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).

[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 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.

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.

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.

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.