6.A. Rezoning #21030 (New China of Michigan), rezone 0.42 acre RC (Multiple Family-maximum 14 dwelling units per acre) to RCC (Multiple Family-maximum 34 dwelling units per acre) at 5114 Jo Don Drive.

[6.A. Rezoning #21030 (New China of Michigan), rezone 0.42 acre RC (Multiple Family-maximum 14 dwelling units per acre) to RCC (Multiple Family-maximum 34 dwelling units per acre) at 5114 Jo Don Drive.]

NUMBER TWO ONE ZERO THREE ZERO NEW CHINA, MICHIGAN, REZONE POINT FOUR TWO ACRES TO RC, MULTIPLE FAMILY, MAXIMUM 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO RRCC, MULTIPLE FAMILY MAXIMUM THIRTY FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AT FIVE ONE ONE FOUR JO DON DRIVE.

AND SO THIS EVENING WE WILL DEPART FROM OUR TYPICAL PROCEDURE AND WE WILL GO TO KEITH CHAPMAN, WHO I'M SORRY, KEITH, I DON'T RECALL YOUR TITLE OF TOP OF MY HEAD.

I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT DOWN TO GET US STARTED ON THE ON THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANKS, SCOTT. IT'S ASSISTANT PLANNER.

ASSISTANT PLANNER.

ALL RIGHT. I WRITE IT DOWN FOR NEXT TIME.

YEAH, NOT A PROBLEM, BUT LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.

OK, SO THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS FOR REZONING TWENTY ONE ZERO THREE ZERO NEW CHINA OF MICHIGAN, THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE AN APPROXIMATE POINT FOUR TWO ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT FIVE ONE ONE FOUR JO DON FROM RC MULTIFAMILY MAXIMUM 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO RCC

[00:25:05]

MULTIFAMILY MAXIMUM THIRTY FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

SO THIS IS LOCATION MAP THAT SHOWS WHERE IT'S LOCATED.

IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO STRATFORD PLACE ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SIRHAL AND JO DON.

TO THE SOUTH IS GABLES PLAZA AND THE GABLES POINT.

SHOPPING CENTERS.

AND THEN IF YOU GO FURTHER SOUTH, IT'S LIKE CORAL GABLES [INAUDIBLE] OVER THERE.

OK, SO 2017 MASTER PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS R23 RESIDENTIAL POINT FIVE TO THREE POINT FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

AND THIS SHOWS THAT AS WELL AS THE AREA IS COMMERCIAL, THEN THE BROWN IS ALL THE R2.

SO THE CURRENT ZONING RC MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS 14 DWELLING UNITS, RCC, MULTIPLE FAMILY THAT WOULD ALLOW THIRTY FOUR DWELLING UNITS, SO THESE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE USED TO ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH AS WELL AS THE PERMITTED LAND USES. SO BOTH THE RC AND RCC REQUIRE ONE HUNDRED FEET OF LOT WIDTH AND IT MEETS THIS REQUIREMENT OR IT MEETS THE LOT WIDTH THE REQUIREMENT FOR 216 FEET ON JO DON, BUT IT DOESN'T MEET ON SIRHAL, WHICH IS ONLY EIGHTY FOUR FEET IN LOT WIDTH.

AND THIS IS THE ZONING.

SO TO THE EAST IS RC AS WELL, AND SOUTH C2 COMMERCIAL AND TO THE WEST IS RA, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY.

AND THEN RX IS SINGLE FAMILY TO FAMILY.

ON SITE, THERE'S CURRENTLY A THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY SQUARE FOOT APARTMENT BUILDING, THERE'S SIX UNITS, TWO STORY WITH GARDEN LEVEL THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1963.

THERE'S NO WETLANDS OR FLOOD PLAIN ON THE PROPERTY.

SO REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS TO CONSIDER, ALL USE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.

AND THE CURRENT PROPOSAL ZONING DISTRICT, AS WELL AS ALL USES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND IN THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT.

THE REASONS FOR THE REZONING THAT ARE LISTED ON PAGE TWO OF THE APPLICATION AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THOSE REZONES.

SO TO GO OVER SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS.

RC PERMITS TWO FAMILY DWELLING BY RIGHT AND BOTH THE RC AND RCC SPECIAL USE PERMITS ALLOWS FOR THREE OR MORE DRILLING UNITS, ALSO LIKE A MIXTURE OF SINGLE FAMILY, TWO FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY IN DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS WHERE A SINGLE FAMILY CAN'T EXCEED 50 PERCENT OF THE DENSITY.

GROUP HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING MORE THAN 50 DWELLING UNITS AND INCIDENTAL COMMERCIAL WORK PROJECT IS GREATER THAN 200 UNITS AND SPECIFICALLY.

GROCERY STORES, LIGHT SERVICE, DRUG STORES AND RESTAURANTS.

PAGE FOUR AND FIVE OF THE STAFF MEMO GOES OVER PRETTY WELL ABOUT THE DENSITY OF THE PROPERTY. SO THE CURRENT RC ZONING, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, ALLOWS 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND SINCE THE PROPERTY IS ONLY POINT OR TWO ACRES IN SIZE, YOU MULTIPLY THOSE TWO TOGETHER, IT WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR FIVE WHOLE UNITS, AS IS.

AND THE PROPOSED RCC IS THE THIRTY FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

AND THAT MULTIPLIED BY THE POINT FOUR TWO COME OUT TO 14 TOTAL UNITS.

[00:30:11]

AND SINCE WE'RE ONLY CONSIDERING THE LAND USE, I DO WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY COME INTO PLAY AS TO WHAT GETS BUILT ON THE PROPERTY. SO THE RCC ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES A 40 FOOT REAR YEAR SET BACK, AND THAT WOULD BE FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE.

ALL BUILDINGS, INCLUDING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, CANNOT OCCUPY MORE THAN THIRTY FIVE PERCENT FROM THAT AREA LAND ON THE PROPERTY AND A MINIMUM OF THIRTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA EXCLUSIVE OF DRIVERS AND PARKING MUST BE SET ASIDE AS OPEN SPACE.

AND LIKE I SAID, WITHOUT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THERE'S THERE COULD BE MORE.

COULD BE LESS. I JUST DON'T KNOW.

BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

OK, SO FOR THE FOLKS WATCHING AT HOME, WE GENERALLY JUST FOR I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK YOU TOUCHED ON THE FORMAT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ITSELF.

AFTER THE PRESENTATION FROM STAFF.

WE GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK AND THEN PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN PLANNING COMMISSION WILL SPEAK.

SO AT THIS TIME, I'D INVITE THE APPLICANT TO WEIGH IN HERE.

AND IF THEY'D LIKE TO GIVE A PRESENTATION, THEY'RE WELCOME TO.

I KNOW WE'VE GOT JOHN AND HELEN IN THE MEETING HERE.

IF EITHER OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ANY FURTHER ON THE ON THE ZONING APP REZONING APPLICATION, NOW WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT TIME.

LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE MIGHT BE PROMOTING YOU AS WE SPEAK HERE.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN IS STILL DIALING IN, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON IT RIGHT NOW.

OK.

JOHN, CAN YOU HEAR US? JOHN, I'M SORRY YOU'RE TALKING, BUT WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE DIALING IN, SO THAT'S GOOD.

NOW? YES. GO AHEAD, JOHN.

[INAUDIBLE] YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

TURN MY PHONE ON. NO MR. MCLAUGHLIN, YOU WERE CONNECTED.

YOU NEED TO DIAL BACK AND PUT THAT INFORMATION BACK IN.

JOHN, CAN YOU HEAR US? YOU NEED TO CALL, YOU NEED TO USE YOUR PHONE, JOHN.

[00:36:02]

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW OVER THE PHONE? YES? YES, YES, WE CAN.

GO AHEAD, JOHN. OK.

DID YOU HAVE MY ADDRESS AND SO ON? WE DID. GO AHEAD.

OK, THE COMMENT THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT THE NOTICE THAT INDICATED THAT THE ZONE RCC COULD HAVE 34 BUILDING UNITS OR DWELLING UNITS, AND THAT IS PER ACRE. WHICH I THINK IS CONFUSING THE PEOPLE ALONG THE STREET WHO GOT NOTICED.

THE ENTIRE LOT IS ONLY POINT FOUR TWO ACRES AND WOULD ONLY ALLOW A TOTAL OF 14 BUILDING UNITS IN THE RCC.

THE SOUTH HALF ALREADY HAS SIX.

SO THE NORTH HALF COULD ONLY HAVE AS MUCH AS EIGHT LIVING UNITS, THE OWNERS DON'T INTEND TO DO IT TO DEVELOP IT INTO AN APARTMENT BUILDING THERE, THEY WERE APPROACHED BY A PERSON TO PURCHASE THE NORTH HALF TO BUILD A HOME.

AND THIS TIME AT THIS TIME, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY INTENDED A SINGLE FAMILY OR A DUPLEX HOME.

WHICH WOULD FIT UNDER THE RCC CODE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN.

THANK YOU, JOHN, IF YOU COULD STAY ON THE LINE, PLEASE.

YES I WILL. WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU LATER.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL STAY ON. THANK YOU.

OK, SO NOW WE'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENTS IN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE TOPIC AT HAND, WHICH IS THIS REZONING REQUEST.

IF YOU ARE IN OUR ZOOM MEETING, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE WILL PROMOTE YOU OR YOU CAN GIVE US A CALL AT (517)349-1232.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I WILL GIVE EVERYONE A MOMENT TO RAISE THEIR HAND OR CALL IN.

OK, SEEING NO HANDS RAISED.

I SPOKE TOO SOON AGAIN.

ALL RIGHT, WE'VE GOT DAVID TATE RAISING HIS HAND.

HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME OK? WE CAN GO RIGHT AHEAD.

DO I NEED TO STATE ALL THE THINGS AGAIN OR AM I GOOD? YES, PLEASE. OK, DAVID TATE, I LIVE AT FIVE ONE ONE SEVEN JO DON DRIVE, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN. FOUR EIGHT EIGHT TWO THREE.

OK, THANK YOU, GO AHEAD.

SO IS THIS JUST ME COMMENTING OR CAN I ASK QUESTIONS? THIS IS A TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

THIS IS NOT REALLY A DIALOG, BUT IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS, THERE'S A DECENT CHANCE THAT ONE OF US WILL ASK THOSE OF THE APPLICANTS AND THEY CAN ADDRESS THOSE.

OK, I GUESS I KNOW REALLY NOTHING ABOUT ZONING AND BUILDING AND SUCH.

SO I GUESS MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT I HAD MADE AN OBJECTION WAS JUST ASSUMING READING THE LETTER THAT IT JUST LOOKED LIKE THEY WANTED TO PERHAPS BUILD ANOTHER COMPLEX SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY HAVE NEXT TO THEIR CURRENT ONE.

AND IF THEIR IF THEIR PROPOSAL IS TO SELL THAT PROPERTY THROUGH THIS REZONING PROCESS AND JUST BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT OR AT THE MOST MAYBE A DUPLEX LIKE THE ONE NEXT TO IT.

[00:40:09]

I WOULD I WOULD NOT OBJECT TO THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I'VE GOT MF. HI, THIS IS MILA [INAUDIBLE] FROM FIVE ONE THREE THREE JO DON, SO I HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH HELEN TODAY, THE BUILDING OWNER, AND SHE HAD STATED THAT SHE WAS HOPING TO SEPARATE THE PROPERTY, TO ENTERTAIN THE PURCHASE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY TO THAT, TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS WOULD APPROVE TO A SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX.

BUT THEN IF, SAY, THE OFFER FELL THROUGH AND THE OWNERS WANTED TO BUILD A ANOTHER MULTI FAMILY COMPLEX, WOULD THAT GO UP FOR RECONSIDERATION OR WOULD THAT IF THE ZONING WAS APPROVED, WOULD THEY AUTOMATICALLY BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT COMING BACK FOR REEVALUATION? OK.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS TOPIC? SEEING NONE, WILL GO AND MOVE ON FROM PUBLIC [INAUDIBLE].

PETER? I CAN'T HEAR YOU, PETER.

PETER ARE YOU THERE? CAN'T REALLY HEAR YOU.

SOUNDS LIKE YOU MAY HAVE A MUTE ON [INAUDIBLE], BUT.

PROBABLY A MICROPHONE HEADSET ISSUE.

IF I HAD TO GUESS.

AND I DO SEE, WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR PETER HERE, I DO SEE THAT BOTH APPLICANTS HAVE THEIR HANDS RAISED. IF YOU CAN GIVE US A MOMENT, WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU WITH QUESTIONS.

NOTHING NOW? YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. OK.

I DON'T KNOW WHO KNOWS? JUST BEFORE YOU GO TO DISCUSSION, I AT LEAST WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT, THE SINGLE FAMILY ISSUE IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE HEARD THAT TODAY.

AND THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE WITH THE CURRENT REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT.

SO SINGLE FAMILY IS NOT A USE THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT.

SO IF THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT, WE'RE KIND OF ON THE WRONG PATH, SO THAT MIGHT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO CLARIFY THAT [INAUDIBLE].

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT, PETER.

OK, SO WE WILL THEN MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION, AND I THINK THE FIRST RELEVANT QUESTION IS RELATING TO THE COMMENT THAT PETER JUST MADE, WHICH IS IF YOUR INTENT IS TO REZONE THIS FOR THE SALE OF THE, I GUESS, PART OF THE PROPERTY OR USE OF PART OF THE PROPERTY AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND NOW KNOWING THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROPER USE OF THIS, WOULD YOU STILL LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REZONING? AND I'LL LEAVE THAT TO EITHER HELEN OR JOHN.

AND JOHN, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU ANYMORE.

I DO HAVE HELEN HERE WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER.

YEAH, PERHAPS IF WE IF WE PROMOTED HELEN, I DON'T WE'RE NOT GETTING JOHN'S AUDIO ANYMORE.

ALL RIGHT. HERE YOU COME, HELEN.

HELEN, IF YOU'RE THERE, GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE.

YOU'RE ALREADY IN THE MEETING, HELEN, GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE.

HELEN, CAN YOU UNMUTE PLEASE? OK, OK, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, WE CAN. OK, YEAH.

THESE MULTI I THINK THAT THIS IS IT'S OK FOR THE DUPLEX FAMILY.

RIGHT? NOT THE SINGLE.

IS THAT RIGHT? NOT EVEN THE DUPLEX, SO THAT'S WHAT PETER SAID AS WELL, I'LL CONFIRM THAT WITH PETER AND MARK TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DUPLEXES ALSO WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE IN RCC.

I THOUGHT YOU SAID I ONLY SINGLES ARE NOT ALLOWED, EVEN DUPLEX IS NOT ALLOWED?

[00:45:04]

PETER AND MARK, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT, PLEASE? YEAH, SORRY, JUST TRYING TO GET MY SCREENS RIGHT.

SO RCC ALLOWS BY SPECIAL DOES NOT ALLOW DUEL TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

THAT'S SO THEY'RE ALLOWED IN RDD, RD AND RC BUT NOT RCC.

SO HOW MANY THEN IS OK, SO WHAT IS THE MINIMUM UNIT WE CAN DO SO WE DON'T WANT TO DO A WHOLE LOT BUILDING? IF YOU WANT TO BUILD LIKE IF SINGLE, THAT'S THE BEST.

IF LIKE SINGLE IS NOT POSSIBLE EVEN TO DUPLEX CAN NOT SO IT'S NOT.

SO WHAT I MEAN IS THAT I AFTER WE DIVIDE THE LAND OUT, CAN THEY APPLY FOR ZONING AGAIN? KEITH I'M GONNA LET YOU HANDLE THIS. YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE CASE.

SO, YEAH, IF LIKE IF THIS ONE PASSED AND THEN CAN IF THE [INAUDIBLE] FROM THE BUILDING.

ARE WE ALLOWED TO REZONING AGAIN? BUT CURRENT IS A LIKE, NOT A SINGLE ON AND NOT THE MOST AND NOT THE DUPLEX.

SO OUR PURPOSE RIGHT NOW IS DIVIDE THE LAND OUT FROM THE BUILDING.

THAT IS WHAT OUR PURPOSE.

OK, SO LET ME JUST SEE IF I CAN IF I CAN.

SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, WE REZONE THE LAND FROM RC TO RCC, YOU DIVIDE THE LAND AND THEN YOU REZONE THE NORTHERN PARCEL BACK TO A ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE OR A DUPLEX.

YES. IS THAT POSSIBLE? WELL, I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF, FEELS LIKE A.

YEAH SO, AS IS RIGHT NOW AND WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION, I THINK IT WAS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. SO RIGHT NOW, WE CAN'T DO A LAND DIVISION BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE THE WHOLE PARCEL NONCONFORMING. SO THERE'S ONLY IT ONLY PERMITS FIVE UNITS AS IT IS, AND THERE'S SIX UNITS THERE. SO WE CAN'T BY ORDINANCE, ALLOW THEM TO SPLIT THE PARCEL BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE NONCONFORMING. OK, AND SO THIS WILL SORT OF THIS WAS OUR PLAN TO UP ZONE IT AND THEN DOWN ZONE IT AGAIN.

WELL, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING OF A DOWN ZONING BACK AFTERWARDS, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD OF THAT.

SO. OK, I SAW COMMISSIONER RICHARDS A SECOND AGO, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A, COMMISSIONER TREZISE THEN.

YEAH. IT SEEMS TO ME WE'VE GOT THE INDIVIDUAL IN A STRANGE SITUATION WHERE REQUIRES A REZONING TO SPLIT.

BUT IF WE APPROVE THE REZONING, SHE HAS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PUT ANOTHER APARTMENT BUILDING ON THERE, WHICH IS OPPOSED AND WHICH I WOULD OPPOSE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE GET FROM A TO B TO ALLOW, IF WE WISH, THE SPLIT OF THE PROPERTY AND ALLOW THAT TO BE DEVELOPED AS A SINGLE OR A DUPLEX AND WE HAVE TO UP ZONE THE REMAINING PIECE.

SO THAT IS NOT A NON CONFORMING USE.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE A CHICKEN AND EGG TYPE SITUATION.

BUT JUST TO ADD ON TO THAT QUESTION, MAYBE FOR STAFF TO ANSWER, IS THIS IS THIS A SITUATION WHERE THEY COULD THEORETICALLY GO TO THE ZBA AND REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND THEN ONCE THAT, IF APPROVED, HAVE IT SPLIT? SO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP WE CAN'T GRANT A USE VARIANCE AND THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A USE.

WE CAN'T GO TO THE ZBA TO DO THAT.

OK, SO IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY FOR TO COMMISSIONER TREZISE'S QUESTION WITHOUT HAVING TO GET CAUGHT IN A CHICKEN AND EGG QUAGMIRE? I CAN ASK MARK, BUT I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH AS AVENUE.

WELL, I'LL CLARIFY THAT WE DIDN'T COME UP WITH THIS PROCESS, SO THE APPLICANT APPLIED TO REZONE TO THIS. YEAH, SORRY.

IN THE BEGINNING, WE APPLIED TO SPLIT THAT [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN IT DID NOT QUALIFY, AND THEN WE APPLY FOR A VARIANCE AND THEN IT DID NOT QUALIFY.

AND THEN THIS ONE IS THE ONE THAT THEY SAID THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S WHY I COME HERE.

IT'S BEEN A COUPLE MONTHS. THE FIRST TIME I WROTE IN THERE, I TRY TO PUT THE LAND OUT FROM THE BUILDING. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

YES, THANK YOU. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS IN THIS RC DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE PRESENTLY IN,

[00:50:03]

THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO BUILD, THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR DUPLEX.

IS THAT CORRECT? OK.

THEREFORE, WHAT IF THEY REQUEST A REZONING TO A DIFFERENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT'S CONDITIONAL ON IT BEING DEVELOPED EITHER A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A DUPLEX, IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO OFFER THAT AS A CONDITION? IS THAT A ROUTE? I'LL LEAVE THAT TO DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

YEAH, THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION.

WHEN THIS SITE WAS ORIGINALLY USED BACK IN 1963, THE WAY THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS SET UP, THE MOST THEY COULD DO ON THE ENTIRE SITE IS A SIX UNIT BUILDING.

THE WAY THEY CALCULATED DENSITY, BECAUSE IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY WE DO NOW.

THAT'S, THAT'S THE DILEMMA.

EVEN THOUGH THEY BUILT THE STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY AND LEFT THE NORTHERN PORTION VACANT, BASICALLY THAT ENTIRE PARCEL IS USED PER DENSITY.

SO NO MORE DENSITY UNDER THE RC COULD BE ALLOWED.

AS KEITH SAID, IT CAN'T BE SPLIT BECAUSE IT MAKES THE EXISTING SIX UNIT NON CONFORMING AND THEY DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM FOR THE VACANT PARCEL TO USE.

AND AS WAS SAID, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CAN'T GRANT A DENSITY VARIANCE, SO THEY CAN'T GRANT A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THAT NORTHERN PORTION TO HAVE DEVELOPMENT. THE REZONING BASICALLY WAS TRYING TO KEEP THE EXISTING BUILDING CONFORMING BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS AND THEN ALLOW FOR SOME USE ON THE NORTHERN PORTION, AGAIN, AS WAS SAID, A SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX IN THE RCC THAT THIRTY FOUR UNITS, THOSE AREN'T ALLOWED. OK, SO JUST WALKING THROUGH, I SEE A COUPLE OF HANDS, I'LL GET YOU TWO IN JUST ONE SECOND, WALKING JUST ONE STEP FURTHER ON THIS MARK, ONCE, PRESUME FOR A MOMENT THAT THIS REZONING PASSES, OK, AND IT PASSES THROUGH THE PORT, COULD THEY THEN SPLIT THE PARCEL AS THEY'RE DESCRIBING? I'M SORRY, SCOTT, I DIDN'T DO WHAT WITH THE PARCEL? IF THE IF THEY GET THIS ZONING WERE TO PASS THIS REZONING REQUEST, WOULD THEY BE ENABLED TO THEN LAND DIVIDE THIS PARCEL? SOUTH FROM NORTH. THEY COULD BE ALLOWING FOR THE DENSITY, THEY COULD, THERE'S OTHER ISSUES TOO, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING BUILDING NON CONFORMING, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S SETBACKS, NOT DENSITY. SURE.

SO, OK, SO THE PLAN ACTUALLY COULD THEORETICALLY WORK, RIGHT? IF IF EVERYTHING WORKED TO IF EVERYTHING WENT TO PLAN RIGHT.

IT COULD THEORETICALLY BE UP ZONED, DIVIDED AND THEN DOWN ZONED AGAIN? IS THAT ACCURATE TO GET WHAT THEY WANT, IF THEY WANT A DUPLEX OR A HOUSE ON THAT ON THE PROPERTY? IT COULD, REMEMBER.

THERE'S NO THERE'S NO OFFER OF ANY CONDITIONS HERE.

SO THE ZONING GOES WITH THE PROPERTY SO IT COULD BE SOLD AND DEVELOPED TO ITS FULL POTENTIAL. SURE.

UNDERSTOOD. I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO ASSUME FROM WHAT THE APPLICANT IS COMING FORWARD WITH HONEST INTENT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IF BEFORE WE GO OUT AND FULLY ENTERTAIN THE NOTION OF WHAT YOU'RE, OF WHAT THEY'RE DESCRIBING.

THAT'S POSSIBLE.

SO, OK, I SAW COMMISSIONER RICHARDS AND I SAW COMMISSIONER BLUMER AND I SAW SOMEONE ELSE.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, I THINK SO.

WE'LL GO RICHARDS, BLUMER, MCCONNELL AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHO ELSE IS LOOKING TO WEIGH IN.

OK, I GUESS THE CHAIR ASKED THE QUESTION THAT WAS ON MY MIND IN TERMS OF REZONING AND THEN SPLITTING.

BUT I GUESS AND THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.

BUT IN LISTENING TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS LOOKING FOR, WHICH MY GUESS IS TO CONTINUE, THAT GREEN SPACE IS A LITTLE POCKET PARK.

THAT AND THE OWNERS LOOKING TO GENERATE SOME INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE ONE POSSIBILITY AND AGAIN, WHERE THIS IS POSSIBLE OR NOT IS, YOU KNOW, FOR IT TO BE DEVELOPED AS IF IT COULD BE SPLIT AND THEN SOLD THEORETICALLY TO THE TOWNSHIP FOR A

[00:55:03]

POCKET PARK, THEN IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD THAT WOULD BE A RESOLUTION THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, HELP IN THIS SITUATION AT THE MOMENT UNLESS, YOU KNOW, CONDITION MAY BE PUT OUT THERE THAT THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE USED FOR SOME SORT OF OPEN SPACE AS PART OF THE CONDITION OF THE REZONING.

BUT, YOU KNOW, SHORT OF THAT, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, REZONING IT WITHOUT ANY, YOU KNOW, LIMITATIONS ON IT, I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT IT MYSELF.

AND I THINK IT'S CAN BE DIFFICULT TO SUPPORT.

SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER. THE I HAVE A QUESTION, EVEN IF THE SPLIT IS ULTIMATELY ALLOWED, DOES THE NEWLY CREATED PARCEL OF PROPERTY FACE QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF A LIMITED SETBACK? IT DOESN'T MEET WITH REQUIREMENTS IF I UNDERSTAND THE EARLIER DISCUSSION.

IS IT GOING TO BECOME A USELESS PIECE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE PROPERLY DEVELOPED BECAUSE OF SETBACK OF PROBLEMS? PROBABLY ALL OVERALL, IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE SIZE OR THE LOT WIDTH, IT'S GOING TO BE ACTUALLY TRYING TO PHYSICALLY PUT A BUILDING ON THE SITE IS GOING TO BE THE PROBLEM WITH SETBACKS. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT IT MAY CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES TO SPLIT OFF THAT NORTHERN SECTION.

YEAH. OK, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

THANKS, MY QUESTION, I THINK DIRECTOR KIESELBACH LARGELY ANSWERED IT, STILL UNCLEAR THE CURRENT USE IS NONCONFORMING AND I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.

IT'S NOT A DENSITY ISSUE.

IT'S SETBACK ISSUES.

BUT THAT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT BEFORE THE ZONING WAS ADOPTED.

OTHERWISE IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN BUILT WITHOUT A VARIANCE.

IS THAT HISTORICALLY CORRECT, THAT THE CODE, FOLLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION, OR AM I CONFUSED ON THAT POINT? THE ZONING, THE RC ZONING BACK IN 1963, DENSITY WISE, IT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE SIX UNITS ON THAT SITE.

AS FAR AS SETBACKS HAVE MET, THE SETBACKS THAT WE HAD IN 1963, OVER TIME, THOSE STANDARDS FOR SETBACKS AND PARKING AND PARKING LOTS HAVE ALL CHANGED.

SO IT IS NONCONFORMING BECAUSE OF THOSE REASONS.

GOTCHA.

THANKS. THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

I MEAN IT.

IT DOES SEEM LIKE A STOP GAP OF UP ZONING DOES RAISE THE SORT OF SPECTER OF SOMEONE COMING AND DEMOLISHING, A NEW OWNER, POTENTIALLY DEMOLISHING THE CURRENT BUILDING IN ORDER TO BUILD SOMETHING OF THE MAXIMUM SIZE, WHICH SEEMS IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT HOUSING STOCK IS GOOD AND SERVING A PURPOSE SO.

ONE FEELS LIKE A REAL CONUNDRUM.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO WEIGH IN, COMMISSIONER SNYDER? THANK YOU, SO.

I'M LOOKING AT THE PARCEL VIEWER AND JUST EYEBALLING IT, THE PROPERTY, THE PARCEL IMMEDIATELY NORTH AT 5130, THAT PARCEL AGAIN, JUST EYEBALLING IT, IT LOOKS TO BE ABOUT THE SIZE OR EVEN SMALLER POTENTIALLY COMPARED TO WHAT A NORTHERN PARCEL OF THIS PARCEL IN QUESTION WOULD BE IF IT WERE SPLIT.

I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE'S FOLLOWING THAT, BUT SOMEONE HAD MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD BE HARD TO TO PUT A STRUCTURE ON THAT PARCEL IF IT WERE IF IT WERE SPLIT OFF.

BUT IN JUST LOOKING AT, AGAIN, THAT PARCEL AT 5130, THAT PARCEL LOOKS SMALLER TO ME THAN WHAT A NORTHERN HALF PARCEL OF THIS CURRENT PROPERTY WOULD BE.

SO I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT IF IF MAYBE THAT PARCEL AT 5130 STRUCTURE WAS MAYBE BUILT IN THE IN THE 50S AS WELL.

AND YOU CAN'T DO IT NOW.

CAN I GET SOME CLARITY ON THAT? SO IT'S POSSIBLE, TOO, THAT THAT PARCEL IS NON CONFIRMING, I DON'T KNOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT IT'S MEETS THE REGULATIONS, SO I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THAT, UNFORTUNATELY.

MARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT ON THAT? OTHER THAN THIS WAS DONE AS A PLANNED SUBDIVISION, BUT THIS PARCEL WAS PART OF THE PARCEL OF WHICH IS KNOWN AS LOT 13 THAT WENT NORTH.

[01:00:01]

AND IF YOU CAN SEE IT, I DON'T, KNOW THE PICTURES ARE VERY GOOD.

IT WENT UP AND INCLUDED THE CUL DE SAC THAT'S TO THE NORTH ON JO DON.

SO THIS WAS ONE PIECE ORIGINALLY AND THEN IT WAS SPLIT AND THEN BUILT ON IN SIXTY THREE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION ON THE LAND DIVISION OR BACK IN 63 IN THAT.

SO. IN THE ZONING, THAT WAS RC AT THE TIME.

OK, THANK YOU, I SAW COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

I WAS GOING TO ECHO COMMISSIONER SNYDER'S COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE LOT SIZES ARE FAIRLY SMALL AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MULTIUNIT SITE THAT IS ON THE SOUTH, THIS PLOT, THIS PARCEL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, DIVIDING IT OFF WOULD SEEM MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IT WOULD BE NICE IF THAT IS TRUE.

IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD FIND A WAY TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE AS OPPOSED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER SELLING IT AND HAVING SOMETHING POTENTIALLY LARGER.

I GUESS THEY COULDN'T PUT ANYTHING LARGER ON THAT SITE WITHOUT A REZONING.

BUT IT SEEMS AS IF WHAT THEY'RE INTENDING TO DO IS SOMETHING THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, I THINK WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IF IT WERE DOABLE AND IT WOULD BE A WIN-WIN FOR ALL BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO SELL THE PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE NEIGHBORS WOULDN'T GET SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND WOULD GET ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR POSSIBLY DUPLEX IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT IT SOUNDS REALLY COMPLICATED AND.

CLEARLY, WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT IT ALREADY, I'M JUST WONDERING IF.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S OURS TO FIGURE OUT NECESSARILY I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS TO DECIDE, BUT I THINK IF THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN ASSIST WITH THAT, IT IS A PATH FORWARD AND IT WOULD WORK.

THAT WOULD BE WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO.

BUT I THINK WHAT'S BEFORE US DOESN'T SOUND PARTICULARLY WORKABLE WITHOUT SOME CHANGES, TOO. YEAH, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT ALLOWED TO OFFER CONDITIONS ON A REZONING REQUEST. THOSE CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE VOLUNTARY AND MADE BY THE APPLICANT.

WITH NO CONDITIONS AS THE PROPOSAL CURRENTLY STANDS BEFORE US.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING GOING AWRY DOWN THE ROAD WOULD BE TOO GREAT, AND SO BARRING SOME CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AS WE SEE IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS STRAIGHT REZONING AS IT IS OFFERED TODAY.

BUT BARRING, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE THERE MIGHT BE A CHANGE DOWN THE ROAD, WE DON'T KNOW.

SO I THINK PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, AND WE'LL SEE A STRAW POLL HERE IN A MINUTE, I'M SURE, WHERE EVERYONE'S HEADS ARE AT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR THE APPLICANT TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE YOU KNOW, TAKE OUR COMMENTS AND THINK ABOUT THIS AND MAYBE WORK WITH THE PLANNING STAFF A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO TALK THROUGH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEIR HOPES AND DREAMS ARE FOR THE FOR THE PROPOSED SITE AND MAYBE END UP WITH A PROPOSAL THAT MIGHT BE MORE AGREEABLE.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

THANK YOU. SO SOMETHING I HAD THAT I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT RIGHT OFF THE BAT WAS, YOU KNOW, THE THE PROPERTY OWNER KIND OF, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, HAS BASICALLY JUST INHERITED A NONCONFORMING, YOU KNOW, BUILDING JUST BY WAY OF, YOU KNOW, TIME AND THE EVOLUTION OF OF ORDINANCE, IF CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

BUT SO TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS CURRENTLY ALLOWED UNDER THE UNDER OUR ORDINANCES IS FIVE, BUT THEY HAVE SIX AND BACK.

YOU KNOW, MANY DECADES AGO WHEN IT WAS BUILT, SIX, SIX WAS ACCEPTABLE.

SO I WAS ALSO JUST KIND OF THINKING THROUGH IF IF WE WERE TO GRANT THE REZONING TO RCC WE WOULD AT LEAST BE BRINGING THEM INTO, INTO COMPLIANCE, IT WOULD NO LONGER BE NONCONFORMING. THAT'S TRUE.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL. I WOULD NOT BE PREPARED TO VOTE FOR A REZONING AS PRESENTED JUST IN ORDER TO BRING IT TO, QUOTE, CONFORMING OVER ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT.

I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS WOULD LOSE OUT.

AND HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK IT REALLY ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER. SO TONIGHT, I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THIS PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CORDILL, ANYONE ELSE?

[01:05:07]

OK, SO AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO OUR STRAW POLL FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED PARTIES AT HOME, THE STRAW POLL IS NOT A VOTE PER SAY.

IT'S SORT OF GAUGING OUR INTEREST LEVEL IN PURSUING THIS, AND IT GIVES THE STAFF DIRECTION WHEN THEY'RE PREPARING A RESOLUTION FOR THE NEXT TIME AROUND.

AND SO THIS IS JUST GIVING THEM A SENSE OF WHERE WE'RE AT.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE, I SEE THAT MS. [INAUDIBLE]'S GOT HER HAND UP.

OH, PARDON ME. I MISSED THAT.

HELEN DID YOU EVER COMMENT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE BEFORE WE GET TO THAT STRAW POLL? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, GO AHEAD. IS THAT DO YOU HAVE THEM THE APPLICATION LIKE SOMETHING INCLUDING THERE IF YOU ALLOW ONLY ONE FAMILY OR MAYBE DUPLEX, INCLUDING THAT IN THE APPLICATION.

SO WE WILL NOT PLAN TO SELL IT FOR THE PERSON WHO ARE GOING TO BUILD MORE THAN TWO UNITS.

SO IS THAT POSSIBLE? YEAH, WE ARE NOT PLAN TO BUILD MORE THAN TWO OR EVEN SELL, SELL TO THE SOMEONE WHO PU RCHASE, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE MORE THAN TWO TWO UNIT OVER THERE.

SO IS THAT.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF FORM THAT YOU CAN INCLUDE IN THERE? I THINK PERHAPS IT MIGHT BE MOST EFFICIENT IF PETER OR MARK OR KEITH REACHED OUT TO YOU AFTER THIS MEETING TO WORK WITH YOU IN GETTING YOU TO A PLACE WHERE YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH YOUR APPLICATION MATERIALS.

AND IF THERE ARE CHANGES, THEY CAN MAKE US AWARE OF THOSE CHANGES BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT MEETING. OH, THANK YOU.

IS THAT OK? IS THAT AGREEABLE TO YOU? OK, THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, THANK YOU.

HELEN. SOMEONE FROM OUR TEAM WILL CONTACT YOU TOMORROW.

OH, OK. THANK YOU.

THANKS. OK, SO WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO OUR STRAW POLL AND THIS IS AS PRESENTED.

SO WE'LL GO WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

THIS SEEMS LIKE AN UNFORTUNATE WAY TO TRY TO FIX A HISTORICAL CONUNDRUM, AND I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO MEET EVERYBODY'S NEEDS.

SO I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

OK, COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED, BUT I DO HOPE THAT A SOLUTION IS FOUND SO THAT EITHER A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A DUPLEX CAN BE BUILT ON THAT NORTHERN PORTION.

OK COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CORDILL, SO I WOULD NOT SUPPORT, AS WRITTEN.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS. I WOULD NOT SUPPORT AS PROPOSED.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, BUT I WOULD SUPPORT AN AMENDED PROPOSAL THAT WOULD ALLOW A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT THERE, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

AND I WOULD JUST MIRROR WHAT COMMISSIONER BLUMER SAID.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE. I WOULD NOT SUPPORT CURRENT PROPOSAL.

AND I WOULD NOT SUPPORT IT AS WRITTEN EITHER, WHILE I DO WELCOME THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH OUR STAFF AND HOPEFULLY COME UP WITH WITH A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM AS PRESENTED TONIGHT, I COULDN'T SUPPORT IT.

OK, AND WITH THAT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:07.

SO THAT BRINGS US TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, AGENDA ITEM SEVEN, UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

WE HAVE NONE, WE FINISHED ALL OF OUR BUSINESS PREVIOUSLY.

NEXT UP IS EIGHT A, OTHER BUSINESS SMART ZONE.

[8.A. SmartZone]

I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM DIRECTOR CLARK NEXT.

DIRECTOR CLARK, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

I'M GOING TO DO OUR FIRST PRESENTATION, BASICALLY OUR FIRST PUBLIC PRESENTATION ON THE SMART ZONE. SMART ZONE IS A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2001 BETWEEN THE CITIES OF LANSING AND EAST LANSING.

IT'S A FIVE YEAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

EVERY FIVE YEARS THEY DO AN EXTENSION AND HAVE DONE SO SINCE 2001.

AND I GUESS I'LL JUST READ THROUGH THE MEMO.

IT'S PRETTY LONG. I'LL TRY TO SUM IT UP, NOT TAKE TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME.

BUT WE WERE APPROACHED BY [INAUDIBLE] AS A POTENTIAL COMMUNITY TO INCREASE THE FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF THE SMART ZONE. SMART ZONE DISTRICT IS THE LOCAL OF DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY, A COLLABORATIVE TAX AUTHORITY CREATED TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE PARCELS OF COMMUNITIES.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS AUTHORITY IS TO CONNECT THE UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY WITH INNOVATION, COMMERCIALIZATION, GOOD HIGH TECH JOBS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP.

THE LDFA FOCUSES ON ASSISTING ENTREPRENEURS WITH THEIR STARTUPS, PARTICULARLY BUSINESSES

[01:10:05]

THAT INVOLVE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH.

RECENT LOCAL SUCCESS OF THE SMART ZONE IS HIGH CALIBER KARTING, WHICH BEGAN IN A [INAUDIBLE] IN THE CITY OF EAST LANSING.

AND NOT IT'S HOME, AS YOU KNOW IT IN MERIDIAN MALL.

HIGH CALIBER KARTING HAS A VERY UNIQUE TECHNOLOGY.

IT'S ONE OF A KIND IN THE ENTIRE NATION.

THERE'S NO OTHER GO KARTING EXPERIENCE WHERE YOU CAN HAVE A REAL LIVE MARIO KART EXPERIENCE. AND SO THEY REALLY ARE THEY REALLY ARE TRYING TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES, BUT ALSO ESTABLISH THAT HERE IN MICHIGAN AS LIKE THE FIRST.

SO I'M A BIG FAN.

I'M A BIG FAN OF THE OF THE ENGINEERING AND THE INGENUITY.

THE REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP THAT OUR TOWNSHIP HAS WITH MSU, CITY OF LANSING, EAST LANSING, LEEP, AND THE MICHIGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MADE THE POTENTIAL OF ADDING MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. AS THE PRIORITIES STEP TO GROWING THE SMART ZONE.

SMART ZONE HAVE PROVEN TO SHOW GREAT INNOVATION IN ATTRACTING TALENT AND CREATING NEW TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES.

WE'RE PROPOSING TO ADD ALL THE PARCELS ON DON AVENUE AND ALL THE PARCELS THAT ARE INDUSTRIAL ZONED ON TOWNER ROAD TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SMART ZONE LDFA.

THE NEXT STEPS FOR THE LDFA IS FOR THEIR BOARD TO APPROVE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, POSSIBLY AS AN ACCEPTED COMMUNITY AND TO THE TAX AUTHORITY, THEN I TAKE IT TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

I POST I POST ABOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS.

IT'S THE IT'S LIKE THE FANCY 20 DAYS, NOT FOR 40 DAYS.

IT'S THAT CRAZY THING WHEN YOU DO THE TAX AUTHORITY, BUT SEND OUT TO TAX LOCAL TAX JURISDICTIONS, HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND HOPEFULLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, THEN SUBMIT A RESOLUTION TO THE LDFA'S SMART ZONE SAYING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FIVE YEARS, FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

THE PARCELS ON DON AVENUE.

SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE ELLISON BREWING, CONSUMERS ENERGY HAS A PARCEL THERE WITH THEIR TRANSFORMER.

MSU VAN CAMP INCUBATOR AND SOME OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES, MOSTLY TECHNOLOGICAL.

THE DECISION TO INCLUDE THE TEN PARCELS ON DON RELATE TO THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE PARCELS AND THE TYPICAL BUSINESS MAKE UP FOR THE AREA.

INVESTMENTS. WE'VE SEEN SOME INVESTMENTS TO THE PROPERTY OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND ONE IT'S THE BUILDING ACROSS FROM VAN CAMP, EVEN THOUGH VAN CAMP HAS MADE GREAT IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL AS TAKEN THE PROPERTY VALUES OVER SIX FIGURES.

TOWNER ROAD, THE LOCAL BUSINESSES ESTABLISHED IN THIS PORTION ARE MOSTLY CONTRACTOR BASED, LIKE MERIDIAN PLUMBING, AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO SOME OF THE OWNERS ON TOWNER ROAD AND THERE IS A DESIRE TO MAKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS OR EXPANSIONS TO THE BUSINESSES IN THE AREA.

AND I JUST THOUGHT, WELL, MAYBE AS A DEVELOPMENT TOOL, YOU COULD BE INCLUDED.

AND POSSIBLY THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WORKING WITH THE LDFA COULD DO TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT OR REVITALIZATION IN THE AREA.

THE SMART ZONE IS POTENTIALLY ASKING FOR SIXTY FIVE, THIRTY FIVE INTRAGOVERNMENTAL SPLIT . RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE A 90 10 PERCENT SPLIT, WHICH 10 PERCENT OF THE COLLECTED FUNDS CAN BE SPREAD ACROSS THE CITY OF LANSING OR EAST LANSING FOR JOB RETENTION AND REVITALIZATION AND DIFFERENT ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES TO BE SPENT ON IN THE ZONE.

RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE PROPOSING WITH THIS NEW EXTENSION TO THE SMART ZONE THAT'D BE A SIXTY FIVE THIRTY FIVE SPLIT WHERE THE CITY OF LANSING, EAST LANSING AND MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP WOULD SPLIT THE 35 AS A POSSIBLE RECRUITMENT OR IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OF THE PARCELS IN THE AREA. SO WE'RE TRYING TO PULL OFF THE ANN ARBOR, GRAND RAPIDS SMART ZONES.

THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB AND WE WANT TO BRING OUR ORIGINAL SMART ZONE UP.

AND THEY THOUGHT TO INCLUDE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

WHEN I HEAR I GET SITES ARE JUST FROM MEDC A LOT AND MANY OF THEM ARE LOOKING FOR INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL.

THEY'RE LOOKING FOR LARGE SPACES.

THEY'RE LOOKING FOR AREAS FOR TECH WHERE A TECH COMPANY CAN COME AND MAKE A PLACE IN A COMMUNITY. AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF SPACE FOR THEM AND KIND OF GET IT LEFT OUT.

PART OF MY JOB, I THINK, AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY LOOK ATTRACTIVE FOR THE FOR ELIGIBLE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT CAN FIT.

I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE US THE SILICON VALLEY BY ANY MEANS, BUT WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF WE COULD HAVE OTHER BUSINESSES LIKE HIGH CALIBER THAT STARTED AND WERE NURTURED IN THE REGION AND THEN FOUND A GOOD HOME? I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT MEDC IS WORKING HEAVILY TO TRY TO RECRUIT.

THEY'RE BIG ON MAKER SPACES AND BIO TECHNOLOGICAL ENGINEERING AND INNOVATIVE BUSINESSES.

THAT WAY THERE'S A LOT OF INCENTIVES THAT THEY'RE BUILDING THAT WAY.

THEY DO HAVE THAT REMOTE WORK RECRUITMENT PROGRAM GOING ON WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO ASK PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN DIFFERENT STATES THAT MAKE A SIX FIGURE MARK.

[01:15:05]

BUT ONCE THEY REACH THAT MARK, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO LIVE IN MICHIGAN AND REMOTE WORK AND I THINK IT'S LIKE FIFTEEN THOUSAND EXTRA DOLLARS THAT WE PAY THEM IN ORDER TO BE HERE IN THE STATE BECAUSE WE'RE JUST NOT ATTRACTING WE'RE NOT RETAINING OUR TALENT.

WE'VE GOT TWO BIG TEN SCHOOLS AND ALL THE STUDENTS LEAVE.

SO I THINK THIS I THINK THIS CAN HELP OUR COMMUNITY KIND OF LIKE BE A LITTLE BIT OF A NICHE AND MAYBE START ATTRACTING A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INTO OUR REGION AND POSSIBLY HELP THEM GROW.

AND IF NOTHING ELSE, HELP SOME OF THE ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, ELLISON BREWERY DID OPEN A PLACE, I THINK, OVER IN REO TOWN.

AND THEY ARE OVER OFF DON AVENUE RIGHT NOW.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THEM.

I THINK THEY'RE A GREAT INNOVATIVE BUSINESS.

SO I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS, ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

ONE BIG QUESTION THAT WE ASKED DURING THE LDF BOARD MEETING WAS HOW DID THE COMMUNITY'S CAPTURE THE 10 PERCENT? SO HOW DOES MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP SAY, HEY, I NEED, YOU KNOW, FIFTY THOUSAND OF THE 10 PERCENT TO DO A RECRUITMENT OR TO BUY SOME PROPERTY OR SOMETHING FOR A TECH BUSINESS? HOW DO WE GET A HOLD OF THOSE FUNDS? AND THEN WHAT IS THE PROCESS OF THAT? THAT QUESTION HASN'T BEEN ANSWERED YET.

SO I'M INTERESTED IN YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

THANK YOU, DIRECTOR CLARK.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR CLARK? COMMISSIONER CORDILL AND THEN COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL AND THEN COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

I DO HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT I WAS WONDERING WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE.

ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A RESOLUTION OR FROM US OR WHAT ARE YOU? OH, I MEAN, I'M KIND OF USING YOU AS A LITTLE BIT OF BOARD GUINEA PIGS, YOU AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT YOU ARE YOU ARE CONNECTED TO DEVELOPMENT.

SO THIS AS MUCH AS YOU WOULDN'T BE ANY AUTHORITY OR ADVISORY BOARD TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT HOW THE FUNDING IS USED ON THE PROPERTIES, BUT ARE ACTIVE EYE ON DEVELOPMENT IS A PART OF WHAT PLANNING COMMISSION DOES.

I'M JUST WONDERING YOUR I GUESS, YOUR OVERALL THOUGHTS ABOUT TAX AUTHORITIES AND INCENTIVIZING DEVELOPMENT IN THOSE AREAS, WHAT YOU'VE WHAT YOU'VE HEARD OR WHAT OTHER HURDLES YOU MAY THINK WE COULD ENCOUNTER? I DON'T SEE IT AS A NEGATIVE NECESSARILY FOR THE TOWNSHIP AT ALL.

IT'LL JUST COME DOWN TO THE LOCAL TAX AUTHORITIES THAT ARE GOING TO MISS OUT ON YOUR CAPTURE FOR FIVE YEARS OR 10 YEARS OR HOWEVER LONG THE AUTHORITY LASTS.

SO IT FUNCTIONS LIKE A TIF WHERE PROPERTY TAXES ARE FROZEN AND THOUGH THAT DIFFERENCE IS CAN BE REINVESTED IN LIKE IN LIKE.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE STREETSCAPE, BUT INFRASTRUCTURE.

YES, YES, EXACTLY.

THAT'S EXACTLY HOW IT WILL WORK.

SO RIGHT NOW, WELL, WE'RE AT 90 IT'S AT 90 PERCENT CAPTURE AND 10 PERCENT.

BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO, SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY I'M NOT ALL THAT FAMILIAR WITH, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE HOW THIS WOULD WORK IN LAYMAN'S TERMS. SO THAT DIFFERENCE IT'S A TEN YEAR INCREMENTS.

IT IS, IT'S FOR EVERY.

IT'S FIVE YEARS.

SO THE AUTHORITY [INAUDIBLE] FOR FIVE YEARS.

AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW.

I'VE USED TOO MANY WORDS TO EXPLAIN THEIR PROCESS, SO BECAUSE THE CITY OF LANSING AND EAST LANSING ARE ALREADY IN THE AUTHORITY RIGHT NOW.

THEIR AGREEMENT IS THAT WHATEVER THE CITY OF LANSING CAPTURES, 90 PERCENT OF IT GOES TO THE CITY OF LANSING.

WHATEVER THE CITY OF EAST LANSING CAPTURES, 90 PERCENT GOES BACK, BUT THAT 10 PERCENT IS A SHARED BUCKET.

SO THAT WOULD BE AND THAT IS MY QUESTION FOR THE LDFA IS WHO HOW DO YOU GET ACCESS TO THE SHARED BUCKET? IS THERE SOME PROCESS WHERE YOUR COMMUNITY SAYS, OK, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM THAT FUND, FROM THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL FUND? I BELIEVE THAT FUND IS CONTROLLED BY LEEP AND THEY DO RECRUITMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SEARCHES ON BEHALF OF THE OF THE TAX AUTHORITY.

AND THEY'LL SAY, OH, WELL, CITY OF LANSING HAS A COUPLE OF ACRES OVER HERE.

THAT'S INDUSTRIAL ZONE THAT YOU COULD GO TO.

YOU COULD BUILD A BUILDING THERE.

AND THEN THAT WOULD BE IN TURN, A GOOD THING FOR THE CITY OF LANSING, BECAUSE NOW THEY HAVE THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUE THAT THEY COULD CAPTURE AND KEEP CAPTURING.

SO I THINK [INAUDIBLE] YOUR FUND IS KIND OF LIKE A SHARED SPACE FOR PROMOTING A SMART ZONE. AND THEY HAVE A LIST OF DIFFERENT [INAUDIBLE].

CAUSE OFTENTIMES, LIKE WITH A TRADITIONAL TIF, THAT MONEY MAY BECOME PART OF A REVOLVING LOAN FUND. BUT THIS ISN'T LIKE A REVOLVING LOAN FUND, CORRECT?

[01:20:06]

IT'S IT'S MORE OF A MARKETING TOOL.

YES, YES.

IT'S DEFINITELY A DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE.

IT WORKS VERY, VERY MUCH LIKE THE DDAS TIF OR ANY OTHER TAX AUTHORITY WHERE THEY'RE JUST GOING TO CAPTURE THE INCREASE FOR A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF TIME.

BUT THE BEAUTY OF THE SMART ZONES WORK BECAUSE I THINK IT'S ANN ARBOR, ANN ARBOR'S SMART ZONE. IT STRETCHES INTO YPSILANTI.

BUT YPSILANTI HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY INCREASE IN THEIR PROPERTY VALUE, SO ONLY THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PORTION OF THE FUND GETS PUT INTO YPSILANTI FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OUT OF THAT.

AND FOR A WHILE, THIS THIS SMART ZONE OR LANSING'S SMART ZONE CITY OF LANSING HASN'T REALLY PRODUCED ANYTHING AND EAST LANSING ONLY JUST STARTED TO REALLY PRODUCE A LOT WITH THEIR TWO LARGE BUILDINGS GOING UP.

SO THEY'VE STARTED TO SEE SOME ACTIVITY INCREASE IN THE FUND RIGHT NOW.

AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE IT'S PICKED UP SOME LEGS IS BECAUSE EAST LANSING BUILDINGS HAVE COME UP NOW. SO NOW THERE'S A LARGER PORTION OF FUND FOR THEM AND IT'S TIME TO RENEW THE EXTENSION. JUST ONE LAST QUESTION.

I'LL GIVE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.

HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN AVAILABLE? I THINK WHERE THE [INAUDIBLE] WAS APPROACHED WHEN DIRECTOR LANE WAS FIRST HERE, SO I THINK HE WAS THE FIRST LAST JUNE. I WOULD IMAGINE IS THIS HAS BEEN, I MEAN, TECHNICALLY AVAILABLE SINCE 2001, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROACHED BY THE SMART ZONE BOARD TO BE INCLUDED. THANK YOU.

GOSH STRUGGLE TO REMEMBER WHO WAS UP? I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER TREZISE AND THEN COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YOU'VE ANSWERED SOME OF MY QUESTIONS ALREADY, BUT WHAT TYPE OF EXPENDITURES WOULD THIS FUND BE USED FOR? AND IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE ZONE ONLY, I ASSUME.

IT IS THE ZONE ONLY, LET ME, SORRY I CAN RATTLE OFF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT IT DOES.

IT DOES PAY FOR LEEP, SO IT DOES PAY A PORTION OF LEEP.

SO THE SMART ZONE HAS THE DEVELOPMENT FUND ITSELF AND IT ASSISTS COMPANIES THAT ARE INTERESTED IN FINDING SPACE WITHIN THE REGION TO LOCATE SPECIFICALLY WITHIN A TIF DISTRICT. SO THE PROGRAM, INSPIRED BY DOWNTOWN LANSING'S [INAUDIBLE] DOWNTOWN.

I BELIEVE THEY USE THAT FUNDING FOR RECRUITMENT, SAYING HEY, HERE'S A SPOT ON LANSING THAT WOULD FIT YOUR NEEDS, HERE'S A SPOT ON EAST LANSING OR.

WE GET INCLUDED A DIFFERENT SPOT IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP [INAUDIBLE].

A DRAFTING OF THE TIF PLAN.

RENEWAL IS INCLUDED AND THE NEW PROGRAM FUNDING.

THEY HAVE A LINE ITEM FOR THAT WHICH LAUNCHES NEW PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT TECH BASED ENTREPRENEURSHIP. SO THE MAJORITY OF THE FUNDS OF THE MONEY SPENT OUT OF THIS FUND WILL BE TO PROMOTE OR TRY TO ATTRACT BUSINESSES TO COME TO THE SMART ZONE IN SOME SORT OF WAY.

AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING FROM THE 90 10 SPLIT TO SIXTY FIVE, THIRTY FIVE.

SO WE WOULD BE GIVING THIRTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE TAX INCREMENT TO LEEP TO USE FOR RECRUITING? WELL, IT WOULD REALLY BE TO.

I MEAN, TECHNICALLY, I GUESS, BECAUSE LEEP IS THE YEAH.

BUT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR THE THREE COMMUNITIES.

IT GOES, IT GOES TO LDFA TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE THREE COMMUNITIES.

AND HOW HAS IT BEEN DISTRIBUTED OR HAS IT BEEN DISTRIBUTED IN THE PAST OR IS IT JUST BUILDING UP, EVEN AT THE 90 10 OR DO YOU KNOW? YEAH, EVEN AT THE 90, FROM WHAT I CAN GATHER, I'VE BEEN TO TWO BOARD MEETINGS.

THEIR LARGE INCREASE IN FUNDING AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW HAS BEEN FROM THE RECENT REDEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF LANSING. SO THE CAPTURE THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW HAS BEEN ON IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS FROM THEIR NEW [INAUDIBLE] BUILDINGS.

SO, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S REACHED THEIR GOALS THAT THEY HAD IN 2001 TO 2005.

AND SO I HAVE I THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF EXAMPLES BESIDES SMALL THINGS LIKE HELPING BUSINESSES LIKE HIGH CALIBER BE ATTRACTED TO COMMUNITIES.

[01:25:03]

BUT HIGH CALIBER IS A VERY BIG SUCCESS.

SO I FEEL LIKE EVEN THOUGH IT'S RECENT, IT IS STILL A VERY LARGE SUCCESS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND I AGREE THAT THIS WOULD ONLY THE FUNDING WOULD ONLY COME IF THE TAX BASE WENT UP. SO WE'RE COMMITTING TO A LITTLE UNLESS IT'S SUCCESSFUL.

IT IS, I THINK OVER OUR FIVE YEARS OUR PROJECTION.

FUNDING WILL BE LIKE WHAT WE ACTUALLY PRODUCE BASED ON WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW.

SO LET'S WE'RE, FINGERS CROSSED THAT THERE IS SOME MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. BUT WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, LIKE FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS OF CAPTURE.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, THEN COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

THANKS. I'M GOING TO KEEP LISTENING.

I'M LEARNING A LOT. OK, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

ME TOO. IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I USED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS WHEN I WAS IN LANSING, BUT TWO QUESTIONS.

ONE IN THIS MAYBE A QUESTION THE TOWNSHIP BOARD MIGHT ASK, BUT LIKE WHAT WOULD MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAVE REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD FOR THIS ENTITY IF WE WERE TO PARTNER AND JOIN ? IS QUESTION ONE.

AND THEN QUESTION TWO IS, I BELIEVE THAT BEING IN A SMART ZONE, IF THE TAXES ARE BEING CAPTURED AND USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES, THE BUSINESSES ARE STILL USING THEM.

BUT THEN THAT ENTITLES THEM TO OTHER TAX CREDITS BECAUSE THEY'RE DEVELOPING IN A SMART ZONE. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, ESSENTIALLY, THEY COULD.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME LARGER TAX [INAUDIBLE] THAT THEY COULD RECEIVE FROM THE STATE FROM MEDC FOR THAT. OK, SO THERE'S AN INCENTIVE TO BUSINESSES TO LOCATE IN THESE AREAS BECAUSE THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED FOR BENEFITS.

AND THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THE THINGS YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE BENEFITS TO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

YES, YES, YEAH, IT'S A PRETTY DECENT DEVELOPMENT TOOL, IF YOU HAVE I FROM WHAT I'M GATHERING AND WHAT I'M LEARNING, IT SEEMS TO WORK WELL WHEN YOU HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE BIG TECHNOLOGY. RIGHT.

IT'S BASICALLY A TECHNOLOGY PARK THROUGH THREE COMMUNITIES, ONE IN ONE LARGE AREA.

NOW YOU HAVE THREE AND YOU CAN KIND OF SPREAD THAT OUT.

AND THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN THOSE AREAS CURRENTLY WOULD QUALIFY OR SORT OF FIT THAT PROFILE OR WOULD WE BE LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT IF THIS WAS TO GO FORWARD? WELL, THEY TECHNICALLY QUALIFY BY THEIR ZONING BECAUSE THEY'RE INDUSTRIAL PARCELS.

SO I DIDN'T FOLLOW UP AND ASK BECAUSE PETER AND I BOTH HAD THE QUESTION, WELL, WHAT IF THEY REZONE? YOU KNOW WOULD THEY STILL AND IF THEY REZONE, THEY'RE STILL QUALIFIED.

SO IN ORDER TO JUST BASICALLY BE ELIGIBLE, THEY HAVE TO BE ZONED INDUSTRIAL NOW.

AND IF THEY GET INCLUDED IN THE IN THE TAX AUTHORITY, EVEN IF THEY CHANGE ZONING, AS LONG AS THERE'S DEVELOPMENT AND THERE'S INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF A PROPERTY, IT'S IT'S A GOOD THING. AND THEN THE QUESTION ABOUT WOULD MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAVE REPRESENTATION IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR THE.

SO RIGHT NOW I'M SITTING ON THE BOARD, BUT I'M NOT LIKE A MEMBER YET AND I'M SITTING IN KIND OF LIKE AN UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL MODE.

I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT, YES, ONCE WE ARE INCLUDED IN THE TAX AUTHORITY, SOMEBODY WOULD NEED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TOWNSHIP.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE ME.

IT MIGHT BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S, PROBABLY MIGHT BE ME, BUT MAYBE A BOARD MEMBER WOULD WANT TO TAKE THAT. SO I WILL FOLLOW UP AND GET SOME CLARITY ON THAT.

I IMAGINE THAT WOULD BE IN THEIR CHARTER AS TO WHAT'S WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR MEMBERSHIP AT THE VERY LEAST.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL, I SAW YOU MOMENTS AGO.

DID YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? YEAH, IT WAS. IT WAS BASICALLY WHAT COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY WAS SAYING.

I GUESS I JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW.

WHO DECIDES WHO GETS THAT THIRTY FIVE PERCENT OR.

I DON'T THINK THE FULL THIRTY FIVE.

OR THAT WERE OUT OF THAT, I MEAN, IS THAT I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE A GRANT APPLICATION OR WHAT I MEAN? AND I DID ASK THAT ACTUALLY BOTH MYSELF AND JESS.

OH, SHOOT. SHE'S A CITY COUNCIL PERSON IN EAST LANSING, JESS.

JESSY GREGG. YES, JESSY GREGG.

AND WE BOTH WERE PRETTY MUCH LIKE, HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH IS THIS TAX AUTHORITY CAN I CAN I GENERATE? AND WE SAW THAT NUMBER. AND THEN HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU GET INTO THAT POCKET OF MONEY? IS IT RAISING YOUR HAND? IS IT AN APPLICATION IS A WHAT AND WE DIDN'T REALLY GET A CLEAR, A REALLY PHOTO CLEAR ANSWER OF THAT PROCESS.

[01:30:01]

WE'VE BEEN TOLD ONCE WE GET INTO IF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP DOES GET INTO THE LDFA, THEN THEY'LL TAKE US THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

IF THE LDFA, IF WE GET INTO IT FOR THE FIVE YEARS AND THEN DON'T DO ANOTHER EXTENSION, IT'S WHATEVER MONEY IS STILL IN THERE CAN STILL BE USED OVER THOSE PARCELS.

SO THAT'S ALSO GOOD NEWS.

YEAH, I JUST WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN A COMPROMISED SITUATION WHERE I DON'T KNOW.

WHAT THE PROCESS IS FOR BENEFITING OUT OF THAT COMMUNAL POT.

YEAH, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

I AGREE. IT DOES SEEM A LITTLE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE OFFICIAL ANSWER.

RIGHT. BECAUSE SAYING JOIN US AND GIVE US YOUR MONEY AND THEN WE'LL TELL YOU HOW TO APPLY FOR IT. SEEMS LIKE AN ODD WAY TO TO GET US INTERESTED IN JOINING.

SO I'M SURE THERE'S THERE'S AN ANSWER ON THE BOOKS SOMEWHERE THAT WOULD BE THAT WILL BE HELPFUL IN HELPING US TO SHAPE OUR THOUGHTS ON IT.

WHAT PARCELS IN LANSING AND EAST LANSING, LIKE WHAT GENERAL AREAS ARE CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN THE LDFA? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

ONE SECOND.

OK. IF I CAN GET IT, I DO BELIEVE THAT EAST LANSING'S LDFA IS THE MAJORITY OF GRAND RIVER, SO LIKE SMART, PRETTY MUCH SMART ON THEM FOR THAT.

LET ME SEE IF I CAN TAKE IT OUT, AND I DON'T I THINK LANSING HAS MULTIPLE PARCELS AND THEY'RE. THEY'RE KIND OF SCATTERED AROUND, BUT LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND THEM.

OK. YEAH, IT'S JUST YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER TONIGHT NECESSARILY, BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I IMAGINE YOU'RE GOING TO BE ASKED IN THE FUTURE JUST TO GIVE A PICTURE OF, LIKE LOCAL SUCCESS AND WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE IF ANYWHERE IN THE AREA THERE'S BEEN IMPROVEMENT AS A RESULT FOR INVESTMENT AS A RESULT.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW.

IF WHAT CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT IS THE CHANGE IN THE FUNDING MODEL, THAT THAT MAY BE COMING AS THE RESULT OF INCLUSION OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, RIGHT.

IS IT SUCH THAT, LIKE, WE'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING 90 PERCENT OF THE FUNDING AND NOW THAT WE'RE COMING IN, WE'RE SWAPPING TO A MODEL WHERE THERE'S A LOT MORE COMMUNAL FUNDING? RIGHT. THAT THAT HAS ME A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED FOR FROM A MOTIVATIONAL PERSPECTIVE FROM THE LDFA. I'M SURE THERE'S THERE'S VALID REASONS AND MAYBE THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO THIS, YOU KNOW, SIXTY FIVE, THIRTY FIVE MODEL NO MATTER WHAT WE CHOOSE TO DO.

BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST GO IN EYES WIDE OPEN ABOUT SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT'S BEING ASKED.

AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS.

WOULD INCLUSION OF THESE PARCELS IN THE LDFA PRECLUDE THEM FROM BEING INCLUDED IN ANY OTHER TIFS? I ASSUME THE ANSWER IS YES.

I ACTUALLY BELIEVE, WELL YES, I WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT, YES, I MEAN, YOU'RE GETTING THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO SAY YES ON ONE ON THAT PARCEL.

YEAH. BECAUSE IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE SAT ON THE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY, BUT I KNOW THAT THAT THAT IDEA WAS BEING BANDIED ABOUT.

I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME CONSTERNATION AT THE BOARD LEVEL ABOUT GETTING THEM A TAX BILL AUTHORITY, BUT OUR TAXING AUTHORITY, RATHER.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THAT ORGANIZATION IS TO HAVE MORE TEETH, YOU KNOW, MORE MORE ABILITY TO MAKE POSITIVE CHANGE, I KNOW THAT THEY HAD EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN POSSIBLY LOOKING AT THAT AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD.

AND SO IF WE WERE TO REMOVE THE SECTION ON DON AVENUE SPECIFICALLY, YOU'D BE ELIMINATING A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT MIGHT BE PROVIDING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF VALUE.

IF WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE GROWTH TO A TAXABLE AUTHORITY THAT COULD BENEFIT THE [INAUDIBLE] CORRIDOR IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, WHICH ALSO MEETS WITH THE REGION'S GOALS.

RIGHT. BUT IT MIGHT JUST BE A MORE TARGETED WAY TO DO IT.

RIGHT. SO I LIKE I LIKE THE IDEA OF LDFA AND LEEP, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING ALL THE FACTS AT THE OUTSET SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT MORE OR LESS WE'RE INVESTING IN. AND YOU HAVE THE THE DRAFT INTO PLAN [INAUDIBLE].

[01:35:03]

THE CITY OF LANSING'S LDFA COVERS THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATE RESEARCH PARKS.

AND IT DOES INCLUDE THE MCLAREN HOSPITAL, HOWEVER, THAT WILL NOT BE A TAXABLE ENTITY ANY LONGER, AND SO THE CAPTURE FOR THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE INCLUDED.

OH, AND THEN YOU SAID EAST LANSING, EAST LANSING DISTRICT IS THE PARK DISTRICT, THE CITY CENTER CITY AND THE HUB.

SO THE BIG, BASICALLY THEY'RE VERY LARGE, NEW BUILDINGS THAT THEY'VE JUST RECENTLY BUILT.

WELL, THAT SHOULD BRING IN SOME CASH.

IT DID. AND SO THEY DID HAVE VERY SIMILAR QUESTIONS TO YOURS, BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK, SIDE-BY-SIDE, AT THE COMPARISON OF HOW MUCH CAPTURE WILL BE, THEY'RE GOING TO CAPTURE THE MOST. AND SO THEIR CONCERN WAS, HEY, IF WE GO SIXTY FIVE, THEN THAT'S THAT'S A LARGER PORTION OF WHAT WE'RE SHARING. SO YOU'RE RIGHT ON THAT.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY AND THEN COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

OH NOT COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YEAH, JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

IT WOULD BE REALLY USEFUL FOR FOLKS LIKE ME WHO DON'T HAVE AS DEEP EXPERIENCE WITH TAX CAPTURE TO HAVE EVEN A VERY GENERAL, SIMPLE, HYPOTHETICAL KIND OF.

SAY SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO BUY THIS THING AND THIS IS HOW MUCH TAX IT COULD POTENTIALLY GENERATE, AND THIS IS HOW IT WOULD CHANGE IF THIS WERE TO BE IMPLEMENTED, BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME TO GET MY HEAD AROUND HOW THESE WORK AND THE ISSUE ON OTHER POTENTIAL TAX CAPTURE. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'D BE VERY IMPORTANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO HOW A BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT APPLICATION MIGHT INTERSECT WITH THIS, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT OF OUR INDUSTRIAL LAND.

SO THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR CLARK? HEARING CRICKETS AND IS THAT COMMISSIONER TREZISE LOOKING TO WEIGH IN OR JUST WAVING AT THE CAMERA? I'LL WEIGH IN AND ASK MS. CLARK. WHAT DOES SHE WISH THE COMMISSION TO DO WITH THIS INFORMATION AT THIS POINT? AT THIS POINT, YOU'VE HELPED AGAIN, YOU'RE KIND OF MY GUINEA PIGS FOR BOARD OF BRINGING THIS BRINGING THIS FORWARD.

I ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE A SURPRISE IF IT DID HAPPEN THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS COMING UP.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF AN INFORMATIONAL, BUT ALSO AS A AS A TRIAL, YOU DON'T REALLY I DON'T THINK I NEED A BIG SHOW OF SUPPORT BECAUSE THERE'S A FEW OTHER THINGS FOR THE LDFA BOARD THAT THEY HAVE TO DO IN ORDER BEFORE WE CAN REALLY TAKE IT TO THE BOARD.

AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD EVENTUALLY WILL DECIDE IF WE WANT ANOTHER TAX AUTHORITY IN THIS COMMUNITY OR NOT. SO I HOPE WE ASK YOU ENOUGH QUESTIONS TO FOCUS YOUR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD, BECAUSE I'M SURE YOU DID A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM THEM ALSO.

YES. YES, YOU DID.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

NO THE SAME QUESTIONS I HAVE.

SO THAT'S HOW DO WE GET THE MONEY? THAT'S. ALL RIGHT.

OK, WITH THAT SAID, WELL, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA, ITEM TO AGENDA ITEM

[8.B. MUPUD ordinance.]

EIGHT B WHICH IS OUR MUPD ORDINANCE CHANGE.

AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAND THINGS OVER TO PETER AT THIS POINT.

YEP. HEY, EVERYBODY. SO ON PAGE THIRTY TWO OF THE PDF PACKET IS THE MEMO REGARDING THE MUPD ORDINANCE. SO THANKS FOR TALKING ABOUT THIS.

AT OUR LAST MEETING ON THE TWENTY SECOND, THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID GET TOGETHER ON APRIL FIVE AND TALKED ABOUT THE LAST AMENITY SECTION AND KIND OF DID A FINAL LOOK.

BEFORE YOU MAY CONSIDER THIS FOR ZONING AMENDMENT.

SO WHAT YOU'VE GOT HERE ARE SEVERAL BULLETED ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED.

I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE. AND THEY WERE ALL IN THE AMENITIES SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE. SO WE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED NONRESIDENTIAL USES FROM 50 PERCENT TO TWENTY FIVE PERCENT.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THREE AMENITY CATEGORIES OR ONE OF THE AMENITIES IN THE THREE AMENITIES CATEGORY. THEY INCREASE THE MINIMUM SIZE OF THE COURTYARD AREA TO AT LEAST EITHER 20 PERCENT OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT OR A MINIMUM OF FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

AND I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD REFERENCE ON WHAT A GOOD SIZE WOULD BE, SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE USES THEIR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCES FOR THINGS.

WE HAD A NIGHT AT THE H HOTEL IN MIDLAND THAT WAS GREAT.

AND IF YOU'VE EVER SEEN THAT PROPERTY IN MIDLAND, IT'S GOT A BIG COURTYARD OUT FRONT.

IT'S A FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

SO IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD USABLE SPACE.

THEY DO WEDDINGS. THEY DO OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES THERE.

IT SEEMS LIKE THE KIND OF THING THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN THAT THREE AMENITY FEATURE.

AGAIN, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I PICKED.

SO IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT LOGIC FOR SIZE, SO THAT'S AN EITHER OR SO EITHER AT LEAST AT

[01:40:03]

LEAST 20 PERCENT OR A MINIMUM OF FIVE THOUSAND.

DIVIDED THE TRANSIT AMENITY INTO TWO DIFFERENT AMENITIES, SO THERE IS ONE UNDER THE ONE AMENITY CATEGORY, THAT'S THE ENHANCEMENT OF A CURRENT TRANSIT STOP.

AND THEN WE ADDED ONE UNDER THE TWO AMENITY CATEGORY.

THAT IS THE CREATION OF A NEW ENHANCED TRANSIT STOP ON A PROPERTY NOT CURRENTLY SERVED BY PUBLIC TRANSIT. SO JUST DIVIDED THOSE OUT.

AND THEN ADDED A PROVISION TO THE PUBLIC RECREATION RESOURCES, WHICH IS IN THE ONE AMENDED CATEGORY THAT REQUIRES THE SPACE TO BE OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THEN FINALLY ADDED A PROVISION ALLOWING ONLY ONE AMENITY FROM ONE AMENITY CATEGORY TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REQUIRED AMENITIES.

LOT OF SAYING THE WORD AMENITY A LOT HERE.

MANY AMENITIES. YES, SO THOSE ARE THE CHANGES MADE SINCE LAST TIME YOU SAW IT, DEPENDING ON YOUR LEVEL OF COMFORT WITH THE ORDINANCE AS IT'S WRITTEN.

I DID PROVIDE A MOTION TO INITIATE ZONING AMENDMENTS.

WHAT THAT DOES IS KICKS OUR STAFF INTO SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A FUTURE MEETING.

SO THAT MEANS AN AD IN THE BACK OF THE NEWSPAPER, BASICALLY.

AND THEN IT WOULD GO THROUGH OUR ZONING AMENDMENT PROCESS, SO GOES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION THAT ONTO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION AND THEN POTENTIALLY BECOMES LOCAL LAW TO BE USED IN THE MUPD ORDINANCE. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROVISION THAT WERE CHANGED OR THE PROCESS. THE ORDINANCE AT ALL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

THANK YOU, PETER. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANY DISCUSSION OR A MOTION TO BE MADE. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

I WOULD MOVE TO INITIATE A ZONING AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION EIGHTY SIX, DASH FOUR FOUR ZERO THE MIXED-USE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVISIONS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE DATED APRIL 9TH, 2021.

SO MOVED. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER, ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YEAH, I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS, AND I THINK THIS WAS A GOOD PRESENTATION AT THIS POINT AND I THINK IT SHOULD START MOVING FORWARD TO GET PUBLIC COMMENT TO GO FORWARD.

IT MAY NOT BE THE FINAL PRODUCT, BUT IT'S A PLACE TO START AND ITS PUBLIC HEARINGS AND START GETTING INPUT.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. I AGREE THAT THIS WOULD BE GREAT TO GET PUBLIC COMMENT.

I HAD A QUESTION THAT I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE FLAGGED THE LAST TIME WE REVIEWED THIS, BUT IT JUMPED OUT AT ME WHEN PETER REVIEWED THE CHANGES ABOUT PUBLIC TRANSIT STEPS, BECAUSE I THOUGHT I RECALLED IN DISCUSSION OF ANOTHER PROPOSED CHANGE AT ONE POINT THAT DEVELOPERS DIDN'T USUALLY HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL AROUND PUBLIC TRANSIT STOPS.

THOSE ARE CONTROLLED BY CATA.

AND SO I'M WONDERING, OBVIOUSLY, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME COORDINATION WITH CATA TO PUT THAT AS AN AMENITY.

BUT COULD A DEVELOPER.

COULD THEY DO THAT OR DO THOSE HAVE TO BE? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT THAT JUST FLAG LIKE THAT FOR ME.

SO THAT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING I WOULD WANT TO STOP THIS FROM MOVING FORWARD, BECAUSE IF I WAS JUST MORE CURIOUS.

YEAH, I THINK IT'S A SITUATION WHEREBY THEY CAN WORK WITH CATA TO ESTABLISH A SPOT WHERE THERE'S NOT ONE NOW, CERTAINLY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT IF IT'S NOT AT ALL NEAR ANY OF THEIR CURRENT LINES.

BUT THERE SEEM TO BE THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT CATA IS INTERESTED IN DOING MORE AND CONSIDERING THESE KIND OF REQUESTS FROM DEVELOPMENTS.

I SAW COMMISSIONER RICHARDS AND THEN COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

YES, THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

I MEAN, THE REASON WHY IT'S A TWO, COUNTS FOR TWO AMENITIES IS THERE'S A CATA WILL EXPECT THE DEVELOPER TO PAY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY ON AN ANNUAL BASIS IF THEY FOLLOW THEIR PROCEDURES WITH THE APARTMENTS THAT WENT UP NEAR THE [INAUDIBLE], BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH.

AND THEY.

THERE WASN'T AN AGREEMENT BUT TO GO FORWARD WITH A CATA BUS STOP, SO IT IS DEFINITELY POSSIBLE. YEAH, JUST ON THAT PARTICULAR THE TRANSIT AMENITY. ARE WE SPECIFIC ENOUGH OF WHAT KIND OF ENHANCEMENT THAT WOULD BE? WE AREN'T I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY ALL THE THINGS THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY.

I THINK THE GENERAL, LEAST IN MY MIND, THE GENERAL IDEA WAS TO IF THERE'S A CURRENT STOP AND BY STOP. I GUESS WHAT I WAS ENVISIONING IS WE PROBABLY SEE THESE SIGNS, JUST A SINGLE

[01:45:01]

POLL BY THE ROAD.

SO THE ENHANCEMENT TO ME WOULD BE GETTING SEATING AND SHELTER AT LEAST TO START.

AND THEN FROM THERE, I KNOW CATA IS WORKING ON A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT THEY WANT TO DO IN THESE SPACES THAT MARCUS TALKED TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DIGITAL TRACKING OF WHERE THE BUSSES ARE AND BEING ABLE TO GET YOUR TICKETS ON AT THE STOP AT THE LITTLE STOP ITSELF.

SO AND I'M SURE THERE'S OTHER THINGS, BUT ANYTHING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR STANDARDS AND THE KIND OF THINGS THAT CATA IS LOOKING FOR.

WE'RE NOT ASKING, I GUESS, AN APPLICANT TO RECREATE ANYTHING, BUT JUST TO PLUG INTO WHATEVER CATA'S LOOKING TO DO.

YEAH. AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, APPRECIATE PETER'S HARD WORK ON IT, BUT IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE MASTER PLAN.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE SCARF COMING OUT.

YOU KNOW, LIKE IF YOU HOLD ONTO IT TOO LONG, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE STRING OF DIFFERENT COLOR SCARVES COMING OUT.

YOU'RE JUST KIND OF LIKE, WHERE AM I GOING TO GET THE DARN THING, YOU KNOW? BUT IT'S COME A LONG WAY.

AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE FIRST BULLET POINT OF, YEAH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I BROUGHT UP. IT'S LIKE IT'S 50 PERCENT TOO HIGH.

SO WE HAD SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT NON RESIDENTIAL USES, IS 50 PERCENT TOO HIGH OR SHOULD BE? WELL, THE COMMITTEE DECIDED TO REDUCE IT TO TWENTY FIVE PERCENT.

AND I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE COMMISSION THINKS OF THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, I SEE YOUR HAND.

I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS DIFFERENT POINTS SO IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO CONTINUE ON THAT AND I'M HAPPY TO WAIT. AND TO MY EYE, THAT TWENTY FIVE PERCENT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE THAN 50.

YOU KNOW, WE STRUGGLE TO GET 50.

WE STRUGGLE TO GET, YOU KNOW, ONE FLOOR OF A FOUR STORY BUILDING TO BE NONRESIDENTIAL AS IT IS. I THINK THIS IS A FAR MORE REALISTIC PATH FORWARD.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE, I SAW YOU.

NO I AGREE I THINK REPRESENTS ABOUT THE FIRST FLOOR OF MOST BUILDINGS OR WITHIN THIS OR MORE SO, I THINK TWENTY FIVE PERCENT IS A VERY GOOD TARGET TO AIM FOR.

ANYONE ELSE ON THAT? OR ELSE WE'LL GO BACK TO BILL. ALRIGHT COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YEAH, THANKS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION OF TRANSIT.

I THINK THAT'S A GREAT THING TO BE TALKING ABOUT AND FIGURING OUT MORE AND MORE DETAILS OF. SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THE OTHER BIG CHANGES THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IN THE DISCUSSION IS THE KIND OF ACCESSIBILITY OF THE AMENITIES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THERE WAS ONE SPOT ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE DRAFT SECTION E ONE F.

WOULD STILL HAS THE LANGUAGE VISIBLE AND OR ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

AND I'M GUESSING THAT MAYBE IT'S JUST SORT OF A HOLDOVER OR MAYBE THAT'S A DIFFERENT INSTANCE. BUT IF ONE OF THE BIG TAKEAWAYS IS THAT IF YOU BUILD AN AMENITY, IT CAN'T JUST BE FOR THE RESIDENTS OR THE RENTERS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A PUBLIC AMENITY, THAT ONE MIGHT BE WORTH JUST DOUBLE CHECKING.

CAN YOU GIVE US THAT CITATION ONE MORE TIME, BILL? PAGE EIGHT, SECTION E AMENITIES, SECTION ONE REQUIREMENTS TO GUIDELINES.

SUB F AMENITIES SHALL BE VISIBLE AND OR ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

THANK YOU. I WAS ALMOST THERE.

YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T RATTLE OFF PAGE EIGHT, SECTION E THAT THAT FAST OR ELSE I CAN'T KEEP UP WITH YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO INITIATE A ZONING AMENDMENT, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. YES.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL. YES.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

YES. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS. YES.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER. YES.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER. YES.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE. YES.

AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES, MOTION CARRIES 8-0.

ALL RIGHT, THANKS, EVERYONE. THIS REPRESENTS A LOT OF WORK FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE, FROM THE STAFF AND FROM THIS BODY, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS TAKE THE NEXT STEP.

SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS NINE A TOWNSHIP

[9.A. Township Board update.]

BOARD UPDATE. WE'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO PETER FOR OUR TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

OK, SO THE BOARD MET ON THE 20TH AND OR EXCUSE ME, MARCH 30.

PLANNING COMMISSION LAST MET ON MARCH 22.

THE BOARD MET ON MARCH 30.

THEY HAD A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. SO THAT THAT MEETING DID HAPPEN ON THE 30TH, NOTHING RELATED TO PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THEN THEY DO HAVE NOT MET AGAIN SINCE THEN, BUT DO MEET TOMORROW NIGHT.

AND ON THE AGENDA TOMORROW NIGHT IS THE ZONING AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE SALES ESTABLISHMENTS IN C TWO AND THREE, C THREE.

[01:50:04]

INITIALLY, THE ZONING OR THE REZONING AT KANSAS AND JOLLY WAS GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA, BUT THE APPLICANT ASKED TO MOVE IT TO THE FIRST MEETING IN MAY.

SO IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING THAT ONE AND YOU'RE WATCHING THIS MEETING, PLEASE LOOK AT THE FIRST MEETING IN MAY FOR THE THAT REQUEST.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR PETER? I HAVE ONE THAT IS SORT OF AN OLD ONE THAT'S JUST I DROVE PAST THIS OTHER PROPERTY THE OTHER DAY AND I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT IT, THE MARTIN.

I THINK IT WAS A REZONING APPLICATION.

IT WAS THE BAPTIST CHURCH ON HAGEDORN.

AND THERE WAS A THERE WAS A PARSONAGE BEHIND IT.

AND I BELIEVE THEY WERE HOPING TO REZONE IT TO PO SO THEY COULD DO AN MUPD.

DID THAT DID I DO WE DID THEY MOVE ON THAT AT ALL? NO, THEY EVENTUALLY WITHDREW THE REQUEST AFTER SOME DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD.

GOT IT. ALL RIGHT.

I MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT ONE.

ALRIGHTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR PETER? OK, WE'LL, GO ON THEN TO LIAISON UPDATES, ANYONE WISH TO GIVE AN UPDATE FROM A LIAISON

[9.B. Liaison reports]

COMMITTEE THAT THEY WERE ATTENDING? DON'T ALL JUMP AT ONCE.

OK, WELL, WE'VE HAD IT WE'VE HAD A QUIET A QUIET THREE WEEKS HERE, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON. AND I'M GOING TO TAKE JUST A MOMENT TO QUICKLY RECOGNIZE A DEPARTURE THAT'S IMPENDING UPON US HERE, SINCE WE WON'T SEE HIM BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING.

PETER MENSER IS LEAVING THE TOWNSHIP AND WILL BE MOVING NEXT DOOR.

SO NOT TOO FAR AWAY, I BELIEVE, TO EAST LANSING, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

AND HE'LL BE TAKING ON A ROLL OVER THERE AND THEIR TEAM.

AND I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE, AND I'LL GIVE EVERYONE A SECOND TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY IT THEMSELVES, BUT TO THANK PETER FOR THE FOR THE WORK THAT HE'S DONE FOR THE TOWNSHIP, CERTAINLY FOR THIS BODY.

IT'S BEEN TREMENDOUSLY VALUABLE.

AND I KNOW THAT YOU WILL BE MISSED BY ALL OF US.

AND IF I EVER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME SIT IN THE EAST LANSING PLANNING COMMISSION OR THEIR BOARD WHILE YOU'RE STAFFING THEM, I'LL MAKE SURE TO HECKLE YOU FROM THE BACK ROW.

SO THANK YOU, PETER, FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU DO.

AND WE WISH YOU ABSOLUTE SUCCESS AS YOU MOVE ON INTO THE NEW POSITION.

THANKS A LOT, I APPRECIATE THAT.

YOU KNOW, I'VE REALLY ENJOYED WORKING AT THE TOWNSHIP, I'VE BEEN AT THE TOWNSHIP SINCE 2006, SO IT'S A LONG TIME AND TIME REALLY FLIES BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I JUST MOVED TO THE AREA A FEW MONTHS AGO, BUT MOVED HERE, MET MY WIFE, GOT MARRIED, HAVE A LONG, SUCCESSFUL RUN AT THE TOWNSHIP. SO A LOT HAS HAPPENED AND I'M REALLY EXCITED AND TAKING SO I'LL BE THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CITY OF EAST LANSING.

AND I START ON THE 19TH.

MY LAST DAY IS THIS FRIDAY AT THE TOWNSHIP.

SO I'M NOT MOVING.

I STILL LIVE IN HASLETT AND I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

STILL A RESIDENT OF THE TOWNSHIP.

AND CERTAINLY I'LL BE AROUND TOWNSHIP PEOPLE BECAUSE I'VE MADE FRIENDSHIPS HERE FOR THE HOPEFULLY LAST A LONG TIME.

AND I'VE REALLY ENJOYED WORKING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND EVERY ITERATION, ALL THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT HAVE SERVED DURING MY TIME OVER THE YEARS.

AND THANKS FOR VOLUNTEERING YOUR TIME AND THINK YOU MAKE OUR JOBS PRETTY EASY COMPARATIVELY. SO I APPRECIATE YOU RECOGNIZING THAT, THANKS SCOTT.

THANK YOU. AND THERE WILL BE THERE WILL BE A SMALL TOKEN OF OUR APPRECIATION COMING YOUR WAY IF IT HASN'T FOUND ITS WAY TO YOU ALREADY. THAT WILL HOPEFULLY KEEP YOU KEEP YOU COMING AND PATRONIZING MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BUSINESSES FOR AT LEAST A LITTLE WHILE LONGER BEFORE YOU GET PROFESSIONALLY OBLIGATED TO GO TO EAST LANSING MORE OFTEN.

OH, YEAH. NO, I DON'T THINK MY HABITS WILL CHANGE, I'M IN THE SAME ROUTINE THAT I HOPE TO CONTINUE OTHER THAN MY OFFICE.

I'LL BE WORKING FROM HOME, I THINK, FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, WHICH WILL BE DEFINITELY WAY DIFFERENT FOR ME, GETTING USED TO GOING INTO AN OFFICE.

BUT ONCE I GET BACK INTO THE, I HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE OFFICE, I'LL BE WORKING IN.

SO BE A BIG, INTERESTING CHANGE.

YES, INDEED. THANKS.

I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET, BUT I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN I DO.

AND THANKS FOR WHATEVER IT IS.

IT'S ON THE WAY. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO PROJECT UPDATES.

[10. PROJECT UPDATES]

WE'VE GOT NEW APPLICATIONS.

WE'VE GOT TWO SITE PLANS RECEIVED, NONE ON SITE PLANS APPROVED.

WE'VE GOT THAT BRINGS US TO OUR LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

[01:55:01]

SO I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE MEETING ATTENDEES.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO CALL IN AND OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS VIA PUBLIC REMARKS, YOU CAN DO SO AT (517)349-1232.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO KEEP YOUR REMARKS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE TOP OF YOUR CALL.

GO AHEAD, CALLERS. NOT EVERYONE AT ONCE.

IF YOU IF YOU'VE STUCK WITH US THIS LONG, YOU GET THREE MINUTES.

HEARING NO TELEPHONES RING SIR.

ALL RIGHTY, THAT'S ALL WE GOT.

AND SO WE NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN, PLEASE.

SO MOVED. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT SAY AYE.

AYE.

AND THE MEETING STANDS ADJOURNED AT8:55 PM.

GOOD LUCK, PETER. YEAH.

PETER, BEST TO YOU, PETER, THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Apr 12, 2021 Planning Commission

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item