[6A. Rezoning #21050 (M & J Management), rezone an approximately 5 acre parcel located at 1999 Saginaw Highway, from C-2 (Commercial) to I (Industrial).]

OUR REZONING NUMBER 21050, M & J MANAGEMENT TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 1999 SAGINAW HIGHWAY, FROM C2, COMMERCIAL TO I, INDUSTRIAL.

AND WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:08 P.M.

AND WE WILL HAND THINGS OFF TO WHO IS IT TONIGHT, KEITH? I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS ONE, YEAH.

TO KEITH. WE'RE GOING TO HAND THINGS OFF TO KEITH.

GO AHEAD, MR. CHAIRMAN.

OK, REZONING 21050 M & J MANAGEMENT LLC, THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES LOCATED AT 1999 E SAGINAW HIGHWAY, FROM C2, COMMERCIAL TO I, INDUSTRIAL.

A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TONIGHT'S MEETING, YOU CAN FIND THE MEETING PACKET ONLINE AT WWW.MERIDIAN.MI.US UNDERNEATH THE MEETINGS TAB.

[00:10:06]

AFTER TONIGHT, YOU CAN FIND IT UNDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION ON THE WEBSITE.

THE FORMAT OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING, YOU'LL HEAR THE STAFF SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST, A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT AND A PUBLIC COMMENT WHICH ALLOWS THREE MINUTES PER PERSON MAXIMUM.

AND THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

SO STAFF FOCUSES ON THE REZONING, NOT THE DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, AND THAT PROCESS IS SIMILAR TO THE REZONING PROCESS.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT THIS SITE.

THERE WAS A LAND DIVISION THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2018, WHICH CREATED THIS FIVE ACRE PARCEL FROM A LARGER 15 ACRE PARCEL, WHICH IS OWNED AND OCCUPIED BY THE MERIDIAN COMPANY.

SO THE10.65 ACRE ADJACENT PARCEL IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL.

A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PROPERTY NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE LOT IN 2001, AND IN 2018 THE APPLICANT REZONED THIS PROPERTY FROM I INDUSTRIAL TO C2 COMMERCIAL.

SO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THIS PARCEL DESIGNATES IT AS BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY, IT'S PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED BY THAT TO THE EAST, THE SOUTH AND THE WEST AND THEN THE CROSSED SAGINAW HIGHWAYS OR COMMERCIAL.

CURRENTLY, ZONE C2 COMMERCIAL THE PROPOSED ZONING IS I INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT ESTABLISHES MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH AS WELL AS PERMITTED LAND USES.

SO THE C2 ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED FEET OF LOT WITH AND FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT AREA.

THEY REQUESTED BY I INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF ONE HUNDRED FEET OF LIGHT WIDTH AND ONE ACRE OF LIGHT AREA.

AND THIS IS A MAP THAT SHOWS THE LOCATION, WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONE C2, SURROUNDED BY THE I INDUSTRIAL AS WELL AS SOME MULTIFAMILY ACROSS SAGINAW HIGHWAY.

SO THE TOWNSHIP WETLAND MAP SHOWS WETLANDS ON THIS PROPERTY, IF THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROPOSED, WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT WOULD BE REQUIRED, WHICH WOULD DETERMINE THE BOUNDARY AND SIZE OF THOSE WETLANDS.

AND THEN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE AND FEATURE WETLAND WATER FEATURE SETBACKS AS APPLICABLE.

AND THIS JUST SHOWS THE WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE CLEAR DRAIN, WHICH IS ALSO LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.

STREETS AND TRAFFIC, THIS PROPERTY HAS FRONTAGE ON SAGINAW HIGHWAY, AND THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS THAT COMPARES A SUPERMARKET OR THE EXISTING C2 ZONING AND A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FACILITY FOR THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

AND BASED ON THE FIGURES SHOWN IN THIS TABLE BELOW, IT DOESN'T NECESSITATE A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT OR A TRAFFIC STUDY PER THE ORDINANCE.

SO REVIEW CRITERIA FOR REZONING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWNSHIP BOARD MUST CONSIDER ALL USES THAT ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS, ALL USES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND DISTRICTS, AS WELL AS THE REASONS FOR THE REZONING, WHICH ARE LISTED ON PAGE PAGE TWO OF THE REZONING APPLICATION AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO THOSE REASONS.

STAFF ANALYSIS, SO THE I INDUSTRIAL PURPOSE OF THE I INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT IS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF LIGHT MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, STORAGE AND OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS. SOME OF THE USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT INCLUDE PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, CLEANING, TESTING, REPAIR, STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIAL GOODS OR FOODSTUFFS, CONTRACTOR ESTABLISHMENTS, INSTRUCTIONAL CENTERS FOR BUSINESS, TRADE, MUSIC, ART, DANCE, MARTIAL ARTS OR OTHER PLACES OF INSTRUCTION AND ANY ACCESSORY USES CLEARLY PERTINENT TO THE MAIN USE OF THE LOT AND CUSTOMARY TO AND COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAIN USE.

[00:15:02]

SO THE PURPOSE OF THE C2 ZONING DISTRICT IS TO ACCOMMODATE COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS SERVICE ACTIVITIES THAT SERVE THE COMMUNITY.

THIS DISTRICT PERMITS A WIDE VARIETY OF BUSINESS AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES BY RIGHT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT. AND THE BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS INTENDED TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY'S NEED FOR RESEARCH FACILITIES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OPPORTUNITIES OR CORPORATE CAMPUSES.

SO THIS DESIGNATION CORRELATES WITH OUR P0 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, RESEARCH PARK AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

AND AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THERE IS A DRAIN ON THE PROPERTY, SO ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THAT.

SO THEY WILL HAVE TO MEET THE TOWNSHIPS WATER FEATURE SETBACK OF 50 FEET FROM THE TOP OF BANK FOR OPEN COUNTY DRAINS.

SO WHAT'S NEXT? FURTHER DISCUSSION OR POSSIBLE ACTION AT THE NEXT JUNE 14TH, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

THERE WON'T BE ANY ADDITIONAL NOTICES OR LETTERS SENT OUT.

STAFF WILL PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION BASED ON THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT AND PLANNING STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS BETWEEN MEETINGS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KEITH.

DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS REQUEST? IF YOU ARE AND YOU'RE IN, IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE PROMOTING SOMEONE WHO IS SO WE'LL GIVE CRAIG A MINUTE HERE.

CRAIG, MAKE SURE YOU UNMUTE.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JIM PHILIPSZ AND I'M THE J IN M & J MANAGEMENT ACROSS THE TABLE HERE IS MY BROTHER MARTY.

HE CO-FOUNDED THE COMPANY KNOWN AS MERIDIAN PLUMBING BACK IN 1984.

AND THE THIRD MEMBER HERE, HIS SON, CRAIG, A HASLETT RESIDENT WHO IS TRANSITIONING TO TAKE OVER THE BUSINESS THAT WE'VE HAD UP FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS.

ESSENTIALLY, THE QUESTION TONIGHT IS A RETRO ZONE.

I FIND THAT FIVE ACRE PARCEL OF OUR TRACT HERE THAT ESSENTIALLY HAD BEEN INDUSTRIAL FOR AS LONG AS I OR PERHAPS EVEN MARK COULD REMEMBER.

AND THE QUESTION MIGHT BE ASKED, WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE BEHIND REQUESTING THE C2 ZONING THREE YEARS AGO? AND I LIKE TO JUST BARELY STEP BACK IN TIME.

IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF 18, THE ONLY MID-MICHIGAN AREA COSTCO WAREHOUSE HAD OPENED UP A MILE AND A HALF TO THE WEST OF US AND THERE WAS AN AWFUL LOT OF BUZZ RUNNING UP AND DOWN THE SAGINAW CORRIDOR WITH REGARDS TO POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND DRIVEN BY THOSE INITIAL IMPRESSIONS, WE OPTED TO SEE YOU TEST THE WATERS WHEREVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, WITH A COMMERCIAL REZONING HERE, REALIZING THAT SINCE LITERALLY WE'RE ON THE DOORSTEP OF THAT TOWNSHIP WITH THE MEYER FACILITY A THOUSAND FEET AWAY FROM US, THAT THE COMMERCIAL INTEREST, IF YOU WOULD, WOULD PROBABLY COME FROM THE EAST OF OUR LAND WELL IN ADVANCE OF COMING FROM THE WEST WHERE COSTCO IS, AND YOU FAST FORWARD THREE YEARS LATER. AND I GUESS THE REALIZATION THAT WE'VE COME TO AS A FAMILY BUSINESS IS THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE EASTERN THIRD OF MERIDIAN SAGINAW CORRIDOR IS JUST GOING TO BE A LONG TIME COMING.

THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE NEW CONSTRUCTION INITIATIVE ON THIS STRETCH SINCE WE MOVED IN IN 2000. AND THAT WAS, I THINK, THREE YEARS AGO AT THE POINT OF DOWNER AND SAGINAW.

AND OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S BEEN SIMPLY NO DEVELOPMENT OTHER THAN THE RELOCATION OF THE NEW HOPE CHURCH FROM HASLETT ALONG THIS CORRIDOR.

SO. IN KEEPING IN LINE WITH WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CALLS FOR THIS AREA.

TOGETHER WITH NOW THE POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL ACREAGE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SMART ZONE INITIATIVE WITH MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, WE'VE CONCLUDED IT WOULD BE BEST TO ESSENTIALLY REQUEST THIS RETRO ZONING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO PUBLIC REMARKS, A

[00:20:06]

REMINDER FROM KEITH'S PRESENTATION, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC REMARKS.

PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES.

GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS.

AND IF YOU ARE LOOKING TO JOIN FROM THE ZOOM MEETING, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND IF YOU'RE AT HOME, YOU CAN CALL US AT (517) 349-1232.

LOOKS LIKE BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DIRECTOR CLARK, WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR A MOMENT. DIRECTOR CLARK? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BUT I WILL FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE HERE.

I'M AT 1348 BAY SHORE DRIVE.

MY NAME IS AMBER CLARK AND DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE REZONING IN FRONT OF YOU 21050 TO REZONE A FIVE ACRE PARCEL ON SAGINAW BACK TO INDUSTRIAL.

AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT MY SUPPORT, THOUGH, IS VERY TIMELY.

IT WASN'T NECESSARILY A LONG DISCUSSION OR PLANNED OUT ACTIVITIES FOR THE TOWNSHIP TO BEGIN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SMARTPHONE AND ENTERING INTO THAT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LANSING AND EAST LANSING.

IT'S JUST VERY TIMELY THAT WE HAVE A FEW BUSINESS OWNERS, REPUTIBLE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT HAVE BEEN HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY FOR A LONG TIME, THAT ARE INTERESTED IN MAKING EXPANSIONS OR CHANGES TO THEIR BUSINESS SERVICES.

AND THOSE BUSINESSES FALL INTO OUR INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND THEY'RE NOT VERY MANY PLACES FOR THEM TO GO SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO DO AN EXTENSION.

I KNOW ONE CONVERSATION THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS HAD BEFORE THEM AND HAS PROBABLY HAD THE QUESTION ABOUT WAS, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REZONING ON JOLLY ROAD, SHOULD THAT BUSINESS OWNER DECIDE TO LEAVE, WHERE WOULD THEY GO, WHERE THEIR FUNCTION OF THEIR BUSINESS IS USED BY, RIGHT? OR IT'S AMPLE FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS TO GET THEM THAT IT'S SUFFICIENT.

SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF REZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AFOREMENTIONED, NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE SMART ZONES ABILITY TO ATTRACT NEW BUSINESSES THAT ARE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOES INDICATE THAT AREA AS A BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY CENTER.

AND THAT IS WHAT THE CONNECTION OF THE SMART ZONING WILL BE, WILL ALLOW FOR THOSE LIKE INDUSTRIAL USES, THAT KIND OF TESTING, THE TYPE OF WORK THAT WE SEE DOWN AT THE VAN KAMP BUILDING. AND EXTEND THAT PROGRAM, IT WOULD MAKE BETTER TIES WITH MSU, BETTER TIES WITH EAST LANSING AND LANSING.

AND ON TOP OF WHICH, IT ALLOWS AN ALREADY EXISTING WELL-ESTABLISHED BUSINESS TO EXPAND, TO PROVIDE THEIR BUSINESS TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE I'VE BEEN A CUSTOMER OF THEM TO BE ABLE TO GIVE US MORE OPTIONS.

SO I APPRECIATE IT.

I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU CONSIDER IT.

AGAIN, THAT IT IS JUST VERY TIMELY THAT WE'RE HAVING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT SMART ZONES AND THAT THERE'S INTEREST TO INCLUDE THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP INTO THAT.

AND IT WOULD JUST MAKE AN EVEN BETTER CASE TO SEE IMPROVEMENT IN THE AREA AND TO SEE VALUE, A TAXABLE VALUE INCREASE IN THE AREA, TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOMETHING MORE FOR ANY OTHER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD COME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK THIS EVENING ON THIS TOPIC ? I DID NOT SEE ANY HANDS RAISED, STEVEN, ANY ON THE PHONE? YEAH, NO CALLS, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WISHING TO SPEAK ? COMMISSIONER BLUMER? I AM TENTATIVELY IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST FOR REZONING, IT SEEMS TO ME LOGICAL.

IT'S A RETROGRADE ZONE BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE USE AROUND IT.

AND I AGREE WITH MS. CLARK THAT IT WOULD FIT IN WITH FUTURE LAND USE PLANNING FOR THE COMMISSION FOR THE TOWNSHIP. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO OBJECT TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? COMMISSIONER CORDILL? I WOULD ECHO COMMISSIONER BLUMER'S COMMENTS ABOUT IT SEEMS QUITE REASONABLE TO GO BACK TO THE I ZONING. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? YEAH, THANKS. AS A RELATIVE NEWCOMER, I WOULD APPRECIATE HEARING A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY

[00:25:04]

ABOUT THE BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND HOW, WHAT THAT WAS INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH? EITHER FROM STAFF OR MAYBE THE APPLICANT OR OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

WE'LL LEAVE THAT ONE TO DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

BILL, COULD YOU SAY IT ONE MORE TIME FOR ME? I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS IN THE PAST ABOUT THE BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY. THERE WAS AN APPLICATION ON HAGEDORN THAT I THINK MAYBE FELL INTO THAT SAME SORT OF THING. AND I'M CURIOUS, JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF THE INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY OF WHAT THAT CATEGORY WAS INTENDED TO SERVE IN THE MASTER PLAN AND HOW THIS KIND OF FITS INTO IT.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY MEANT TO BE FOR TECHNOLOGY ISSUES, AGAIN, MAYBE THOSE WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF MANUFACTURING OR SOME TYPE OF BUSINESS INCUBATING TO START NEW BUSINESSES FROM. OK, YEAH THANKS.

SO IT KIND OF ECHOING COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S COMMENTS, I'M ALSO A CUSTOMER OF MERIDIAN COMPANY AND SOME OF THE STUFF THEY DO IS VERY HIGH TECHNOLOGY.

YOU KNOW, YOU CAN CONTROL YOUR AC SYSTEM FROM YOUR SMARTPHONE AND THINGS.

AND SO THAT FEELS TO ME KIND OF COMPATIBLE IN MANY WAYS WITH THIS.

THANKS. UH, COMMISSIONER SNYDER? THANK YOU.

SO, MY, I'M ALSO KIND OF LOOKING FOR A SIMILAR CLARIFICATION ALONG THE SAME LINES OF COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. SO MAYBE JUST IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY LET US KNOW ABOUT DIRECTOR KIESELBACH, AS I LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND I SEE THE PURPLE ON THE MAP AND IT'S HIS BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY IS THAT I GUESS IS THAT TITLE JUST REPLACING ALL THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING OR BECAUSE I DON'T EVEN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, I DON'T SEE IN THE INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY AT ALL.

SO MAYBE IF I COULD JUST UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER.

I THINK IT'S THE WAY THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS, SO THAT TREND IS MORE TOWARDS THE TECHNOLOGY PART OF THE INDUSTRIAL USE OR THE RESEARCH PARKS SUCH AS WE HAVE RESEARCH PARK ZONING OR POSSIBLY THE OFFICE.

IT'S NOT, WASN'T INTENDED FOR ANY HEAVY MANUFACTURING AREA OR LIKE A FOUNDRY OR SOME PRODUCTION LIKE THAT THERE.

THAT'S MORE TOWARDS THE HIGH TECH TYPE OF BUSINESSES THAT WE SAW THE INDUSTRIAL MOVING TOWARDS. OK, THANK YOU.

YEAH, THAT'S BEEN AN ISSUE OF SOME CONFUSION FOR ME IN THE LAST FEW YEARS IS TRYING TO SQUARE THE CIRCLE OF, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORIES VERSUS THE DIFFERENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP TYPES.

I THINK IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE SO HELPFUL IF AT SOME POINT WE COULD GET A FLOW CHART OR A GRAPH OF LINES CONNECTING, YOU KNOW, WHICH WHICH ZONING CATEGORIES HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH WHICH FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORIES.

JUST FOR THE SAKE OF EASE, WE CAN GIVE IT TO ALL THE NEW COMMISSIONERS, MYSELF INCLUDED, TO SORT OF GET US A BETTER FLOW CHART.

OR IF WE CAN EVEN DO THAT, THAT WOULD BE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I FELT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL IN THESE DISCUSSIONS, BECAUSE I AGREE.

YOU KNOW, INDUSTRIAL DOESN'T REALLY YOU DON'T THINK BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY NECESSARILY WHEN YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AT INDUSTRIAL ZONING, BUT THAT'S JUST WHICH THAT'S WHICH CATEGORY IT FALLS INTO GENERALLY.

SO JUST SOMETHING JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE GOING TO BE REVISITING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN REBOOT OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR SO. I WILL, WHILE I'M GOING, I WILL ECHO THE COMMENTS OF MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, I THINK THAT THIS MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO GET TO GO BACK TO THE ZONING THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT'S INTENT SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO TRY TO CAPITALIZE ON NEW REDEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, IF POSSIBLE.

BUT WHILE I DISAGREE THAT THERE MAY NOT BE, YOU KNOW, NEW DEVELOPMENT COMING IN THE FUTURE, WE'VE GOT A GREAT TEAM TRY TO BRING NEW BUSINESS IN.

CERTAINLY IT'S APPROPRIATE TO REVERT BACK TO THE ZONING THAT THE SURROUNDING AREA IS.

SO I WOULD BE GENERALLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.

[00:30:08]

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? OK, I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS RAISED OR ANYONE WAVING AT ME, SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR STRAW POLL.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY BE JOINING US FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES A STRAW POLL AT THE END OF EACH PUBLIC HEARING TO GATHER A SENSE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS NOT A FORMAL VOTE.

THIS IS MERELY OUR OPINIONS AT THE MOMENT.

AND IT WILL HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO GENERATE A RESOLUTION FOR OUR VOTE, WHICH WILL BE OCCURRING AT THE NEXT MEETING.

SO AT THAT WILL GO AHEAD AND START WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER PREMOE? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER CORDILL? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER BLUMER? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER SNYDE? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER TREZISE? SUPPORT. AND I WOULD ALSO BE SUPPORTIVE.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GIVEN OUR STAFF SOME DIRECTION HERE AS TO HOW WE WOULD HOW WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE RESOLUTION FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.

AND WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:30 P.M.

AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 6B, WHICH IS OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EVENING.

[6B. Zoning Amendment #21020 (Planning Commission), amend Section 86-440 Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) of the Code of Ordinances.]

THIS IS ZONING AMENDMENT NUMBER 21020 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND SECTION 86-440 MIXED-USE PLANNING TO DEVELOP AND UPD OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES.

AND WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:31.

I WILL TURN THINGS BACK OVER TO DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS.

I KNOW YOU'VE SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME ON THIS AMENDMENT, ALONG WITH THE MIXED USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE THAT YOU HAD ON THIS.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS THIS AMENDMENT FOR YOU AND AS A MEANS OF BACKGROUND OF THE MIXED USE PLANNING TO DEVELOP ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED IN THE EARLY 2000S.

AND IT'S AN OVERLAY DISTRICT.

IT'S APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES SOLD IN THE COMMERCIAL CATEGORY OR THE OFFICE CATEGORY, AND IT ALLOWS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES TO BE MIXED ON A SITE.

THIS AMENDMENT HAS CAME THROUGH AS SOME OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS WE'VE HAD OVER TIME WITH THIS MIXED USE. IT'S REALLY SEEING HOW THE DIFFERENT PROJECTS COME THROUGH.

AND THERE IS A CONCERN.

DOES THE ORDINANCE ADDRESS THIS OR DOESN'T ADDRESS IT? IS THAT A GOOD FACTOR TO HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE OR SHOULD WE CHANGE IT? AND I THINK IN THIS ONE, THE MAJORITY OF THE ITEMS THAT RAISED THE ISSUES WAS HOW THE AMENITY SECTION WAS BEING HANDLED.

A COUPLE OTHER THINGS, THOUGH, THAT GOT CHANGED IS WE DID CREATE A NEW OVERLAY AREA WITHIN THE MIXED USE ORDINANCE, YOU HAVE THE DOWNTOWN OKEMOS AREA AND YOU HAVE THE DOWNTOWN HASLETT AREA.

NOW, THE PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE THE MERIDIAN MALL PROPERTY IN THAT THOSE OVERLAYS.

THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INCREASE IN DENSITY OR INCREASE IN HEIGHT FOR BUILDINGS.

THERE'S 11 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA THAT'S AN APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO MEET TO GET THAT EXCEPTION. AND THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS IS NOW THIS SORT OF STREAMLINING THE PROCESS.

AND IF YOU HAVE YOUR MIXED USED PLANNING UNIT [INAUDIBLE] APPROVAL THAT ALSO COVERS AS THE APPROVAL FOR ANY OTHER SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT YOU MAY NEED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AGAIN, SORT OF WE'VE HAD TO PROCESS BOTH MIXED USE REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS THEY COME THROUGH. AND THIS WILL SORT OF STREAMLINE THAT PROCESS UNDER ONE APPROVAL.

AND AS I SAID, THE MAJORITY OF THE CHANGES ARE THE AMENITY SECTION.

YOU'VE PROVIDED A NEW DEFINITION OR AMENITIES IN THAT SECTION.

YOU'VE TRIED TO WAIVE THE AMENITY THAT IS BEING OFFERED BASED ON THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

SO PUT THAT IN PROPORTION TO WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED AS PART OF THE PROJECT.

AT LEAST ONE AMENITY IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR EVERY PROJECT AND THEN FOR EVERY WAIVER

[00:35:04]

THAT'S BEING REQUESTED, YOU MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE AMENITY.

AND THEN FOR EVERY DENSITY BONUS, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A MINIMUM OF FOUR AMENITIES TO BE PART OF THAT. AND THEY'VE BEEN BROKEN INTO DIFFERENT AREAS.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH AND JUST MENTION SOME OF THE ONES FOR THE PEOPLE THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS.

IN CATEGORY ONE, SO FOR ONE AMENITY, YOU WOULD NEED A MINIMUM, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE JUST THAT ONE AMENITY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF FIVE ELECTRIC CAR CHARGING STATIONS. YOU COULD HAVE IF YOU INCREASE THE NUMBER OF STREET TREES BY 50 PERCENT AND INCREASE THE DIAMETER OR THE CALIBER OF THAT TREE BY ONE INCH, YOU COULD APPLY THAT AS AN AMENITY.

SIDEWALK PLANTERS AND DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTS ARE ALSO AMENITIES UNDER THAT CATEGORY.

AND THEN UNDER THE CATEGORY WHERE TWO AMENITIES ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED, YOU HAVE THE ENHANCED PUBLIC TRANSIT STOPS.

YEAH, PUBLIC ART AT ONE PERCENT OF THE PROJECT COST.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE MIXED [INAUDIBLE] TYPE OF UNITS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR TWO AMENITIES. AND THEN IF YOU DO PROPOSE THREE AMENITIES, NOW YOU'RE GETTING INTO LEED CERTIFICATION, MULTI LEVEL PARKING DECKS OR UNDERGROUND PARKING.

YOU'RE DOING AN OUTDOOR GATHERING SPACE OF A MINIMUM OF 20 PERCENT OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT OR OF FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF CONTINUOUS SPACE FOR THAT.

THE ONE OTHER THING YOU ADDED IN THIS, AND YOU'LL SEE IT IS A DEFINITION FOR THE NATURAL FEATURES, A STUDY THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR THAT.

AND WE TOOK THAT OUT OF OUR SIGHT PLAN SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE, SO I THINK THAT GOES OVER THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS AMENDMENT, AND I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE APPLICANT OR THE REQUESTER FOR THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND FOREGO OUR APPLICANT TIME IN FAVOR OF EFFICACY HERE AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AT GREAT LENGTH.

AND WE'LL LEAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION LATER.

SO WE WILL MOVE ON THEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC COMMENT, MAY RAISE THEIR HAND OR GIVE US A PHONE CALL ONCE AGAIN AT (517) 349-1232.

AND PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING.

I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS RAISED IN OUR ATTENDEE AREA.

I THINK I RECOGNIZED THE TWO FOLKS WHO ARE THERE FROM AGENDA ITEM 8A, SO WE'LL, IF THEY WISH TO SPEAK, GO AHEAD.

ANYONE ON THE PHONE, STEPHEN? NO, SIR. THE PHONE LINES ARE QUIET.

OK, THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

ANY COMMISSIONERS WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS? COMMISSIONER BLUMER? I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED ON THIS PROJECT.

THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS.

AND FRANKLY, I FIND IT VERY IMPRESSIVE, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING ELECTRIC PARKING STATIONS, TO BE AN AMENITY BECAUSE I'M PLANNING ON BUYING AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE.

SO IT'S OBVIOUS TO ME THAT PEOPLE HAVE PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THIS AND THEY SHOULD BE CONGRATULATED. ABSOLUTELY.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? I WAS A COMMITTEE MEMBER, I CAN HOLD MY COMMENTS UNTIL OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BUT IN CASE THERE WASN'T ANY AT THE MOMENT, I WOULD GO AHEAD.

PLEASE. OK, YEAH, STAFF WAS WONDERFUL AND CARRYING THIS OUT, WE DID POLICY DISCUSSION, BUT IN TERMS OF PUTTING IT INTO AN ORDINANCE, THEY WERE INSTRUMENTAL.

I WOULD I WOULD JUST ADD AFFORDABLE.

AND WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS BECAUSE IN OUR DEFINITIONS, IT IS MENTIONED AS AN AMENITY ON PAGE NINE.

NUMBER THREE, IT'S HIGHLY WEIGHTED, A MINIMUM OF 20 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT IDENTIFIED AS AFFORDABLE UNITS.

I WOULD JUST INTERJECT AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND THEN HAVE THAT DEFINITION OF WHAT IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT.

IS IT 80 PERCENT OF THE MEDIAN INCOME AFFORDABLE TO SOMEONE MAKING 80 PERCENT OF THE

[00:40:04]

MEDIAN INCOME? I THINK WE NEED A DEFINITION.

WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, HOLLY? I'M SURE I DON'T KNOW IF I TOOK EXCEPTION TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE FELT ON THIS, BUT I AM LOOKING AT PAGE SEVEN OF IT AND LET'S SEE, I'M TRYING TO.

IT'S E, NUMBER, LET'S SEE, UNDER E, NO, EXCUSE ME, F, IT SAYS USES MAY BE MIXED VERTICALLY AND OR HORIZONTALLY.

IF I WOULD NOT WANT A SINGLE BUILDING.

THE ADDITION OF SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED MIXED USE IF IT DOESN'T POSSESS THAT WITHIN ALL OF ITS WALLS.

I THINK THIS OVERLAY OR ORDINANCE GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND OUR ORDINANCES AS THEY ARE, AND I THINK THERE'S AN ADVANTAGE TO TIGHTEN THAT UP.

MAYBE THERE ARE OTHERS ON THE COMMITTEE OR OTHERS ON THE COMMISSION WHO FEEL THIS WAY AS WELL. SORRY, COULD YOU RESTATE WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE OBJECTING TO THERE, I GUESS I GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED AS I WAS TRYING TO SCROLL THROUGH THE ORDINANCE TO FIND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. TRYING TO FIND IT.

YEAH, I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT THE HEADING IS.

I THINK I FOUND IT. I JUST, I MISSED SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS AS I WAS SCROLLING.

OH, OK.

KIND OF GIVE YOU A CONTEXT FOR THIS.

I KNOW. SO YOUR DISCUSSION WAS ON.

IT'S ON PAGE FORTY TWO OF THE PACKET OR PAGE SEVEN OF THE ORDINANCE, SUBSECTION F USES MAY BE MIXED VERTICALLY AND OR HORIZONTALLY.

YES, AND YOUR CONCERN IS THAT IT'S MAY AND NOT MUST B?.

I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THE HORIZONTAL BEING CONSIDERED MIXED USE.

MIXED USE WITHIN A BUILDING WOULD BE ONE THING, BUT A BUILDING ON A DIFFERENT PARCEL THAT HAS A DIFFERENT USE THAN ITS NEIGHBORS IS NOT CONSIDERED A MIXED USE IN MY THINKING.

IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO EXPAND UPON THAT, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD TIGHTEN IT UP, ELIMINATE. OK.

MAYBE ALTOGETHER.

MAYBE IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO GET A REACTION FROM STAFF, THAT'S NOT HOW I PERSONALLY READ IT, BUT MAYBE AMBER OR MARK COULD HELP TO GET US SOME CLARIFICATION THERE.

YEAH, I THINK THE ORIGINALITY OF THAT COMES FROM, YOU KNOW, THE MIXED USE CONCEPT, LIKE A GOLF COURSE AND THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S CONNECTED TO A GOLF COURSE THAT WOULD BE LIKE A HORIZONTAL SPRAWL OR LIKE ELEVATION INITIALLY HAD A MIXED USE, APPROVED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE APARTMENTS AND THE REST LIKE THE, WHAT WOULD BE JOE'S ON JOLLY.

SO I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE COMMISSION WAS TRYING TO DO WAS OR THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS TRYING TO DO, WAS TO ENVISION A DEVELOPMENT WHERE MAYBE THERE WAS MULTI RESIDENTIAL.

AND A PORTION OF THE PROJECT, AND THEN MAYBE THERE WERE SOME GREEN SPACE OR A PARK OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS CONNECTED TO THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WAY.

SO WHEN WE SPOKE ABOUT IT, WITH AT THE TIME, PETER MENSER, IT WAS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOLF COURSES OR PLANNED NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE LIKE A DOG PARK MEMBERSHIP OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY WOULD NEED THE LAND AND EVERYONE HAVE ACCESS TO.

MAYBE THAT COULD BE TIGHTENED UP OR GONE INTO MORE DETAILS TO EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN BY ALLOWING THE MIXED IN THE VERTICAL.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER TREZISE WERE YOU LOOKING TO COMMENT ON THIS? YEAH, AS I RECALL, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHERE COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S COMING FROM, THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN OF BUILDING AN

[00:45:03]

APARTMENT BUILDING AND THEN CONNECTING IT TO A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BY TUNNEL OR WHATEVER, I MEAN, IT REALLY WASN'T PART OF THE SAME, IT'S JUST SORT OF ATTACHED IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER, AS COMMISSIONER CORDILL WAS SAYING, IT SHOULD BE WITHIN A BUILDING.

BUT IF YOU HAVE A MULTIPLE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT LIKE THE ELEVATION.

ARE WE REQUIRING MULTI USE IN EACH BUILDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? SO I'M NOT SURE THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET OVER THAT HURDLE.

I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE RESULTS OF THE REWRITE AND SO I WOULDN'T STRUGGLE OVER THAT ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED DURING THE PLANNING REVIEW AND AMENITY REVIEW IN MY MIND.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER, I SAW YOUR HAND A MOMENT AGO.

I WAS ACTUALLY JUST GOING TO ASK AT THAT TIME FOR MY STAFF TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANT.

SO AND THEY DID.

AND I APPRECIATE.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER? WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO COMMISSIONER CORDILL, I'M AFRAID THAT IF YOU GET TOO SPECIFIC, YOU'LL DEFEAT ONE OF THE BASIC PURPOSES OF THIS REWRITE, WHICH IS TO TO ENCOURAGE FLEXIBILITY IN A MULTIUSE DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK LEAVING IT LIKE THIS, AS IT'S CURRENTLY WORDED, IS PROBABLY MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE OR OF THE ORDINANCE.

YES, MR. SCHMIDT? YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO CHIME IN HERE AND SAY THAT THIS IS A GOOD CONVERSATION FOR US GOING FORWARD, BECAUSE EVEN IF WE DON'T MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, WE HAVE A BASELINE TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER THAT ANY DEVELOPERS IN THE FUTURE THAT, HEY, THERE'S SOME SKEPTICISM IN TERMS OF A HORIZONTAL TYPE, MIXED USE PROJECT. SO YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO NEED TO MAKE YOUR CASE EFFECTIVELY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF YOU'RE GOING IN UNDER THIS.

SO I THINK THE INTENT IS OBVIOUSLY TO PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY AND GET A GOOD DESIGN.

BUT WE NOW HAVE SORT OF THE BACKGROUND FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GO FORWARD AND SAY, HEY, THERE'S SOME CONCERN IF YOU'RE JUST DOING THIS TO SLIDE IN UNDER THE ORDINANCE KIND OF IN A HALFWAY FASHION, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GOING TO GO OVER WELL.

SO IT'S A GOOD CONVERSATION TO HAVE REGARDLESS, I THINK, OF HOW YOU END UP SETTLING ON THE LANGUAGE IN THE END.

MR. PREMOE? I JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER BLUMER SAID, I THINK THAT WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET A PERFECTLY WORDED ORDINANCE.

ANY OF OUR ORDINANCES, FOR THAT MATTER, I THINK IT'S TIME TO SAY WE'VE DONE OUR WORK AND MOVE IT FORWARD. AS IS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK? YEAH, I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S CONCERNS SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE HORIZONTAL ISSUE. I ALSO AGREE THAT I THINK GIVING OURSELVES THE FLEXIBILITY IN ORDINANCE AND ALLOWING US TO TAKE THESE ON A CASE BY CASE AS THEY COME UP WILL BE HELPFUL.

BUT I DO THINK IT'S A VALUABLE CONVERSATION JUST BECAUSE WE'RE ON RECORD, WE'RE RECORDED, OR YOU'RE TELLING THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S A GOOD PROPOSAL THAT COMES IN IF THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO A HORIZONTAL MIX OF USES.

AND AS MR. SCHMIDT SAYS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOING THAT, THAT WE SEE THE RESULT OF GOOD PLANNING AND HAVE THEM MAKE THEIR CASE TO US.

SO I THINK THAT WHILE I UNDERSTAND WHERE COMMISSIONER CORDILL IS COMING FROM, I THINK THAT OVERALL WE'RE IN A FINE SPOT WITH THE LANGUAGE AS IT IS TODAY WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER CHANGE. YEAH, I THINK THE MORE DEFINITION WE CAN PROVIDE ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE BETTER. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS LEFT OUT AND I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC WORDING OR IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, EXAMPLES FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES FOR WHAT THE DEFINITION WOULD BE, I'M SURE THERE IS. AND PERHAPS STAFF CAN HELP US TO FIND THAT BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN WE VOTE ON

[00:50:06]

THIS THE NEXT TIME AROUND. COMMISSIONER TREZISE? YEAH, IT SEEMS TO ME THERE IS EITHER IN VARIOUS FEDERAL HOUSING OR STATE HOUSING IS A DEFINITION OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND IT IS A BASED ON THE MEDIAN INCOME AND THE COST PER MONTH AND A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

IF WE PUT A DEFINITION IN THERE THAT CONFLICTS WITH STATE OR FEDERAL LAW OR IS MORE RESTRICTIVE OR IS LESS, IT MAY HAMSTRING US FROM FOLLOWING THE LAWS THAT ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS SITUATION AND IT'S EASIER TO FOLLOW WHAT IS AN ESTABLISHED LAW OVER A LARGER AREA THAN IT IS TO [INAUDIBLE] EACH ONE FROM A TOWNSHIP LEVEL? SO IF I'M INCORRECT THAT THERE ISN'T SOME STANDARD ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, THEN THAT I WITHDRAW THIS COMMENT.

BUT I THINK THERE ARE ESTABLISHED PARAMETERS FOR A DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THERE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS OR CONCERNS HERE? COMMISSIONER CORDILL? I THINK YOU'RE MUTED, COMMISSIONER.

I DON'T MEAN TO HOLD IT OFF IF WE'RE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS, BY ALL MEANS, BUT IF IT'S NEEDED THAT WE PUT IT ON NEXT MEETING AGENDA, THAT'S FINE, TOO.

BUT I'M NOT TRYING TO A LOT OF WORK HAS GONE INTO I THINK IT'S GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT.

WE TIGHTENED A LOT OF THINGS UP.

IF WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH THAT TONIGHT, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.

I THINK WE CAN HAVE IT ALL, RIGHT? IF STAFF CAN GET US A DEFINITION THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, AS COMMISSIONER TREZISE SUGGESTED, WE CAN AMEND THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING, IN A WAY THAT WILL NOT HAVE US BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REST OF THE STATE AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. THIS IS, WE'RE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING PART SO WE CAN DO THAT AND THEN MAKE THAT AMENDMENT NEXT TIME AROUND.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE? IT MAY BE A SITUATION OF JUST REFERRING TO THOSE RULES RATHER THAN SPECIFYING THEM SO THAT IT'S SAID IN THERE WHAT STANDARD WE'RE GOING TO COMMISSIONER SNYDER? I JUST WANTED TO VOICE APPRECIATION FOR COMMISSIONER CORDILL NOTICING THAT, AND I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT EARLIER, BUT I'M IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT THAT A DEFINITION IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY, AND IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE THE HUD DEFINITION COULD WORK.

BUT OBVIOUSLY THE CONVERSATION ABOUT FOLLOWING THE APPLICABLE LAWS IS IMPORTANT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO VOICE THAT BECAUSE I WOULD AGREE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND A DEFINITION IS NECESSARY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BLUMER? I'D JUST LIKE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

IF YOU INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE AN OUTSIDE STATUTE AND THAT STATUTE THEN CHANGES, IT AUTOMATICALLY CHANGES OURS AS WELL.

SAVES US A LOT OF WORK AND A LOT OF GRIEF IN THE FUTURE.

SO IF THERE IS AN EXISTING STATUTE WHOSE DEFINITION WE APPRECIATE JUST ADOPT IT BY REFERENCE AND THAT WE'LL STAY CURRENT WITH IT IF IT CHANGES IN THE FUTURE.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER DOESN'T WANT TO REVISIT THIS 16 TIMES OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR STRAW POLL THEN.

WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER PREMOE? SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? SUPPORT.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER BLUMER? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER SNYDER? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER TREZISE? SUPPORT. AND I, TOO, WOULD SUPPORT.

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, I THINK, FOR DIRECTOR KIESELBACH OR DIRECTOR SCHMIDT TO TAKE A LOOK INTO THE REFERENCE LANGUAGE FOR THE DEFINITION SO WE CAN HAVE THAT READY IN CASE WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT CHANGE AT THE NEXT MEETING.

DID YOU DID YOU JUST OVERLOOK COMMISSIONER BLUMER? NO, NO, NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

[00:55:02]

ALL RIGHT, I PULL UP A LIST EVERY TIME JUST SO I CAN MAKE SURE I'M TICKING ALONG AND MAKING SURE I GET EVERYONE.

I IT, I APOLOGIZE FOR MY OLD AGE.

I WILL GLADLY LOOK INTO THIS.

TURNS OUT MY WIFE DOES AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR A LIVING.

SO I'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU GUYS SOME FEEDBACK ON ON THIS ITEM AT THE NEXT MEETING.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:54 P.M.

I'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM THAT LOOKS LIKE WE MIXED UP OTHER BUSINESS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS AGAIN, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM EIGHT, OTHER BUSINESS 8A NUMBER OF

[8A. 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.]

REZONING NUMBER 21030 NEW CHINA OF MICHIGAN TO REZONE POINT FOR TWO ACRES OF RC, MULTIPLE FAMILY MAXIMUM, 14 DWELLING UNITS BREAKER TO RCC, MULTIPLE FAMILY MAXIMUM.

THIRTY FOUR DWELLING UNITS, BREAKER AT 5114 JO DON DRIVE.

I BELIEVE IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, IT WAS KEITH THAT WAS TAKING THE BALL ON THIS ONE.

YEAH. SO.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY HAD DISCUSSED THIS AT THE APRIL 12TH MEETING, AT THAT MEETING, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A CONDITION FOR THE REZONING AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TOOK A STRAW POLL AT THE END AND DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY, SINCE THAT TIME, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A REVISED CONDITION TO BE ADDED TO THE REZONING REQUEST.

AND SO THIS WAS BASED ON COMMENTS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION HAD STATED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING. AND THE CONDITION NOW READS, UPON APPROVAL OF THE REZONING BY THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, THE APPLICANT WILL COME BACK IN 30 DAYS OF THE APPROVAL AND REQUEST REZONING OF THE NORTH, HALF OF THE PARCEL FROM RCC TO RB SINGLE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY.

CAN YOU GIVE US A SENSE, KEITH OF, OR MARK, OF WHAT THE RB ZONING LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, DENSITY AND ACREAGE? YEAH, SO THAT'S SINGLE FAMILY HIGH DENSITY.

THERE IS A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF SIXTY FIVE FEET, AND I BELIEVE IT'S FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET LOT AREA.

IT'S EIGHT THOUSAND.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT IF THIS PROPERTY IS SPLIT, THAT NORTHERN HALF WOULD ONLY HAVE NINE, APPROXIMATELY NINE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

SO RB WOULD FIT THAT CATEGORY.

AND THE NEXT HIGHER CATEGORY IS RA AND THAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF TEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET LOT. SO THAT WAS WHY RB WAS CHOSEN.