Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

[00:00:48]

>> I WILL CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.

LOOKS LIKE WE SNUCK IN WITH A QUORUM HERE, AND I'VE GOT A FEW MORE FOLKS JOINING US AS WELL, SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.

[2. PUBLIC REMARKS]

FIRST UP ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

FOR THOSE WISHING TO JOIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DURING PUBLIC REMARKS, THEY CAN DO SO BY RAISING YOUR HAND IF YOU ARE IN THESE THERE WILL BE TWO OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC REMARKS RIGHT NOW, AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING.

IF YOU ARE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK TO AN AGENDA ITEM IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME.

REMEMBER THAT REMARKS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES, AND PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS.

WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE FLOOR.

>> USE THE RAISED HAND INSIDE THE MEETING IF YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE THAT WAY.

IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING FROM HOME, WATCHING HOMTV THE TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 517-349-1232.

AGAIN, ONE MORE TIME, THE TELEPHONE NUMBER 517-349-1232.

I SEE NO HANDS.

OBVIOUSLY, CHAIR HENDRICKSON, AND I'M HEARING NO TELEPHONES RING.

>> WE'LL GIVE EVERYONE JUST ANOTHER MOMENT.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM OF OUR AGENDA.

>> WE'VE GOT A HAND COME UP AT THE LAST MOMENT, SIR.

>> JOHN, YOU ARE ON WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

IF YOU COULD PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF, GO AHEAD.

JOHN, IF YOU'RE SPEAKING, I BELIEVE YOU UNMUTED, AND THEN RE-MUTED.

>> YOU'RE HEARING ME NOW?

>> WE ARE, YES.

>> WELL, I GUESS I'LL PASS AND LISTEN ON.

>> JOHN, IF YOU'RE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> MY NAME JOHN MCLAUGHLIN.

ADDRESS IS 4442 CONGDON DRIVE, WILLIAMSTON.

>> YOUR THREE MINUTES STARTS NOW.

>> I JUST WAS CHECKING TO MAKE SURE I WAS IN THE MEETING.

WE'LL BE TALKING OF THE NEW CHINA REZONING THAT'S ON YOUR SCHEDULE FOR, I THINK ITEM C. BUT THAT ISN'T UP YET, SO I'LL STEP ASIDE.

>> YOU ARE HERE FOR AGENDA ITEM 6C IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME?

>> YES.

>> BE AWARE THAT THIS IS THE TIME FOR PUBLIC REMARKS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY NOT CALL UPON YOU, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING NOW WOULD BE A GOOD TIME.

>> I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BEYOND THE APPLICATION AND THE CONDITION THAT WE WERE ASKED TO AMEND TO THE APPLICATION WHICH YOU HAVE ON FILE THERE.

SO I'LL JUST LISTEN IN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC REMARKS? WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS,

[3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

[00:05:01]

AND MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 3, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE AGENDA THIS EVENING? MOVE BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

ANY DISCUSSION OR CHANGES, OR AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>>YEAH, THE FIRST THREE ITEMS UNDER OTHER BUSINESS SEEMED TO ME LIKE THINGS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT BEFORE AND MIGHT BE CONSIDERED UNFINISHED. DID I MISUNDERSTAND THAT?

>> YEAH, I HAD THAT SAME THOUGHT.

THEY PROBABLY SHOULD BE UP IN AGENDA ITEM 7 AS OPPOSED TO 8.

FUNCTIONALLY, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE BUT FOR THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY, MEETING TO MEETING, WE CAN CERTAINLY MOVE THEM AT AGENDA ITEM 7, IF THE MOTION MAKER IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

THOSE THREE ITEMS, A, B, AND C THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER 8 ARE NOW GOING TO BE UNDER 7.

ANY OTHER CHANGES? SEEING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE".

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE, THE AGENDA PASSES.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 4A, APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

WE HAVE ONE SET OF MEETING MINUTES FROM OUR APRIL 26TH, 2021 MEETING.

IF I COULD HAVE A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES, PLEASE.

MOVE BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MEETING MINUTES THIS EVENING? COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> I DO. THERE WAS MENTIONED, AND I'M TRYING TO FIND THE EXACT REFERENCE.

THERE WAS REFERENCE REGARDING THE IT'S NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS, THE PROPOSED REZONING.

>> THIS WAS AGENDA ITEM 6B, I BELIEVE LAST TIME.

THAT WOULD BE PAGE 3 OF THE MINUTES.

LOOKS LIKE IT'S IN THE STRAW POLL SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

>> THAT'S WHERE IT WAS. THANK YOU.

>> HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT AMENDED COMMISSIONER?

>> JUST TO SAY IT IS NOT AN AGREEMENT, JUST TO TAKE THAT ONE TERM AND TURN IT INTO A NEGATIVE.

>> ANY OBJECTIONS, TO THAT AMENDMENT?

>> WAS THAT TO SAY IT'S NOT AN AGREEMENT OR IT'S NOT A GOOD USE?

>> BECAUSE OF FUTURE LAND USE MAP WOULD HAVE IT TO BE COMMERCIAL, IT'S EXISTING ZONING.

BUT THEY REQUEST US TO TURN IT INTO RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

ITS NOT TO SAY IT'S NOT A GOOD USE.

FRANKLY, I THINK IT IS FOR USE.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> I THINK THAT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT COMMENTS GOT CRUNCHED INTO ONE.

I WOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS A GOOD USE BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO WHAT PEOPLE SAID, BUT I THINK SEVERAL PEOPLE SAID THAT THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED USE.

BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S POINT IS THAT BASED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, IT'S NOT IN ALIGNMENT.

I'M UNCOMFORTABLE CHANGING THIS WITHOUT GOING BACK TO HEAR WHAT PEOPLE SAYS.

I THINK THAT WE COULD BE UNDOING SOMEBODY'S SENTIMENTS IF WE EDIT IT AND APPROPRIATELY IN A WAY THAT WAS ADJUSTED.

>> RIGHT.

>> I THINK THEY WERE JUST TOO DIFFERENT COMMENTS, ACTUALLY TOO INDEPENDENT.

CONFORMANCE WITH FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THERE ARE TWO STEPS THERE.

>> I WASN'T HERE FOR THE MEETING, OF COURSE, BUT PERHAPS TO ENCAPSULATE BOTH POINTS OF VIEW, WE COULD MAKE THE AMENDMENT READ THAT COULD SUPPORT THE REZONING REQUEST FOR THIS PROJECT AND THIS IS A GOOD USE FOR THE SITE DESPITE NOT BEING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO STATE IT.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY COVER BOTH POINTS OF VIEW.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> I JUST WANT TO OBSERVE THAT HAVING A BABY IS NO EXCUSE FOR MISSING A MEETING AND CONGRATULATIONS.

[00:10:01]

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> IT LOOKS WELL RESTED TOO.

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR AMENDMENTS TO THE MINUTES? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I.

>> I.

>> RIGHT. ANY OPPOSED, AND THE MINUTE'S PASS.

WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO AGENDA ITEM 5, COMMUNICATIONS WE HAVE NONE.

AGENDA ITEM 6, PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE HAVE NONE.

[8A. Special Use Permit #21031 (EROP, LLC), construct a drive-through car wash at 2703 Grand River Avenue.]

THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 7 A WHICH WAS ON OUR PRINTED PACKET IS PICKY ESPECIALLY USE PERMIT NUMBER 2,1,0,3,1, ERP, LC TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE-THROUGH CAR WASH AT 2,703 GRAND RIVER AVENUE.

I WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

>> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

THIS REQUEST IS ESPECIALLY USED PARAMETERS WAS MUCH OF BURKE.

THE CAR WASH THE CONSENSUS OF THE MIGHTY COMMISSIONER, YOUR LAST MEETING WAS TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THESE SOON.

I HAVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT OUT FOR ACTION AND IT'S BEFORE WE DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TEACH THEM AND I MYSELF TO MEET WITH THE THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK AT IMPROVED BUILDING MATERIAL FOR THE SITE.

YOU DO HAVE AN ELEVATION OF WHAT THEY HAD PROPOSED.

BUT I THINK THROUGH A SITE PLAN REVIEW, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO AMEND DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE AND ADD MORE DIRECTION STONE TO SITE OF THE BUILDING.

OTHER THAN THAT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.

>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC, OR A MOTION TO BE MADE? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> YEAH. THANKS. I SAW IN THE MINUTES REFLECTED THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF REPLACING THE TWO DRIVEWAYS WITH PROPER SIDEWALK, AND I CAN SEE SOME OF THAT IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR STAFF IS THE REPLACEMENT THAT'S CONSIDERED FOR THAT SIDEWALK THAT MEETING.

LET'S SEE IF I CAN GET THAT LANGUAGE HERE, MOVING THE PATHWAY BACK FROM THE CURRENT TO ALLOW FOR EASIER SNOW CLEARING.

IN THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, THERE WAS A NOTE THAT SAID, "POLISHED CONCRETE SIDEWALK, CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SMOOTH TRANSITION BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED PAVEMENTS." MY QUESTION FOR STAFF IS THAT THE CURRENT PATHWAY THERE, DOES IT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE TOWNSHIPS PATHWAY INCLUSION AND TOWNSHIPS PATHWAY PLAN? IS IT AT THE RIGHT WIDTH AND FALL?

>> IT DOES CURRENTLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

ONE THING THROUGH SITE PLAN REVIEW WE'LL ASK OUR TOWNSHIP ENGINEER BECAUSE THEY DO PARTICIPATE IN THESE SITE CLARITY IN THIS.

IF THERE IS ANY SUGGESTION IF THEY POSSIBLY CAN BE MOVED ANY FURTHER AWAY FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB AT THAT TIME.

>> THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD NORMALLY HAPPEN IS OF COURSE, AN ACTION OR IS IT WARRANTED OR CONDITIONED ON THE PERMIT OR WHAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION?

>> I THINK IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE IT FOR THE STAFF TO HANDLE THROUGH SITE PLAN REVIEW, WE CAN DO THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I DID HAVE ONE THING THAT I WANTED TO ASK SINCE I WASN'T ABLE TO BE THERE LAST MEETING.

WHICH WAS THIS AREA IS ONE THAT WE HAD TARGETED AS OUR PILOT AREA FOR THE FOREIGN-BASED CODE INITIATIVE.

I WONDER IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN KNOWING THAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE HEADED HERE TO MOVING THE BUILDING UP FRONT? PUTTING IT ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, OR IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CONSIDERED OR THAT THE STAFF HAS BROUGHT UP TO THEM AS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING.

WHERE THAT COULD STILL BE HANDLED DURING SITE PLAN REVIEW.

>> WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT THROUGH SEGMENT REVIEW.

ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THAT VEHICLES ENTER GRAND RIVER AND THEY'VE GOT TO HAVE ENOUGH TURNING MOVEMENT WHEN YOU COME OUT OF THE CAR WATCH BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT TURN FOR THE DRIVEWAY.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASON WHY THE BUILDING ITSELF WAS PLACED ON LOCATION.

[00:15:05]

WE CERTAINLY CAN WORK WITH THE APP AND TO SEE IF WE CAN MOVE IT A LITTLE BIT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

>> I WONDERED IF, I DON'T HAVE THE DIMENSIONS IN FRONT OF ME.

BUT IF THE BUILDING COULD BE RUNNING ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE, ENTRANCE FROM THE, I GUESS THE WAY

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANTS.

PERSON THAT THEY LOOKED AT THAT I DON'T KNOW.

>> I SEE SOME OF THEM HAD THEIR HAND RAISED, IN THE MEETING HERE. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS HOW DO YOU SEE ALSO? REID ARE YOU WITH THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT?

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GOING FOR HERE.

UNFORTUNATELY, WITH THE TOURNAMENTS ON SITE, PLACING IN WHETHER IT WOULD BE ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY OR NORTHERN SIDE, WE WOULD RUN INTO AN ISSUE IS STACKING, PUTTING IN ALONG THE REAR EDGE OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN ALONG THE NORTH, HOW THE SITE OPERATES IS AFTER WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ENTER THE VACUUM AREA.

YOU WOULDN'T REALLY ALLOW FOR VEHICLES TO ENTER THE ANOTHER PART OF OUR TOURNAMENTS ON THE SITE.

IT'S A VERY TIGHT SITE.

WE STILL DO NEED TO GET A VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK DUE TO HOW ODDLY SHAPED THE SITE IS, AND WHERE THE CURRENT BUILDING LOCATION ENTRANCES ARE, SO WE'RE MARRIED TO THIS DISLOCATION WITH THE BUILDING.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>>YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO SAVE MY RECOLLECTION IS WE COVERED THIS AND THAT'S WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS AT THE LAST MEETING THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A SITE WITH LIMITS.

IT'S A LIMITED SIZE SITE.

THIS IS THE ONLY CONFIGURATION, AT LEAST MY RECOLLECTION THAT WOULD WORK ON THE SITE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT TRYING FOR INSTANCE, MOVE THE CAR SO THAT THEY'RE ALONG AND COMING IN AND THE OTHER ALONG GRAND RIVER THAT'S GOING TO PUT ALL THE VEHICLES UP CLOSE TO THE ROAD AS OPPOSED TO THE BUILDING.

I THINK THIS, AT LEAST IN MY VIEW, IS REALLY THE ONLY WAY THIS IS GOING TO WORK ON THE SITE.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION HERE? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

THERE WAS A LOT OF INTEREST LAST TIME IN THE HOSES AND I SEE THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED AN ILLUSTRATION IN TONIGHT'S PACKET OF HOW THOSE HOSES WOULD WORK.

I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD FOR THE CHAIR'S BENEFITS SINCE SHE WASN'T HERE FOR THE LAST DISCUSSION THAT RENDERING ON SHORTS IS ACCURATE, IS NOT WHAT THE BUILDING WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THE NORTHSIDE BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL SERVICE SPACE.

THAT'S IF YOU FLIP THAT BACKWARDS, IT WOULD BE THE ENTRANCE ON THE SOUTHSIDE LEADING UP. HAVE I GOT THAT RIGHT REID?

>> RIGHT MARK. YOU ARE CORRECT.

THIS IS LOOKING AT THE.

>> TYPICAL.

>> TYPICAL SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE ENTRANCE OF IT, AND NOT THE EXIT. THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I ACTUALLY DO HAVE AN UPDATED RENDERING, IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO SHARE IT.

IT SHOWS THE ADDITIONAL BRICK AND STONE.

IT'S MORE OF THE DELUXE PACKAGE.

I KNOW SOME GUYS DID KNOW GOOGLE THE CLIENT HERE AND LOOKED AT SOME OTHER RENDERINGS.

I DID SEND THAT TO MARK AND KEITH, BUT IT MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE LATE TO GET INTO THE PACKET, BUT I DO HAVE THAT IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO SEE, BUT I KNOW IT WILL WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP AND MARKETING THEM ON MAKING SURE THAT THE FACADE MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR.

>> WONDERFUL. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> I WAS JUST READY TO MAKE A MOTION WHEN YOU'RE READY FOR IT.

>> READY WHEN YOU ARE.

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL USE PERMIT 21031 TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVE-THROUGH CAR WASH AT 2703 GRAND RIVER AVENUE. SOLD.

>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

[00:20:03]

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> YES.

>> THE CHAIR VOTES YES. MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. COOKSEY.

WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE THIS EVENING.

>> I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE AND HAVE A GREAT REST OF YOUR MONDAY.

>> WE'LL SEE YOU AT THE ZBA.

>> ABSOLUTELY, I SEE YOU THEN.

[8B. Rezoning #21040 (Okemos IL-AL Investors, LLC), rezone two parcels totaling approximately 9.07 acres located at 1510 & 1560 Grand River Avenue from C-2 (Commercial) to RA (Single Family-Medium Density).]

>> NEXT UP ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 7B, WHICH IS REZONING NUMBER 21040, OKEMOS IL-AL INVESTORS LLC TO REZONE TWO PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 9.07 ACRES, LOCATED AT 1510, AND 1560 GRAND RIVER AVENUE FROM C2 COMMERCIAL TO RA SINGLE-FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY.

WE'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

>> THANK YOU. AGAIN, THIS PROPERTY AS WAS MENTIONED IS APPROXIMATELY NINE ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWER ROAD IN GRAND RIVER.

CURRENT ZONING WAS C2.

AGAIN, AS WE TALKED BEFORE THIS PROPERTY ORIGINALLY WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED FOR A CAR DEALERSHIP, THAT NO LONGER IS THE CASE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTED A REZONING FROM C2 TO SINGLE-FAMILY RA.

THEIR INTENT AGAIN AS THEY EXPRESSED IN THEIR APPLICATION IF THIS IS APPROVED THEY WOULD DO IT SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY.

IF THIS DOES GET REZONED THAT DOES REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SO A PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD SEE THIS PROJECT AGAIN, BASED ON THE RA ZONING, IN THE CONSENSUS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LAST MEETING WAS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION IN YOUR PACKET TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.

>> THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS UP.

WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> THANK YOU. I JUST THINK FOR THE RECORD, WE SHOULD REITERATE AND ACTUALLY, IT IS IN THE RESOLUTION THAT IN SPITE OF IT NOT CONFORMING TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THERE IS SURROUNDING TO THE NORTHEAST, AND TO THE SOUTH RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

GIVEN THE LAND USE PATTERNS THERE, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE IT REZONED.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> I MOVE THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US.

>> THANK YOU, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? THIRD BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

WE'LL GO INTO A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> YES.

>> THE CHAIR VOTES YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[8C. Rezoning #21030 (New China of Michigan), rezone 0.42 acre RC (Multiple Family-maximum 14 dwelling units per acre) to RCC (multiple Familymaximum 34 dwelling units per acre) at 5114 Jo Don Drive.]

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 7C, WHICH IS REZONING NUMBER 21030 NEW CHINA OF MICHIGAN TO REZONE 4.42 ACRES RC MULTIPLE FAMILY MAXIMUM 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, TWO RCC MULTIPLE-FAMILY UNITS, MULTIPLE FAMILY MAXIMUM 34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AT 5114 JO DON DRIVE.

DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, I'M SORRY.

ASSISTANT PLANNER CHAPMAN IS ACTUALLY OUR LEAD STAFFER FOR THIS ONE.

>>

>> I CAN IF IT'S EITHER

>> I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

>> OH, I'LL TAKE IT.

>> YEAH.

>> AGAIN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION TALKS ABOUT THIS REZONING BACK IN APRIL AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, AS THE APPLICANT HAD TALKED ABOUT.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO USE THE NORTHERN HALF AT THE TIME EITHER FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OR POSSIBLY A DUPLEX AND HOW BEST TO GET TO THAT POINT AS THE REZONING WAS REQUESTED AT RCC, WHICH IS 34 UNITS PER ACRE.

THEY'VE COME BACK AND OFFERED A CONDITION AND THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET AT THE CONDITION THAT THEY'VE OFFERED THE APPLICANT WILL COME BACK IN THE FUTURE AND REZONE THE NORTH HALF OF THE PARCEL TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORY.

IN YOUR STAFF MEMO,

[00:25:01]

THE ONE THING THAT WE SUGGESTED, IF YOU CHOOSE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL IN THE TOWNSHIP CAN DO THIS BY THE ORDINATES, PUT UP TIME-FRAME ON THIS REZONING SO THAT IF YOU DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD COME BACK FOR THE REQUEST, ON THAT NORTHERN HALF, WHETHER IT'S 12 MONTHS, 24 MONTHS, SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEELS REASONABLE SO THAT IT ISN'T JUST OUT THERE FOR ANY LONGER OR SPECIFIC TIMES, SO SOMETHING DOES MOVE AHEAD IN THE FUTURE ON THIS PROPERTY.

WE DON'T HAVE ON FRACTION TONIGHT, WE WANTED TO SEE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S OPINION ON THIS AND THEN WE CAN BRING IT BACK AT YOUR NEXT MEETING WITH A RESOLUTION.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> IS THERE ANY REASON TO WAIT ANY LONGER THAN WHEN YOU PASS ONE THAT THEY IMMEDIATELY WOULD MOVE TO RESUME?

>> THERE'S NO TIME.

TYPICALLY, AFTER THE BOARD APPROVES A REZONING, THERE IS A SEVEN-DAY PERIOD AFTER FINAL ADOPTION AND PUBLICATION BECAUSE IT'S A ZONING AMENDMENT.

PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEEK A REFERENDUM THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH THE ACTION OF THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

BUT WITHIN THAT TIME OR AFTER THE PUBLICATION IN SEVEN DAYS, THEY COULD COME BACK AND INITIATE THE REZONING OF THE NORTHERN PART.

>> I WOULD SAY WITH THAT IN MIND, MY SENSE WOULD BE, I WOULDN'T EXTEND THAT ANY MORE THAN 30 DAYS.

I'D WANT IT DONE WITHIN A MONTH.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> YES. THANK YOU. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMBIGUITY OF THE CONDITION.

AS IT STANDS, IT JUST SAYS WELL, WE'LL COME BACK FROM THE FUTURE AND WE'LL RESUME THEN FOR A REZONING OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE PARCEL TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORY.

THAT'S WHERE IT IS NOW, IS IT NOT? IT'S NOT SAYING IT WOULD BE DOWNZONED.

>> THE IDEA RIGHT NOW IF YOU REZONE IT, THE ENTIRE PARCEL WOULD BE ZONED RCC, MULTIPLE FAMILY 34 UNITS PER ACRE.

THEN THEY WOULD COME BACK AND SEEK A REZONING OF ONLY THE NORTHERN PORTION TO US.

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY AND NOT RCC.

AS THEY TALKED ABOUT EITHER A SINGLE-FAMILY OR FOR A SINGLE RESIDENT OR POSSIBLY A DUPLEX.

>> IS IT SPECIFIC ENOUGH? IT SEEMS PRETTY VAGUE IN MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> THIS IS THE WORDING WE HAVE FROM THE APPLICANT.

>> YEAH. I COULDN'T SUPPORT IT, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THIS AS IT'S WRITTEN.

I DON'T THINK THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH WOULD BENEFIT NOR WOULD THE TOWNSHIP IN GENERAL.

>> THANK YOU. YEAH, I HAD A SIMILAR CONCERN TO COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T REQUIRE A CONDITION.

WE CAN'T SUGGEST NEW LANGUAGE.

I DID NOTE THAT BOTH THE CURRENT ZONING AND THE FUTURE ZONING UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, WOULD BOTH BE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORIES.

REALLY THE CONDITION THAT'S BEEN OFFERED DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY PROTECTION TO THE TOWNSHIP BY MY EYE.

ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE TIMING, DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SPLIT, A LAND DIVISION, OR SOME SPLIT OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO REZONE THE NORTHERN HALF AND THAT WOULD TAKE SOME OF OUR TIME, RIGHT?

>> ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I STARTED THE REZONING, IS BECAUSE THE STAFF COULDN'T DIVIDE THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

UNTIL PROPERTY IS ZONED TO, SAY, A SINGLE-FAMILY CATEGORY, WE CAN'T APPROVE IT BECAUSE IT WON'T MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS.

>> RIGHT. I GUESS JUST FROM AN ORDER OF OPERATIONS PERSPECTIVE, YOU COULD HELP ME OUT HERE.

IT WOULD BE ZONE IT UP TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING OR WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, THEN SPLIT IT AND ZONE THE NORTHERN HALF BACK DOWN TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL?

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEEK THE REZONING FIRST SO THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE SPLIT CONCURRENT WITH THE ZONING ON IT.

[00:30:05]

THAT NORTHERN PORTION, THE BEST ZONING CATEGORY THAT WE HAVE THAT WOULD FIT THE DIMENSIONS, SO THE WIDTH OF THAT LOT ALONG JORDAN, IN THE AREA PER SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PARCEL, WOULD MEET R-B STANDARDS.

>> R-B?

>> R-B. THAT'S A 65 FEET IN WIDTH, AND SQUARE FEET IN AREA.

>> RIGHT.

>> IT'S ABOUT 9,000 SQUARE FEET, THE LOT OF THE NORTHERN PORTION, SO IT WOULDN'T MEET R-A WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

DO A DUPLEX, THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 11,000 SQUARE FEET.

>> OKAY. I GUESS THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE, I GUESS, PERHAPS I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN KNOW YOU CAN REZONE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN SPLIT IT.

>> RIGHT. WE HAVE PROPERTY AND BEFORE THAT WE HAVE SPLIT ZONING IN ON THEM. YES.

>> OKAY. GOT IT.

OKAY, I THINK THAT'S ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

I SAW COMMISSIONER BLUMER THEN COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU.

I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH WHAT AN ATTORNEY WOULD REFER TO AS A FUTURE CONDITION.

MY DRIVE-BY OF THAT PROPERTY ALSO SUGGESTED TO ME THAT IF IT DOES GET SPLIT OFF, BEST THING THEY COULD PROBABLY DO WITH IT IS PAVE IT OVER AND MAKE IT A NEIGHBORHOOD BASKETBALL COURT.

BECAUSE I DOUBT THAT ANYBODY IS GOING TO WANT TO USE THAT PROPERTY FOR ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE RESIDENTIAL.

I JUST THINK THEY'LL BE DESTROYING THE INHERENT VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY AND INJURING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF.

LIKE I SAID, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WHOLE IDEA OF A FUTURE CONDITION AND THE ZONING OF THAT PROPERTY.

SO MY INCLINATION WOULD BE TO VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>>YEAH. I GUESS MY CHALLENGE IS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

DID WE TALK ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

THIS IS A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO.

I'M HAVING A HARD TIME.

I KNOW THAT WE HAD A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS WHO WERE OPPOSED TO IT, MY RECOLLECTION ON THAT.

JUST THERE'S SO MANY UNKNOWNS HERE FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS AT THIS TIME, THAT'S WHERE I STAND.

>> THANK YOU. YEAH. TO COMMISSIONER BLUMER'S POINT.

I CAN EVEN GET BEHIND A FUTURE CONDITION SO LONG AS IT WAS REALLY SPECIFIC.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY WHAT WAS PROVIDED WAS REALLY NOT SPECIFIC.

EVEN THOUGH I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A VERY CHALLENGING PARCEL TO TRY TO DO WHAT I UNDERSTAND THEIR INTENTION TO BE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> EARLIER, DIRECTOR KIESELBACH SAID THE NORTHERN PARCEL COULD FALL INTO AN R-B DESIGNATION.

WHAT COULD BE BUILT ON THAT?

>> R-B IS A SINGLE FAMILY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK IT MIGHT BE WHO OF US TO REAFFIRM OUR STRAW POLL SO THAT WE CAN BRING THIS BACK FOR ACTION BASED ON THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WITH THE CONDITION.

THAT WAY, STAFF CAN CERTAIN KNOW WHERE OUR HEADS ARE AT COLLECTIVELY.

THEN WE CAN HAVE THIS ON FOR ACTION AT THE NEXT MEETING.

THAT SOUND GOOD FOR EVERYONE? I SEE SOME NODDING HEADS.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> I'M REALLY TORN ON THIS ONE.

WE'VE HEARD INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE PROPOSED TO BE DONE THERE.

BUT WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION BASED ON WHAT MIGHT BE PROPOSED IN TERMS OF THE ZONING.

IT DOES SEEM LIKE THE PROPOSED CONDITION IS MORE VAGUE THAN WE'D LIKE TO HAVE IT.

SOMETHING MORE CONCISE WOULD BE EASIER TO SUPPORT.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

[00:35:02]

>> NO.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> NOT AS PRESENTED, NO.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> I'M ALSO A LITTLE BIT TORN.

I FEEL AS IF THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CATCH-22.

I REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS AN OPPOSITION FROM NEIGHBORS, BUT I THINK THE OPPOSITION WAS TO A COMMERCIAL BUILDING AS OPPOSED TO SPLITTING THE PARCEL AND POSSIBLY PUTTING ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL THERE, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THEY CAN GET TO THAT.

THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE CLARITY IN ORDER FOR ME TO BE COMFORTABLE GIVING BLANKET OKAY TO REZONE.

I'M REALLY TORN, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW I COULD SUPPORT IT AS IT IS NOW BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT'S OPENING UP A WINDOW THAT I DON'T BELIEVE WAS IN KEEPING WITH THE PROPERTY AND OR WITH THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE HEARD ABOUT THE REZONING.

ONE WAY TO SAY PROBABLY WOULDN'T SUPPORT IT UNLESS IT COULD BE REPRESENTED IN A WAY THAT WOULD MAKE ME MORE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> I THINK I'VE ALREADY SAID THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT IT, AT LEAST BASED ON WHAT I KNOW NOW.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE STAFF'S OPINION GOING FORWARD AS TO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, IS IT WORKABLE? BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE THE CONVERSATION AT THE TIME WAS A CATCH-22; NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED, IT WASN'T REALLY GOING TO SATISFY OR PROVIDE AN OUTCOME OR A PATH TO AN OUTCOME THAT THE APPLICANT WAS LOOKING FOR.

IF THE STAFF CAN MAYBE CLARIFY THAT AS PART OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION, I COULD POTENTIALLY BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT IF THERE'S ACTUALLY A PATH THAT WOULD LEAD TO A SINGLE-FAMILY USE OF THAT PROPERTY.

BUT I GUESS, LONG-WINDED, NOT AS IT PRESENTLY STANDS CAN I SUPPORT IT.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> AS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED, I WOULD OPPOSE IT.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> AS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED, I WOULD OPPOSE IT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR USE OF THAT HALF OF THEIR PROPERTY, BUT I COULDN'T AGREE TO ZONING, INCREASING THE DENSITY ON THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT A MORE CONCISE AND CLEAR AVENUE TOWARD SUBDIVIDING AND ALLOWING A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING.

I WOULD THINK A TIMELINE OF AT LEAST SIX MONTHS WOULD BE IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THAT, RECOGNIZING YOU HAVE TO DO THE REZONING AND THEN THE SPLIT.

BUT I WOULD OPPOSE IT AS PRESENTED.

>> SIMILARLY TO WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, I WOULD OPPOSE IT WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US, WHICH IS FOR THE REZONING WITH THE CONDITION THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED.

I THINK THERE'S ROOM TO BE PERSUADED TO COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY'S POINTS, THE NEIGHBORS WERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE UP-ZONING WITHOUT THE FULL PICTURE OF WHAT THE APPLICANT STATED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT THEY WISH TO DO WITH THAT PROPERTY.

IF WE CAN FIND A WAY TO GET THEM TO HAVE THIS BE A SINGLE-FAMILY USE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING ALSO AND BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ALSO.

I THINK, AS PRESENTED, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT.

IF THERE WERE CHANGES, PERHAPS I COULD.

BUT AT THE MOMENT, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD SENSE THAT, AS WRITTEN WITH NO CHANGES, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD LIKELY OPPOSE THE REZONING AS PRESENTED.

>> CLEAR AS MUD, MARK?

>> YEAH.

>>

>> YOU KNOW THAT.

>> I THINK MARK WOULD AGREE THAT IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REACH OUT TO THIS PLANNING STAFF TO HELP TO UNDERSTAND THE INTRICACIES OF THIS THING SO AS TO PROVIDE A CLEARER PICTURE, I'M SURE THEY'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR CALL.

>> YEAH, WE CAN HELP HIM.

>> NOW HE'S REALLY GOING TO LEAVE.

[8D. Commission Review #21033 (Park Commission), Section 61 review for the acquisition for a 1.85 acre parcel at 5280 Okemos Road]

WHICH IS COMMISSION REVIEW.

THIS IS NUMBER 21033 PARK COMMISSION,

[00:40:03]

SECTION 61 REVIEW FOR THE ACQUISITION OF 1.85-ACRE PARCEL AT 5280 OKEMOS ROAD.

I BELIEVE THIS ONE IS DIRECTOR KIESELBACH AGAIN.

>> I THINK KEITH IS ACTUALLY GOING TO DO THIS ONE.

>> I HAVE A POWERPOINT HERE.

LET ME PULL IT UP FOR YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSION REVIEW 21033.

THIS IS A SECTION 61 REVIEW OF THE LOCATION, CHARACTER, AND EXTENT FOR A 1.85-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 5280 OKEMOS ROAD FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE TOWNSHIP PARK SYSTEM TO CONSTRUCT AN ENTRANCE TO THE NANCY MOORE PARK AND TRAILHEAD FOR PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PATHWAY SYSTEM.

THIS IS THE LOCATION.

IT'S LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OKEMOS ROAD, JUST SOUTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND JUST WEST OF NANCY MOORE PARK AND THE MERIDIAN SERVICE CENTER.

A LITTLE BIT OF A DESCRIPTION.

THE PARK COMMISSION RECEIVED A GRANT FROM THE MICHIGAN NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST FUND TO ACQUIRE THIS PROPERTY FOR THE TOWNSHIP PARK SYSTEM.

IT IS 1.85 ACRES IN SIZE AND IT HAS 228 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON OKEMOS ROAD.

CURRENTLY, THERE IS A 1,687 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1900 LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE'S ALSO A 576 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE JUST EAST OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

MARCH 2ND, 2021, THE TOWNSHIP BOARD REFERRED THIS CASE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE LOCATION, CHARACTER, AND EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS R2 RESIDENTIAL, AT 0.5-3.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

JUST TO THE NORTH ACROSS THE TRACKS IS A SINGLE-FAMILY THAT HAS THE SAME FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND TO THE EAST IS THE MERIDIAN SERVICE CENTER AND NANCY MOORE PARK, WHICH IS INSTITUTIONAL.

THEN, ACROSS OKEMOS ROAD THERE, TO THE WEST, ARE A COUPLE OF PRESERVES THAT ARE DESIGNATED AS PARKS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

SECTION 61 OF THE MICHIGAN PLANNING ENABLING ACT REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A LOCATION, CHARACTER, AND EXTENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OR PURCHASE OF NEW PUBLIC STREETS, PARKS, OPEN SPACE, BUILDINGS, AND OTHER FACILITIES.

THE LOCATION REFERS TO THE SITES OF PLACEMENT IN THE TOWNSHIP AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.

AS PROPOSED, THIS PROPERTY FOR ACQUISITION IS LOCATED WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO NANCY MOORE PARK, AND THE MERIDIAN SERVICE CENTER.

CHARACTER INCLUDES THE SITE'S DISTINGUISHING FEATURES.

EXTENT INCLUDES THE DIMENSIONS OF WHICH THE SITE IS, AND THIS SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 1.85 ACRES IN SIZE WITH 228 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON OKEMOS ROAD.

PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN APPROVE OR DENY THE COMMISSION REVIEW AND A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE IS ATTACHED IN YOUR PACKET.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT THE SORT OF THING WE NEED A PUBLIC HEARING FOR.

WE CAN DECIDE THIS WITHOUT THAT.

>> CORRECT.

>> IF I CAN INTRODUCE JANE GREENWAY FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

>> WELCOME, JANE. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO MR. CHAPMAN'S PRESENTATION?

>> I'LL JUST SAY, THIS IS A GRANT THAT WE APPLIED FOR TWICE AND FOUND OUT WE GOT IT LAST YEAR.

WE'RE PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT ADDING SOME PARKLAND ONTO AN AREA THAT HAS A VERY CONTIGUOUS GREEN SPACE WITH THE PARKS AND THE LAND PRESERVES.

>> THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.

I SEE COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> THANK YOU. JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

DOES THE HOUSE THAT EXISTS ON THE PROPERTY NOW HAVE ANY HISTORIC OR PRESERVATION VALUE?

>> IT DOES NOT.

>> THE PLAN IS TO DESTROY IT THEN AFTER ACQUISITION?

>> YES. WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE OWNERS.

ACTUALLY, THE FORMER CHIEF OF FIRE LIVED THERE MANY YEARS AGO,

[00:45:01]

AND HIS SON TAKES CARE OF THE HOUSE NOW.

BUT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT, AS PART OF THE GRANT, IF IT'S NOT BEING UTILIZED FOR A PARK PURPOSE, WE HAVE TO TAKE THE HOUSE DOWN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> THIS IS MORE INFORMATIONAL.

DO I UNDERSTAND THE FIRST CLAUSE, THE MCL 1253861 TO FUNCTION IN THE SAME WAY THAT A REZONING WOULD, IF IT WERE REQUIRED, THAT YOU CAN'T TURN SOMETHING INTO A PARK WITHOUT HAVING A REVIEW OF IT RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH A FORMAL REZONING? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SAYS RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE'RE SAYING WE WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE INSTITUTIONAL.

I FULLY SUPPORT THAT, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MECHANICS OF THAT.

>> THE REASON FOR THIS SECTION 61 REVIEW, AND IF YOU REMEMBER, YEARS AGO, IT USED TO BE CALLED SECTION 9 REVIEW, THIS IS BECAUSE THE TOWNSHIP HAS ADOPTED A MASTER PLAN, AND THIS ACQUISITION IS TO ENSURE THAT ITS LOCATION, CHARACTER, AND EXTENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S MASTER PLAN.

>> BY VIRTUE OF BEING ADJACENT TO THE INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

>> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CORDILL?

>> I HAVE BEEN OUT THERE TODAY.

LIKE COMMISSIONER BLUMER, I WAS WONDERING ABOUT ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THE HOUSE COULD BE SOLD AND MOVED? I DON'T KNOW THE CONNECTION OF IT, IT LOOKS FAIRLY INTACT STREET SIDE IN TERMS OF WHAT IT PROBABLY LOOKED MANY YEARS AGO.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF THE TOWNSHIP WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT IDEA?

>> THE HOUSE IS DESCRIBED AS POOR CONDITION IN THE APPRAISAL.

SOME OF THAT IS IN REALLY RELATION TO THE STRUCTURE AND SOME THINGS LIKE THAT, SO I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S AN OLD HOUSE AND IT LENDS CONTEXTS TO WHEN OKEMOS ROAD LOOKED QUITE DIFFERENT THAN IT DOES NOW, BUT I THINK THAT THE SELLER'S HAD TALKED ABOUT SELLING IT JUST AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND ULTIMATELY PREFERRED THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAVE IT AND THOUGHT THAT IT REALLY SHOULD BE PASSED AS PART OF THE PARKS.

THANKFULLY, THEY ARE PATIENT BECAUSE THIS MICHIGAN NATIONAL RESEARCH AND ACQUISITION PROCESSES IS EXTREMELY LENGTHY.

WE'VE HAD TIMES WHERE WE'VE GOTTEN A GRANT AND THEN THE SELLER HAD SOLD IT TO SOMEONE ELSE IN THAT LONG TIME PERIOD, BUT THE SELLERS WOULD HAVE HAD THAT CHOICE, I GUESS, IS THE ANSWER.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. YEAH, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT WAS AN OPTION FOR THE HOUSE.

I WAS ALSO LOOKING DOWN THAT ROAD THINKING OF THAT EXEMPLIFIED FARM HOUSES ALONG OKEMOS ROAD KIND OF A LOST CHAPTER, BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THAT.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YOU'RE MUTED GERRY.

>> QUESTION FOR JANE, IS THE MASTER PLAN OF THE PARK SYSTEM, DOES THAT INCLUDE THAT PROPERTY NOW OR IS THAT GOING TO HAVE TO BE MODIFIED TO PUT THIS PROPERTY TO USE?

>> I THINK IT'S VERY GENERALLY INCLUDED IN THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN IN TERMS OF ALWAYS ENHANCING PARKS OR ADDING GREEN SPACE, SO IT'S TALKED ABOUT IN VERY VAGUE TERMS. BUT THAT PARCEL WAS NEVER IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY AS PART OF A PLAN FOR CENTRAL PARK.

ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ON PAPER SPECIFICALLY, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN IN OUR MIND BECAUSE THE EXISTING ENTRANCE TO NANCY MOORE'S IS VERY CONFUSING, AND YOU HAVE AN ENTRANCE WHERE YOU HAVE ALL OF THESE WORK VEHICLES COMING AND GOING OUT IN THE SAME DRIVEWAY WHERE A LOT OF PARK VISITORS ARE COMING.

BECAUSE NANCY MOORE PARK IS SET SO FAR BACK AND IT'S JUST A FUNNY SNEAKY ROAD TO GET IN THERE, A LOT OF PEOPLE CAN'T FIND IT.

WE HAVEN'T FULLY DEVELOPED OUR PLANS FOR THIS,

[00:50:04]

BUT PART OF THE BENEFIT OF ACQUIRING THIS PROPERTY IS TO GET AN IMPROVED ENTRANCE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO SEPARATE, MAYBE YOU TURN IN AND YOU GO TO THE LEFT TO GET TO THE PARK AND TRY TO SEPARATE A LITTLE BIT FROM THE PARK, FOR INSTANCE, THE SERVICE CENTER WITH ALL THOSE VEHICLES.

>> OKAY. I GUESS, SECOND QUESTION.

THE OUTBUILDING ON THE PROPERTY, IS THAT GOING TO STAY OR IS THAT GOING TO BE REMOVED ALSO?

>> THAT WILL BE REMOVED AS WELL, MAYBE LIKE A 1960S OR '70S POLE BARN, SO EVERYTHING WILL BE REMOVED.

THE ONE THING THAT WE DO WANT TO KEEP IS THERE'S AN AZALIA, A HUGE AZALIA SHRUB THAT GROWS UP THE SIDE OF THE CHIMNEY.

IF YOU'RE GOING SOUTH ON OKEMOS ROAD, PROBABLY SOMETIME IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, YOU'LL SEE IT.

IT'S JUST INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL, HUGE AND PURPLE.

WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO KEEP THAT SHRUB IF WE CAN.

THERE'S A LOT OF NICE TREES ON THE PROPERTY, IT WILL REALLY MAKE A WONDERFUL RESTING POINT ALONG THIS MSU, IT'S A LAKE LANSING REGIONAL PATHWAY.

HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN PUT OUT A SMALL RESTROOM OUT THERE, MAYBE A TRAIL HEAD AND A LITTLE BIT OF PARKING.

THERE'S A LOT OF USERS UP THE INNER URBAN PATHWAY AND THERE WILL BE OF THIS REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM AND THERE'S NOT A RESTROOM, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE QUITE A BENEFIT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> I MOVE THE RESOLUTION.

>> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

I THINK FINAL DISCUSSION ON THIS.

I DID HAVE ONE THING I WANTED TO ASK OF JANE.

OBVIOUSLY, FROM WHAT YOUR COMMENTS BEFORE, THE PLAN IS NOT YET FINALIZED.

BUT IS THE HOPE THAT FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC GOING TO NANCY MOORE THAT YOU'LL HAVE A SEPARATE ENTRY WAY RATHER THAN GAYLORD SMITH COURT, SORT OF CLOSE OFF THAT CURRENT DRIVE WAY TO THE PARKING LOT OF THE PARK, WHAT'S THE GENERAL SENSE OF IT?

>> I THINK THAT ANYTHING'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW.

AFTER YOU HAVE HUNDREDS OF PARENTS LEAVING A GAME.

IT'S PRETTY BUSY ON OKEMOS ROAD.

IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD SITE DISTANCE WHEN YOU'RE TURNING LEFT.

IF YOU'RE IN THE DRIVEWAY OF THIS PROPERTY, 5280, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE MUCH BETTER SITE DISTANCE.

MAYBE THE KINK IN THE PLAN IS THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND HOW CLOSE WE CAN PUT A DRIVEWAY TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND THE OTHER ENTRYWAYS, THE DRIVEWAYS DOWN THE ROAD.

I THINK THAT WE'LL HAVE TO TALK TO THE ROAD COMMISSION ABOUT THAT.

WE'LL BE DOING THE PLAN AND INTERNALLY WITH BUT PROBABLY WE WILL KEEP GAYLORD C SMITH COURT FOR BOTH, I THINK IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

THERE'S ALL THESE FIRE TRUCKS AND FUEL REFILLING TRUCKS.

THAT GAYLORD C SMITH COURT HAS TO BE A PRETTY WIDE ENTRANCE IN A VERY MANEUVERABLE DRIVEWAY.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE AND WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> YES.

>> THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO YOUR COMMISSION REVIEW HAS BEEN APPROVED.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, JANE.

ALL RIGHT, LAST UP ON OUR AGENDA FOR ACTION ITEMS IS THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN, THIS IS 8B.

[8E. Pathway Master Plan]

WE'VE GOT A MOTION IN FRONT OF US FROM THE DISCUSSION LAST TIME ABOUT FROM DEPUTY MANAGER PERRY.

KEITH OR MARK, ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD AT THIS TIME?

>> NO, IT'S JUST A RESOLUTION BASED ON DIRECTOR PERRY'S RECOMMENDATION.

>> OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION.

>> MOVED.

>> MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

ALL RIGHT, IF I DIDN'T HEAR ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE, WE'LL GIVE EVERYONE ONE LAST CHANCE.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

[00:55:02]

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> YES.

>> THE CHAIR VOTES YES, SO THE CHANGES ARE SUPPORTED.

ALL RIGHT, THAT TAKES US TO AGENDA ITEM 9A, TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

[9A. Township Board update.]

DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, WHAT HAVE YOU GOT FOR US?

>> YES, THE BOARD'S LAST MEETING WAS MAY 6, THEY DID VOTE TO GRANT FINAL ADOPTION FOR THE ZONING AMENDMENT.

THIS IS THE ONE WHERE MOTOR VEHICLE SALES ARE NEW OR USED AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD GRANTING A FINAL APPROVAL.

AGAIN, THAT WILL BE PUBLISHED AND THAT WILL TAKE IT BACK SEVEN DAYS AFTER IT'S PUBLISHED.

THEY ALSO GRANTED THE FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR SILVERSTONE ESTATES, THAT'S THE 25 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION NORTH OF GRAND RIVER ON THE EAST SIDE OF POWELL ROAD.

IN THAT PROCESS, NOW THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS GRANTED IT, THEY GO AND SEEK APPROVALS FROM THE OTHER REVIEWING AGENCIES SUCH AS THE ROAD COMMISSION, THE DRAIN COMMISSION.

ONCE THEY HAVE THAT, THEN THEY CAN SUBMIT IT TO THE STATE AND THE STATE WILL REVIEW IT.

ONCE THE STATE APPROVES THAT THE OWNER NOW CAN START SELLING LOTS IN THAT SUBDIVISION.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> THEN ONE LAST ONE WAS THE DISCUSSION ITEM IS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR NEWTON PLACE.

THE COMMISSION REMEMBERS THAT WAS PART OF THE MIXED-USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS THE PROPERTY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAGINAW AND NEWTON.

THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED WITH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND THAT WAS FOR THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE SAYS, ANY SINGLE BUILDING OR GROUP OF BUILDINGS MORE THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET NEED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

THE BOARD APPROVED THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

THEY'RE VALID FOR TWO YEARS OR 24 MONTHS, IN WHICH TIME CONSTRUCTION IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE STARTED.

IF CONSTRUCTION HASN'T STARTED, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR A ONE TIME, ONE-YEAR EXTENSION.

THE PROPRIETOR FOR NEWTON PLACE DID ASK FOR THAT AND THE BOARD IS GOING TO GO AHEAD AT THEIR NEXT MEETING AND APPROVE THAT EXTENSION FOR THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

I SHOULD MENTION JUST FOR IF ANYBODY IS FOLLOWING, THE JOLLY ROAD, KANSAS REZONING WILL BE ON THIS MEETING, MAY 18TH, FOR DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD LEVEL.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR KIESELBACH? JUST FROM A FOLLOW-UP PERSPECTIVE, DID PETER SEND ALONG BEFORE HE LEFT THE, WE INITIATED AN AMENDMENT AND WAIT FOR THE MVPAD? DO WE KNOW WHEN THAT'LL BE ON?

>> YEAH. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS GOING TO BE AT YOUR NEXT MEETING.

>> OKAY. US FIRST THEN THEM. GOT IT.

THEN WE WERE ALSO GETTING READY TO SEND ALONG THAT DRAFT FORM-BASED CODE TO THE BOARD.

I KNOW THAT HE WAS TALKING TO MR. WALSH ABOUT THAT.

DO WE KNOW IF THERE'S BEEN ANY MOVEMENT THERE?

>> RIGHT. ONE OF THE THINGS THE COMMISSIONERS WEREN'T AWARE, THE NEW DIRECTOR, TIM SMITH, WHO IS GOING TO TAKE MY PLACE IS ACTUALLY STARTING ON MAY 17TH AND WE WANT TO GET HIM UP TO SPEED ON FORM-BASED CODE BEFORE IT WENT ANY FURTHER.

SO IT WILL BE MOVING ALONG.

>> GOT IT. WITH SUMMER COMING, WE MAY NOT HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS WE'D LIKE BUT WE SHOULD CONSIDER ONCE MR. SMITH JOINS US WORKING ON A SCHEDULE OR WITH HE OR WHOEVER HE APPOINTS AS PLANNING DIRECTOR TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE OTHER SUBCOMMITTEE ITEMS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE OURSELVES ANOTHER COUPLE OF WEEKS HERE, BUT THEN LET'S PLAN ON JUMPING BACK INTO IT ONCE THAT ALL GETS MOVING FORWARD.

ANY OTHER LIAISON REPORTS FROM LIAISON MEETINGS? COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

[9B. Liaison reports.]

>> THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MET ON MAY 3, A WEEK AGO.

I THINK THE THINGS THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST TO THIS BOARD ARE FIRST OF ALL,

[01:00:01]

THERE WAS INFORMATION PRESENTED THAT, THIS IS A MATTER OF GENERAL NATIONAL NEWS BUT IT ALSO HITS HOME, CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE SKYROCKETING AND IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT THAT MAY AFFECT TIMING, IF NOTHING ELSE, OF SOME OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.

THERE WILL BE A VILLAGE OF OKEMOS CELEBRATION.

THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE DATE, BUT IF I GOT IT CORRECTLY, I BELIEVE IT'S OCTOBER 9 FROM NOON UNTIL FOUR O'CLOCK AND THAT'LL INCLUDE A HIGH SCHOOL ART WALK.

>> WERE THERE ANY PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY THAT THEY MENTIONED WERE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THE COST INCREASES OR WAS IT JUST A GENERAL THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT EVERYONE?

>> PERHAPS AMBER HAS MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS JUST A GENERAL FEAR THAT IT'S GOING TO AFFECT EVERYTHING.

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

WE DID GET A REPORT FROM TRUE NORTH DEVELOPER AND DIRECTOR ON THE DDA WILL RANDLE ABOUT THE COST OF MOST CONSTRUCTION.

SO LUMBER IS STILL PRETTY HIGH, STILL VERY SCARCE.

THAT WHAT IS AVAILABLE.

MPV, SAME THING.

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THE PROJECT IS STILL ON TASK FOR SCHEDULE THAT THEY PRESENTED, SO THEY STILL HAVE A FALL DEADLINE OF BEGINNING FOOTING PREPARATION FOR VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS STILL ON POINT.

THEY'VE JUST RECENTLY SUBMITTED THEIR FIRST ROUNDS OF REIMBURSEMENTS, BUT I'LL LET THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS GET TO THAT.

IT WAS A DIRECTOR SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING FROM THE TRUE NORTH DEVELOPMENT BUT IT WAS IN RELATION TO JUST OUR KNOWLEDGE IN BEING AWARE THAT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GOING ON RIGHT NOW ARE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO ABSORB THAT EXTRA COST, REALLY.

EVEN WITH LOCAL OR SMALLER PROJECTS, THERE IS AN EXPANSION THAT'S GOING ON THAT YOU GUYS WILL BE A PART OF, I'M SURE, FOR ADDITIONAL VARIANCES.

BUT THAT PROJECT QUOTED AT MAYBE SIX FIGURES IS DEFINITELY UP TO NOW A MILLION DOLLARS JUST TO CONTINUE DOING THE SAME PROJECT WITHIN THAT TIMELINE.

IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO BE AWARE OF.

WE'RE STILL TUGGING ALONG.

I'M POSITIVE ABOUT IT.

>> I DID NOTE IN THE COURSE OF MY DAY JOB THAT LOOKED LIKE THE ROAD COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY COMMISSION PASSED THE ROAD PROPOSALS FOR THAT PROJECT.

SO EXCITING TO HEAR ABOUT THAT TOO.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> THE BRA COMMITTEE MET AS AMBER SUGGESTED AND WE APPROVED THE DRAW FROM THE TOWNSHIP FOR THAT PROJECT.

>> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE?

>> THE ZBA DID MEET AND UNFORTUNATELY, I WAS STILL OUT ON DAY 4 OF NEW BABY SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND.

BUT THEY WILL BE MEETING AGAIN IN TWO DAYS.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> THIS IS JUST A ZBA QUESTION AND PROBABLY FOR STAFF ON, AGAIN, MY OWN EDIFICATION, THERE'S A CASE THE ZBA IS LOOKING AT ON ARAPAHO TRAIL THAT INVOLVES A VARIANCE REQUEST TO MAKING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN.

I'M NOT SURE I SAW ALL THE MATERIALS BUT I'M CURIOUS, IS THERE A STEP IN THE REVIEW WHERE THAT PROPERTY IS ASSESSED AS A WETLAND AS WELL OR IS THAT A DIFFERENT THING?

>> THE ONE FOR WEDNESDAY NIGHT FOR THE PROPERTY, THIS IS PROPERTY THAT IS ALONG THE RED CEDAR RIVER AND IT'S IN THE FLOODWAY SO THAT'S MOVING WATER DURING THE TIME OF A FLOOD.

THIS IS AN AFTER THE FACT.

THEY HAD BUILT A FIRE PIT AND A STONE WALL ALONG THE RIVER AND THEY'RE ASKING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THAT IN PLACE, AND THAT REQUIRES A VARIANCE FOR THOSE TYPES OF STRUCTURES IN THE FLOODWAY.

THE I KNOW OUR ENGINEERS HAVE LOOKED AT IT.

IT WON'T INCREASE FLOOD ELEVATION, THESE STRUCTURES.

SO IT'S UP TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IF THEY FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE GRANTED VARIANCE TO REMAIN.

>> THERE ISN'T A STEP WHERE THE PRESENCE OF WETLAND CONDITIONS IS ASSESSED IN THAT PROCESS?

[01:05:04]

>> WELL, IN THIS CASE, THERE WASN'T ANY WETLANDS, IT WAS ALL FLOODPLAIN.

>> OKAY. I'LL NEED TO DO MORE HOMEWORK ON THE DIFFERENCE. THANKS.

>> OKAY.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER OTHER THINGS ON REPORTS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON.

AGENDA ITEM 10.

WE HAVE NO NEW APPLICATION SITE PLANS PERCEIVED OR SITE PLANS APPROVED, WHICH BRINGS US TO OUR LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

FOR THOSE WHO HAVE STUCK WITH US IN THE ZOOM MEETING, REMEMBER YOU CAN USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE AND YOU'LL BE PROMOTED TO A PANELIST.

FOR THOSE LOOKING TO CALL IN FROM HOME, YOU CAN USE THE PHONE NUMBER WHICH IS 517-349-1232.

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

WITH THAT, WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC REMARKS.

>> WE'RE HEARING NO TELEPHONE CALL, SIR.

>> ALL RIGHT. WELL THEN, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR LAST AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT.

DO A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

NO ONE WANTS TO LEAVE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT, SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> THE OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:06 PM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> CONGRATULATIONS, SCOTT.

>> CONGRATULATIONS, SCOTT.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO SENT KIND WORDS.

I'M SORRY I DIDN'T RESPOND.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.