Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:04]

MARK, HAVE WE HEARD.

I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANYBODY.

I SUSPECT JERRY'S COMING, I GOT AN EMAIL FROM HIM EARLIER TODAY.

WILL THAT MAKE QUORUM? WE'VE GOT QUORUM, WE'RE FINE THERE, I'M JUST, I WAS JUST CURIOUS THERE THEY ARE ANYWAY.

AND THE MEETING'S LIVE ON HOMTV, YOU'RE GOING TO GO AT ANY TIME, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT IS 7:00 P.M., SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION, THE MAY 24TH, 2021 MEETING TO ORDER.

[2. PUBLIC REMARKS]

FIRST ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

THERE WILL BE FOUR OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

THERE'LL BE ONE RIGHT NOW, ONE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING AND TWO IN OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM SIX.

YOU MAY SPEAK TO ANY TOPIC NOW OR AT THE END OF THE MEETING.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, YOU MUST LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THE TOPICS BEING DISCUSSED.

PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.

AND IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS.

YOU CAN COMMENT TWO WAYS TONIGHT.

THE FIRST IS, IF YOU ARE IN OUR ZOOM MEETING, YOU CAN USE THE RAISED HAND FEATURE TO INDICATE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO BE PROMOTED TO A PANELIST AND YOU MAY SPEAK AT THAT TIME.

ALSO, YOU MAY CALL US AT (517) 349-1232 AND OUR STAFF WILL PUT YOU THROUGH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE EVERYONE A MOMENT TO EITHER RAISE YOUR HAND OR CALL IN.

I DO SEE ONE HAND RAISED IN OUR PARTICIPANTS PANEL HERE.

OK, SATISH, YOU ARE ON WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, GO AHEAD AND PLEASE GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THE TOPIC OF YOUR CHOOSING.

HI, MY NAME IS SATISH, AND MY ADDRESS IS 2003 BIRCH BLUFF DRIVE, OKEMOS, MICHIGAN 48864 . AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS APPROPRIATE TO TALK, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION, AND IF THIS ISN'T AND IF THERE IS ANOTHER WAY THAT I SHOULD BRING THIS UP, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

WHAT I WANTED TO ASK IS WE OWN A GROCERY STORE AT THE MERIDIAN CROSSINGS.

DRIVE. THAT'S IN OKEMOS AND JOLLY CROSSINGS.

THERE IS A PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO IT WHICH CAME ON SALE.

THAT'S A FORMER PNC BANK THAT'S ON JOLLY OAKS ROAD.

I WANTED TO CHECK WITH YOU GUYS TO SEE, RIGHT NOW IT IS KNOWN AS A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.

IF I WANTED TO PUT A REQUEST FOR TO CHANGE THE ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL ZONING, YOU KNOW. HOW DO I DO IT OR HOW CAN I REQUEST THAT TO HAPPEN? SO HOW CAN I BUY BUSINESS INTO THAT LOCATION.

ALL RIGHT. SURE.

NO, THANK YOU. WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT.

THIS IS NOT REALLY THE BEST VENUE TO PROCEED WITH THAT QUESTION.

HOWEVER, MARK OR KEITH, I THINK, WILL BE REACHING OUT.

AND YOU CAN YOU CAN GIVE THEM A CALL AND MAYBE THEY'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEIR PHONE NUMBER SO THAT YOU CAN REACH OUT TO THEM WITH, TO UNDERSTAND THAT PROCESS BETTER.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THIS TIME? I'M SEEING NO HANDS AND HAVE NO TELEPHONE CALLS, SIR.

OK, WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND MARK AND KEITH, IF YOU COULD, COULD YOU PROVIDE YOUR ONE OF YOUR PHONE NUMBERS TO SATISH SO THAT HE'S GOT IT TO REACH OUT TO YOU? I WILL SEND HIM A MESSAGE.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SATISH COULD BE READY FOR THAT.

OK, WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM THREE, APPROVAL OF YOUR AGENDA.

[00:05:01]

AND ACTUALLY, BEFORE WE GET TO THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, I WILL TAKE JUST A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE A NEW STAFF MEMBER ON WITH US, TIM SCHMIDT.

YOU CAN TELL US IF YOU'D PREFER TO GO BY TIMOTHY.

I SUPPOSE I SHORTEN THAT FOR YOU.

HE WILL BE TAKING OVER FROM MARK, WHO, AS WE ALL KNOW, IS LEAVING US IN JUST ANOTHER DAY. I THINK SO.

WELCOME TO HIM. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE AND WORKING WITH MARK DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU FURTHER AS WE MOVE ON HERE.

WE'LL GIVE YOU A SECOND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND GIVE US A MINUTE OF YOUR BACKGROUND. THAT WOULD BE LOVELY.

YEAH, BE HAPPY TO. AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE INTRODUCTION.

I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EVERYONE.

GOT A WARM WELCOME SO FAR IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

SO OBVIOUSLY, I APPRECIATE THE HONEYMOON THAT'S CONTINUING RIGHT NOW.

AND I CAN HOPEFULLY DO SOME GOOD STUFF WITH YOU IN THE SPIRIT OF TIME.

KEITH AND I'LL KEEP IMPLEMENTING ALL THE GOOD WORK OF THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION AND ALL OF MARK'S FOOTSTEPS EFFECTIVELY.

BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, I WAS PREVIOUSLY WITH THE CITY OF HOWELL FOR SIX AND HALF YEARS AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOP DIRECTOR AND PRIOR TO THAT WAS WITH EAST LANSING FOR ALMOST EVERY BIT OF SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS, ALMOST EIGHT YEARS THERE, I BELIEVE.

YOU KNOW, I COME FROM OHIO, WENT TO OHIO UNIVERSITY FOR MY UNDERGRADUATE AND OHIO STATE FOR MY GRAD SCHOOL. AND I'D LIKE TO SAY I WAS THE ONLY PERSON TO MOVE TO MICHIGAN DURING THE LAST AUTO RECESSION.

SO I HAVE BEEN HERE IN THE STATE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS NOW AND BEEN IN MICHIGAN FOR NEARLY A DECADE. AND I JUST BOUGHT A HOUSE.

WE BOUGHT A HOUSE LAST YEAR AND WE LOOKED AT HOUSES, ONE PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP AND TWO PROPERTIES, TO THE WEST OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, BECAUSE THE MARKET IS INSANE RIGHT NOW. SO WE ARE CURRENTLY JUST TO THE WEST OF YOU GUYS, NOT EVEN IN HAGEDORN JUST OFF THE GRAND RIVER.

SO MY WIFE AND MY THREE AND A HALF YEAR OLD WHO IS CURRENTLY WATCHING DANIEL TIGER, I BELIEVE SO. I APOLOGIZE IF THERE'S BACKGROUND NOISE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EVERYONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WELCOME.

WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE YOU ON THE TEAM.

[3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

SO MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM THREE, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA THIS EVENING? MOVED BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, SAY AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? AND AGENDA PASSES.

SO OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, APPROVAL OF MINUTES, WE HAD ONE SET OF MEETING MINUTES

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

FROM OUR MAY 10TH, 2021 REGULAR MEETING.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES? MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES ON THE MINUTES THIS EVENING? SO, YES, COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? YEAH, I PASSED ON THAT THERE WAS JUST ONE VERY MINOR WHERE I THINK IT WAS ON PAGE SEVEN, A REFERENCE TO THE EGLE GRANT, BUT IT WAS INSTEAD OF EGLE, IT WAS ELGE.

SO OTHER THAN THAT IS FINE.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THAT IF THE MOTION MAKER IS COMFORTABLE AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MINUTES.

ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MINUTES SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AND THE MINUTES PASS.

ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS COMMUNICATIONS.

[5. COMMUNICATIONS]

WE HAD ONE FROM DIRECTOR CLARK REGARDING THE REZONING PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH I'M SURE WE WILL HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT MOMENTARILY.

SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 6A, WHICH IS OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EVENING.

[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 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 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 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.

AND THE SURROUND, I'M SORRY IF WE'RE JUMPING INTO IT HERE, THE SURROUNDING AREA IS RA? CORRECT. THANK YOU.

BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY POINTED OUT THAT WE NEGLECTED TO DO ATTENDANCE AS WELL AS WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY AND FROM WHERE. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PAUSE FOR A MOMENT ON OUR CURRENT AGENDA ITEM AND DO THAT.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

I'M BILL MCCONNELL PARTICIPATING FROM HERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

AND PARTICIPATING REMOTELY.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER PREMOE? COMMISSIONER PREMOE, PARTICIPATING LOCALLY FROM MY HOUSE REMOTELY.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET ALL THE NECESSARY, COMMISSIONER CORDILL, I'M PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM MY HOME IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? I AM ALISANDE SHREWSBURY, AND I AM PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM MY HOME IN OKEMOS.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS. JERRY RICHARDS PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM MY HOME IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER? I AM COMMISSIONER MARK BLUMER, I'M PARTICIPATING FROM MY HOME IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER? I'M CHRISTINA SNYDER PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM MY HOME IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, COMMISSIONER TREZISE? PETER TREZISE COMMISSIONER PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM MY HOUSE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

[01:00:05]

AND I'M SCOTT HENDRICKSON.

I AM PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.

ALL RIGHT. BUT THAT FORMALITY OUT OF THE WAY.

WE'LL GET BACK TO THIS AGENDA ITEM.

AND I SAW COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY AND THEN COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

NOW, YOU HAVE TO GET BACK TO WHAT I WAS THINKING OF.

SO MY QUESTION ON THIS ONE IS, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE TIME TO ASK THIS QUESTION OR IF THIS IS WHEN IT'S BEFORE US.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEIR REASONING IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SPLIT THE PARCEL AND NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WOULD RE REZONE IT IF THE SPLIT WAS APPROVED.

SO I'M WONDERING IF THAT, I KNOW WE CAN'T PROPOSE CONDITIONS.

BUT SINCE THIS ISN'T REALLY BEFORE US, EXCEPT FOR DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLY BE A CONDITION AS WELL UPON SUCCESSFUL SPLIT OF THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN MY OTHER CONCERN, JUST THINKING BACK TO THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD HAD ON THIS SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO, IS THAT IT SOUNDED TO ME THAT JUST FROM THE INPUT THAT WE HEARD FROM THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, THAT THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BEING BUILT ON THAT PROPERTY, BUT NOT OF LIKE A MULTIPLE HOUSING UNIT.

AND SO IF THE ZONING THAT IT WOULD COME BACK TO WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD PERMIT A BIGGER, IF THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO DO WHAT THE NEIGHBORS SEEM TO BE, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT I'M CLEAR ON WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS CHANGE WOULD BE AND WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT BEFORE I MAKE A DECISION OR HAVE AN OPINION ON SUPPORT OR NOT.

MARK, CAN YOU WEIGH IN ON THAT, PLEASE? OH, THE CURRENT ZONING OF FOR RC WAS IN PLACE BACK IN THE 1960S AND AT THE TIME THIS SIX UNIT BUILDING WAS BUILT, IT MEANT THAT DENSITY STANDARDS FOR RC AND IT COULD HAVE MET SOME OF SETBACK STANDARDS FOR RC.

UNDER THE CURRENT RC ZONING, IF IT DOESN'T MEET DENSITY BECAUSE IT'S ONE UNIT TOO MUCH, THIS PROPERTY WOULD ONLY ALLOW FOR FIVE UNITS PER ACRE.

AND.

I CAN MAYBE STOP YOU ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I'M CONFUSING NORTH AND SOUTH.

SO IT'S THE EXISTING BUILDING THAT NEEDS TO BE REZONED TO BE A COMPLIANT? AGAIN, MAYBE WE APPROACHED STAFF ABOUT COULD THEY DIVIDE THE PROPERTY IN HALF, KEEPING THE BUILDING ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION AND SELLING THE NORTHERN PORTION BECAUSE THEY HAD SOMEONE INTERESTED IN BUYING IT. IF THE STAFF COULDN'T APPROVE THAT, BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE THE EXISTING BUILDING EVEN MORE NONCONFORMING THAN IT ALREADY IS.

AND THE PARCEL THAT WAS BEING CREATED WOULDN'T MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE RC ZONING. THEY HAD THOUGHT ABOUT GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND POSSIBLY GETTING A VARIANCE FOR DENSITY AND THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR DENSITY.

SO THAT'S WHAT STARTED THIS PROCESS OF REQUESTING A REZONING, TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME WAY FOR THE OWNER TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT NORTHERN PORTION, WHICH RIGHT NOW IS JUST GREEN SPACE. IT'S NOT DEVELOPED.

AND TO BRING THE EXISTING SIX UNIT BUILDING BASED ON JUST SOLELY DENSITY FOR CONFORMITY, IT NEEDS THE RCC ZONING.

AND THEN THE QUESTION WAS, WELL, IF WE REZONE IT ALL RCC, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 12 UNITS PER ACRE. THEY POSSIBLY PUT 12 UNITS ON THIS SITE AND THEY POSSIBLY COULD TEAR DOWN THAT EXISTING BUILDING AND BUILD SOMETHING MORE DENSE.

SO THAT WAS PART OF THAT SUGGESTION WITH THE CONDITION THAT YOU PUT A TIME FRAME ON IT, THAT IF IT IS GRANTED THAT TWO RCC, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND SEEK A REZONING FOR THAT NORTHERN PORTION TO RB.

IF THEY DIDN'T COME IN WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD, THEN IT WOULD BECOME NULL AND VOID AND GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING.

AND AGAIN, IF THE BOARD AT THE TIME IT CAME FOR RB SAID NO, THEN IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL ZONING.

THIS IS A COMPLICATED ONE.

IT IS COMPLICATED. COMMISSIONER CORDILL?

[01:05:05]

I'M READY TO RECOMMEND THIS WITH TWO THINGS KIND OF SOLIDIFIED MY MIND THAT AND I THINK IT WAS ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IF THIS CONDITION IS NOT MET, THEN IT REVERTS BACK. BUT THE RB, AS IN RICHARD BREWSTER, ZONING WOULD ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A DUPLEX.

NO, NOT A DUPLEX, JUST A SINGLE FAMILY.

JUST A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

OK, THAT THEN ANSWERS MY CONCERNS.

THANK YOU. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IN ADDITION HERE, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED THIS EVENING.

SO FIRST QUESTION, NORTH HALF OF THE PROPERTY AS IT'S DEFINED IN THE CONDITION, MAYBE MARK OR KEITH, IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, ARE THEY LOOKING TO SPLIT THE PARCEL EVENLY IN TWO? THEY ARE, IT'S AN EVEN DIVISION 50 PERCENT.

YES, THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US.

OK, SECOND QUESTION: IF THIS ALL GETS APPROVED AND THIS WHOLE PLAN COMES TO FRUITION AND EVERYONE'S HAPPY, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WILL THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE PARCEL NOW ZONED TO BE RCC? WILL THAT STILL, WITH THE CURRENT BUILDING BE IN CONFORMANCE ONCE THIS SPLIT HAPPENS? IT WOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE FOR DENSITY AND AGAIN, THE BUILDING, BECAUSE OF ITS AGE, DOESN'T MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

SO THE BUILDING ITSELF WOULD BE NONCONFORMING BECAUSE OF THAT.

SURE, AND THAT THEY COULD THEORETICALLY THEY COULD GO TO THE ZBA FOR IF THEY WANT.

RIGHT. SO HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS WOULD THE SOUTHERN HALF PROPERTY UNDER RCC QUALIFY FOR MAXIMUM POSSIBLE? IT WOULD BE, WE HAD ESTIMATED SIX, I BELIEVE, AND KEITH CAN CORRECT ME, BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS 12 FOR THE, 12 PROBABLY FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL.

JOE WAS IT 14? OH YEAH, IT WAS 14 FOR THE ENTIRE, YEAH.

SEVEN I WOULD ON SO JUST TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS, WHAT THE POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF THIS CHANGE WOULD BE.

IS THEY COULD THEORETICALLY ADD ONE UNIT TO THE EXISTING BUILDING SOMEHOW IF THEY COULD FIND A WAY TO MANEUVER THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

THEY COULD THEORETICALLY ADD ONE UNIT TO THE SOUTHERN HALF BUILDING AND HAVE A SINGLE HOUSE IN THE NORTHERN HALF IF THE SPLIT GOES THROUGH.

AND IF THEY DID ADD ANOTHER UNIT, THEN YOU WOULD BE BACK FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT. OK, SO, OVERALL, I THINK I'M ABOUT AS COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITION AND PROPOSAL AS I THINK I'M GOING TO BE.

SO IT'S STILL IT'S SUCH A WEIRD, ROUNDABOUT WAY OF DOING THIS.

BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS AFTER THE FIRST HEARING, THEIR CONCERNS WERE ABOUT THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE, RIGHT? WITH A MASSIVE EXPANSION OF UNITS ON TO THAT PROPERTY.

I THINK THE CONDITIONS PROVIDED AND THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES AFTERWARD HAVE MITIGATED THAT TO THE POINT WHERE I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE AS MUCH OF A PROBLEM.

I DON'T LOVE HAVING THE DIFFERENT RCC AND THE RB ZONING AND WHAT IS LARGELY AN RA AREA.

BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT OURSELVES ENOUGH OF AN OUTLIER CASE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN CASE OF THE ACTUAL USE OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT I CAN LOOK PAST THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

SO I THINK I WOULD LIKELY BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE CONDITION OFFER IT DOESN'T REALLY SAY THAT IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THEN THE PROPERTY REVERTS BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL.

[01:10:05]

REZONING. NOW, MAYBE THAT'S IMPLIED, OR I GUESS I'D BE INTERESTED IN THE STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THAT BECAUSE, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OPEN AND IF YOU GO PAST THE 30 DAYS AND IT ISN'T RESCINDED, THEN YOU'VE GOT TO YOU KNOW, THEN THE WINDOW IS SORT OF HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU CONTROL IT? AND SO ANYWAY, I WANT TO FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT IN THE, IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN 30 DAYS OF REZONING, IS THERE IS NO THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN FOR.

IF THEY DON'T HAVE AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED WITHIN THAT 30 DAYS, IT REVERTS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER BLUMER? SINCE I'M ALMOST AS OLD AS COMMISSIONER PREMOE, DISCUSSIONS ON THIS AS THE PETITIONER EVER ACTUALLY TOLD US WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO WITH THAT PROPERTY, OR IS THIS JUST A VAGUE REZONING REQUEST? WELL, YEAH, IF I CAN HELP OUT ON THIS ONE IN THE INITIAL DISCUSSION, THEY CAME AND THEY, IT WAS INITIALLY JUST BROUGHT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A REZONING REQUEST.

AND IN THE MIDST OF THAT FIRST MEETING, IT WAS IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT THEY WERE LOOKING TO SELL OFF THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNER.

AND THAT'S SORT OF THAT WASN'T THAT WASN'T PART OF WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD IN THE PACKETS.

AND THEN ALL THE INFORMATION I GOT WAS SORT OF JUST DROPPED ON US, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE PUMP THE BRAKES ON IT FOR A MEETING OR TWO.

AND THEN IT CAME TO ALL OF THE VARIOUS HOOPS THEY HAD TO JUMP THROUGH TO MAKE THAT PLAN HAPPEN, WHICH IS WHY IT'S DRAGGED OUT A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN NORMAL.

IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OBJECTIONS TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS NOT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPERTY, IT WAS THE POTENTIAL FOR THEM TO EXPAND THE BUILDING ON THE SOUTHERN HALF.

YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

RIGHT. IS THE STAFF SATISFIED THAT THIS PROPOSED REVISED REZONING REQUEST WILL ELIMINATE THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I THINK AS BEST WE CAN WITH THIS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE'RE TRYING TO.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? MY RECOLLECTION, AND AGAIN, IT MAY NOT BE GERMANE, REALLY, BUT THERE WAS CONCERN THAT THIS OPEN SPACE WAS BEING USED AS A BASICALLY AS A PARK AND THE APPLICANT SAID, YEAH, WE'VE LET THE YOUTH IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD USE IT FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BASE OUR DECISION MAKING ON, BUT THAT WAS ANOTHER CONCERN OF NEIGHBORS THAT HAD YOUNGER CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, MUSINGS? COMMISSIONER TREZISE? YEAH, I THINK IT'S RATHER AMBITIOUS TO THINK THAT THEY CAN COME BACK WITH A REZONING REQUEST WITHIN 30 DAYS BECAUSE IN ORDER TO REZONE IT, THEY'D HAVE TO DIVIDE IT.

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REZONE HALF A LOT.

BUT IF THAT'S A CONDITION THEY WANT TO PUT ON, I THINK I WOULD SUPPORT THIS.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE TOWNSHIP THAT ARE SPLIT BY ZONING, NOT A PROPERTY LINE, SO.

EVENTUALLY, IF THIS PROPERTY IS RESOLVED AND DEVELOPED, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A OK, ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER SNYDER? DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GREEN SPACE AND I FEEL LIKE IT WAS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, BUT PERHAPS NOT.

BUT SOMEBODY MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY OF MAYBE THE TOWNSHIP ACQUIRING THAT NORTHERN HALF OF THE PARCEL FOR THE USE OF A PARK.

I JUST FOUND THAT REALLY INTERESTING AND WONDERED IF THAT WAS EVER INVESTIGATED.

[01:15:02]

IN GENERAL, I SUPPORT THIS AS IT IS.

I JUST REALLY THOUGHT THAT WAS A GREAT IDEA, TOO, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE SO MANY COMMUNITY MEMBERS INDICATED A NEED FOR THAT.

THERE WASN'T REALLY ANY PARK WITH ANY WITHIN A, YOU KNOW, EASY TO GET TO DISTANCE FOR THEIR KIDS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S RELEVANT.

IF NOT, JUST TELL ME IT'S NOT RELEVANT.

MARK, CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS LOOKED INTO AT ALL? WE CERTAINLY CAN'T MAKE THEM SELL IT TO THE TOWNSHIP FOR A PARK.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE PARK COMMISSION WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT PROPERTY.

BUT IT STILL COULD WORK OUT AFTER THE REZONING IF THAT'S APPROVED.

YEAH, I THINK THAT IT'S LAUDABLE TO TO LOOK AT, LOOK AT IT, TO SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PARK COMMISSION AND THE OTHER DECISION-MAKING BODIES INVOLVED IN THAT KIND OF DECISION WOULD BE INTERESTED IN.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT SHOULD HOLD US UP FROM MOVING THIS FORWARD, SINCE WE ARE SIMPLY RECOMMENDING A BODY ON THIS PARTICULAR DECISION AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS ONE FOR FOUR MEETINGS OR SO NOW.

WE SHOULD PROBABLY KICK IT UP TO THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION.

AND IF IN THE INTERIM PROCESS THAT INVESTIGATION OF THAT NATURE CAN BE MADE, THEN THAT'S AMAZING. I THINK, YOU KNOW, I AGREE.

SURE. IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE A PARK THERE.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS INTERESTED OR THE TOWNSHIP IS INTERESTED IS A DECISION FOR OTHERS TO MAKE.

WE CAN ONLY SORT OF MAKE OUR DECISION ON THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US.

BUT I AGREE, I WOULD I'D LOVE TO SEE IT AS A PARK.

I DON'T KNOW IF EITHER PARTY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS? OK, SEEING NONE, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO DO A STRAW POLL HERE AS WELL, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THIS ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

I COMMEND THE APPLICANT AND HIS STAFF FOR THEIR PERSEVERANCE AND INTUITION AND FLEXIBILITY IN THIS, AND I SUPPORT THIS.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER CORDILL? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER BLUMER? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER SNYDER? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER TREZISE? SUPPORT. AND THE CHAIR WITH SUPPORTS, AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT.

IT'S BEEN A LONG PROCESS AND I THINK I SEE THE APPLICANT IN THE WAITING AREA THERE.

THANK YOU FOR COMING IN AND BEING WITH US NOW FOR QUITE A FEW MEETINGS.

YOU'RE NOW QUALIFIED TO BE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF YOU'D LIKE TO BE.

AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM.

SO THIS WILL BE ON FOR OUR VOTE AT OUR NEXT MEETING.

NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS 9A, TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATES DIRECTOR KIESELBACH.

[9A. Township Board update.]

WHAT DO YOU HAVE? THE BOARD'S LAST MEETING WAS MAY 18 TWO ACTION ITEMS. THEY APPROVED THE EXTENSION FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR NEWTON PLACES.

PLANNING COMMISSION PROBABLY REMEMBERS THIS AS PART OF THE OVERALL MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND IT WAS APPROVED.

AND BECAUSE THE BUILDING'S TOTAL OF MORE THAN TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, THEY THEY NEEDED ALSO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

AND WITH THIS NEW AMENDMENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE BECAUSE IT STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER THE MIXED-USE.

BUT THE BOARD DID GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR THEM ON THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

THE BOARD ALSO APPROVED AN EXTENSION TO THE THEY HAVE TWENTY SEVEN LOTS LEFT TO DEVELOP IN THAT OVERALL PLAT AND THEY WEREN'T ABLE, WITH ALL THE COVID AND OTHER THINGS, ABLE TO START CONSTRUCTION TO GET A MOVE TOWARDS THE FINAL PLAT. SO THE BOARD DID GRANT THEM A TWO YEAR EXTENSION ON THAT PRELIMINARY PLAT.

THE OTHER ONE THE BOARD DISCUSSED WAS THE REZONING FOR THAT PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF JOLLY ROAD AND KANSAS.

AGAIN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE REZONING AND THEY HAD ASKED TO HAVE THE INDUSTRIAL IN THE RA REZONED TO A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.

SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD SEEN THAT THEY HAVE HAD MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE FOLKS THAT LIVE ON KANSAS, THEY ALSO OFFERED FIVE CONDITIONS TO BE PART OF THAT

[01:20:06]

REZONING. ONE, THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE THE NORTHERN 75 FEET OF THAT PARCEL AND KEEP IT AS BASICALLY OPEN SPACE.

THEY WOULD USE IT AS A SCREENING OR A LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

AND THEY ALSO TALKED POSSIBLY OF PUTTING SOME OF THEIR STORM WATER DETENTION IN THAT AREA. THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT PROVIDING A BUFFER EQUAL TO OUR ORDINANCE IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. WE REQUIRE DOUBLE ROW TREES TO SCREEN AS A BUFFER, AND THEY OFFER THAT AS A CONDITION TO INSTALL.

THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT THEIR DRIVEWAYS.

THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE THEIR MAIN DRIVEWAY AS FAR EAST ON JOLLY ROAD AS THEY CAN.

THEY HAVE A SECONDARY ACCESS TO THE ROAD THAT SERVES THE ELEVATION, WHICH IS TO THE EAST.

AND THEY WERE GOING TO SEEK POSSIBLY A DRIVEWAY ON KANSAS AND THEY WOULD ALL ALIGN IT WITH THE DENTIST'S OFFICE THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF KANSAS.

THEY ALSO OFFERED A CONDITION TO BUILD THE BUILDING AS LEED CERTIFIED, AND THE LAST ONE WAS TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC WATER MAIN ON KANSAS ROAD FOR THOSE RESIDENTS.

AND THE BOARD WAS AT LEAST THE CONSENSUS AFTER THAT MEETING, THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF REZONING IT. SO IT'S GOING TO BE UP FOR ACTION AT THEIR MEETING ON JUNE 1ST WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. AND THEN ONE OTHER ITEM JUST TO GIVE AN UPDATE TO FOR JOE'S ON JOLLY.

THAT'S THE FORMER VALUE TIRE SITE.

IF ANYBODY WENT PAST THERE, THEY STARTED, THEY DEMOED THE BUILDING, BASICALLY A BLOCK BUILDING AND THEY GOT THE WINDOWS OUT.

THE WALLS ARE STILL THERE AND THERE'S BEEN NO PROGRESS.

THEY RAN INTO SOME ISSUES WITH THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER PROVIDING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FOR THAT SITE. GOOD THING IS ALSO BEEN TAKING CARE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT HAS NOW BEEN ISSUED. SO WE'RE HOPING THAT SHORTLY YOU'LL SEE SOME PROGRESS ON THAT SITE.

THAT'S AWESOME. I WAS ACTUALLY THINKING ON MY STICKY NOTES TO ASK ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT YESTERDAY ANYWAY, SO GOOD, GOOD TIMING THERE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MARK ON THAT? AND THE UPDATE WE JUST GOT THERE? NO. OK.

ANY LIAISON REPORTS?

[9B. Liaison reports.]

COMMISSIONER PREMOE? I DON'T HAVE A LIAISON REPORT, BUT I THINK THAT WE WOULD BE REMISS NOT TO THINK MARK ONCE AGAIN FOR THE GREAT HELP.

HE'S ALWAYS BEEN TO THIS COMMISSION AND WISH HIM THE VERY BEST IN RETIREMENT AND ASSURE HIM THAT RETIREMENT IS A MISNOMER.

YEAH, SOMETHING TELLS ME WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAST OF MARK KIESELBACH.

WE'LL BE HEARING FROM HIM AT SOME POINT, I WOULD BET.

BUT YES, I CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER PREMOE'S COMMENTS.

IT'S BEEN 41 YEARS, MARK, THAT YOU'VE BEEN WITH THE TOWNSHIP? AND IT'S REMARKABLE TO CONSIDER THAT TODAY'S DAY AND AGE, CERTAINLY.

AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU, FOR THOSE THAT ARE HERE AND MEETING, IF YOU HAVEN'T, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO STOP BY TOMORROW AFTERNOON TO WISH MARK WELL IN PERSON AND HAVE CUPCAKES, WE CERTAINLY WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU THERE.

I'M SURE WE CAN GET TO THE DETAILS IF YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED THEM ALREADY.

BUT I THINK AN EMAIL WENT OUT ABOUT THAT WEEK OR TWO AGO.

THANK YOU, MARK, WE APPRECIATE THAT ALL OF YOUR MANY YEARS OF SERVICE AND AND WE WISH YOU THE BEST IN YOUR NEXT ADVENTURE.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WITH LIAISON REPORTS OR NOT LIAISON REPORTS? COMMISSIONER SNYDER? THANKS. I FEEL SO OUT OF ORDER.

I ATTENDED THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING ON THIS PAST THURSDAY AND JUST SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED, THE POTENTIAL OF IMPLEMENTING TWO RAILROAD QUIET ZONES FOR THE CSX RAILROAD AND THE TRACKS THAT RUN THROUGH THE TOWNSHIP.

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, THE THE MOST THE PRIORITY TRACKS WERE THE SOUTHERN ONES, THE CSX.

[01:25:09]

I MEAN, I THINK I HAVE THAT RIGHT.

BUT THERE'S A LOT OF DOCUMENTATION HERE ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD COST.

AND IT'S ALL VERY INTRICATE.

BUT I FOUND IT VERY INTERESTING.

BUT ESSENTIALLY IT SEEMED TO BE BORNE OF SOME RESIDENTS REQUESTS WERE FOR QUIET ZONES BECAUSE THE TRAIN HORNS ARE REALLY ANNOYING IF YOU LIVE NEAR THEM.

SO SO THERE IS LENGTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.

AND IN GENERAL, THE BOARD SUPPORTS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE QUIET ZONES.

BUT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE JOINT WORK DONE WITH INGHAM COUNTY AS WELL AS MICHIGAN STATE.

AND THEN JUST THE OTHER THING, THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MOVED TO SUPPORT THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN. SO THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH WHAT I TOOK FROM THE MEETING, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE SOME PRETTY IN-DEPTH DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE VERY INTERESTING.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND WATCH THAT I LIVE ABOUT A TENTH OF A MILE FROM THOSE CSX TRACKS ON THE SOUTH SIDE THERE THAT IS LOUD, ESPECIALLY IN THE WINTER WHEN THERE'S NO WHEN ALL THE LEAVES ARE DOWN.

THERE'S NO GOOD TREE COVER BETWEEN MY PROPERTY AND THAT.

SO I'M EXCITED ABOUT THAT POSSIBILITY.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO GIVE AN UPDATE? I DON'T SEE ANY. SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO OUR LAST AGENDA ITEMS HERE, I WILL I DO WANT TO MENTION TO DIRECTOR SCHMIDT THAT THIS BODY HAD, AS A PART OF ITS GOALS, ESTABLISHED A NUMBER OF SUBCOMMITTEES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

AND ONE OF THOSE COMMITTEES WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MUPD ORDINANCE THAT YOU SAW TODAY AND WORKING WITH STAFF. TO DO THAT, WE HAVE, I THINK, THREE MORE THAT WE SET OUT SOME GOALS FOR AT THE OUTSET OF THE YEAR TO TRY TO MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS TO OUR ORDINANCES, AS WELL AS GET A JUMP START ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BEFORE NEXT YEAR'S MASTER PLAN UPDATE.

I WOULD LOVE IT IF YOU GET A CHANCE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS TO TAKE A PEEK BACK AT THOSE GOALS, TO SORT OF SEE WHAT'S FEASIBLE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND AND SEE IF WE CAN'T START SPINNING THOSE SUBCOMMITTEES UP.

I KNOW THAT WE'RE ENTERING THE SUMMER AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PLENTY TO DO, BUT WE DID EXPRESS AN INTEREST IN TRYING TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS ON A NUMBER OF AREAS, I THINK IT'S THE SIGN ORDINANCE, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

AND THERE WAS ONE MORE THAT I'M BLANKING ON IN THIS MOMENT.

BUT IF YOU DON'T MIND TAKING A PEEK AT THAT, I'M SURE WE'D LOVE TO TO MAKE SOME FURTHER PROGRESS. SINCE WE ARE NOW DONE WITH MUPD ORDINANCE, AT LEAST KNOCK ON WOOD FOR NOW.

SO HAVING JUST DONE A SIGN ORDINANCE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS WITH IT FRESH IN MY HEAD, I'D BE HAPPY TO. PROBABLY A GOOD ONE TO START WITH BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS.

YEAH, I THINK THE FIRST MEETING THAT WE HAD THIS YEAR, THIS CALENDAR YEAR, WAS WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT. IF YOU WANT TO GO TAKE A LOOK AT THE AT THE DISCUSSION AND THEN THE NEXT MEETING, WE HAD A VOTE ON IT.

SO I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO TAKE A PEEK.

IN ADDITION, WE HAD MADE SOME PROGRESS ON A FORM BASED CODE PILOT PROPOSAL THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO SEND OVER TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

PETER OR MARK, I'M SURE, HAD THAT SOMEWHERE.

AND I THINK WE WERE LEAVING IT FOR YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT AND SEE IF YOU HAD ANY THOUGHTS ON IT AS WELL. AND THEN AT SOME POINT, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO SEND THAT TO THE BOARD FOR THEM TO START CONSIDERATION OF THAT PROPOSAL AS WELL.

SO A LOT TO DO.

I'M SURE YOU'RE DISCOVERING.

ALSO SOMETHING I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH, HAVING DONE A PILOT PROJECT PREVIOUSLY AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS WITH THE CHAIR ON THAT.

WONDERFUL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? OR ARE WE JUST ANXIOUS TO GET TO THE END HERE? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM TEN, WHICH IS PROJECT UPDATES.

[10. PROJECT UPDATES]

WE HAVE ONE NEW APPLICATION TWO SITE PLANS RECEIVED AND ONE SITE PLAN APPROVED, WHICH BRINGS US TO AGENDA ITEM ELEVEN, WHICH IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

THIS IS OUR FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS THIS EVENING.

IF YOU THERE'S NO ONE IN OUR ATTENDEE'S AREA OF OUR ZOOM CALL.

[01:30:02]

SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN THE CONVERSATION FROM HOME, YOU CAN GIVE US A PHONE CALL AT (517) 349-1232.

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

WE'LL GIVE YOU A MOMENT TO DIAL THE NUMBER.

ANYONE ON THE PHONES? DIRECTOR GEBES? NO, SIR, THE PHONES ARE QUIET. ALL RIGHTY, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON.

WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND MOVE ON TO OUR FINAL AGENDA ITEM OF THE EVENING, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? AND SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE.

THANK YOU. CONGRATS, MARK ON YOUR LAST MEETING.

YOU MADE IT. YOU KNOW, I'M SURE YOU DON'T WANT TO STICK AROUND, MARK.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.