00:20:03]

OK, I'M NOT SURE WHY I CAN'T SHOW FULL SCREEN WITH THIS, BUT.

WE'LL JUST DO THIS.

OK, SO THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT IS ON REZONING 21020.

IT'S A REQUEST FROM MARTIN PROPERTY INVESTMENTS INC REZONE THREE PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY SIX ACRES, A LITTLE UNDER SIX ACRES.

IT'S LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JOLLY ROAD, EAST OF KANSAS ROAD FROM INDUSTRIAL AND RA WHICH IS ONE OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS TO PO PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE.

EVERYTHING I'M COVERING TONIGHT IS IN TONIGHT'S MEETING PACKET.

IF YOU HAVEN'T FOUND IT ALREADY, IT'S [INAUDIBLE] TONIGHT IT IS ON THE HOME PAGE OF THE TOWNSHIP WEBSITE UNDER THE MEETING'S TAB.

AFTER TONIGHT, IT'LL BE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION OF THE WEBSITE AND YOU ACCESS THAT VIA THE GOVERNMENT TAB.

THE FORMAT OF TONIGHT'S HEARING IS A BRIEF STAFF SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST, WHICH IS WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

THERE'LL BE A SHORT PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT WHO IS ONLINE WITH US TONIGHT.

AND THEN THE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS TOPIC ONLY A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES PER PERSON AND THEN PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE DISCUSSING THE REQUEST.

THEY MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME.

THEY MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

AND JUST WITH ALL REZONINGS I ALWAYS WARN, THIS PROCESS IS A FOCUS ON THE REZONING ITSELF, AND NOT THE POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, THERE WILL BE A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND.

AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS IS SIMILAR TO REZONING IN THE SENSE THAT THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICES THAT WOULD GO OUT AND A MEETING LIKE WE'RE HAVING TONIGHT.

SO AS I SAID, IT'S ABOUT SIX ACRES, THREE PARCELS PROPOSED REZONING, CURRENT ZONING AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS P0.

THIS IS AN OVERVIEW MAP OF THE AREA.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE RINGED IN RED DASH LINE OF THE THREE PROPERTIES PROPOSED REZONING FOR THE SOUTH IS THE MIDWEST POWER PROPERTY AND [INAUDIBLE] OF JOHN JOLLY IN KANSAS.

THEN THERE ARE TWO PARCELS TO THE NORTH, THE ONE THAT IS CURRENTLY VACANT THERE WAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON IT AS WAS DEMOLISHED, I BELIEVE, IN 2019 AND THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE TO THE NORTH.

THE REZONING PROCESS AS AN APPLICATION WAS FILED WITH OUR DEPARTMENT, WE FOLLOW STATE NOTICE LAW, SO THAT MEANS EVERYONE WITHIN THREE HUNDRED FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RECEIVES A NOTICE VIA MAIL.

WE POST A SIGN ON THE SITE AND YOU'LL SEE ONE AT THE CORNER NOW AT KANSAS AND JOLLY.

THERE WAS A LEGAL NOTICE THAT RAN IN THE NEWSPAPER AS WELL.

SO THE GENERAL PROCESS MOVING FORWARD IS THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS TONIGHT.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKELY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE REQUEST AT ITS NEXT MEETING, AND THAT IS MONDAY, MARCH 22.

FOLLOWING THAT RECOMMENDATION, THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WILL DISCUSS THE REQUEST OF THE FUTURE MEETING LIKELY SOON, THEREAFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS DISCUSSED HAS MADE THEIR RECOMMENDATION.

AND THEN IN THIS CASE WITH THE REZONE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD'S THE FINAL DECISION MAKER.

PLANNING COMMISSION IS ADVISORY.

THEY'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, BUT THE BOARD WILL BE MAKING A FINAL DECISION.

IF THE BOARD DECIDES TO REZONE THE PROPERTY THERE'S A TWO STEP APPROVAL PROCESS.

SO ONE MEETING IS INTRODUCTION AND THEN THE NEXT MEETING IS FINAL ADOPTION.

SO THERE'LL BE AT LEAST THREE.

IF THE REZONING IS APPROVED, THEY'LL BE AT LEAST THREE MEETINGS, WHICH IT WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD LEVEL.

FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THESE PROPERTIES ARE DESIGNATED AS COMMERCIAL AND R2 WHICH IS ZERO POINT FIVE TO THREE POINT FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

YOU SEE IN THE STAFF MEMO, WE HAVE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

AND YOU'LL SEE THIS, THE TWO RESIDENTIAL PARCELS ARE R2 AND THEN THE MIDWEST POWER SITE IS COMMERCIAL.

SO WE KNOW THE CURRENT ZONING, WE KNOW THE PROPOSED ZONING, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT REALLY ESTABLISHES THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE ALLOWED FOR THE PARCELS, BUT ALSO THE ALLOWED LAND USES.

SO THOSE COULD BE USED AS THEY'RE ALLOWED BY RIGHT.

BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR SOMETIMES CONDITIONAL USES.

SO IN THIS CASE, THE PARCELS THEMSELVES, JUST BASED ON SIZE, DO MEET THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH THE CURRENT AND THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS.

SO HERE'S A ZONING MAP.

YOU CAN SEE THAT MIDWEST POWER SITE'S ZONED I INDUSTRIAL, THEN THE TWO PARCELS TO THE NORTH ARE RA.

ON THIS MAP, YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING ZONING TO THE EAST.

IS THE ELEVATION DEVELOPMENT ITS ZONED C2 THAT ASTERISK MEANS IT WAS DEVELOPED WITH AN MUPUD.

SO THAT'S A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND YOU'LL SEE THERE'S RA TO THE NORTH FOR MOST OF THE HOUSES ON KANSAS AND INDIANA, TO THE WEST OF THE INDUSTRIAL AT MIDWEST POWER THERE IS PORTNOY AND TU DENTIST OFFICE.

AND THAT'S ZONED PO.

FLOODPLAIN AND WETLAND, AGAIN, WE'RE IN THE REZONING STAGE OF THIS PROCESS, BUT

[00:25:05]

YOU CAN SEE ON OUR MAP THAT WE SHOW THAT THERE ARE POTENTIALLY WETLAND AND FLOODPLAIN ON THE SITE.

THERE IS A DRAIN THAT RUNS TO THE EAST OF THESE PROPERTIES.

AND WE COMMUNICATED WITH THE APPLICANT.

THOSE ARE AT LEAST GOING TO HAVE TO BE VERIFIED TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE ON SITE.

SO IF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS PROPOSED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW US WHERE THE WETLANDS ARE, WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN STARTS, WHERE THE DRAIN IS, WHERE THE TOP OF THE DRAINS.

A LOT OF THAT BUILDING WILL BE REVIEWED IF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS PROPOSED HERE.

REZONING CRITERIA, WHAT IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION USING TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS REQUEST? AND REMEMBER, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION IN THIS CASE.

SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERING ALL THE USES OF THE PERMIT BY RIGHT IN THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS.

IN THIS CASE, THIS IS NOT A CONDITIONAL REZONING.

SO THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS RELATED TO THIS.

SO ANY THEY'LL HAVE TO REALLY CONSIDER ANY OF THESE USES BECAUSE ONCE THE PROPERTY IS ZONED A CERTAIN DESIGNATION, ANY OF THE USES COULD BE ALLOWED THERE.

SO ALL USES BY RIGHT, I'LL USES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THEN THERE ARE REASONS FOR REZONING THAT'S ON PAGE TWO OF THE REZONING APPLICATION.

AND IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS, THE APPLICANTS PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY AND YOU WILL SEE THOSE IN THE MEETING PACKET.

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS, VERY BRIEFLY, THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS HERE.

THE CURRENT ZONING UNDER INDUSTRIAL ALLOWS A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIAL USES.

REALLY, I'M JUST USING THE GENERAL CATEGORY OF PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING THAT CAN MEAN A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE MANUFACTURING.

UNDER RA ZONING.

THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL A LOT OF IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH LAND AREA THERE IS, BUT PLATTED SUBDIVISIONS, PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, PLAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, METES AND BOUNDS LOTS, AND I'LL HIGHLIGHT THAT JUST BECAUSE THOSE ARE WHAT MOST OF THE HOUSES ARE HERE AND THE NONRESIDENTIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

SO WHAT'S NEXT? FURTHER DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION ON MARCH 22.

JUST TO NOTE THAT NO ADDITIONAL NOTICES OF LETTERS WILL BE SENT OUT AHEAD OF THAT MEETING.

SO PLEASE WATCH THE TOWNSHIP WEBSITE, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT PENDING DISCUSSION TONIGHT THAT THIS WILL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE 22ND, I WILL BE PREPARING A RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION BASED ON THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

AND, OF COURSE, CERTAINLY STAFF IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE IN BETWEEN MEETINGS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED TONIGHT OR THE PROCESS MOVING FORWARD? BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS CONTACT ME.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PETER.

NOW WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH US THIS EVENING.

I UNDERSTAND WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE APPLICANT TEAM HERE WHO WE MAY HAVE SEEN BEFORE IN A FORMER LIFE.

PETER VAMPING SO THAT PETER CAN GET HIM INTO THE MEETING.

GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS CHRIS BOCK, 1111 MICHIGAN AVENUE IN EAST LANSING, AND I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT MARTIN INVESTMENT PROPERTIES.

WE DO APPRECIATE THE TOWNSHIP CONSIDERING THIS REZONING, WHICH WE FEEL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADJACENT PARCELS, THE TOWNSHIPS MASTER PLAN AND THE CHARACTER OF JOLLY ROAD.

YOU KNOW, I HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND I REALLY TRY TO LISTEN VERY INTENTLY AS TO WHAT THE CITIZENS SAY.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT A PROJECT.

AND I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE'RE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A REZONING AND THE USE OF THIS LAND.

IN ADDITION TO LISTENING TO WHAT WAS SAID TONIGHT I ALSO SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE PACKET FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.

AND I READ THE LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS.

AND I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I WANTED TO SAY, MAYBE IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE THEMES THAT I HEARD, THE FIRST ONE BEING KIND OF PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

WHY DOES IT NEED TO GO HERE? AND I GUESS MY ANSWER TO THAT IS, LIKE ANY BUSINESS ENTITY, THERE'S GOING TO BE A VARIETY OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO A SITE SELECTION FOR THE LONG TERM.

AND SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THIS LOCATION REALLY CHECKS A LOT OF THE BOXES THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, A LOT OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO THAT, AS YOU CAN PROBABLY IMAGINE.

NUMBER TWO IS TRAFFIC.

AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE VERY BROAD INITIAL TRAFFIC STUDY THAT TALKS ABOUT THE MAXIMUM POTENTIALS SHOWS THAT THEY WOULD INCREASE THE TRAFFIC ON JOLLY ROAD BY MAYBE 10 PERCENT.

AND THERE'S NO INDICATION THE TRAFFIC DOWN KANSAS ROAD, WHICH IS A DEAD END STREET, WOULD INCREASE AT ALL.

AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF RECONFIGURATION, AS YOU ALL KNOW, TO JOLLY ROAD AND ALL THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND THINGS THAT WERE JUST DONE OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS THAT HOPEFULLY CAN HELP WITH ANY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.

THERE IS DISCUSSION ABOUT LIGHT POLLUTION AND NOISE POLLUTION AND WATER QUALITY, AND I APPLAUD THAT THOSE ARE A LOT OF THINGS TO THINK ABOUT.

BUT I ALSO APPLAUD THE TOWNSHIP BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT OF VERY HIGH STANDARDS

[00:30:01]

WRITTEN INTO YOUR ORDINANCES FOR ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF CONCERNS.

AND LIKE ANY OTHER APPLICANT, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES TO EARN THOSE NECESSARY APPROVALS.

AND THEN THE ONE THAT REALLY, I THOUGHT SPOKE VERY NICELY TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE NORTH, KANSAS ROADS MOST DESIRABLE QUALITIES ARE LOW TRAFFIC, LOW DENSITY SAFETY AND WILDLIFE.

AND I REALLY DO UNDERSTAND THAT POINT.

BUT I DO ALSO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE THAT A REZONING FROM INDUSTRIAL AND SOME RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE LIKE JOLLY ROAD IS GOING TO JEOPARDIZE THOSE QUALITIES.

THE CURRENT OCCUPIER ASIDE, THE SITUATION OF HAVING INDUSTRIAL ZONING BORDERING RESIDENTIAL CAN CERTAINLY BE CONSIDERED A MORE INTENSE ZONING THAN PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WOULD BE WHEN YOU CONSIDER A USE BY RIGHTS STANDPOINT.

SO AGAIN, MY NAME IS CHRIS BOCK I'M WITH THE MARTIN INVESTMENT PROPERTIES AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU, CHRIS.

ALL RIGHT, AT THIS TIME, BEFORE WE GET TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

AS BEFORE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC COMMENTS THIS EVENING YOU CAN USE THE RAISED HAND FEATURE IF YOU'RE IN OUR ZOOM MEETING OR YOU CAN GIVE US A CALL AT (517) 349-1232.

PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES.

AND ONCE AGAIN, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE TOP OF YOUR COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD .

I WILL POINT OUT THAT FOR THIS PUBLIC COMMENT, WE ARE LIMITING DISCUSSION TO THE TOPIC OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS THE REZONING REQUEST THAT PETER AND CHRIS WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.

SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS.

LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO IS INTERESTED IN SPEAKING AND PETER WILL PROMOTE YOU.

SO WE'VE GOT SHARENE.

AND OTHERS.

YOU ARE ON WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THIS IS JOHN [INAUDIBLE], HER HUSBAND.

I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND BRIEFLY, I CERTAINLY RESPECT.

I'M SO SORRY.

CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE, FOR THE RECORD? 3566 KANSAS.

I APPRECIATE MR. BUCK'S EXPERTISE I THINK THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTION THAT.

THEY'LL MAKE AN EFFORT TO DO THE RIGHT THING, I THINK THAT THE STATEMENT THAT THERE WILL BE NO INCREASED TRAFFIC IS, CANNOT BE SUPPORTED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE THING THAT I WOULD SAY MOST UNEQUIVOCALLY.

THE SECOND ONE IS THAT THE EFFECT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK EASTWARD, YOU WILL SEE THAT YOU HAVE MANY WONDERFUL APARTMENTS.

THANK THE LORD FOR THEM.

BUT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS HAVE ESSENTIALLY OCCLUDED THE TRANSFER OF H2O FROM THE ENVIRONMENT INTO THE AQUIFER, WHICH LITERALLY ALL THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LIVING ON KANSAS STREET REQUIRE TO DRINK.

SO THAT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBLE PROBLEM IF WE DON'T SOLVE THAT AT SOME POINT.

THANK YOU.

I LIKE IT VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? I DO SEE ANOTHER HAND HERE.

I JUST THOUGHT.

JIM HALL, AGAIN, I'M SORRY, 3535 KANSAS.

THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE TOWNSHIP HAS HIGH STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO PUTTING IN PARKING LOTS AND LIGHTS AND SO ON.

BUT BELIEVE ME, IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE.

YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE EVERY DAY HERE FROM THE THINGS THAT HAVE GONE IN AROUND US.

IT'S STILL A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WHEN YOU COVER UP A PIECE OF PROPERTY, WITH YOU KNOW WHAT OFFICE BUILDINGS ON IT IS.

IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT MAY BE THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO COME IN OFF JOLLY, BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THESE UNITS OR NEW OFFICES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM EVERYBODY.

SO IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER HERE.

IT IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO ANYTHING THAT'S DONE OUTSIDE OF THAT WILL MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO PEOPLE LIVING HERE.

THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK THIS EVENING ON THIS TOPIC? WE HAVE ONE ON THE PHONE, STEVEN? STANDBY THE PHONE JUST STARTED RINGING.

AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

[00:35:16]

HELLO, JOELLE ACKERMAN, 3521 INDIANA ROAD, I DON'T HAVE HIGH STANDARDS, BUT YOU'D BE AMAZED HOW MANY BUSINESSES CHEMICALLY FERTILIZE AND WEED KILL.

IT ALL GOES INTO OUR GROUNDWATER.

NO ONE EVER PICKS UP THOSE LITTLE SIGNS.

I HAVE LITTLE DOGS, YOU KNOW, THIS STUFF'S ON THEIR FEET.

THEY CLEAN THEIR FEET.

AND KIDS, I MEAN, WE HAVE HIGH STANDARDS, BUT THEY'RE NOT HIGH ENOUGH.

AND I KNOW THAT STUFF DOES NOT COME OUT OF OUR DRINKING WATER.

YOU KNOW, AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS, WHAT DOES THE TOWNSHIP GET OUT OF APPROVING THIS? MORE TAX DOLLARS? I MEAN, IS THERE A VESTED INTEREST IN THE TOWNSHIP PASSING THIS? THERE'S MY CONCERN.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO A, WHAT WAS THAT STEPHEN? SORRY.

THERE'S NO OTHER CALLS AT THIS TIME, SIR.

THANK YOU.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO A LAST CALL THEN.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND THEN AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ANYONE INTERESTED IN GETTING US STARTED THIS EVENING? COMMISSIONER BLUMER, THEN COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

AND MY QUESTION FOR MR. BUCK, IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, THERE ARE BASICALLY THREE PARCELS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THIS PETITION.

IF ONLY THE FIRST PARCEL, WHICH ACTUALLY FRONTS ON JOLLY ROAD IS ALLOWED TO BE REDESIGNED, WOULD THAT SATISFY YOUR CLIENT'S IMMEDIATE NEEDS OR DO THEY NEED ALL THREE PARCELS? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY WOULD NEED ALL THREE PARCELS, BUT WE'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS TO OFFER, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY NEED ALL THREE PARCELS.

OK, A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE THAT I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, I KNOW THE COMPUTER, BUT I AM READING THE STANDARDS AND THEN READING THE RESPONSE OF THE APPLICANT, ACTUALLY, IS THIS.

FIRST, LET ME ASK, IS THIS THE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR CAN I JUST MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROJECT? ALL RIGHT.

IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME.

EITHER ONE? OK.

SO AS I LOOK AT THE STANDARDS AND I LOOK AT THE RESPONSES, I DON'T, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I DON'T FEEL THAT THE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REZONING ARE MET.

JUST GENERALLY LOOKING AT THE STANDARD, I DON'T HAVE THEM ALL IN FRONT OF ME.

BUT SEVERAL OF THEM DIDN'T APPEAR THAT THEY THAT THEY MET THE STANDARD.

BUT ALSO IN JUST LOOKING AT THIS AND I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING, YOU KNOW, THREE PARCELS VERSUS ONE PARCEL, BUT JUST THE CONFIGURATION OF THIS AND KNOWING SETBACKS AND, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT HOW THIS POTENTIALLY WOULD DEVELOP, IT APPEARS TO ME ANYWAY, THAT THERE'S A LIKELIHOOD THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF IS GOING TO BE TOWARDS THE NORTH END OF THE PROJECT AND WITH AND SO JUST LOOKING AT THE CONFIGURATION OF THE AND AGAIN, I KNOW WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A SPECIFIC PROJECT, BUT I THINK IT KIND OF LENDS ITSELF TO THAT.

AND OF COURSE, THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE ADJACENT TO THE WEST, ALL THE RESIDENTIAL.

SO THAT'S A CONCERN ON MY PART.

THEY IN ONE OF THE OTHER MAPS THAT WE SAW FROM PETER, THEY SHOWED THE ONE OF THE REZONING THAT WE DID TO THE WEST.

THAT'S JUST A ONE PARCEL DEEP.

IT'S ABOUT THREE OR FOUR LOTS.

SO I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THE [INAUDIBLE] DRIVE IS TO THE NORTH OF IT.

THERE'S A CASE WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE DID RESOLVE APPEAL.

IT'S STILL AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT.

AND IT'S JUST ONE LOT DEEP THERE.

THE AND SO I LOOK AT THAT.

THE LET'S SEE IF I GET ANYTHING ELSE.

AND SO, BASICALLY, FROM WHAT I SEE, I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING AT THIS TIME.

[00:40:02]

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? YES, THANK YOU.

IT THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT THIS, AFTER READING A STAFF REPORT AND HEARING THE TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF 2446 JOLLY ROAD, THE TWO ACRE PARCEL BEING REZONED TO PO PROFESSIONAL FROM I INDUSTRIAL.

BUT I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE OTHER TWO PARCELS, THE 3532 CAMPUS AND THE 3550A CAMPUS, WHICH I MEAN VISUALLY YOU CAN SEE THAT NUMERICALLY THOSE COMBINED OR EVEN JUST THE 3532 IS LARGER THAN THE JOLLY ROAD PARCEL.

I FEEL THAT IT INTRUDES TOO FAR NORTH INTO AREA.

THAT AREA THAT TO THE WEST, TO THE NORTH AND WEST IS RESIDENTIAL.

YES.

THE I MOVING I TO PO WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH PARCELS ON JOLLY.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AND REALIZING JOLLY IS AN ARTERIAL BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARCEL LAYOUT OF WHAT'S PO AND WHAT'S COMMERCIAL EXCEPT FOR THE MUPD, A LOT OF THAT IS CONSIDERABLY WOULD DROP OFF ABOUT THE OTHER DEPTHS OF THE POS ONLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP, THE RA FOR THOSE TWO PARCELS TO BE REZONED, I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT'S TOO MUCH OF AN INTRUSION INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

AND THEN I HAD.

I DID HAVE QUESTIONS FURTHER ABOUT LAND USES, BUT ON THAT PART THAT THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE ZONING ASPECT OF IT, OF THE REQUEST.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CARDILL.

OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

FOR STAFF, CAN YOU REMIND ME, PLEASE, THE APPLICATION STATES THAT THE CURRENT USES INDUSTRIAL.

IT'S KIND OF STRIKES ME AS SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.

SO I APPRECIATE SOME CLARIFICATION OF HOW WELL THE CURRENT USE ALIGNS WITH THE CURRENT ZONING, WITH THE MASTER PLAN AND WITH PROPOSED REZONING FOR THE APPLICANT.

I'M INTERESTED IN THE SUMMARY THAT STATES THE REQUESTED REZONING ADDRESSES A CLEVELAND COMMUNITY MEETING SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE MORE JOBS AND THERE IS A COMMUNITY NEED FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES.

AND I SAW A REPORT, I THINK FROM MARTIN RECENTLY THAT SUMMARIZED OFFICE VACANCY IN THE TOWNSHIP, AND I'M CURIOUS HOW THIS NEED FOR OFFICE SPACE IN THE TOWNSHIP SQUARES WITH THAT ESTIMATE OF WHAT'S HEALTHY, WHAT'S ACHIEVABLE, HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND VACANCY RATES IN TERMS OF DEMAND.

SO WE'LL GO TO PETER FIRST AND THEN.

AND THEN MR. BUCK.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

SO THE QUESTION IS ABOUT THE CURRENT LAND USE THERE AT THE CORNER WITH THE ZONE INDUSTRIAL, THE MIDWEST POWER SITE.

AND THAT SITE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

THAT IT'S CONSIDERED A CONTRACTOR'S ESTABLISHMENT.

WHILE THEY DO PROVIDE RETAIL SALES, THE MAJORITY OF THE BUSINESS IS SERVICE.

SO THAT THAT IS THE MAJORITY OF THAT BUSINESS THAT WE COUNT IT IS THAT.

IT'S A USE, IT'S ALLOWED IN INDUSTRIAL AND IT MEETS THE ORDINANCE, AS IS.

THE TWO PARCELS TO [INAUDIBLE] ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

AND THOSE ALSO ONE HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY A RESIDENCE NOW VACANT AND THE OTHER HAVING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

THOSE ARE BOTH IN COMPLIANCE AS WELL.

THANK YOU.

IS THE INDUSTRIAL THE CURRENT ZONING THE ONLY ONE IN WHICH THAT BUSINESS COULD OPERATE BY, RIGHT? YES, CONTRACTOR'S ESTABLISHMENTS.

INDUSTRIAL IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT WE ALLOW THOSE RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU.

AND THEN MR. BUCK, PLEASE.

I GUESS I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE QUESTION KIND OF RESTATED AGAIN, IS THAT ALL RIGHT,

[00:45:02]

MR. MCCONNELL? SURE.

WE IN OUR RECENT DISCUSSION OF OTHER DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN THE TOWNSHIP, WE HEARD REQUEST FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS BASED ON THE LOGIC THAT THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED OFFICE SPACE, BUT WAS NO LONGER DEEMED FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.

AND SO THEY WERE ASKING THE TOWNSHIP TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN PLACE OF THE OFFICE THAT THEY HAD FORESEEN BECAUSE OF A SOFT REAL ESTATE MARKET.

AND IN A FOLLOW UP, I HAD ASKED STAFF FOR SOME INFORMATION ON OFFICE VACANCY IS MADE FOR THE REPORT FROM, I BELIEVE, FROM MARTIN THAT SHOWED DIFFERENT SECTORS WITHIN THE AREA AND WERE IN THE EAST SECTOR.

AND THE OFFICE VACANCY WAS SOMETHING LIKE 12 AND A HALF PERCENT.

AND I DON'T YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE BUILDINGS SITTING VACANT, BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE 100 PERCENT OCCUPANCY.

SO I'M KIND OF TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ASSERTION IN THE APPLICATION THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS.

WHEN I LOOK AROUND AND I SEE, YOU KNOW, FOR LEASE SIGNS UP ON OFFICE SPACE ALL OVER THE TOWNSHIP, BUT I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO.

SEE, VACANCY RATES AND DEMAND.

SURE.

WELL, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT OUR MOST RECENT OFFICE INSIGHTS OR MARKET INSIGHTS FOR THE OFFICE USES, YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF DOOM AND GLOOM IN THERE BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC.

A LOT OF THAT, IF YOU READ INTO IT, WAS MORE CENTERED ON THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OF DOWNTOWN LANSING.

THE EAST MARKET IS NOBODY'S UNCHALLENGED.

THERE'S NO QUESTION BY THE PANDEMIC.

BUT THE VACANCY RATES ARE, YOU KNOW.

THEY PEAK AND VALLEY AND OFFICE SPACE IS ALL VERY DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER.

SOME ARE VERY TUCKED AWAY.

THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS WHY A USER IS GOING TO WANT A SPECIFIC PARCEL OF LAND TO PUT THEIR INVESTMENT INTO FOR THE LONG, SUSTAINABLE FUTURE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

AND SO, YES, THERE IS OFFICE VACANCY IN AND AROUND ALL OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP UP IN HASLETT .

UP OKEMAS ROAD AND ALLENDEN TOWNSHIP IS ACROSS THE STREET.

THERE'S REASONS WHY I THINK MERIDIAN IS A GREAT PLACE TO SET UP CAMP.

SO A LOT OF THE SPACE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF JOLLY ROAD EITHER DOESN'T FIT THE NEED, CERTAINLY IN ANOTHER TOWNSHIP.

I THINK THE SPACE HERE, THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT AND COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S IN RESPONSE TO HER COMMENT, YOU KNOW, THE PARCEL, THE MIDWEST [INAUDIBLE]OF THE 2446 JOLLY, I THINK IS A VERY APPEALING SPACE BECAUSE OF THE FRONTAGE ON JOLLY.

FACT THAT IT'S IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP'S ADJACENT TO A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL MEETING OKEMAS ELEVATION AND A LOT OF THE SUBDIVISIONS FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES.

THE FOLKS ON KIND OF THE SOUTHERN TIER OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAVE TO TRAVEL FOR FOR GOOD OFFICE, FOR MEDICAL.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ADJACENT PARCEL TO THE NORTH, WHICH IS VACANT.

SO WHILE IT IS A SIZABLE PARCEL AND IT DOES GO UP JOLLY ROAD, THE IDEA OF HAVING THESE TWO PARCELS TOGETHER, THE THREE ACTUALLY IS WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED.

BUT THE IDEA OF THAT JOLLY FRONTAGE WITH SOME SPACE TO HAVE A GOOD PALETTE, TO PAINT A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON AND ALLOW ENOUGH BUFFERING TO TO APPEASE THE FOLKS TO THE NORTH IS REALLY THE INTENTION OF WHY THIS SPACE FITS THE BILL.

AND I FEEL LIKE I DIDN'T REALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT VACANCY IN THE OFFICE SPACE.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT SPACE DOWN THE ROAD.

THERE'S A THIRD FLOOR BUILDING.

THERE'S JUST SO MANY DIFFERENT OFFICE SPACES THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS EXHAUSTED THE RESEARCH AND FOUND THIS SPACE AND REALLY FEELS LIKE IT TICKS THEIR BOXES FOR A VERY WIDE VARIETY OF REASONS.

THERE'S A SIMPLE ZONING REQUEST TO MOVE SOMETHING FROM INDUSTRIAL TO PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET AND ON EITHER SIDE.

AND IT DOES ABSORB INTO A VACANT SPACE TO THE NORTH THAT IS RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT EXPANDS THE SPACE TO ALLOW THE JOLLY FOOTAGE TO BE DEEPER AND ALLOW SPACE FOR BUFFERING.

SO.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT THIS IS JUST A GREAT SPACE FOR THIS PARTICULAR USE.

THANK YOU, MR. BUCK.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER? THANK YOU.

I'M REALLY INTERESTED TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE BUFFERING THAT YOU MENTIONED, MR. BUCK, BECAUSE THIS WEEKEND I WENT AND PARKED MY CAR AT A PORTNOY AND TU AND I JUST KIND OF LOOKED OVER THE LANDSCAPE THERE AT THESE DIFFERENT PARCELS.

AND I THOUGHT TO MYSELF THAT THE RESIDENTS AT 3566 KANSAS ROAD, THAT'S AN INTERESTING THAT'S AN INTERESTING LOT.

THE SETUP, YOU KNOW, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE MAP, THE EAST WEST, IT'S IT'S A LONG AND NARROW.

AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT MYSELF IN THAT SITUATION.

IF THAT WERE MY HOME ADJACENT TO THIS POTENTIALLY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A TIGHT SQUEEZE THERE.

[00:50:03]

SO IT COULD YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE BUFFERING THAT YOU MENTIONED? WELL, THERE'S ORDINANCES THAT SPEAK THAT WAS REQUIRED AND THEN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE DESIRES OF THE FOLKS ON KANSAS, I MEAN, I PERSONALLY HEARD THIS GROUP SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO PRESERVE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM A VARIETY OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION.

SO BEING AWARE OF WHAT THEIR THEIR INTERESTS ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE THE IDEA, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A REZONING.

AND THEN ONCE THE REZONING IS APPROVED, ASSUMING THAT IT IS, THEN YOU START WORKING ON SITE PLANS AND SHAPES AND SIZES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

BUT THIS REQUEST OR THE REZONING IS BECAUSE IT CONSISTS OF THESE PARCELS SO THAT THERE CAN BE ADEQUATE SCREENING, BUFFERING TO TRY TO HELP THE NEIGHBORS NOT FEEL THE IMPACT OF A CHANGE IN THE USE ON THE CORNER, WHICH IS REALLY THE PLAN.

THE ADDRESS YOU'RE SPEAKING OF.

I DON'T SEE THAT LABEL ON THE BOARD PACKET.

WHICH WHICH PARCEL EXACTLY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THE 3665? DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF THE PARCELS IN QUESTION.

OK.

THE ONE THAT SAYS SINGLE FAMILY ON THE.

SO.

SO THEN I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER SNYDER, SO YOUR YOUR COMMENT THEN IS IF YOU'RE THAT FAMILY AND YOU'RE FACED WITH THIS POTENTIAL REZONING TO PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE TO THE SOUTH, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF LAND THAT IS TRYING TO BE ZONED TO PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE.

IT GETS THE INDUSTRIAL ON THE CORNER.

REZONES OF WHAT I FEEL AS A RESIDENT, BUT NOT TOO FAR FROM THIS SPACE, I THINK IS A IS A BETTER LONG TERM LAND USE OF OF THE CORNERS PARCEL.

AND THEN THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A USE ON THIS SPACE.

AND ENSURE THAT THEY'RE SHIELDING, I THINK I SAW IN SOME OF THE SCREENING, I THINK I SAW ON SOME OF THE COMMUNICATION, SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE EXISTING USERS AND THE OVERFLOW.

AND I THINK I HEARD SOMEONE TALK ABOUT TRASH OR THE EQUIPMENT KIND OF STORED UP INTO THAT VACANT SPACE AND SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

SO IF THIS WERE ALL ZONED PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE, I THINK YOU'D HAVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF USER IN THAT SPACE THAT WOULD.

NOT BE OF THE INDUSTRIAL NATURE, WHETHER YOU FIND THAT MORE APPEALING OR NOT, BUT WE'RE REALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT LAND USE AND REZONING.

AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE PROCEDURES, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE STEPS IN THIS PROCESS WHERE ADDITIONAL DETAILS AND SITE PLANS, APPROVALS AND POTENTIAL SPECIAL USE PERMITS WOULD ALL BE CARRIED OUT WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ALL OF THAT.

SO DECISIONS ON ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DISCUSSED AT THE RIGHT TIME.

BUT WE'RE REALLY JUST TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE REZONING OF INDUSTRIAL AND A COUPLE OF RA PROPERTIES TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CORDILL? YES.

THANK YOU.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC REPORT FROM A&E TRYING TO FIND THAT FOLDED PAGE.

HERE WE GO.

IT'S THE FINAL PAGE.

THERE'S TABLE ONE TRIP GENERATION.

BUT EXISTING INDUSTRIAL 96 DAILY TRIPS, EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 19.

BUT THEN WHEN YOU SWAP THAT OUT FOR THE PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USE, IT COULD TIPS OVER A THOUSAND TRIPS.

DAILY, AND I GUESS THAT'S MY THAT TIES INTO MY CONCERN ABOUT THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS REZONING REQUEST, IS IT'S NOT LIMITED TO TO THE SOUTHERNMOST PARCEL, BUT IT STRETCHES INTO I MEAN, THAT'S ONLY, WHAT, LIKE 40 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL IS THE JOLLY ROAD PARCEL.

THEN YOU HAVE THIS BULK OF IT TO THE NORTH AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT TOTAL TRIPS, OVER A THOUSAND FROM THIS.

WERE YOU HOPING TO HAVE MR. BUCK SPEAK TO THAT, COMMISSIONER CARDILL? WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO [INAUDIBLE]? .

OK, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LET MR. BUCK RESPOND SINCE IT'S THEIR TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS SENT IN.

[00:55:01]

SURE, THAT'S REASONABLE.

THANKS.

THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION OR COMMENT.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS REALLY LARGELY THEORETICAL.

IT'S KIND OF DONE IN A VACUUM, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S ALL ABOUT JOLLY ROAD.

OK, SO THERE IS NO TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR KANSAS ROAD.

IT'S A DEAD END STREET AND THE ROAD DEPARTMENT.

THERE IS NO DATA FOR KANSAS ROAD TRAFFIC AT THIS POINT.

SO EVERYTHING HERE IS THESE KIND OF.

ESTIMATED BASED ON EXISTING INDUSTRIAL WITH THE TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL, AND THAT'S NOT THAT EXISTING INDUSTRIAL, THE PROJECTIONS IN THEIR ALGORITHM SAYS THAT IN INDUSTRIAL USE THAT IS TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WOULD GENERATE NINETY SIX TRIPS IN A DAY AND ADD TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WOULD GENERATE 19 TRIPS IN A DAY.

AND THEN WITH A HYPOTHETICAL 32,000 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH IS A MATHEMATICAL COMPILATION OR A COMPUTATION THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY FOLKS PUT IN BASED ON THE SIZE OF THIS ENTIRE REZONING WITH YOUR AUDIENCE FROM A SETBACK STANDPOINT, WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FROM A PARKING STANDPOINT.

THEY SURMISE THAT A BUILDING THAT COULD BE BUILT THERE COULD BE 32,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE MOST INTENSIVE USE OF ANY OF THE PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE USES WOULD THEORETICALLY AND GET IN THEIR COMPUTER CALCULATION, COULD DRIVE UP TO 1142 TRIPS.

SO THAT'S ALL OFF A JOLLY ROAD.

SO I MEAN, I SAY THAT THEY'RE SCIENTISTS AND THE GOOD PEOPLE IN WHAT THEY DO AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEIR THEIR LOGIC IS FLAWED ANY STRETCH, BUT I THINK THAT THERE CAN BE I THINK THERE'S EVEN A REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC STUDIES.

PETER, HELP ME IF I'M WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUAL DEATHS.

SO, YEAH, IF I COULD CHIME IN.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THIS BOOK IS ALL BASED ON THE MANUAL AND WE'VE SEEN STUDIES BASED ON THAT.

AND THAT'S REALLY THE STANDARD, ITE GENERATION MANUAL.

THEY LOOK AT LAND USES AND HAVE LOOKED AT THEM FOR 30 YEARS.

AND SO THEY HAVE.

OBSERVATIONS, DATA GOING BACK FOR ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTRY ON DIFFERENT LAND USES AND HOW MUCH TRAFFIC THEY GENERATE FROM ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.

SO IN THIS CASE, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HERE IS THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE EXISTING LAND USES.

AND MR. BUCK HAS ACCURATELY DESCRIBED HOW THE SIZE IS DETERMINED.

THAT'S TYPICALLY DONE BY WHATEVER TRAFFIC CONSULTANT IS ENGAGED AND THEY WILL ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND THEN THEY'LL LOOK BASED ON THE DATA AND THEY HAVE SPECIFIC FACTORS, PLUG THOSE NUMBERS IN.

AND THAT'S APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS GENERATED WHEN IT SAYS TRIPS.

THAT'S A COMING AND A GOING AS EACH ONE TRIP.

SO ARRIVAL ON THE SITE AND LEAVING THE SITE IS ONE TRIP.

SO THEY'RE SHOWING WHAT I THINK IS FAIR TO QUALIFY AS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC COMPARED TO EXISTING.

SO WHEN A AND THAT JUST STANDS ON ITS OWN, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

AND THAT'S THE DATA THAT WE USE FOR THESE KIND OF SCENARIOS.

IF THIS PROJECT AT THE PROPOSAL IS THE REZONING PROPOSALS EVENTUALLY APPROVED, THEN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF USE.

BUT A TRAFFIC STUDY AT THAT POINT, AND I'LL USE THE WORD STUDY IN MORE CONCRETE SENSE, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT SITE AND TELL US ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR SITE IN THAT PROJECT, EXACT USE AND WHAT THAT WOULD GENERATE AND LOOK AT A LOT MORE THINGS THEY TOUCH ON SITE DISTANCE VERY BRIEFLY HERE.

BUT WE WOULD LOOK AT INTERSECTIONS, ANY TRAFFIC THAT'S GENERATED HERE, WHERE DOES IT GO? WHERE WOULD THE TURNING MOVEMENTS HAPPENS? THERE'S A LOT MORE INFORMATION THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY COME ALONG OUR WAY.

AND ONE MORE THING.

I WANT TO CLARIFY WHEN IT SAYS PROFESSIONAL POST PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, THESE STUDIES WILL LOOK AT THE IDEA IS TO COMPARE BECAUSE THE BOAT YOU'RE IN RIGHT NOW IS COMPARING.

WELL, JUST LIKE WE LOOK AT THE ALL THE PERMITTED USES AND ALL THE IN ALL THE DISTRICTS.

SO THE CURRENT DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED DISTRICT.

SO IT'S ANY OF THOSE USES BECAUSE IN THIS CASE, WITH THE REZONING, PARTICULARLY WITH THE TOWNSHIP, YOU'RE NOT LOCKED IN TO A USE.

SO THERE ARE CONDITIONAL REZONING.

SO THERE ARE CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE, BUT THERE'S NEVER GOING TO BE A SITUATION WHERE IN THE TOWNSHIP OR THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WE'RE DOING THIS EXACT PROJECT EXACTLY AS IT IS AND HERE IT IS.

SO YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL THOSE FACTORS SO THEY'LL LOOK AT THE HIGHEST GENERATORS AND YOU SHOW THOSE DISTRICTS COMPARE AND COMPARE THEM BECAUSE DEPENDING ON PERSPECTIVE, IT'S WORST CASE SCENARIO.

RIGHT.

SO FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE YOU'RE LOOKING SPECIFICALLY MEDICAL DENTAL OFFICE, BECAUSE IN THE IN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE CATEGORY, THAT IS THE HIGHEST GENERATOR.

LONG WINDED EXPLANATION, BUT THAT'S GENERALLY HOW THESE WORK.

THANK YOU.

YES, I SAW COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY AND THEN COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

THANK YOU.

QUESTION FOR PETER, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS, BUT I'M CURIOUS WHEN YOU'RE

[01:00:06]

TALKING ABOUT TRAFFIC.

I THOUGHT THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY STUDIED TYPICALLY JOLLY ROAD.

POTENTIAL FUTURE OF SITE ACCESS POINTS TO JOLLY ROAD.

IS THIS SOME PLACE WHERE THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW TRAFFIC NOT TO GO ON TO KANSAS, BUT THEY WOULD ALLOW A CURB CUT AND AND ALLOW SITE ENTRY ONTO STRAIGHT FROM JOLLY? POTENTIALLY.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SORTED OUT IN THE FUTURE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT ANSWER NOW.

IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE ULTIMATELY THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT HAS JURISDICTION OVER TRAFFIC.

TOWNSHIP DOES NOT.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT OTHER DRIVEWAYS ADJACENT.

IS THERE ROOM WILL THEY ALLOW THEM A CURB CUT? BUT WE DEFINITELY DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW.

OK.

THAT WOULD CONCERN ME.

I KNOW THAT THE TRAFFIC PROBABLY WOULDN'T IMPACT KANSAS BEYOND THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S A DEAD END.

BUT I'M REALLY LEANING TOWARDS BEING UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE ENCROACHMENT INTO RESIDENTIAL SO DEEPLY BECAUSE IT'S SO DEVIANT FROM ALL OF THE OTHER ZONING IN THAT STRIP THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. BUCK IS SAYING ABOUT WANTING TO HAVE ENOUGH PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR A BUFFER.

BUT ALLOWING A REZONING TO COMMERCIAL OF WHAT IS NOW RESIDENTIAL WOULD PUT COMMERCIAL OR THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, I'M SORRY, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM CURRENT RESIDENTIAL IN AND RIGHT NEXT TO.

AND IT'S JUST NOT THE SAME.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE STRIP OF ZONING ACROSS JOLLY ROAD, THIS IS GOING FURTHER NORTH THAN ANY OF THAT.

AND IT'S MAKING ME INCLINED NOT TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PREMOE THEN COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

I'M NOT SURE I SUPPOSE IT'S.

I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT DETERMINES THE BOUNDARIES OF A LOT, BUT IT OCCURS TO ME IF THE OWNER WERE SORT OF DETERMINES THAT IF.

IF THAT BOUNDARY WERE PUSHED.

SOUTH TO WHERE THE SHOPPING CENTER BOUNDARY ENDS, MAKING 3530 TO A NARROWER LOT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT REZONING 3532 AND 2446.

MIGHT BE A COMPROMISE.

THEN LEAVE 3558 ALONE.

THAT'S JUST AN IDEA.

THAT WOULD CREATE A CLEARER BUFFER AND IT WOULDN'T ENCROACH INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AS FAR NORTH AS YOU ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSING.

JUST AN IDEA, I'M JUST A COMMENT AND A THOUGHT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PREMOE, COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

YEAH, I APOLOGIZE IF I'M REPEATING MYSELF A LITTLE BIT HERE AND NOW LOOKING AT THE APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE CRITERIA AND I JUST BRIEFLY THE CURRENT ZONING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

AND THEN THEY GO ON TO SAY, OF COURSE, THAT THE INDUSTRIAL PIECE IS BUT THE RESIDENTIAL ISN'T.

AND SO THE CHALLENGE I HAVE HERE IS THERE'S CERTAINLY A CASE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL PIECE BEING RESOLVED TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.

BUT I THINK IN TERMS OF MEETING THE CONDITIONS, WHEN YOU STRICTLY LOOK AT THE TWO RESIDENTIAL PIECES, AGAIN, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AS A PACKAGE.

SO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THAT CRITERIA.

THE SAME THING WHERE THEY SAY THAT THIS IS THE CRITERIA THE CURRENT ZONING RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, DO NOT FURTHER THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.

AND THEY TALK ABOUT THE INDUSTRIAL PIECE.

WELL, THAT'S TRUE.

I MEAN, YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT, I GUESS, IF YOU USE THE MOST INTENSIVE USE FOR INDUSTRIAL, BUT YOU CAN'T SAY THAT FOR THE TWO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

SO IN MY MIND, THESE ARE REALLY TWO DIFFERENT RE-ZONINGS.

AND I COULD SUPPORT THE THE INDUSTRIAL PIECE BEING RESOLVED, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THE TWO RESIDENTIAL PIECES BEING USED.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

I SEE COMMISSIONER BLUMER AND TREZISE, IF WE CAN HANG ON FOR ONE SECOND.

I'D LIKE TO JUST CLARIFY A QUICK QUESTION WITH PETER BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE GET TOO MUCH FURTHER HERE.

SO WE HAVE ON PAGE 21 OF OUR PACKET YOUR STANDARD LINE ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO

[01:05:06]

APPROVE, DENY OR RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT ZONING DESIGNATION.

IS IT POSSIBLE BY RESOLUTION OF THIS BODY TO BIFURCATE AND REZONE A PARCEL ON THIS PROPERTY, LEAVING THE OTHER TWO INTACT? YEAH, YOU COULD RECOMMEND THAT IF YOU CHOOSE TO.

OK, YEAH, BECAUSE I HAVE FELT SIMILARLY TO I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN COMMISSIONER BLUMER'S MOUTH, BUT HIS QUESTION EARLIER REALLY STRUCK A CHORD WITH ME, WHICH WAS IT REALLY DOES FEEL LIKE THE SOUTHERNMOST PARCEL OF THESE THREE PARCELS DOES FIT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, BETTER AS PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE AS OPPOSED TO INDUSTRIAL.

OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH ITS CURRENT OCCUPANTS AS IT WOULD BECOME A NON CONFORMING USE.

BUT GENERALLY, I ECHO COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S CONCERNS ABOUT ENCROACHING UPON THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE NORTH, AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTIAL AREA DIRECTLY TO THE WEST ACROSS KANSAS ROAD.

SO GENERALLY MY THOUGHT IS THAT I WOULD IF FORCED TO RESPOND TO THIS PROPOSAL, AS IT CURRENTLY HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US ON BLOCK, THAT I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF IT.

HOWEVER, IF WE BIFURCATED THE SOUTHERNMOST PARCEL OUT, I'D BE WILLING TO SUPPORT A REZONING TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE FOR THAT SOUTHERNMOST PARCEL, LEAVING THE NORTHERN TOO AS OUR A.

WITH THAT, I SAW COMMISSIONER BLUMER AND COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, MY ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS DIRECTLY ON THAT ISSUE ABOUT SEVERING OFF THE BOTTOM PORTION BECAUSE IT'S CONSISTENT OR IT'S NOT INCONSISTENT WITH CURRENT LAND USE TYPE.

I WOULD INVITE EVERYBODY ON THE COMMISSION.

WHILE THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN GOING ON.

I LOOKED AT AN AERIAL SEARCH, AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH MAP OF THAT AREA.

AND IT REALLY DOES DEMONSTRATE VERY CLEARLY WHAT A DRAMATIC CHANGE IT WOULD BE TO ALLOW THOSE PART, THE NORTHERN TWO PARCELS TO BE CONVERTED INTO AN OFFICE USE AS PART OF THE PLAN.

BUT THE SOUTHERN 2446 JOLLY ROAD, IT'S ENTIRELY CONSISTENT IF THEY WANTED TO MAKE A CHANGE IN THE ZONE TO ALLOW OFFICE USE FOR THAT SPACE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLUMER, COMMISSIONER TRESIZE? I'M IN THE SAME BOAT WITH MR. BLUMER BECAUSE WHILE HE WAS LOOKING AT AERIAL PHOTOS, SO WAS I AND.

WHILE MR. BUCK SAYS THIS IS A RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD REZONING, IT HAS SOME SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON AND I'M LOOKING AT PRIMARILY THE THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF KANSAS.

KANSAS STILL WILL BE LOOKING RIGHT ACROSS HERE.

I DON'T KNOW, SINCE THERE ISN'T A PROPOSAL, WHETHER THERE IS AN INTENT TO DO SOMETHING WITH MIDWEST POWER AT THE CURRENT TIME OR IF THE REZONING WOULD FOCUS ON PLACING SOME SORT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTHERN TWO LOTS AND LEAVING MIDWEST THERE AS A NONCONFORMING USE.

AT ANY RATE, I DON'T SEE A JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING THE TWO NORTHERN LOTS.

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING MIDWEST OF THE SOUTHERN LOT IS CLEAR.

SO I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO DOING THIS IN BULK OR AS AS PROPOSED, BUT WOULD LOOK KINDLY ON REZONING THE MIDWEST POWER LINE.

ARE THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS? SO I THINK WE ARE WE ARE QUICKLY APPROACHING A TIME HERE WHERE WE CAN START DISCUSSING A STRAW POLL FOR THIS, BUT I THINK BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, I'D LIKE TO SORT OF RESTATE THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE COMMISSIONER BLUMER'S QUESTION FROM EARLIER THIS EVENING, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, SORT OF SPLITTING THE ISSUE HERE AND LOOK AT REZONING ONLY THAT SOUTHERNMOST PARCEL.

WOULD THAT BE, YOU KNOW, AS THE APPLICANT, WOULD THAT BE A HELPFUL THING FOR YOU OR

[01:10:02]

WOULD IT BE A COMPLETE WASTE TO DO ALL OF THAT AT THIS TIME? I'M GONNA HAVE A FINAL ANSWER FOR YOU ON THAT, I GUESS WHAT I WOULD ASK OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND HOW YOUR PROCESS WORKS FOR ME TO CERTAINLY RETREAT AND GO BACK TO MY CAMP AND CONFIRM WHAT THE INTENTIONS ARE AND GET SOME MORE INFORMATION AS TO WHERE THIS CONVERSATION LEADS US.

SO I CERTAINLY MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR STRAW POLL.

I SUSPECT I KNOW WHICH DIRECTION THAT'S GOING TO GO, BUT I MIGHT ASK IF THE COMMISSION AND STAFF MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING AS A DISCUSSION, A CONTINUED DISCUSSION ITEM SO I CAN PRESENT ANY UPDATES THAT WE HAVE AT THAT TIME BEFORE POTENTIALLY MOVING OVER INTO ACTION.

YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE HAD A PRETTY ROBUST DISCUSSION THUS FAR ON THE PROPOSAL AS IT CURRENTLY HAS BEEN MADE.

I GET THE FEELING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON, YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU'RE WHETHER YOU'RE OK WITH THE SPLITTING OF THAT OR NOT.

I THINK SO TO SLIGHTLY AMEND JUST TO KEEP THE PROCESS MOVING, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OURS IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD AS OPPOSED TO A FINAL DECISION.

PERHAPS PETER WOULD BE WILLING TO CRAFT A COUPLE OF RESOLUTIONS, ONE FOR OUR FEELINGS ON THE UP OR DOWN PROPOSAL AND ONE FOR THE SPLIT.

AND THEN WE CAN SORT OF CHOOSE WHICH ONE BASED ON WHAT SORT OF, YOU KNOW, BASED ON HOW WE'RE FEELING AT THE NEXT MEETING AS OPPOSED TO HAVING IT FOR DISCUSSION AGAIN.

I JUST WANT TO DRAW THIS OUT OVER THREE OR FOUR MEETINGS IF WE CAN BE PREPARED FOR TWO OUTCOMES AND KNOCK IT OUT NEXT TIME.

SO.

WITH THAT SAID, HOPEFULLY PETER IS OK WITH THAT, I'VE JUST SIGNED HIM UP FOR TWO RESOLUTIONS INSTEAD OF ONE.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO THAT IT WOULD BE JUST RESULT ONE LITTLE RESOLUTION WOULD BE JUST THE 2446 PARCEL AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE FOR EVERYTHING.

YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO BE PRESUMPTUOUS HERE, BUT YOU KNOW, ONCE WE DO OUR STRAW POLL, I THINK I THINK BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT, IF WE'RE FORCED TO DO IT ON BLOCK, WE'RE LIKELY TO RECOMMEND DENIAL.

BUT IF WE ARE TO BIFURCATED AND REZONE THE SOUTHERNMOST PARCEL, IT MAY BE SUPPORTIVE.

SO LET'S FIGURE THAT OUT AS A GROUP AND THEN WE'LL CHAT AGAIN BRIEFLY HERE.

SO FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME AND THE FOLKS LISTENING IN THE ZOOM MEETING, WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO DO IS TAKE A STRAW POLL BASED ON THE DISCUSSION.

WHAT HAPPENS IN A PUBLIC HEARINGS OR THIS MEETING DOES NOT REFLECT A BINDING DECISION.

THIS IS JUST GATHERING A SENSE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO THAT PETER CAN HELP TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR US FOR OUR NEXT MEETING WHERE HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE ACTION ON THIS.

SO WITH THAT, FIRST OFF, WE'LL GO AROUND THE ROOM AND THIS WILL BE ON THE PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED.

SO ALL THREE PARCELS RESOLVED FROM INDUSTRIAL AND R.A.

TO PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE.

AND WE WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

THANK YOU.

I ECHO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER'S VIEWS THAT THE REZONING OF NONCONFORMING PARCEL SOMEHOW MAKES SENSE, I'M YET TO BE CONVINCED THAT REZONING OF RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE IN THE TOWNSHIP IS A BENEFIT, PARTICULARLY IN THIS CASE.

SO I WOULD OPPOSE THE WHOLESALE REZONING OF SUCH.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? NOR DO I SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL INDICATED HERE, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? I ALSO DON'T SUPPORT IT IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR THE SAME REASONS THE COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL STATED.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? I DO NOT SUPPORT IT.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER? I DO NOT SUPPORT IT IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER? I ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT IT IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

MR. TRESIZE? I DO NOT SUPPORT IT IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES NOW.

SO, OK, SO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS THAT AS PROPOSED, OUR STRAW POLL INDICATES THAT WE WOULD HAVE A RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL.

SO THEN IF WE COULD GO THROUGH ONE MORE TIME, SINCE WE'VE DISCUSSED REZONING ONLY THE SOUTHERNMOST PARCEL TO PO AND LEAVING THE OTHER TWO AS RA.

CAN WE GET EVERYONE'S STRAW POLL ON THAT IDEA?

[01:15:03]

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE? SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? I WOULD SUPPORT 2446 JOLLY ROAD TO BE REZONED TO PO PROFESSIONAL.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? MAY I ADD ONE MORE THING? IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO PREPARE TWO RESOLUTIONS THE WAY THIS IS GOING, BUT LET'S LET'S LOOK AT THAT WHEN WE'RE DONE.

THAT'S FAIR.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

I ALSO WOULD SUPPORT THE REZONING IF THAT WAS THE WISH OF THE APPLICANT.

I DON'T SEE A REASON TO PREEMPTIVELY REZONE IT IF THAT ISN'T GOING TO BE GIVEN ITS CURRENT USE.

SO IF THE APPLICANT WAS DESIROUS, I WOULD PROBABLY SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? THE SAME SENTIMENT I WOULD SUPPORT, ASSUMING THE APPLICANT IS INTERESTED IN THE.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER? I AGREE WITH THAT.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER, TO ECHO, EVERYBODY ELSE.

I WOULD SUPPORT THE REZONING OF 2446 JOLLY, IF THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT WOULD DESIRE.

OK.

COMMISSIONER TRESIZE? I FEEL THE SAME.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

ALL RIGHT, SO I THINK WE HAVE SORT OF OUR DIRECTION THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN.

TWO COMMISSIONERS, TO COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY'S POINT.

IT MIGHT BE I MEAN.

SO HERE'S MY CONCERN IS THAT IF THE APPLICANT DOES WANT TO CHANGE IT, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THAT CHANGE, JUST THE SOUTHERNMOST PARCEL.

AND IF THEY DO NOT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL ON THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, WHICH IS WHY I WAS CONCERNED.

WE NEEDED TO MAYBE LOGICALLY MISSING SOMETHING HERE.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

IF THEY COME BACK WITH ONLY REQUESTING THAT, PETER, IS THAT ENOUGH OF A CHANGE, THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING? IF THEY CAME BACK AND WHAT ACCEPTED THAT, YOU WOULD ONLY.

IF THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, OK, WE JUST WANT 2446 REZONED, IS THAT NOW, A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE THAT WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING? NO, I THINK WE CAN PROCEED.

IT WAS IT'S PART OF THE ORIGINAL WE'RE REDUCING NOT ADDING TO SO THEN IT'S ACCEPTABLE.

SO, PETER, DOES THAT, DID WE GIVE YOU ENOUGH HERE? HAVE WE MADE YOUR LIFE MORE DIFFICULT? NO, I DON'T THINK I CAN HANDLE THIS, SO.

ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL HAVE A REZONING.

WE'LL HAVE A RESOLUTION FOR, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A SPLIT ZONING WHERE THE TWO PARCELS TO THE NORTH STAY IN THEIR CURRENT STATUS.

AND THE PARCEL AT 2446 JOLLY IS THE REZONED TO OFFICE AND WE HAVE A REZONING TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, I THINK [INAUDIBLE] COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

IN TERMS OF THE TWO, I THINK THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE DEVELOPER COMES BACK, I THINK WE HAVE TO ACT ON THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AND THAT WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, TURN THAT DOWN.

AND THEN IF WE WANT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S DESIRE, WE WOULD VOTE ON THE SECOND ONE.

BUT IF IT'S NOT TO DESIRE, WE WOULDN'T VOTE ON THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT IN ORDER TO BE CLEAR FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PERSPECTIVE, WE WANT TO VOTE ON BOTH OF THEM.

AND WE I MEAN, PETER CAN CHECK WITH THEIR ATTORNEY ON THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT.

WELL, I'LL TRY AMEND IT AND IF MARK WANTS TO INTERRUPT ME, HE CAN.

THE MY TAKE ON IT IS YOU COULD, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO REZONE PART OF IT SO YOU CAN CHOOSE YOU COULD CHOOSE TO REZONE ALL OF THEM.

THEY ASKED FOR INDUSTRIAL.

YOU COULD CHOOSE TO REZONE IT TO COMMERCIAL.

SO THAT'S WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO DO THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE TO DENY THEIR PROPOSAL FIRST AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND A RESOLUTION.

SORRY, I'M GETTING MY WORDS CONFUSED.

YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT, JUST LIKE THIS SPLIT PROPOSAL.

I GUESS AS LONG AS WE, YOU KNOW, IN OUR WHEREASES EXPLAIN THAT, I GUESS THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE THEN.

CORRECT.

VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NOW WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:18.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR FOR YOUR TIME IN ATTENDANCE, EVERYONE.

ALL RIGHT.

[6.B. Special Use Permit #21011 (Lansing Mart Associates, LLC), excavate approximately 23,813 cubic feet (approximately 881 cubic yards) of soil from the floodplain to construct a retention pond at 2020 Grand River Avenue that will serve several commercial properties in the surrounding area.]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM 6B, SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 21011, LANSING MART ASSOCIATES, LLC TO EXCAVATE APPROXIMATELY 23,813 CUBIC FEET, OR APPROXIMATELY 881 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL FROM THE FLOOD PLAINS TO CONSTRUCT A RETENTION POND AT 2020 GRAND RIVER AVENUE THAT WILL SERVE SEVERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING AT STILL 8:18.

[01:20:04]

SO WITH THAT WE'LL HAND IT OVER TO PRINCIPAL PLANNER MENSER TO GET US STARTED AGAIN.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

APPRECIATE THAT.

I'M GOING TO TRY THIS AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE.

YOU HAD TO SEE ALL THE.

SIDEBARS IN MY POWERPOINT LAST TIME.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS GOING TO WORK BETTER.

I ACTUALLY WAS GOOGLING WHILE WE WERE TALKING.

OK, SO.

AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT 21011 [INAUDIBLE] REQUEST FROM LANSING MART ASSOCIATES TO EXCAVATE IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.

AGAIN, TONIGHT'S MEETING PACKETS ON THE TOWNSHIP WEBSITE.

AFTER TONIGHT, IT'LL BE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE, SAME FORMAT THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH FOR THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING.

THERE IS A.

A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THIS CASE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER.

SO AS NORMAL, WE FOLLOW STATE LAW FOR NOTICES AND WE'VE DONE SO AND.

HERE WE ARE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING.

THE RED DOT ON THE MAP YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW REPRESENTS THE AREA THAT IS PROPOSED FOR EXCAVATION, IT'S JUST TO THE WEST OF THE BEST BUY BUILDING.

THERE ARE ALSO OTHER TENANTS, BIG LOTS AND OFFICE DEPOT IN THAT SAME BUILDING.

YOU CAN SEE IT'S THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OKEMOS AND GRAND RIVER.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION, AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, IS TO EXCAVATE 23,813 CUBIC FEET FROM THE FLOOD PLAIN TO JUST CONSTRUCT THIS RETENTION POND.

RETENTION POND CAME ABOUT AS A SOLUTION TO SERVE SEVERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND REALLY STARTED WITH US WITH THE BUDDY'S PIZZA PROJECT.

AND WHAT WILL BE THE FORMER BURGER KING SPACE.

THEY WILL DEMOLISH THE BURGER KING RESTAURANT CONSTRUCT A BUDDY'S PIZZA IN THEIR WORK WITH THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE.

IT WAS DETERMINED THAT SOME WORK WITH DRAINAGE NEED TO BE DONE HERE.

SO THE RETENTION POND WAS PROPOSED IS LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN, THEREFORE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

ON THE OVERHEAD MAP HERE, YOU'RE SEEING A VERY MUCH MORE GENERAL VIEW OF FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE PLANS THAT WERE IN YOUR MEETING PACKET, THE SITE PLANS THAT SHOWS MORE MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHERE EXACTLY THE FLOODPLAIN LINE IS.

SO THE FLOOD, THE POND IS LOCATED IN THE FLOOD PLAIN WETLANDS ARE YOU'LL SEE ON THE SITE PLAN.

THE WETLANDS ARE NEARBY.

ACTUALLY, OUR CONSULTANT IS SCHEDULED TOMORROW FOR A SITE VISIT TO VERIFY THE WETLANDS IN THAT AREA.

THE APPLICANT HAD A DELINEATION COMPLETED, BUT IT WAS NOT VERIFIED BY OUR TOWNSHIP.

ONE CONSULTANT, AND THAT IS IN IN IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

WE DO HAVE A TWO STEP PROCESS.

WE DON'T JUST ACCEPT DELINEATIONS THAT ARE DONE.

WE DO VERIFY THOSE.

SO THAT'S ACTUALLY SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW.

SO I MAY HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU ON WETLANDS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING.

EXCUSE ME, REVIEW CRITERIA A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM JUST THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WHICH WE DO USE IN THIS CASE, BUT WE ALSO YOU'LL BE CONSIDERING THE STANDARD FOR PROJECTS IN THE FLOODWAY FRINGED SPECIFICALLY AND PLUG WAY FRINGE IS ANOTHER WORD FOR FLOODPLAIN.

SO I HIGHLIGHTED NUMBER THREE HERE, A NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO TALK ABOUT STRUCTURES BEING ONE FOOT ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND THAT'S NOT RELEVANT HERE BECAUSE THERE'S NO STRUCTURE PROPOSED IN THIS AREA.

BUT NUMBER THREE CRITERIA TALKS ABOUT EXCAVATION AND SHAPING OF THE FLOODPLAIN AS TO MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE THE NATURAL IMPOUNDMENT CAPACITY OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO IN THIS CASE, EXCAVATION, THERE'S NO FIELD BEING PROPOSED.

IT'S ONLY EXCAVATION.

IT WILL IMPROVE THE IMPOUNDMENT CAPACITY OF THE FLOODPLAIN FRINGE.

THERE WAS AN EGLE PERMIT THAT IS PENDING.

THE APPLICANTS APPLY TO THEM.

THEY HAVE NOT YET ISSUED A PERMIT, BUT THEY'RE DOING THEY'RE DOING THE SAME REVIEW PROCESS THAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

TOWNSHIP'S CHIEF ENGINEER HAS REVIEWED THIS WORK AND APPROVED IT AS REQUIRED PER OUR ORDINANCE.

AND THEN, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE WETLANDS SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW IN THE STAFF MEMO.

I KNOW THAT ANY APPROVAL THAT THE PLAIN COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER SHOULD INCLUDE CONDITIONS RELATED TO RECEIVING THAT EAGLE PERMIT AND HAVING THE WETLAND VERIFICATION COMPLETE AND ENSURING THAT ANY EXCAVATION IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE WETLAND AND OUTSIDE OF ANY RELATED WETLAND BUFFER OR SETBACK, WHICH COULD BE 20 OR 40 FEET, DEPENDING ON THE REGULATORY STATUS, WHICH AGAIN, WE'LL FIND OUT SOON.

WHAT'S NEXT? PLANNING COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE.

SO ON MARCH 22, DEPENDING ON HOW THE DISCUSSION GOES TONIGHT, WE'LL EXPECTING AN ANSWER ON THAT.

SO, AS ALWAYS, CERTAINLY AVAILABLE AFTER TONIGHT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

I KNOW THAT I SAW EARLIER THE APPLICANTS ONLINE WITH US TONIGHT, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET THOSE FOLKS MOVED OVER AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, PETER GO AHEAD AND GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

YEP, WE'VE GOT ROB COHEN AND MICHELLE SHOEMAKER.

[01:25:06]

BOTH REPRESENTING DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE APPLICANT.

THEY ARE BOTH ON WITH US NOW.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MR. COHEN OR MS. SHOEMAKER, ARE YOU LOOKING TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS PROJECT? DON'T FORGET TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES.

I'M SORRY, MICHELLE.

GO AHEAD.

3135 PINE TREE ROAD, LANSING, MICHIGAN, WHERE THE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT WILL TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND I'M ROB COHEN, I'M REPRESENTING LANSING MART ASSOCIATES WITH HERSCHENSOHN REALTY AND INVESTMENT AT 31500 NORTHWESTERN HIGHWAY AND FARMINGTON HILLS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OK, WE'LL GO AHEAD THEN AND MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS POINT.

WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR.

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT IF YOU ARE IN OUR ZOOM MEETING TO RAISE YOUR HAND AND IF YOU'RE CALLING IN ON THE PHONES, YOU CAN CALL US AT (517)349-1232.

COMMENTS TO BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.

THEY'LL BE LIMITED TO THE TOPIC OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

AND IF YOU PLEASE, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD, WE WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT.

LOOKS LIKE WE DO HAVE A HAND UP.

I DO.

I BELIEVE IT IS, JIM? JIM, YOU PROBABLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE REZONING AT THE END OF THE MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT? IT MUST HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT.

I'M SORRY.

OH, THAT'S FINE.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

INADVERTENT HAND RAISING, OK.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? DID ANYONE ON THE PHONES? I'M SURE THERE ARE NO CALLS AT THIS TIME.

ALL RIGHTY, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MOVE ON THEN TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WISHING TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE? COMMISSIONER PREMOE? I THINK THAT I'M.

SUPPORTIVE OF THE ENGINEERS CONCLUSION.

THIS IS PROBABLY A WISE MOVE.

ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER BLUMER? JUST A QUESTION, WILL THE PROPOSED EXCAVATION SIMPLY DEEPEN THE EXISTING RETENTION POND OR WILL IT ENLARGEN IT? WHAT WILL THE EFFECT BE ON THE SURFACE OF THIS? THERE'S NOT REALLY A RETENTION POND IN THE AREA.

NOW, THIS IS MICHELLE SHOEMAKER FROM LSG.

IT'S JUST THE WETLANDS.

THAT DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY FORM OF A RETENTION POND PRESENTLY.

ALL RIGHT.

I MISUNDERSTOOD, I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT IT WAS TO IMPROVE ONE THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? HI, THANK YOU.

I SEEM TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS, I THINK IT WILL HELP NOT ONLY THAT THAT SPECIFIC AREA, BUT IN PERHAPS THE INTERSECTION AS WELL.

I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

FIRST FLASH RUN OFF, RUN THOSE THROUGH THIS ENGINEERING STUDY, I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT IS THE LAYMAN'S WORDS? THE FIRST FLUSH RUNOFF, AS DEFINED BY THE [INAUDIBLE] COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION, IS ONE INCH OF RAINFALL OVER THE AREA AND THE AREA WE'RE PROPOSING TO TREAT IS INCLUDES THE PARKING LOT FOR THE BEST BUY AND INCLUDES THE TACO BELL LOT AND WHAT'S CURRENTLY BURGER KING AND WILL BE BUDDY'S.

OK, GREAT.

THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

ANYONE ELSE? SO I WOULD BE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROPOSAL AS IT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE US.

I AM CURIOUS, MOSTLY JUST FROM MY OWN CURIOSITY, HOW THE ELEVATION OF THE BEST BUY PARKING LOT COMPARES AGAINST THE ELEVATION OF THE INTERSECTION OF OKEMOS AND GRAND RIVER, JUST BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT THAT.

THAT INTERSECTION HAS FLOODED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, WHICH HAS CAUSED A PRETTY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE TO COME TO A STANDSTILL FOR HOURS AT A TIME, BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT GERMANE TO THIS PROJECT, EXCEPT THAT HOPEFULLY IT MIGHT HELP WITH

[01:30:04]

TRAINING SOME OF THAT WATER AWAY.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE, IF EITHER OF THE APPLICANTS HAPPENED TO KNOW OFFHAND THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THAT AREA OR IF PETER MIGHT.

BUT OTHERWISE, I'LL JUST LIVE WITH MY CURIOSITY.

I DON'T THINK I HAVE INFORMATION RIGHT NOW ON THE INTERSECTION.

THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S FINE.

NOR SHOULD YOU.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF, YOU KNOW, IN LOOKING AT THIS AREA, IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAPPEN TO HAVE THAT.

AND DIRECTOR CLARK, WAS THAT YOU RAISING YOUR HAND? THAT'S ONLY MOMENTARILY TO SAY THAT THE END DOES HAVE THE PROPOSED RAISING OF GRAND RIVER FOR 2022 FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON.

SO I BELIEVE THAT THIS PART OF THE PROJECT HAS TO DEAL WITH THE COUNTY DRAIN OFFICE.

TYPICALLY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A MAJOR DEMOLITION AND IT'S ON, IN AN AREA WHERE THERE'S INFRASTRUCTURE PREVIOUSLY THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A LONG TIME, THEY MIGHT LOOK AT IT AS A NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THAT SENSE.

AND SO YOU'LL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE HIGHER QUALIFICATIONS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS WATER ISSUES.

SO I THINK ESSENTIALLY THIS PROJECT IS TAKING THE FIRST STEP.

THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS FOR OUR COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND THEN MOVE ON TO OUR STRAW POLL FOR THIS MATTER.

SO WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

SUPPORT.

AND COMMISSIONER PREMOE? SUPPORT COMMISSIONER CARDILL? SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER? SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER? SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER TRESIZE? SUPPORT.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

OK, SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'LL BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, ACTION WILL BE AT OUR NEXT MEETING ON MARCH 22ND.

MARCH 22ND? THAT'S 14 DAYS FROM NOW ON MARCH 22ND.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:31.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU TO MEMBERS OF THE APPLICANTS TEAM FOR COMING AND BEING AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM 7A UNFINISHED BUSINESS ZONING AMENDMENT, NUMBER 21010, THE TOWNSHIP BOARD TO AMEND THE CODE OF

[7.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.]

ORDINANCES TO REQUIRE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS AND AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS IN THE C2 AND C3 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

PETER, DO YOU HAVE MUCH OF AN INTRO FOR US OR ARE WE JUMPING IN? THANK YOU FOR FIRST OF ALL, NOT A LOT.

THE CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 71 IN OUR PACKET.

THAT'S WHERE OUR STAFF MEMO IS LOCATED.

AND THE ONLY THINGS THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS KIND OF SPLIT ON THIS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.

THE ONLY INFORMATION REALLY THAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME WAS THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE AND WE DID DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN NEW AND USED AUTOMOBILE, IN THE DEFINITION SECTION.

SO THAT WAS SIMPLY A TYPO ON OUR END AND WE APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

AND THEN ALSO THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND REALLY WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS ON THOSE.

SO WHAT I'VE DONE IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IS JUST LISTED THOSE.

SO CURRENTLY REALLY ALL SPECIAL USE PERMITS ARE DECIDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE BIG EXCEPTIONS ARE THOSE FOR BUILDINGS OR GROUPS OF BUILDINGS GREATER THAN TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

AND THEN ALSO REALLY A NEWER ORDINANCE IS COMMERCIAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITIES.

SO THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER SPECIAL USE PERMITS THAT ARE THAT EXIST IN OUR ORDINANCE.

AND THOSE ARE ALL APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEY RANGE FROM NONRESIDENTIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WORK IN THE FLOODPLAIN LIKE THE LAST AGENDA ITEM, CELL TOWERS, MOBILE HOME PARKS.

AND THEN THERE'S A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES.

I DIDN'T LIST THEM ALL, BUT FUNERAL HOMES, HOSPITALS, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ANY KIND OF USE THAT MAY REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE SCRUTINY.

AND ALL OF THOSE ARE DECIDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS, IT'S REALLY ALL PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO WHAT I'VE INCLUDED IS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

I DIDN'T REALLY HEAR STRONGLY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, SO JUST INCLUDED THAT.

SO YOU CAN CERTAINLY.

DECIDE FOR OR AGAINST THE RESOLUTION, THAT'S IN THE PACKET, IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO IDENTIFY SOME REASON SO WE CAN INCLUDE THOSE IN THE MESSAGE IT GOES TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

AND WE COULD ALSO AMEND THAT IF WE WANTED TO? CORRECT, YEP.

JUST LIKE WITH THE LAST PROPOSAL, YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE

[01:35:03]

CERTAIN PARTS, TO NOT APPROVE OTHER PARTS, CUT IT UP HOWEVER YOU WANT TO RECONBOBULATE IT INTO SOMETHING THAT MAY WORK FOR YOU.

OK, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

BEFORE WE JUMP TO A MOTION, LET'S CHAT ABOUT THIS A LITTLE, BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAD WE HAD A PRETTY SPLIT, SPLIT MIND LAST TIME AROUND, COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? YOU KNOW, I GUESS I WOULD ASK STAFF TO, FOR ME AND MAYBE OTHERS HAVE WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED TO CHANGE IN IN THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS TO WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS BEING PROPOSED THAT WE'RE REVIEWING WHAT IS ACTUALLY CHANGING IF WE IF THIS ORDINANCE IS ENACTED? WELL, I THINK PRIMARILY IT REALLY JUST ADDS A SECONDARY STEP TO THE REVIEW OF NEW AND USED CAR DEALERSHIPS, THAT INSTEAD OF STOPPING, INSTEAD OF THE DECISION STOPPING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WOULD GO THE NEXT STEP TO THE BOARD, JUST LIKE THE BUILDINGS GREATER THAN [INAUDIBLE] JUST LIKE THE REZONING THAT WE HAD EARLIER OR THE BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD BECOME ADVISORY AND STILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT WOULD THEN GO ON TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION AND A FINAL DECISION.

OK, SO THE BECAUSE I SORT OF HEARD IN THE DISCUSSION PREVIOUS THAT, WELL, IT WAS BEING TAKEN OUT OF C2 AND IT WAS ONLY GOING TO BE ALLOWED IN C3.

IS THAT IF I, DID I MISREAD THAT OR IS IT STILL WILL BE ALLOWED IN C2.

YES.

SO WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANY OF THE PERMISSIONS IN TERMS OF WHERE THE USES ARE ALLOWED.

THEY'RE STILL ALLOWED AND C2 AND C3.

OK, SO SORRY, PETER, TO INTERRUPT, BUT MY MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IN C3 IT WAS USED BY WRIGHT PREVIOUSLY AND THIS ALSO CHANGES.

YES, YOU'RE RIGHT.

THIS USED BY SPECIAL USE.

YEAH.

PREVIOUSLY C3 ALLOWED DEALERSHIPS BY WRIGHT.

THOSE ARE NOW BY SPECIAL USE FROM IT.

THANK YOU.

IT DOES TWO THINGS.

IT MAKES C3 AUTO DEALERSHIPS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THEN FOR ALL AUTO DEALERSHIPS IN C2 AND C3, IT CHANGES THE APPROVAL PROCESS TO BE A TWO HOP WITH ADVISORY FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVAL BY THE BOARD.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OK.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? I JUST WANTED TO GO OVER PART OF THIS.

IT WAS ON PAGE TWO OF THE ORDINANCE, THE RED IS THE NEW, PETER? YES IT IS.

SO, SO BEFORE THERE WAS NO MINIMUM LOT AREA? OR I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS IS ALL NEW.

SO THERE IS THERE IS A [INAUDIBLE] AREA RIGHT NOW.

WHAT WE'VE DONE IS TAKEN THE THOSE SAME STANDARDS FROM THE C2 AND ADDED IT TO THE C3.

SO IT'S THE.

YOU'LL HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS FOR BOTH DISTRICTS.

WE'RE JUST NOT SEEING THE STANDARDS IN C2 BECAUSE THAT'S NOT CHANGING.

CORRECT.

OH, OK, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SEE, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN OTHER THAN THE C2 AND C3 BEING AN AUTO SALES BEING A SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR BOTH ZONING DISTRICTS AND OTHER THAN ADDING OR SHIFTING THE APPROVAL PROCESS TO THE BOARD, WAS THERE MUCH CRITERIA CHANGED? FROM WHAT ARE WHAT WAS ON THE BOOKS BEFORE, BECAUSE THERE WAS THIS BECAUSE THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BY THE AND I THINK SOME OF THE HONESTLY, THE RESOLUTION SAYS THERE SHOULD BE MORE RIGOROUS REVIEW.

I'M JUST WONDERING, ARE WE HOLDING THOSE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT TO A HIGHER STANDARD, IS WHAT I'M ASKING.

IT ALMOST IMPLIES THAT.

THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE IMPLIES THAT OR THE RESOLUTION? THE RESOLUTION, I GUESS THE ONE, TWO, THREE, THE FOURTH.

YEAH.

THE FOURTH WHEREAS.

THE RESOLUTIONS ARE MORE KIND OF ART THAN SCIENCE SOMETIMES.

SO I WAS JUST REALLY TRYING TO FIND SOME LANGUAGE THAT I THOUGHT REPRESENTED THE REQUEST AS WELL AS I COULD.

SO I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW A MORE VIGOROUS REVIEW, DEPENDING ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

OK, I DIDN'T WANT TO PUT YOU IN AN AWKWARD, BUT I GUESS I WAS JUST WONDERING, WELL, WHY ISN'T MORE RIGOROUS? IS IT BECAUSE OF THE CRITERIA AS? WELL.

AND THIS WAS ENTIRELY MY CREATION.

AND IT CAN BE CHALLENGING TO COME UP WITH WHEREASES SOMETIMES FOR US TO, I'LL

[01:40:02]

ADMIT THE THOUGHT PROCESS THERE WAS JUST IF YOU ARE EXPANDING THE REVIEW PROCESS BY ADDING AN ENTIRE NEW GROUP TO THE PROCESS.

IN THIS CASE, OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD BOARD.

BUT SOME MAY CONSIDER THAT TO BE MORE VIGOROUS JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED, MORE MINDS THINKING ABOUT THE TOPIC.

OK, IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THAT LANGUAGE, YOU DEFINITELY CAN PROPOSE CHANGING IT.

WELL, I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT IF IT WERE WE EXPECTING A HIGHER QUALITY OR A DIFFERENT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT, OR IS IT JUST ADDING THE OR IS IT MORE PROCEDURAL OR IS IT LIKE IS IT LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENTS DIFFERENTLY? I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO.

TO ME, IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING IN THE C3 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THEN ADDING THAT SECONDARY STEP.

HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, IT DEPENDS ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

OK, THANK YOU.

YEAH, IN FACT, MAYBE THIS IS PREMATURE, BUT MAYBE WE JUST WANT TO SAY WE'LL PROVIDE FOR EXPANDED REVIEW.

WELL, LET'S KEEP THAT IN MIND, LET'S KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR FOR AN AMENDMENT, POSSIBLE AMENDMENT WHEN WE GET TO WHEN WE GET TO VOTING HERE.

COMMISSIONER TRESIZE THEN COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

YEAH, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, WHILE THE REVIEW MAY BE MORE VIGOROUS, IT ISN'T NECESSARILY GOING TO BE MORE RIGOROUS SINCE THE STANDARDS ARE NOT CHANGING IN GENERAL.

I'VE KIND OF BEEN SWAYED BY MR. MCCONNELL'S STATEMENT THE LAST TIME THAT.

SIMILAR TO DEALING WITH A 25,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND REQUIRING TRUSTEE FOR APPROVAL, THIS CAN HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE GROUND COVER AND WATER SURFACE PERMEABILITY.

AND THEY AREN'T SMALL DEVELOPMENTS.

SO I CAN SEE HAVING THE INPUT AT THAT LEVEL ALSO.

AND I WOULD IN GENERAL, I WILL SUPPORT THIS.

OK, COMMISSIONER PREMOE? I, I DON'T.

I AM NOT PERSUADED BY THEIR ARGUMENTS, AND SO I SEE NO REASON FOR THE CHANGE.

ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING ON TO A VOTE THEN? I WILL NEED FIRST A MOTION.

I MOVED TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION PREPARED BY MR. MENSER.

COULD WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, I SHOULD SAY.

THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? I'M SORRY, IS THIS WHERE WE WOULD TWEAK THE RESOLUTION? YES.

MAY I MAY OFFER TO TWEAK IT? YOU CAN CERTAINLY SUGGESTED.

OK, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

I WOULD I JUST GUESS THAT I WOULD CHANGE VIGOROUS TO EXPAND THAT REVIEW, BECAUSE HONESTLY, I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES A PRETTY RIGOROUS REVIEW OF PROJECT.

OK, WITH THE MOTION MAKER, CONSIDER THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I WOULD.

OK, VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES WISHED OR NO.

OK, VERY GOOD.

COMMISSIONER TRESIZE? YES.

MR. MCCONNELL? YES.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE? .

NO.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? YES.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? YES.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? YES.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER? YOU'RE MUTED MARK.

YES, AS AMENDED.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SNYDER? YES, AS AMENDED.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

MOTION CARRIES 8-0.

ALL RIGHT.

[9.A. Township Board update.]

WITH THAT THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS EIGHT OTHER BUSINESS NONE.

AND THEN NINE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.

TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATES, PRINCIPAL PLANNER MENSER? THANK YOU.

SO THE PLAIN COMMISSION LAST MET ON FEBRUARY 22, SO THE BOARD HAS MET TWICE SINCE

[01:45:06]

THAT TIME.

ONCE ON FEBRUARY 23, AND THERE WERE NO MAJOR ISSUES IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SAW SPECIFICALLY.

THEY DID TALK ABOUT PAVING POWELL ROAD.

THERE'S A IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT UNDERWAY FOR THAT PAVING RIGHT NOW.

AND THAT WOULD GO ALL THE WAY FROM GRAND RIVER UP TO THE NORTHERN EXTENT OF SILVERSTONE, THE NEW PLAT THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF POWELL.

THEY ADDED A MEMBER TO THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SO SOMEONE CAN JOIN DAVE ON THAT TEAM.

AND TALKED ABOUT THEIR CITIZEN SURVEY, WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED AGAIN SOON ON MARCH 2, THE BOARD MET AGAIN.

THEY HAD AN UPDATE FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, DEPARTMENT HEADS ON THEIR WORK PLAN FOR THE YEAR AND TOOK ACTION ON THE POWELL ROAD PAVING DISTRICT AND PROVE THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT AND THIS IS IN SURVEY AND THEN THEY DID TALK ABOUT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

SO HOPEFULLY SOME OF YOU FOLLOWED THAT CONVERSATION.

THERE WAS, I BELIEVE, MAYBE THE LAST TIME I TALKED TO YOU, THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HAVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE TOGETHER.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO ACTION ON THAT FRONT.

I'LL DO MY BEST TO KEEP YOU APPRIZED OF THAT.

BUT AS OF NOW, THERE'S BEEN NO ACTION.

SO THE BOARD IS SCHEDULED TO TALK ABOUT THAT TOPIC AGAIN AT THEIR MEETING NEXT WEEK.

THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR PETER? I HAVE A QUESTION.

THE DISCUSSION I'M SORRY YOU DIDN'T CALL ON ME.

NO, YOU'RE FINE.

YOU HIT YOUR HAND ON YOUR SCREEN, SORT OF BLENDED INTO YOUR CURTAIN BEHIND YOU.

I COULDN'T SEE THAT.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER? SORRY ABOUT THAT.

SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO KIND OF BETTER INFORM MYSELF ABOUT THE DISCUSSION THAT THE BOARD IS HAVING ABOUT THE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.

WHICH MEETING WOULD YOU SUGGEST? LIKE THE FEBRUARY 23RD AS FAR AS JUST GETTING AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE PEOPLE ARE AT AND WHERE THE DISCUSSION IS? AND THERE WAS A WORK SESSION ON MARCH ON FEBRUARY 16.

IT WAS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16.

AND THAT'S ALL THEY REALLY TALKED ABOUT.

OK.

IT WASN'T A WORK SESSION, I GUESS IT WAS A SPECIAL MEETING OR A STUDY SESSION OF THE BOARD THAT WAS THE ONLY TOPIC ON THE AGENDA.

I THINK THAT WILL GIVE YOU A PRETTY CLEAR IDEA.

BUT YOU ALSO MIGHT WANT TO TUNE IN NEXT WEEK ON THE 16TH, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE KIND OF THE FOLLOW UP MEETING TO ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS.

I AND AGAIN, I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE BOARD IN ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER, BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY'RE COMING TO THE POINT OF MAKING A DECISION ON DIRECTION.

OK, THANK YOU.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE READY TO INITIATE ANYTHING, BUT THEY'RE CERTAINLY READY TO DECIDE WHERE THEY'RE GOING WITH IT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO LIAISON REPORTS.

[9.B. Liaison reports.]

I'LL GO FIRST, WE HAVE I MET WITH THE ZBA ON FEBRUARY 24TH TO CONSIDER ONE CASE.

IT WAS A SIGN ON THE CORNER OF TOWN ROAD AND SAGINAW.

THE CASE WAS APPROVED, BUT IT DOES BRING UP SOMETHING FOR OUR SIGN SUBCOMMITTEE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE ZBA HAS RUN INTO QUITE A FEW TIMES NOW OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FEW MONTHS HERE.

ARE THE? EVERYONE, FIRST OF ALL, EVERYONE WANTS MORE SIGNS THAN THAN THEY'RE CURRENTLY ALLOWED, BUT SPECIFICALLY WHERE WE HAVE SEEN THE ZBA APPROVE.

A NUMBER OF THESE HAVE BEEN ON THESE CORNER LOTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE OKEMAS AND GRAND RIVER THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER.

THE ON THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF THAT WHERE LEO'S LODGE USED TO BE IS NOW THE ASPEN DENTAL AND CHIPOTLE.

ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT BUILDING.

BOTH SIDES WERE APPLYING FOR DIFFERENT VARIANCES FOR A SIGN ON THE EAST AND WEST FRONTAGES OF THOSE BUILDINGS.

WITH THE SAME ARGUMENT, BASICALLY, THAT THE PEOPLE COMING FROM WHICHEVER OTHER DIRECTION WOULDN'T, AREN'T GETTING THE FRONT SIGN THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE.

AND SO AS THE AS THE SUBCOMMITTEES MEETING TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF LOOKING AT WHAT CHANGES WE MAY WANT TO SEE IN OUR SIGN ORDINANCE, IT'S BEEN REQUESTED OF ME TO PASS ALONG TO YOU THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE ZBA WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH FOR US TO CONSIDER CHANGING, TO ADDRESS A SORT OF A MORE

[01:50:10]

[INAUDIBLE] WELL, HE SAID HE MIGHT LEAVE US PERIODICALLY SUSPENDED ANIMATION.

IT LOOKS PROFOUND, WHATEVER HE'S ABOUT TO SAY.

WHILE HE'S GETTING BACK ONLINE, DO YOU MIND IF I INTERJECT? GO AHEAD.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE THAT I'M ON WAS CONCERNED WITH THE U.S.

SUPREME COURT CASE THAT REQUIRED REVIEW OF ORDINANCES THAT MAKE SIGN CONTENT AN ISSUE.

I BELIEVE THAT WAS CORRECT.

YEAH, AND NOW THIS IS A THIS IS AN ENTIRELY NEW TOPIC THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO REVIEW AS PART OF THAT SUBCOMMITTEE.

YEAH, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF OUR HONORABLE CHAIR.

I WOULD ASK FOR SOME INPUT FROM MR. KIESELBACH OR MR. MENSER ABOUT WHAT POSSIBLE CHANGES MIGHT BE IN ORDER TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CORNE RELATED ISSUES THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WHICH IS DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF CONTENT ISSUES.

I THINK IT IS WORTH LOOKING AT, BUT.

RIGHT, CURRENTLY FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR WALL SIGNS, ONLY ONE WALL SIGN IS ALLOWED IN MULTITENANT BUILDINGS AS LONG AS YOU HAVE YOUR OWN MEANS OF PUBLIC ACCESS.

YOU'RE ALLOWED ONE WALL SIGN.

AND IN CASES THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS BEEN LOOKING AT IS THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING A SECOND WALL SIGN.

AGAIN, THAT SMALL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OKEMOS AND GRAND RIVER RAISED THAT ISSUE.

IF THAT HAD BEEN A SOLO TENANT IN THAT BUILDING, THEY DEFINITELY COULD HAVE HAD A SIGN ON GRAND RIVER.

A SIGN ON OKEMOS ROAD.

BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT, THEY HAD TO SEEK A VARIANCE.

AND THEN THE TENANT ON THE FAR WEST END OF THE BUILDING ALSO WANTED ANOTHER WALL SIGN.

WE HAD THAT CASE WHEN BUDDY'S PIZZA CAME IN AND AGAIN, THE SECOND WALL SIGN ON THE FACE TO THE WEST OF THAT BUILDING, BECAUSE THAT WAS THEIR MAIN ENTRANCE OR MAIN ENTRANCE ISN'T GOING TO BE ON GRAND RIVER.

SO THAT'S THE CONCERN, AT LEAST THAT THE ZONING BOARD APPEALS.

SHOULD WE CHANGE THE SIGN OR SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS? I APOLOGIZE FOR DROPPING OUT.

HELLO AGAIN.

SO ANYWAY, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAN BE ROLLED IN WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING OR IF IT SHOULD BE SEPARATED, SEPARATED OUT.

THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE I DID OVER HERE A LITTLE BIT AS I WAS COMING BACK IN.

BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION ON THAT IS WHETHER A CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE IS PREFERABLE THEN TO DEALING WITH THE ISSUE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BASIS ON THE PO BASIS.

DO WE WANT TO GO SO FAR AS TO ALLOW A VERY LIBERAL APPLICATION OF WALL SIGNS, OR DO WE WANT TO KEEP THE WORD IS AND MAKE EXCEPTIONS WHERE APPROPRIATE? YEAH, I, I AGREE WITH YOU, I THAT CERTAINLY IS A DISCUSSION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE.

I THINK THE REASON WHY I BRING IT TO YOU, TALK TO US, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ZBA HAS INDICATED THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A PATTERN THAT MIGHT BETTER BE ADDRESSED BY THE RULE AS OPPOSED TO THE EXCEPTION.

WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO TAKE UP IS IS UP TO, IS UP TO THE BOARD AND TO US.

BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'VE HIGHLIGHTED AS AN ISSUE THAT THEY FEEL THAT WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER.

ANYWAY, THAT WAS MY LIAISON REPORT IN SEVERAL PARTS.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY LIAISON REPORTS? COMMISSIONER BLUMER? I GOT UP AT 7:30 IN THE MORNING TO ATTEND THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ON FEBRUARY 1ST, JUST RUN THROUGH A COUPLE OF THINGS.

IT WAS AN INTERESTING MEETING.

THEY WENT THROUGH A FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

[01:55:01]

I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN.

PERHAPS THE ONLY THING IS THAT THERE'S A $124,000 LONG TERM LOAN THAT'S OUTSTANDING.

THAT THROWS THEIR BALANCE, THE BALANCE SHEET INTO THE NEGATIVE AT THE END OF THE DAY.

VILLAGE PROGRESS REPORT COVID IMPACT HAS SLOWED DOWN DEVELOPMENT, THE NEXT PHASE OF SITE PREPARATION WILL BE IN THE FALL, APPARENTLY, AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP A PARKING LOT.

HEAVY CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE IS PLANNED TO COINCIDE WITH ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON OKEMOS ROAD.

LET'S SEE, THE MEDC HAS BEEN CONTACTED TO HELP WITH FINANCING, WHICH IS WHICH IS STRESSED.

THE.

WHAT I FOUND INTERESTING WAS AND.

MS. CLARK PUBLISHED THE TRANSPORTATION THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE YEAR, AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

THAT'S QUITE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE VARIOUS ROADS ARE THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO SURFACE AND ROADS AND BRIDGES THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT YEAR.

AND THE VILLAGE CELEBRATION COMMITTEE, THEY'RE STILL DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S GOING TO BE FIREWORKS FOR THE FOURTH OF JULY.

THEY SAY IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT THEY JUST HAVEN'T MADE A FINAL DECISION YET.

THE THERE WAS ALSO MENTION OF SOMETHING FROM THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AT THE DDA MEETING, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING.

SUPERVISOR STYKA INDICATED THAT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER HE HAS EXTENDED THE POWER OF VARIOUS COMMISSIONS TO MEET VIRTUALLY.

I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THAT WAS AN ISSUE, BUT WE ARE MEETING VIRTUALLY BY VIRTUE OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER FROM THE TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR.

AND THAT WAS THAT WAS SET TO EXPIRE AS OF MARCH 31ST, UNLESS WE HAD SOME ACTION BY THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT.

SO THANKS TO THEM FOR FOR ALLOWING US TO STAY SAFE.

WE'LL HAVE TO DO THIS THIS, YOU KNOW, 12 BOXES A LITTLE WHILE LONGER.

YEAH.

THERE WAS ALSO MENTION, AGAIN, OF THE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA ISSUE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CITIZENRY OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP THINK ON THAT ISSUE, BUT THEY KIND OF VERY DISTINCT IMPRESSION THAT THE THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE TOWNSHIP HAVE A NEGATIVE VIEW OF THE ALLOWING RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FOR THAT MEETING.

I HAZARD A GUESS TO SAY THAT WE WILL BE HEARING A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT ISSUE AND YOU'LL HEAR HOW QUITE A FEW OF THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FEEL ABOUT IT WHEN IT DOES COME UP IN FRONT OF US.

I'M INTERESTED IN THE UPDATE ON THE VILLAGE.

THEY'RE ENTIRELY AT A STANDSTILL UNTIL THE FALL.

THAT'S THAT'S RELATIVELY SURPRISING CONSIDERING THEY WERE, I THOUGHT, GOING TO START NEXT MONTH.

NO, UNLESS I'M.

IT'S GOING TO GO.

IT'S JUST I THINK EVERYTHING'S BEEN SLOWED DOWN AND THE MAIN THING THEY GOT OUT OF THAT WAS THAT THE HEAVY PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS GOING TO CORRESPOND WITH THE IMPROVEMENT OF OVER OKEMAS ROAD.

YEAH, AND THAT'S TERRIFIC.

TO ONLY HAVE THE AREA IMPACTED, JUST THE, YOU KNOW, IN A CONSOLIDATED WAY.

MAYBE, DIRECTOR CLARK, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ALSO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING IS AT THE SAME TIME AS THE BRIDGE IS BEING REPLACED.

CORRECT.

SO THE THE TIMELINE IS A LITTLE BIT IS A LITTLE BIT STALLED.

WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IS THE EGLE HAS TO DO ANOTHER FINAL WALK THROUGH THIS SPRING TO GIVE THE DEMOLITION TEAM THE APPROVAL TO DONE ALL THIS, THE PARKING LOT, BASICALLY, AND THEN THEY'LL DO SOME SEATING AND FINISH UP WITH THAT PROJECT.

FALL WILL BEGIN SITE VERTICAL PLAT CONSTRUCTION.

SO THAT'S PUTTING IN FOOTINGS AND COMPACTING SO THE BUILDING OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T SINK INTO THE GROUND AND PREPARING IT FOR THAT.

SO, YES, THE TIMELINE IS, AGAIN, THE HEAVIEST PART OF THAT CONSTRUCTION.

IT'LL BE GOING FULL SWING WHEN OKEMAS ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND GRAND RIVER ARE HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, ONLY ANGER THE COMMUNITY ONCE IN 2022.

I THINK WE'LL SAY INCONVENIENCED.

INCONVENIENCED, YES.

DO WE KNOW WHICH ROAD PROPOSAL THEY LANDED ON? IF THERE IS THAT STILL INFLUX? THAT'S STILL IN FLUX, I IMAGINE THAT WE'LL GET THE FINAL REVIEW THIS SUMMER.

SO THAT WAS WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE SUMMER.

WE'LL KNOW WHAT THE FINAL PLANS ARE GOING TO BE.

CONTRACTORS WILL BE VETTED AND THEN IN SPRING CONSTRUCTION.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? THANK YOU.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MET LAST WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3RD.

THE VERY INTERESTING PRESENTATION FROM THE SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER ON

[02:00:04]

THE CITY OF LANSING ABOUT SOME REGIONAL COLLABORATION EFFORTS.

STARTING UP A SUSTAINABILITY PARTNERSHIP REGIONALLY STEMMING LARGELY, I BELIEVE, FROM SOME SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATION TO BUILD A NEW RECYCLING FACILITY IN LANSING.

SEVERAL MUNICIPALITIES WILL BE SHIPPING THEIR RECYCLABLES TO THAT NEW FACILITY.

AND THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER SERVICE PROVIDERS HERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP WOULD ALSO BE POTENTIALLY USING THAT FACILITY.

THANKS.

THE ONE TIME I MUTE MYSELF.

COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] SIR, THANK YOU.

CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY MEETS EVERY OTHER MONTH, SO THE ODD NUMBER ED MONTHS, SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE NOT HEARING A WHOLE LOT FROM ME, BECAUSE THEY REDUCED THE MEETING SCHEDULE.

BUT I DID HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION OR MAYBE CLARIFICATION ABOUT I THINK IT WAS FROM DIRECTOR CLARK.

SO THE OKEMAS BRIDGE NEAR MOUNT HOPE WILL BE REBUILT.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE GRAND RIVER BRIDGE.

WHAT WOULD THAT BE? A REQUEST TO PLAYMAKERS, BASICALLY, OR JUST JUST EAST OF PARK LAKE ARE THE PROJECTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME? SO, YES, THEY WILL.

AND I BELIEVE THAT OKEMAS ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION WILL BEGIN FIRST AND THE MDOT'S RAISING OF GRAND RIVER WILL BEGIN AFTER THAT.

AND YES, THEY WILL HAVE A TIME PERIOD WHEN THEY ARE GOING FULL SWING.

AT THE SAME TIME.

DIRECTOR [INAUDIBLE] PERRY IS WORKING VERY, VERY HARD TO FIND APPROPRIATE TRAVEL METHODS FOR ALL OF THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS, AS WELL AS EVERYBODY ELSE WHO TRAVELS ON.

OBVIOUSLY, THESE TWO MAIN STREETS.

IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT.

SO WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY IS AWARE.

THE REASON WHY THE COUNTY HAS DECIDED TO DO IT THIS WAY IS BECAUSE THEY COULD BID THE PROJECT AND BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF OKEMAS ROAD.

BUT THAT WOULD MEAN THEY WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE THE ROAD FOR SIX MONTHS OUT OF THIS YEAR, STOP, REOPEN IT AND THEN CLOSE IT AGAIN, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WHY DO THAT? SO THE IDEA IS JUST TO DO A FULL START AND STOP OF ALL THE CONSTRUCTION AT THAT TIME.

AND BECAUSE OF THE VILLAGE OF OKEMAS BUILDING WILL BE GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME.

THERE'S A POSSIBILITY IF THE DEVELOPERS FIND THE FUNDING, THAT THEY CAN FINISH THE GAP FROM CLINTON ROAD ALL THE WAY UP TO GRAND RIVER, WHICH COULD INCLUDE THE FULL LEFT TURN LANES THAT WE WERE HOPING FOR TO PUT ON HAMILTON.

THAT'S STILL A BIT OF THE FINANCING THAT WE'RE WORKING ON TO TRY TO FIND.

WE JUST THINK THAT IT'S IT MAKES MORE OF AN EFFICIENT USE OF OUR TIME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, FOR ALL THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO BE AT THE SAME TIME.

AND WE JUST KIND OF GET THE HEADACHE OUT OF THE WAY.

WILL HALF OF THE ROAD BE AVAILABLE FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC OR BOTH, BOTH NORTH SOUTH ON OKEMAS, THE EAST WEST, SAY, ON GRAND RIVER BE CLOSED? HOW WILL I'M JUST I'M SORRY, I'M GETTING STUCK IN THE WEEDS, BUT I'M THINKING THIS COULD LOOK AWFUL.

I KNOW WE WANT A BETTER ROAD SYSTEM, BUT AND TO BE HONEST, I CANNOT IMAGINE IT WON'T LOOK AWFUL.

SO I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO JUST GET OURSELVES ADJUSTED TO THAT.

THERE ARE, FROM WHAT I DO KNOW, THAT OKEMAS ROAD WILL HAVE SOME TRAFFIC THROUGH.

THERE WILL BE LANES TO GO THROUGH, WHICH IS WHY IT MAY TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL BE A COMPLETE SHUT DOWN.

BUT LET ME I CAN I CAN WORK WITH.

DIRECTOR CHRIS BUCK AND PLANNER MENSER, TO GET YOU THAT INFORMATION FROM MANAGER PERRY, I'M NOT SURE IF OUR PLANS FOR HOW TRAFFIC IS GOING TO TRAVERSE THAT AREA IS FINALIZED YET, BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE STILL WAITING FOR THE COUNTY AND MDOT TO FINISH THEIR PLANS AS WELL.

BUT WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF HOW THAT.

YEAH, I GUESS.

I MEAN, PART OF ME AS A CITIZEN AND PART OF ME I GUESS THE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT, IT'S LIKE YOU DON'T I MEAN, OF COURSE YOU WANT IMPROVEMENT AND YOU NEED IT ON THE ROADS.

BUT THEN AGAIN, YOU DON'T WANT TO KILL THE BUSINESSES BY BLOCKING IT.

YEAH, I DON'T MEAN TO GO UNNECESSARILY INTO THIS.

I'M JUST THINKING OF ALL THE WHAT IFS.

[02:05:03]

BUT.

ABSOLUTELY.

SO I WILL MAKE A NOTE OF HERE.

I MEAN, I HAD MADE A NOTE TO.

THAT WOULD, WE WOULD TEAR IT UP AS SOON AS WE GOT ALL THE INFORMATION.

BUT I'LL MAKE SURE THAT ANY INFORMATION THAT I HAVE, I CAN SUM UP TO YOU AND SEND ALONG.

OK.

MUCH APPRECIATED.

THANK YOU.

PERHAPS DEPUTY MANAGER PERRY MIGHT BE WILLING TO JOIN US ONE OF THESE EVENINGS ON A NIGHT THAT WE HAVE A LIGHT AGENDA TO COME IN AND, YOU KNOW, HELP US OUT AS WELL.

NOT THAT I'M SURE DIRECTOR CLARK COULD PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SUMMARY, BUT IF HE'S THE ONE WHO'S POINT ON IT, THEN HE COULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME UP CONTEMPORANEOUSLY.

ANY OTHER RELAYS ON REPORTS FOR US THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON THEN TO AGENDA ITEM 10A NEW APPLICATIONS.

[10. PROJECT UPDATES]

WE HAVE ONE SITE PLANS RECEIVED.

WE HAVE ONE SITE PLANS APPROVED.

WE HAVE NONE.

SO THEN WE'LL BRING US TO OUR FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC REMARKS, YOU CAN USE THE RAISED HAND FEATURE IF YOU'RE IN OUR ZOOM MEETING OR YOU CAN GIVE US A CALL.

AND WHEN YOU DO, YOU CAN CALL (517) 349-1232.

PLEASE LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE MINUTES AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS.

AND THIS PUBLIC COMMENT CAN BE ON ANY TOPIC THAT YOU FEEL LIKE COMING AND TALKING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON.

SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE FLOOR.

WE GIVE FOLKS A SECOND TO DIAL.

STEPHEN, ANY RINGING? YOU HAVE NO CALLS, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR FINAL AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT.

DO WE HAVE THE MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOVED BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

ALL IN FAVOR ADJOURNMENT SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AND WE STAND ADJOURNED AT 9:05 P.M.

PETER COULD YOU STAY ON FOR JUST HALF SECOND, PLEASE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE.

GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU.

AND I THANK YOU.

BYE BYE.

I HAVE ONE THING FOR YOU TO BE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.