Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:03]

>> IT'S 07:00 PM.

LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUORUM OF MEMBERS PRESENT.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

I WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP TO ORDER AT SEVEN O'CLOCK.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH OUR ROLL CALL.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO LET US KNOW THAT YOU ARE HERE, THAT YOU ARE ATTENDING REMOTELY, AND I WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. BILL MCCONNELL, PARTICIPATING FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> DAVID PREMOE, PARTICIPATING FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> GOOD MORNING OR AFTERNOON.

THIS IS ALISANDE SHREWSBURY PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM OKEMUS, MICHIGAN.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS. COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> I AM MARK BLUMER. I'M PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM MY HOME IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

>> CHRISTINA SNYDER, PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM MY HOME IN HASLETT, MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, COVER ALL BASES.

>> FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PARTICIPATING REMOTELY.

I DO SEE WE HAVE COMMISSIONER RICHARDS HERE.

YOU COULD WEIGH IN AS WELL.

>> HERE.

>> I ASSUME YOU'RE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM SOMEWHERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

>> CORRECT.

>> VERY GOOD. WE'LL THEN MOVE ON TO PUBLIC REMARKS.

[2. PUBLIC REMARKS]

WE HAVE THREE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC REMARKS THIS EVENING, RIGHT NOW AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING AND DURING OUR PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS CURRENTLY AGENDA ITEM 6A.

YOU MAY DO SO IN ONE OF TWO WAYS.

IF YOU ARE IN OUR ZOOM MEETING, YOU MAY RAISE YOUR HAND USING THE RAISE HAND FEATURE AND STAFF WILL PROMOTE YOU TO A PANELIST AT WHICH POINT YOU CAN ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC YOU LIKE.

OR YOU CAN GIVE US A PHONE CALL FROM HOME AT 517-349-1232.

STAFF LIFTS THE PHONES AND MAKES SURE YOU GET THROUGH TO US.

PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES AND PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARK.

ONE NOTE WHICH IS THAT AT THIS PUBLIC REMARKS AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING, YOU MAY TALK TO ANY TOPIC.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, YOU MUST SPEAK ON THE TOPIC AT HAND.

WITH THAT, WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

>> I SEE NO HANDS, SIR, AND I'M HEARING NO TELEPHONE CALLS.

>> WITH THAT, WE'LL GIVE EVERYONE ONE MORE SECOND, AND WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS.

WE MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING? MOVE BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER PREMOE. ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? THE AGENDA PASSES.

MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM,

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

WE HAVE ONE SET OF MINUTES FROM OUR MAY 24TH, 2021 REGULAR MEETING.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES THIS EVENING? MOVE BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES ON THE MINUTES THIS EVENING?

>> I JUST HAVE ONE.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

>> IT'S JUST A MISSPELLING UNDER ITEM 9B.

IT WOULD BE THE 2ND PARAGRAPH, 2ND SENTENCE, SO 9B, 2ND PARAGRAPH, COMMISSIONER SNYDER, WHERE IT SAYS DISCUSS TWO RAILROAD QUITE ZONES, IT'S QUIET ZONES.

>> OKAY. WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'LL CONSIDER THAT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE MINUTES?

>> IF I CAN HAVE JUST A SECOND, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFICIALLY THANK ON THE RECORD MS. PRINCE FOR FLYING ON THE MINUTES FOR US WHILE WE WERE GOING THROUGH SOME STAFFING CHANGES UPSTAIRS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR WHEN YOU HEAR THIS.

>> YES, INDEED.

MAKE SURE YOU NOTE THAT IN THE MINUTES.

WITH THAT, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS AMENDED SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? THE MINUTES PASSED.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE NONE.

OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS PUBLIC HEARINGS NUMBER 6A,

[6A. Special Use Permit #21041 (Guthrie), landscape and grading improvements located in the floodplain at 4681 Nakoma Drive.]

SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 21041, GUTHRIE LANDSCAPING GRADING IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN AT 4681 NAKOMA DRIVE.

WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:04 PM.

WE'LL HAND THINGS OFF, WELL, WHOEVER WE'RE HANDING THINGS OFF TO THIS EVENING.

>> I'LL TAKE IT.

>> ALL RIGHT, SO ASSISTANT PLANNER IS CHAPMAN.

>> GOOD EVENING. LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.

[00:05:04]

PUBLIC HEARING FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT 21041.

THIS IS TO MAKE LANDSCAPE AND GRADING IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN AT 4681 NAKOMA DRIVE.

TONIGHT'S MEETING, YOU CAN FIND THE PACKET AT MERIDIAN.MI.US UNDERNEATH THE MEETINGS TAB.

THIS INCLUDES ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS ON THE WEBSITE.

FORMAT OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS STAFF SUMMARY, A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT, PUBLIC COMMENT, THREE MINUTES MAX PER PERSON, AND PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT.

THERE WILL ALSO BE A SECOND OPPORTUNITY FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN AT THE END OF THE MEETING.

SUP PROCESS, APPLICATION FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

WE POST PUBLIC NOTICES THAT FOLLOW STATE LAW OF THE MICHIGAN PLANNING ENABLING ACT.

THIS IS A MINIMUM OF 15 DAYS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE SEND LETTERS OUT TO EVERY PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN 300 FEET, A LEGAL NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER, AND A SIGN POSTED ON SITE.

PUBLIC HEARING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 26, 2021.

THAT IS NOT RIGHT. THOSE DATES ARE NOT CORRECT.

IS THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS 4681 NAKOMA DRIVE.

DESCRIPTION, THERE IS CURRENTLY A 2,007 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1959.

THE SUBJECT SITE IS 0.4 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS LOCATED IN THE RAA SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.

THE REQUEST IS TO PLACE 9.44 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

THIS FILL IS NEEDED TO ELEVATE THE EXISTING HOUSE ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN.

A COMPENSATING CUT OF 10.78 CUBIC YARDS IS PROPOSED TO MITIGATE THE FILL IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

FROM THE 2017 MASTER PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS R-2 RESIDENTIAL, 0.5-3.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

ZONING, AGAIN, RAA SINGLE FAMILY, LOW DENSITY.

FLOODPLAIN, ACCORDING TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY OR FEMA, A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN OF THE RED CEDAR RIVER.

AT THIS SITE, THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION IS 843.1 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL.

ONCE THE FILL IS PLACED, REQUIRED BY FEMA, THIS HOUSE WILL BE LOCATED ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN.

THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL GREAT LAKES AND ENERGY ISSUED A PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED WORK IN THE FLOODPLAIN ON APRIL 30TH, 2021, AND THE TOWNSHIP'S CHIEF ENGINEER SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED JUNE 10TH, 2021 THAT APPROVED THE PROJECT AS WELL.

THIS MAP SHOWS YOU THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN, AND THIS IS A DRAWING THAT SHOWS THE PROPOSED CUT AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN AS WELL AS WHERE THE FILL WILL BE LOCATED.

WE USE NUMBERS 1-9 THAT ARE LOCATED ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, SECTION 86, 126 OF THE TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE AS WELL AS SECTION 86, 436N, WHICH IS IN THE TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE THAT RELATES TO FLOODPLAIN, AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES A DECISION TONIGHT SO THAT THE PROJECT CAN BEGIN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND IN ORDER TO DO SO, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TO SUSPEND BYLAW 6.4A.

PROVIDED ARE TWO MOTIONS, THE FIRST ONE BEING TO SUSPEND THAT BYLAW AND THE SECOND ONE BEING TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAPMAN.

[00:10:01]

HERE WE HAVE A MEMBER OR THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS PROJECT.

MS. GUTHRIE, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> I OWNED THE HOUSE OUTRIGHT AND THEN I WENT THROUGH A DIVORCE AND HAD TO TAKE OUT A MORTGAGE.

MSU FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS' THIRD-PARTY INSURANCE COMPANY SAID THAT THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE WAS IN A DIFFERENT FLOODPLAIN.

FEMA HAD IT AT THE 500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND THEY TOLD ME I NEEDED TO GET AN ELEVATION CERTIFICATE WHICH SHOWED THAT IT WAS TWO FEET OFF AROUND THE FRONT A LITTLE BIT AND THE SIDE OF MY HOUSE.

I HAD TO START THE PROCESS OF GETTING SURVEYS AND DOING DIFFERENT THINGS.

THEY HAD ME SWITCH IT WITH FEMA TO PUT IT IN A 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

SO IT WAS AT THE 500 I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT ELEVATION AND THE FLOODPLAIN.

THIS HAS BEEN QUITE THE PROCESS.

I DID FINALLY GET APPROVED WITH THE STATE.

I HIRED A ENGINEERING COMPANY FROM TRAVERSE CITY TO ASSIST WITH THIS PROJECT.

I ALSO HAVE A LANDSCAPING COMPANY THAT'S HIRED TO FINISH IT OFF.

I AM HOPEFUL THAT IT WILL GET APPROVED TODAY SO THAT I CAN FINISH MY LANDSCAPING AND I'M NOT AN EYESORE AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ANYMORE.

>> THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO STICK AROUND IN CASE WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I THINK I HEARD EARLIER THAT WE MIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING.

NOW, WITH THAT, WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC REMARKS.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO JOIN US, THERE'S ONE OF TWO WAYS, YOU CAN JOIN BY RAISING YOUR HAND IN THE ZOOM MEETING, OR YOU CAN CALL 5-173-491-232.

ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES AND SPEAK TO ONLY THE TOPIC THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING AT THE MOMENT.

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

WITH THAT SAID, I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

>> SIR, WE'RE SEEING NO HANDS AND HEARING NO TELEPHONE CALLS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS THEN MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

AT THIS TIME, ANY COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> STACY, IF WE DIDN'T APPROVE, IF WE DIDN'T MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR YOU TONIGHT, AND YOU HAD TO WAIT TWO MORE WEEKS OTHER THAN THE EYESORE BEING THERE A LITTLE LONGER THAN YOU'D LIKE, WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES? ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING OR JEOPARDIZE YOU FINANCIALLY OR OTHERWISE? I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO KNOW.

>> WHEN I STARTED THIS PROCESS, SOMEBODY WITHIN THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, I FORGET SPECIFICALLY WHO, WITHIN AN EMAIL TOLD ME TO SUBMIT A LETTER IN WHICH THAT IT COULD BE VOTED ON IN THE SAME DAY.

THIS HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR, BUT THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON.

I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE OVER WITH.

I GUESS THERE'S NO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OR ANYTHING, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD IN MY LIFE DURING COVID AND EVERYTHING AND GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE AND GOING THROUGH A FLOODPLAIN PROCESSES.

SORRY IF ANYBODY IS AN ENGINEER, BUT YEAH, IT'S BEEN QUITE THE JOURNEY OF LEARNING ABOUT FLOODPLAINS AND GETTING LAND SURVEYS.

I WOULD JUST REALLY APPRECIATE IT IF I COULD MOVE FORWARD IN MY LIFE.

I GUESS NO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT TO OUR STAFF OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> TO ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT SUBMISSION IS THE LETTER FROM THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER SAYING THAT HE FINDS NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL AND THAT THE PROPERTY WILL BE ALTERED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO COMPENSATE FOR ANY LOSS OF FLOODPLAIN AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.

TO ME, THAT PRETTY MUCH CLEARS THE DECK.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> I REALLY DON'T OBJECT TO THE PROJECT.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE US ALL TO THINK ABOUT IS, AND I'M SAYING THIS AS SOMEONE WHO WAS A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, 70 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO BRING THEIR PROJECTS TO US COULD LEGITIMATELY ASK FOR US TO DEAL WITH IT SAME DAY.

THE MINUTE WE START MAKING THOSE EXCEPTIONS FOR THINGS OTHER THAN, WHAT I'D CALL EMERGENCIES, THEN WE OPEN OURSELVES UP FOR, HEY, YOU DID IT FOR SO AND SO, WHY AM I NOT BEING, SO I GET IT.

IF I WERE IN YOUR SHOES, STACY, I'D BE DOING THE SAME THING, DON'T GET ME WRONG.

[00:15:02]

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF PRECEDENT. THAT'S ALL I'LL SAY.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YEAH. I SUPPORT BOTH THE REQUEST AND MOVING THIS THING FORWARD.

I THINK THAT IN THIS CASE, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY REAL ISSUE HERE.

I GUESS HAVING WORKED IN GOVERNMENT, SOMETIMES GOVERNMENT JUST SENDS RED TAPE.

I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE CARE OF IT.

IT'S LEGITIMATE IN TERMS OF OUR ABILITY TO DEAL WITH.

I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO WAIT TWO WEEKS WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. JUST TO BE CLEAR, HE'S READY TO MAKE A MOTION BY DOING IT AT THE MOMENT.

>> YEAH. THANKS. JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARIFICATION SO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY.

IN THIS STAFF REPORT, THERE'S A TALK OF RAISING THE HOUSE ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN.

IF I UNDERSTAND, THIS IS RAISING SOME PORTION OF THE LAND AROUND THE HOUSE SO THAT IT BECOMES OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

AM I GETTING THAT CORRECTLY?

>> CORRECT. IT WAS DEEMED IN THE 500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND BECAUSE IT WAS TWO FEET OFF, I HAD TO GO THROUGH AGL TO GET MY PERMIT.

DIDN'T FINISH PUTTING DIRT OR MAYBE THROUGH THE YEARS, THE DIRT ERODED AWAY.

I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE IT WAS, BUT YEAH, THE STATE OF HAVING AN ENGINEER SIGN OFF THAT IT WOULD WITHSTAND THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND MY HOUSE WON'T FLOAT AWAY.

>> WE DON'T WANT HOUSES FLOATING AWAY.

THE OTHER THING THAT CAUGHT MY EYE IS IN THE APPLICATION L7B, NO IMPACT ON NATURAL FEATURES.

DIRT IS BEING MOVED FROM THE BACKYARD TO THE FRONT YARD.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE FROM THE FRONT YARD, MOVED UP.

>> IT'S JUST TAKING IT FROM THE FRONT YARD AND PUSHING IT UP TOWARDS THE HOUSE.

>> RIGHT. I HAD A NEW SIDEWALK PUT IN, I DID IT MYSELF, SO I WAS ABLE TO MOVE SOME OF THE DIRT ON MY PROPERTY TO THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE WHEN SAND WAS DELIVERED TO DO THE FRONT PORCH.

>> SURE. WELL, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT.

GETTING HOUSES AND PROPERTIES OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN IS A GOOD THING.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PREMOE THAT WE WANT TO BE VERY JUDICIOUS IN ALLOWING EXCEPTIONS TO THE BYLAWS.

I'M NOT SURE I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

I DID HAVE ONE TECHNICAL QUESTION FOR STAFF.

IN THE EVENT THAT WE DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SUSPENDING THE BYLAWS AND VOTING THIS EVENING, I DIDN'T NOTICE, MAYBE I JUST OVERLOOKED AT A RESOLUTION TO VOTE ON IN THE PACKETS.

MAYBE SOMEONE CAN HELP ME OUT WITH THE PAGES.

I'VE SCROLLED BACK AND FORTH THROUGH THIS SEVERAL TIMES LOOKING FOR THE RESOLUTION.

>> RESOLUTION TO WAIVE THE BYLAW.

>> NO, I SEE THE MOTION TO WAIVE THE BYLAW.

I DON'T SEE THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION THAT WE BE VOTING ON.

>> KEITH OR TIM IS THAT IN THERE?

>> YEAH, AM LOOKING SORRY.

I HAVE A RESOLUTION.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S IN HERE, THOUGH.

>> YEAH, MY APOLOGIES.

I THINK I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT IN MY FINAL PASS THROUGH THE

>> YEAH.

>> THE FACT THAT I'M STILL GETTING THE RESOLUTION VERSUS THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH AN APPROVAL LETTER.

>> IN MY PACKET IN THE PDF, PAGE 12, WHICH IS PAGE 5 OF THE STAFF REPORT, I SEE TWO MOTIONS, ONE, TO SUSPEND PLANNING COMMISSION BY LAW, AND THE SECOND, ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

>> CORRECT. YES, I SEE THAT TOO.

MY CONCERN IS THAT USUALLY THERE'S A RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE VOTING ON THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION LANGUAGE AND THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE IN THE PACKET.

I WOULD HESITATE TO.

FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD JUST AS A GENERAL NOTES, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PREMOE THAT YOU START TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE, AND NOW EVERYONE'S GOING TO ASK FOR IT.

I DO THINK THAT I WOULD GENERALLY LEAN TO SUPPORT A SIDE PROJECT.

AS THERE IS AS SIMPLISTIC AS THIS.

BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT ALL THE PIECES ARE IN ORDER AND I DON'T NEED THE ADDITIONAL TIME TO CONSIDER IT,

[00:20:02]

WHICH IS A BIG FACTOR FOR WHY WE GIVE OURSELVES AN EXTRA BIT OF TIME THERE.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I COULD VOTE ON NOTHING.

RIGHT. I NEED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE RESOLUTION LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE APPROVING.

EVEN THOUGH I WOULD GENERALLY SUPPORT THE CONTENT OF.

>> I HAVE THAT. I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN WITH YOU.

>> LET'S DO THAT. THAT WAY WE CAN AT LEAST TAKE A LOOK AT IT BEFORE WE VOTE.

>> I DON'T REMEMBER THE SUPERVISOR'S NAME BUT I DON'T THINK MANY PEOPLE KNOW TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO HAVE THAT BYLAW WAVED.

I MEAN, THAT WAS SOMEBODY SPECIFICALLY AT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP THAT NEW AND SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME TO WRITE THAT LETTER TO HAVE IT APPROVED.

>> SURE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE REALITY, MS. GUTHRIE IS THAT ANYONE CAN REQUEST IT.

A LETTER THEIR CONCERN IS WHO'S DEVELOPING LAND ALL OVER THE TOWNSHIP, SEES WHAT WE DO HERE TONIGHT.

IF WE DECIDE TO APPROVE AN EXCEPTION AND SAYS WE DID IT FOR MS. GUTHRIE, WHY CAN'T YOU DO IT FOR ME ON ALL MY PROJECTS.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE HERE, BUT I AM WEARY OF DOING THAT FOR FEAR THAT WE LOSE THE ABILITY TO BE DELIBERATIVE AND TAKE SOME TIME.

THAT'S MY CONCERN. KEITH, THANK YOU FOR SHARING THIS.

I'LL TAKE A LOOK IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS COMMENTS.

THE IDEA OF MOVING THIS THROUGH THIS EVENING OR ON THE RESOLUTION ITSELF.

FEEL FREE TO RAISE YOUR HAND.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY, AND THEN COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> I THINK I HAVE BEEN ONE OF THOSE WHO HAS SPOKEN UP AGAINST WAVING THE BYLAW TO CONSIDER ON THE SAME NIGHT AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.

I THINK THAT HAS BEEN BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS COMPLEX AND OR THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO HAD EXPRESSED OBJECTION TO IT.

I THINK IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, THE DISTINCTION THAT I MAKE IS THAT THIS IS INVOLVING A SINGLE PROPERTY.

IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN A WAY THAT I WOULD BE CONCERNED THAT THERE MIGHT BE MORE INFORMATION COMING LATER.

I WOULD BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE WAVING THE BYLAW IN THIS SITUATION THAN I WOULD IN SOME OTHERS TO TAKE A VOTE TONIGHT.

I'LL GO WITH THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION, BUT I TEND TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF A WAVING IT AND ALLOWING US TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, IF THAT IS THE WAY THE MAJORITY OF THE GROUP DECIDES TO GO.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YES. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, WE HAVE WAIVED THIS ARE IMPLEMENTED THIS IN THE PAST, SO THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED.

I WOULD AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY THAT THIS IS A REAL STRAIGHTFORWARD ISSUE.

THERE REALLY ISN'T.

THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON IT.

THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO IT IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL REQUEST.

THAT'S MY RATIONALE FOR MOVING FORWARD.

I THINK AGAIN IN THESE TIMES OF GETTING THROUGH WITH THE WHOLE PANDEMIC THING.

I THINK WE GOT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE'S MENTAL HEALTH HERE.

THAT'S WHY I AM INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

KEITH, WOULD YOU MIND SCROLLING DOWN A LITTLE BIT NOW YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THAT PAGE AND THEN COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> I THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS OF THE PREVIOUS TWO COMMISSIONERS.

IT SEEMS TO ME THERE ARE TWO CLASSES THAT MIGHT OBJECT TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

ONE IS THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEERING STAFF AND THE OTHER IS MS. GUTHRIE'S IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.

NEITHER ONE OF THEM SEEMED TO BE OBJECTING TO THIS, AND THEREFORE, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO DELAY AN ANSWER FOR HER.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLUMER, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

KEITH, IF YOU DON'T MIND GOING DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE SEEN THE WHOLE THING.

THANK YOU. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MOTION NOW WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT TIME. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

>> I WOULD MOVE.

>> THE MOTION IS OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING ANOTHER MOTION BEFORE US.

WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THE ISSUE OF SUSPENDING OUR BYLAWS.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT WAS ACTUALLY A MOTION THAT WAS MADE. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> HE DID NOT MAKE THAT MOTION.

I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.

[00:25:01]

>> HE WAS READY TO MAKE THE MOTION IN THE FUTURE.

>> I APOLOGIZE.

>> HE'S IN THE MIDDLE OF DOING IT RIGHT NOW. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

>> YES. I WOULD MOVE THE SUSPENSION OF THE BYLAWS TO ALLOW THE ACTION BEFORE US TO BE VOTED ON AT THIS PARTICULAR MEETING SO MOVED.

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC.

WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START VOTING. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

>> YES.

>> FOR SURE THAT PRECISE AND THE CHAIR VOTES.

YES. MOTION CARRIES 7-0.

WE WILL CONSIDER THIS EVENING FOR ACTION.

IS THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS TO BE MADE HERE? COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> I WOULD MOVE THE APPROVAL OF THE, I DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, I BELIEVE IS THAT WHAT IT IS?

>> YEAH, 21041.

>> RIGHT. MOVED.

>> TO HAVE A SECOND, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ITSELF.

SAYING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER MOTION CARRIES. THIS GOT THREE, ESPECIALLY AS PERMITS BEEN APPROVED.

CONGRATULATIONS

>> THANK YOU. AM I ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE MEETING NOW?

>> YOU ARE. OF COURSE, A PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:26.

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

>> SHE'S UP FRONT END LOADER BACKED UP TO HER HOUSE, READY TO GO.

>> NO.

IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT, BUT I REALLY THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING PROCESS AND THANK YOU.

>> WELL, IT'S IN THE HOMESTRETCH NOW.

>> HAVE A GREAT EVENING.

>> YOU TOO.

>> I MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 78,

[7A. Rezoning #21030 (New China of Michigan), rezone 0.42 acre RC (Multiple Family-maximum 14 dwelling units per acre) to RCC (multiple Family-maximum 34 dwelling units per acre) at 5114 Jo Don Drive.]

WHICH IS OUR FIRST ITEM UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS, REASON NUMBER 21030 NEW TYPE OF MICHIGAN TO REZONE A POINT FOR TWO ACRES OF OUR SEE MULTIPLE FAMILY MAXIMUM DOING MAXIMUM OF 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO RCC MULTIPLE FAMILY AND MAXIMUM 34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AT 511 FOR JOE DON, DR.

I'LL TURN THINGS BACK OVER TO ASSISTANT PLANNER CHAPMAN.

>> IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER, WE HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 12TH TO DISCUSS THIS REZONING, AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT A COUPLE OF MEETINGS, BUT THE MOST RECENT BEING THE MAY 24TH.

AT THAT MEETING, THE APPLICANT HAD PROVIDED A REVISED CONDITION FOR THE REZONING, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT BASED ON THE STRAW POLL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING FROM RC MULTIPLE FAMILY TO RCC MULTIPLE FAMILY 34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE WITH THE CONDITION THAT WAS OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT.

THERE IS A RESOLUTION THAT IS ATTACHED FOR YOU GUYS TO DISCUSS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KEITH.

WE APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? WELL, I THINK THAT GENERALLY WE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS ONE ON FOUR OR FIVE OCCASIONS, AND I FOR ONE WILL BE VERY PLEASED WITH GETTING THIS ONE MOVING FORWARD HERE, AND HOPEFULLY TO A RESOLUTION THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO BOTH THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA AND THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> THERE'S JUST SOMETHING ABOUT THIS REZONING THAT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.

BUT IN TERMS OF THE SIZE OF WHAT WE'RE MAKING FOR THE CHANGE AND HOW THIS IS ALL GOING TO HAPPEN.

I'M WONDERING IF THEY'RE AS CONFUSED AS AT LEAST I AM AS I TRIED TO THROUGH ALL THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

BUT THERE'S JUST SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW I'M GOING TO GO JUST BECAUSE I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH HOW THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO PLAY OUT. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

THE FOLKS WHO ARE JUST JOINING US ON THIS TOPIC.

WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS

[00:30:03]

IS A PROPERTY THAT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

THEY'RE SEEKING TO REZONE THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT THEY CAN SELL IT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OSTENSIBLY TO A FUTURE BUYER.

IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY HAVE TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY UP TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR ZONING ORDINATES FIRST. IT'S A MESS.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WE WOULD VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT THEORETICALLY, THEN WE GO TO THE BOARD, AND THEN 30 DAYS AFTER THAT'S APPROVED, THEY'LL BE BACK IN FRONT OF US TO DO A SPLIT ZONING WITH THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PARCEL AS REQUIRED BY THE CONDITION THAT WAS OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT.

I HAD NOTHING.

SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS ALSO HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY AND THE TIMING OF IT ALL.

OUR STAFF ASSURES US THAT, THAT IS INDEED ALL SQUARE AND THAT'S HOW THE PROCESS SHOULD WORK.

I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS, THIS EVENING AS A RESULT, AND LOOK FORWARD TO EVERYONE INVOLVED.

I THINK WE ALL WANT THEM TO GET, I'LL NOT SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY BUT AT LEAST I WANT TO GET. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE OF US WHO ARE NEWER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I WONDER IF STAFF COULD JUST SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT WHAT SPLITS ZONING NAMES AND HOW COMMON IT IS, AND WHETHER THERE ARE PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT ARISE IN THAT.

>> YEAH, SORRY. FUNDAMENTALLY, THE ZONING WILL ONLY BE SPLIT ESSENTIALLY UNTIL THE SPLIT IS APPROVED.

THEN THEY WILL IMMEDIATELY APPLY FOR A LOT SPLITS TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE THERE.

AS REALISTICALLY IT'S THE ONLY WAY IT'S GOING TO WORK GOING FORWARD, SO IT SHOULDN'T BE A PERMANENT SITUATION.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE OTHER PLACES IN THE TOWNSHIP THAT HAS SPLIT ZONING.

I HAVE DEALT WITH IT THROUGHOUT MY CAREER, IT COMES UP OCCASIONALLY.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT PLANNERS LOVE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS A TOOL AVAILABLE TO US IN SITUATIONS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GET A TRIANGULAR PAY INTO A HOLE THAT'S SLIGHTLY SQUARISH.

IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT IT WORKS.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? QUESTION BLUMER.

>> DO I RECALL THAT THIS WAS A CONDITIONAL SITUATION WHERE IF THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY, THAT IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL ZONE CONDITION?

>> THE CONDITION IS IF THEY DON'T APPLY WITHIN 30 DAYS TO REZONE THAT NORTHERN PORTION, IT WOULD REVERT BACK.

>> I ASSUME THAT APPLICATION WOULD BE PREMISED ON THEM BEING ABLE TO SELL IT TO A PARTICULAR BUYER.

>> I WOULDN'T MAKE THAT APPLICATION ONCE I HAD SOMETHING LINED UP.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> I THINK I ASKED THIS QUESTION WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS THE LAST TIME, BUT TO ME, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPLYING AND THEN GETTING APPROVED.

OR APPLYING AND THEN WITHDRAWING OR I JUST WONDERING, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT SOMEHOW AND AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A MOUNT OUT OF A MOLE HALL.

BUT OUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT THIS REZONING IS ONLY TEMPORARY AS THE DIRECTOR MENTIONED.

THIS IS MY TAKE ON IT.

BUT MY CONCERN IS IF SOMETHING HAPPENS AND THEN THIS BECOMES THE RCC ZONING AND THEY HAVE COMPLIED BUT NOT NECESSARY WENT THROUGH AND BUILT THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

THAT'S I GUESS.

ACTUALLY THE CONDITION IS NOT OURS TO CHANGE.

>> CORRECT.

>> THE CONDITION IS THE APPLICANTS DOING SO, AGAIN, I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT IF THE APPLICANT ISN'T GOING TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO.

IT'S JUST WHEN WE APPROVE THIS REZONING ASSUMING, AND I KNOW IT WAS GOING TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

I AM SO RECOMMENDING, BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO BE COMFORTABLE IN THAT WE'VE TAKEN THE PRECAUTION SO IT DOESN'T END UP AS AN RCC ZONE PROPERTY IN THE LONG-TERM.

>> I THINK COMMISSIONER, IF FOR SOME REASON THEY SAY THAT THE APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN AFTER IT WAS SUBMITTED WITHIN 30 DAYS.

[00:35:03]

I THINK WHAT YOU WOULD SEE THEN VERY QUICKLY FROM SAP IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE TOWNSHIP INITIATOR REZONING TO SEND THIS BACK TO WHAT IT WAS.

WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INTENT HERE IS AND IF WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING THAT INTENT STAFF WE'LL ADDRESS IT.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

>> JUST A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS.

THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN A PAPER ABOUT THIS PROJECT IN TODAY'S STATE JOURNAL.

TALKING ABOUT OPPOSITION AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS GOING BEFORE THE BOARD, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH IT.

THE SECOND OBSERVATION IS, IF WE ZONE IT FOR HOUSING ONLY AND THAT NORTHERN PORTION, IF THAT'S THE WAY THE CONDITION WE PROVIDE, OUR CONCERN IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS THAT IF THEY BUILT THE FACILITY ON THAT AREA, IT WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO THE EXISTING HOUSING.

IF IT REMAINS VACANT AND THEY BUILD OUR FACILITY, THEN I THINK OUR CONCERN IS STILL DEALT WITH.

IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, THERE WOULD STILL BE SPACE BETWEEN THE SPIRAL FACILITY AND THE HOUSING.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER PREMOE, THIS IS NOT THE SPIRAL PROPOSAL.

THIS IS THE NEW CHINA PROPOSAL OFFERED BY WHOLE FOODS JUST NORTH OF GRAND RIVER.

>> AGAIN, BOY, I'LL TELL YOU WHY.

I'M ALSO TO THE NIGHT, SORRY.

>>

>> OLD AGES IS REALLY STARTING TO SET IN FOLKS.

>> I JUST COULDN'T. I WAS TRYING TO IMAGINE A SITUATION WHERE R.

SCHMITT WAS INTERESTED IN WRITING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.

>> YEAH, ME TOO.

>> I

>> YEAH.

THAT'S THEIR COMMENTS ON THIS PROPOSAL. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> YES. JUST TO UNDERLINE COMMISSIONER RICHARDS POINT, THAT CONDITION AS IT HAS BEEN OFFERED, REALLY AMOUNTS TO FILLING OUT THE APPLICATION AND PAYING FEE.

WHETHER THAT APPLICATION HAS ANY MERIT REGARDLESS.

BUT I DO TAKE THE POINT THAT IF THAT WERE THE CASE, STAFF WOULD COME BACK AND RECOMMEND THAT WE GO BACK IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.

BUT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE TO THE APPLICANTS BENEFIT TO MAKE IT.

>> I THINK GENERALLY JUST AS WORK FOR WHERE I'M COMING FROM, WE ARE A BODY THAT RECOMMENDS TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ON THIS MATTER.

THERE IS OBVIOUSLY TIME IN MUCH AS I DON'T LIKE ENCOURAGING APPLICANTS TO CONSIDER CHANGING THEIR PROPOSALS BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE BOARD.

THEY'RE IN CHARGE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR THIS.

I ASSUME THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WILL HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES ON THIS MATTER.

I THINK AS A MATTER OF GETTING THIS OFF OF OUR DOCKET, THE SPIRIT OF THIS IS, THAT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH.

I THINK THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WILL LIKELY EXPRESS VERY SIMILAR CONCERNS, AND I THINK THE APPLICANT SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT AS THIS MOVES FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS.

I THINK I SEE THEM IN THE WAITING AREA HERE.

IT CERTAINLY SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY KNOW NOW.

THEY'VE HEARD FROM STAFF THAT SHOULD THEY PUT IN AN APPLICATION, THAT THE STAFF RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WE UNDO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE THIS EVENING.

THAT'S MAKES ME COMFORTABLE WITH BEING ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS APPLICATION AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING.

KNOWING THAT WE HAVE THE BOARD AS A BACKSTOP, WE HAVE THE APPLICANTS GOOD SENSE AS A BACKSTOP, AND WE HAVE THE STAFF AS A FURTHER BACKSTOP, SHOULD THINGS REALLY GO SIDEWAYS.

I'LL BE VOTING AND SUPPORTIVE THAT, SHOULD A MOTION BE MADE THIS EVENING.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS AND EMOTIONS TO BE MADE?

[00:40:06]

OKAY.

NO MORE DISCUSSION.

I'M GOING TO TEMPORARILY HAND THE GAVEL OFF TO COMMISSIONER RICHARDS AS THE NEXT RANKING OFFICER, AND SEEK TO BE RECOGNIZED.

>> JUROR HENDERSON.

>> THANK YOU. I MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING NUMBER 21030, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.42 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 5114, JOE DAWN DRIVE, FROM R-C MULTIPLE FAMILY, MAXIMUM 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, TO RCC MULTIPLE FAMILY, MAXIMUM 34 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WITH A CONDITION.

>> IS THERE A SECOND FOR THIS MOTION?

>> I CAN.

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

>> DO I HAND THE GAVEL BACK?

>>

>> I WILL HAND IT BACK.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE VOTE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE OUR VOTE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> NO.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE?

>> I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN.

>> I NEED TO ADD A COLUMN TO MY NOTES HERE.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY?

>>

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

>> NO.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER?

>> NO.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE? THE CHAIR VOTES, YES.

WE HAVE A TIE, 3-3, WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

I'M HONESTLY NOT SURE WHAT WE DO IN THE CASE OF A TIE.

I THINK MAYBE DIRECTOR SCHMITT CAN GIVE US SOME SENSE THERE.

>> MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE THE REASON FOR THE ABSTENTION? TYPICALLY ON A ROBERT'S RULES, A REASON DOESN'T NEED TO BE PROVIDED FOR AN ABSTENTION.

>> I OBVIOUSLY WASN'T WELL INFORMED.

YOU ALL OBSERVE THAT.

I FEEL THAT TO VOTE, BEING STUPID WOULD NOT BE CORRECT.

>> UNDERSTOOD. I DIDN'T MEAN TO PUT ON THE SPOT.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT THAT INFORMATION OUT THERE.

IN THE CASE OF A SPLIT VOTE, IT WOULD GO FORWARD WITH NO RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.

WE WOULD SHARE WITH THEM THAT THE VOTE WAS SPLIT, AND WE WERE SHORT A COUPLE MEMBERS, AND WE WOULD TAKE IT FORWARD THAT WAY.

>> WELL, I HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT THAT MIGHT DESCRIBE THE AND THE FEELINGS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS HAD THIS EVENING.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SEND IT ON WITH NO RECOMMENDATION AND WE'LL ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO TAKE A LOOK AT OUR MEETING MINUTES, OR EVEN WATCH THE DISCUSSION TO SEE HOW IT ALL FELL.

I'M SURE IT'LL BE RIVETING FOR THEM.

>> WE WILL MAKE SURE YOU GET THEM ALL THE MINUTES FOR THIS SO THEY HAVE THEM FULL.

>> WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS FOUR OR FIVE OCCASIONS?

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYONE.

WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO AGENDA ITEM 7B,

[7B. Rezoning #21050 (M & J Management), rezone an approximately 5 acre parcel located at 1999 Saginaw Highway, from C-2 (Commercial) to I (Industrial).]

WHICH IS REZONING NUMBER 21-050, MNJ MANAGEMENT, LLC, 1999, SAGINAW HIGHWAY, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRE PARCEL FROM C2 TO INDUSTRIAL.

I'LL HAND THINGS OFF TO DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

>> RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD REQUIRES THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED PREVIOUSLY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 24TH.

IT WAS DISCUSSED AND THE STRAW POLL INDICATED UNANIMOUS SUPPORT.

AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE OFFERED A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 9TH FROM MYSELF.

THERE IS A PROPOSED MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REZONING 21-050 TO REZONE THE FIVE ACRES OF LAND AT 1999, EAST SAGINAW HIGHWAY FROM C2 COMMERCIAL TO I INDUSTRIAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH CALLS FOR BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES USES ON THE SITE, ALIGNING WITH THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATION.

I DID ADD THAT LANGUAGE IN RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION AS TO HOW THIS ALIGNS.

MY READING OF THE MASTER PLAN, THE INDUSTRIAL DIRECTLY ALIGNS WITH THIS CATEGORY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SCHMITT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING 21-050 TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY FIVE ACRES OF LAND IN 1999,

[00:45:04]

EAST SAGINAW HIGHWAY AWAY FROM C2 COMMERCIAL TO I INDUSTRIAL.

>> ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? WELL, GENERALLY, I THINK THAT OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE COMMENTS THAT DIRECTOR SCHMITT JUST MADE IN REGARDS TO HOW WE FELT ABOUT IT IN THE LAST MEETING, GENERALLY SUMMARIZE HOW I FEEL ON THIS MATTER.

I'LL BE VOTING IN SUPPORT OF IT WHEN WE TAKE OUR VOTE IN A MOMENT.

I THINK THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO GET THIS BACK IN LINE WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO TO A VOTE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL? COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE? THE CHAIR VOTES, YES.

MOTION CARRIES. MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM,

[7C. Zoning Amendment #21020 (Planning Commission), amend Section 86-440 Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) of the Code of Ordinances.]

WHICH IS AGENDA ITEM 7C.

I'M IN NUMBER 21020, PLANNING COMMISSION AMEND SECTION 86440, MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, MUPUD, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH CHAIRPERSON.

ONE ITEM THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION STILL HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH AFTER THE LAST MEETING WAS THE DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE INCLUDE IN THE ORDINANCE, AND IT IS IN THERE AT THIS TIME, THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DEFINED MAKING MORE THAN 80 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, PAYING NOT MORE THAN 30 PERCENT OF THEIR GROSS INCOME FOR HOUSING COSTS, INCLUDING UTILITIES.

THIS WILL PROVIDE DEVELOPERS STRAIGHTFORWARD GUIDELINES WHICH ARE, THESE ARE NUMBERS THAT ARE WELL-KNOWN IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY.

THESE ARE UTILIZED IN A NUMBER OF FUNDING PROGRAMS SO THIS ISN'T A CURVEBALL.

IT IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY DO BETTER THAN, AND QUALIFY FOR OTHER PROGRAMS FUNDING WISE.

THIS SETS THE BASIC BENCH LINE UTILIZING HUD'S INFORMATION, AND FUNDING SOURCES THAT ARE OUT THERE ALONG WITH THE UP-TO-DATE AREA MEDIAN INCOME INFORMATION THAT HUD UPDATES ANNUALLY FOR ALL THE MSAS IN THE COUNTRY.

OTHER THAN THAT, THE COMMISSION KNOW THEIR MAJOR CONCERNS, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL IS ATTACHED.

>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SCHMITT. COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> JUST ONE QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR SCHMITT, IS THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE?

>> ABSOLUTELY. IT'S PUBLISHED.

IT'S ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT HUD PUTS OUT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS BECAUSE IT IS THE BASIS FOR SO MANY FUNDING DECISIONS THAT ARE DONE EVERY YEAR UNDER VARIOUS HOUSING PROGRAMS.

>> JUST SO LONG AS SOMEBODY DOESN'T HAVE TO HIRE AN EXPERT TO GO FIND IT.

>> NO, TWO SECONDS OF GOOGLING.

IT'S ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT POPS UP.

>> THANK YOU.

>> NOT TO MENTION, I'M SURE THAT THE STAFF WOULD BE WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION SHOULD IT EVER BE NECESSARY?

>> HOPEFULLY

>> I'M GOING TO VOLUNTEER THEM FOR THAT

>> I'D LOVE TO UTILIZE IT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, OR CONCERNS, OR DISCUSSION ITEMS AT THIS POINT FOR MOTIONS TO BE MADE? COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

>> YEAH. IF IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR MOTION, I WOULD MOVE THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZONING AMENDMENT 21020, MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UPDATES, SO MOVED.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL? COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE? THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. THE MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU TO STAFF AND TO OUR SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE HARD WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE ON THIS, AND IT'S ON THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

BUT FOR THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS NUMBER EIGHT, OTHER BUSINESS.

WE HAVE NONE. AGENDA ITEM 9A, TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

[9A. Township Board update.]

DIRECTOR SCHMITT, WHAT DO YOU HAVE FOR US?

>> THE ONLY ITEMS CONTINUE TO BE CARRIED OVER FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS WILL BE DISCUSSED TOMORROW NIGHT.

THE REZONING FOR MARTIN INVESTMENT PROPERTIES

[00:50:01]

AT JOLLY IN KANSAS ROAD IS UP FOR A FINAL ADOPTION.

FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE FORMER LA FONTAINE SITE ON GRAND RIVER AT PALO ROAD.

AFTER SOME INITIAL DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING, THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

I THINK THEY WERE UNAWARE OF SOME OF THE SPECIFICS FROM THE BUYER, SO THEY REGROUPED A LITTLE BIT AND ARE JUST LOOKING FOR SOME ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD.

THEY HAVE PROVIDED A CONCEPT PLAN AND SOME ELEVATIONS THAT ARE IN THE BOARD PACKET.

ONLY OTHER ITEMS OF NOTE, I WILL POINT OUT THAT WITH DIRECTOR CLARK ON THE LINE, THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS ASKING FOR LOAN FORGIVENESS TO GET THEIR BALANCE SHEET RIGHT.

WE ARE GETTING READY TO SEND OUT A CITIZEN'S SURVEY TO THE RESIDENTS OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP TO GET FEEDBACK ON A VARIETY OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND WORK THAT WE DO AS A COMMUNITY.

ONCE THAT BECOMES LIVE, IT WILL BE MAILED IF I AM CORRECT, DIRECTORY CLARK? ONCE THAT IS GOING OUT, I WILL LET EVERYONE KNOW.

IF YOU COULD JUST START HELPING US SPREAD THE WORD FOR PEOPLE TO RETURN THAT BECAUSE THE MORE WE GET BACK THE BETTER INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE IN THE LONG RUN. THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR SCHMITT? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> I DID HAVE SOMETHING PROBABLY NOT FOR TONIGHT, BUT MAYBE LATER.

I HAVE SOME MENTIONS IN LOCAL MEDIA ABOUT A NEW FLOODPLAIN STUDY ENCOMPASSING THE CITY OF LANSING ALONG WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ALONG THE RED CEDAR RIVER IS UNDERWAY.

I'VE HEARD THAT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TIMES AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IF STAFF COULD AT SOME FUTURE MEETING GIVE US ALL A LITTLE PRIMER ON WHAT THAT IS AND HOW THAT HAPPENS.

>> ABSOLUTELY. LET ME GET SOME DETAILS ON WHERE THEY'RE AT WITH THAT AND I WILL FOLLOW UP.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

>> I WAS LIAISON TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING ON JUNE 7TH.

DO YOU WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT THAT NOW OR WERE YOU LOOKING FOR SOMETHING ELSE?

[9B. Liaison reports.]

>> JUST IF THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR SCHMITT AND HIS TOWNSHIP BOARD REPORT, WE'RE HAPPY TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT THING IF NOT. GO AHEAD.

>> OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE, THE DDA AGREED APPARENTLY TO CONTINUE THEIR MEETINGS AT 7:30 IN THE MORNING.

I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE THEIR HEADS ARE ON THAT, BUT IT WAS OF MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE.

LUCKILY, I'M AN EARLY RISER, SO I WAS ABLE TO MAKE THOSE MEETINGS.

ANYWAY. AGAIN, AS MR. SCHMITT NOTED, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AUTHORITY REQUESTING FORGIVENESS FOR THE LOAN.

IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY AND DIRECTOR CLARK CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE ORIGINAL LOAN WAS TO PAY FOR STREETLIGHTS? THAT'S THE IMPRESSION I GOT.

>> YEAH.

>> THERE'S STILL SOMETHING LIKE 50,000 THAT WAS OUTSTANDING ON THAT LOAN.

>> THE ORIGINAL LOAN, SORRY FOR MY RASPINESS, THE ORIGINAL LOAN WAS FOR THE STREET LIGHTS IN THE DDA, BUT HOWEVER, MEYERS TAX TRIBUNAL THAT HAPPENED IN 2012, TWO YEARS AFTER THE INSTALLATION OF THOSE STREETLIGHTS CAUSED THE DDA TO HAVE A DEFICIT.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH CASH ON HAND AND NEEDED TO BORROW IN ADDITION FROM THE GENERAL FUND AGAIN.

TOTAL IS 250,000 BORROWED FROM THE TOWNSHIP IN ORDER TO PAY FOR STREET LIGHTS AND THE TAX TRIBUNAL.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, THAT WAS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR DISCUSSION AT THAT MEETING.

THE OTHER ISSUE THAT CAME UP, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER AS A LIAISON IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO EXPRESS OPINIONS ON THIS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU MY IMPRESSION.

THERE WAS A PRESENTATION FROM THE DEVELOPER OF THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS PROJECT THAT COMMERCIAL INTEREST IN THE PROJECT HAS PLUMMETED, PROBABLY AS A RESULT OF DEVELOPMENTS FROM COVID ISSUE.

BUT THERE'S STILL INTEREST IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE.

AS A RESULT, HE IS MODIFYING THE PLANS FOR THE PROJECT TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS AND TO REDUCE THE COMMERCIAL SPACE, SAVING SOME FLEXIBLE SPACE.

BUT THE PROJECT BASICALLY, AND FRANKLY, TOWNSHIP MANAGER WALSH STARTED TO SAY WHAT I WAS THINKING AND THAT IS THAT WHAT'S LEFT IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

I FOUND IT TO BE A VERY DISAPPOINTING DISCUSSION AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD SHOULD LOOK AT VERY

[00:55:01]

CAREFULLY TO DECIDE WHERE THEY WANT TO GO WITH THIS.

FRANKLY, BASED ON MY OWN EXPERIENCE AND I'VE LIVED IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP FOR OVER 40 YEARS.

IF THEY TURN THAT INTO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, HIS POSITION WAS IF COMMERCIAL INTERESTS GO UP, THEN THEY CAN ALWAYS START DEVELOPING MORE COMMERCIAL SPACE.

I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING.

IF THEY BUILD IT AS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO STAY.

I FOUND THAT TO BE VERY DISAPPOINTING.

I KNOW THAT TOWNSHIP MANAGER WALSH AGREES WITH ME ON THAT BECAUSE I'VE HAD SIDELINE DISCUSSION WITH HIM ABOUT THAT PRESENTATION.

>> YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT'S A REALLY INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT.

WE'VE SEEN THIS PROJECT UNDERGO QUITE A FEW CHANGES SINCE IT WAS BEFORE US NOW ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CHANGES THAT ARE COMING IN NOW WITH THIS NEW ORDINANCE, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MAKING, THERE MAY BE SOME LATITUDE DEPENDING ON THE AMOUNT TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE US.

I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. WE'LL HAVE TO SEE.

BUT THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME TOO.

WE WERE, I THINK, AS A GROUP PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT THE NOTION OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED ORIGINALLY, AND WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THIS REPORT, WHAT WE'RE HEARING THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY COME IN THERE IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ALL AGREED TO, OR WHAT THOSE OF US WHO WERE HERE AT THE TIME AGREED TO.

>> I'M SORRY.

>> NO, GO AHEAD.

>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE A MODEL MUPUD PROJECT, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THE MU IS MISSING FROM THE PUD.

>> WELL, AND THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT WE'VE HAD WITH ALL OF THESE MUPUD'S, IS THAT IS IT EVEN A FEASIBLE WAY FORWARD? IS THAT EVEN SOMETHING THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN? MAYBE THE FEEDBACK THAT WE TAKE FROM THIS IS THAT IT CAN'T.

MAYBE IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT IT IS.

WHICH I THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE HELPFUL IN ANCHORING THAT, BUT WE'LL SEE. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> THAT MUST BE HE'S STILL SUPPORTING THE PROJECT.

>> YEAH. WELL, THAT'S GOOD.

>> PIGGYBACKING ON THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS, I WOULD BE CONCERNED AND I'M SURE THERE ARE PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE BETTER VERSED IN SOME OF THIS THAN I AM, BUT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF CREDITS PROVIDED TO THAT PROJECT I THINK BASED ON ITS STATUS AS A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT THAT I WOULD HOPE THAT THE TOWNSHIP, IF IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO US TO DO ANYTHING, I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT'S TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN DEVELOPING THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO INCENTIVIZE.

IF IT'S BECOMING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T WHAT WE WERE LOOKING TO INCENTIVIZE, HOW THAT GETS RECAPTURED OR RECALCULATED, I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT STEP.

JUST BECAUSE IT IS WHAT WE HAD PLANNED SOMETHING FOR THAT AREA.

I KNOW WE CAN'T FORCE THE MARKET TO BE SOMETHING THAT IT ISN'T, BUT WE ALSO DON'T HAVE TO FUND IT.

IF YOU WANT TO BE AN INVESTOR AND DO THAT AND YOU'RE USING IT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.

JUST A STATEMENT.

>> OKAY.

>> DIRECTOR SCHMITT AND THEN COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

>> I CAN WAIT UNTIL WE GET TO THE END OF THE AGENDA AND PROJECT UPDATES.

>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

>> THIS JUST FEELS LIKE A DISCUSSION TO ME ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE MUPUDS, AND THE LARGER PROBLEM OF HOW DO WE DEVELOP? HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE TO WANT TO COME HERE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND BOOSTING THE ECONOMY? HOPEFULLY MY COMMENTS AREN'T OUT OF PLACE.

BUT JUST AS NOT EVEN IN THE ROLE OF A COMMISSIONER, BUT AS A CITIZEN OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, THAT'S REALLY DISAPPOINTING TO JUST NOT SEE THE KIND OF GROWTH THAT EVERYONE WANTS TO SEE.

I'M FROM THE METRO DETROIT AREA AND THERE ARE PLACES THAT ARE THRIVING.

THERE ARE PLACES THAT HAVE THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO COME IN AND RESTAURANTS, HAZEL PARK, FERNDALE, ROYAL OAK.

THEY'RE THRIVING, THEY'RE GROWING.

MY HUSBAND AND I, WE OWN A RENTAL PROPERTY IN HAZEL PARK AND I GOT TO WATCH THIS AREA COMPLETELY TURN AROUND OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.

[01:00:03]

IT'S BEEN REALLY FASCINATING.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS ALL OF THESE COMMUNITIES HAVE IN COMMON IS THAT, MANY YOUNG PROFESSIONALS ARE FLOCKING THERE.

I GOT TO BELIEVE THAT WITH PEOPLE MOVING IN AND STAYING THERE, THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR BUSINESSES.

I JUST WONDER IF MAYBE THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE FOR US.

WHAT IS IT THAT WE'RE NOT DOING OR COULD DO BETTER TO ENCOURAGE YOUNG PROFESSIONALS TO WANT TO LIVE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP OR DO WE NOT HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE FOR COLLEGE GRADUATES? IT JUST FEELS LIKE THERE'S AN UNDERLYING CAUSE TO COMMERCIAL UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD AND MAYBE IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON.

>> YEAH. WE HAVE A CHICKEN AND EGG PROBLEM WITH THIS AREA.

THEY WANT THE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THE BUSINESS AND THE BUSINESS WANTS THE PEOPLE TO SHOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE CONSUMERS FOR THE SERVICES.

THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IN MY OPINION LIKE I SHARE WITH SHREWSBURY.

>> SORRY, THAT WAS AN OLD HAND.

>>

[10. PROJECT UPDATES]

>> JUST IN TERMS OF PROJECT UPDATES, I WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE'S BEEN NOTHING NEW FORMALLY SUBMITTED.

IN THE INTERVENING THREE WEEKS, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE.

I WILL SAY THAT I DID INHERIT THREE MUPUD AMENDMENTS, ALL ASKING FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING TO VARYING DEGREES.

VILLAGE OF ALCHEMISTS TO BE PERFECTLY BLUNT, IS PROBABLY THE BEST AMENDMENT OF THE THREE.

I SPENT NEARLY THE ENTIRE DAY REVIEWING NEWTON PLACE.

I'M GOING TO HAVE A VERY FRANK CONVERSATION WITH THAT DEVELOPER LATER THIS WEEK ABOUT THAT PROJECT.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS A COMBINATION OF THINGS TO ANSWER A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP.

THE HOUSING MARKET IS EXTRAORDINARILY OVERPRICED RIGHT NOW EVERYWHERE.

MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, TO BE COMPLETELY FRANK, IS GOING TO HAVE A VERY HARD TIME COMPETING WITH EAST SIDE OF LANSING FOR HOUSING FOR YOUNG PROFESSIONALS.

BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE CHEAPER FOR ME IF I WANT TO BUY A PLACE, I'M GOING TO GO TO EAST SIDE OR I'M GOING TO GO TO OLD TOWN AREA.

IN TERMS OF WHERE WE THRIVE IS THAT STEP UP, NEXT STEP HOUSING.

BUT BY THEN THAT'S PEOPLE COME HERE BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOLS, BECAUSE OF YOUNG KIDS.

ATTRACTING YOUNG PROFESSIONALS IS VERY DIFFICULT.

STARTING A NEW DOWNTOWN FROM SCRATCH IS VERY DIFFICULT, HAVING WORKED IN NOVI WHICH IS THE POSTER CHILD FOR HOW NOT TO DO THAT.

THESE ARE TOUGH PROJECTS WE ARE DEALING WITH.

BASED ON THE CURRENT DEFINITIONS AND IN THE ORDINANCE, ALL THREE ARE MINOR AMENDMENTS, ALL THREE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

IT IS LIKELY TO BE JULY 7TH.

I WILL BE HOLDING THEM ALTOGETHER SO EVERYONE CAN SEE THE CHANGES BEING MADE TO ALL THE PROJECTS AT THE SAME TIME.

THESE ARE TOUGH QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

AND I THINK GOING FORWARD, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE'VE LAID DOWN A MARKER WITH THE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THESE IN THE FUTURE.

FRANKLY, I ALREADY HAVE A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS NOW THAT I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF WEEKS IN THE VIEW OF POTENTIALLY MAKING A COUPLE OF MORE MINOR CHANGES TO IT.

BUT WE'LL CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE COME TO IT.

WE NEED TO GET THESE CHANGES THROUGH FIRST AND FOREMOST SO WE HAVE THEM IN PLACE FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE CHANGES AND REQUESTS.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE AGENDA, THE ONLY ITEM THAT WE HAD FOR OUR NEXT MEETING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE NAKOMA ACTION.

WE ARE ABLE TO AND I WILL DISCUSS THIS WITH THE CHAIRPERSON AND POTENTIALLY CANCEL THAT A MEETING.

IF WE DO SO, I WILL PROBABLY ASK THE SIGN COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS TO GIVE ME A HALF HOUR, 45 MINUTES TO TIME TO START LAYING THIS OUT OF HOW TO ATTACK IT.

IT'S GOING TO BE EASIER TO TALK ABOUT IT IN PERSON BEFORE I SEND YOU A RED MARK, STRIKE THROUGH DOCUMENTS.

IT'LL BE JUST AN EASIER DISCUSSION THAT WAY.

THEN WE WILL LIKELY TO HAVE A WITH AT LEAST ONE REZONING REQUEST AND AWARE OF A SPECIAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST THAT'S ON ITS WAY.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HEADS UP WHERE IT'S GOING.

[01:05:01]

I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S SUPPORT IN MY FIRST MONTH HERE, IT HAS BEEN A WHIRLWIND.

I HAVE FINALLY FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET MARK'S NAME OFF OF MY VOICEMAIL TODAY OFFICIALLY..

>>

>> I FINALLY FEEL LIKE I'M REALLY HERE.

FORTY ONE YEARS IS A LONG OF TIME, I'M GOING TO FIND HIS NAME EVERYWHERE.

BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, JUST WANT TO CHAT ABOUT PHILOSOPHY FEEL FREE TO HIT ME UP.

I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THINGS.

>> THANK YOU DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

ANY OTHER LAYS ON UPDATES? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON.

BEFORE WE DO FINALLY LEAVE THIS, I THINK JUST GENERALLY I'M SUPPORTIVE OF CANCELING THAT MEETING AND GETTING THE SIGN COMMITTEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHAT WITH DIRECTOR SCHMITT, SINCE WE'VE ALREADY RESERVED THE TIME AND HOPEFULLY GET THE BALL ROLLING ON THAT SO WE CAN GET AHEAD OF OURSELVES ON THAT PARTICULAR GOAL.

DO THE SIGN COMMITTEE MEMBERS REMEMBER WHO THEY ARE?

>> I DON'T HAVE MY CHEAT SHEET IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ALL BY THE END OF THE WEEK.

>>

>> BUT THEY SUGGESTED A DISCUSSION QUESTION FOR YOU TO PONDER.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS IS HIDING DOWN IN THE CORNER. HE'S ON THE COMMITTEE TOO.

>> I BELIEVE HE IS. I BELIEVE MR. RICHARDS IS THE ONE I KNOW.

>> I THINK COMMISSIONER BLUMER WAS ON IT TOO.

I DON'T THINK HE CAN HIDE EITHER.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY I WILL BE IN TOUCH WITH YOU GUYS SHORTLY AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THIS BALL ROLLING.

>> OKAY. VERY GOOD.

THEN WE'LL PLAN TO NOT HAVE OUR MEETING IN TWO WEEKS FOR THE REST OF US.

GOOD LUCK TO THE SIGN SUBCOMMITTEE AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING HOW THAT WENT.

WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 10, WHICH IS PROJECT UPDATES.

WE HAVE NO NEW APPLICATIONS, WE HAVE NO NEW SITE PLANS, WE HAVE NO NEW SITE PLANS APPROVED, WHICH BRINGS US TO AGENDA ITEM 11, WHICH IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

THIS IS OUR FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS THIS EVENING.

IF YOU ARE IN OUR ATTENDEES AREA, YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND AND SPEAK.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO CALL US FROM HOME, YOU CAN DO SO AT (517) 349-1232 AND OUR STAFF WILL PUT YOU THROUGH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

PLEASE LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE MINUTES AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE BEGINNING FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD.

WITH THAT, WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

>> WE'RE SEEING NO HANDS AND WE HAVE NO TELEPHONE CALLS, SIR.

>> WONDERFUL. THEN WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND MOVE OURSELVES ONTO ADJOURNMENT. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> TO ADJOURN.

>> YOU HAVE A SECOND? I'M SURE WE DO SOMEWHERE.

WE SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF A ADJOURNMENT SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? THE PLANNING COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED AT 8:08 PM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYONE.

HAVE A WONDERFUL 4TH OF JULY, AND WE WILL SEE YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE.

>> WE WILL BE IN-PERSON IN JULY.

>> YES, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER. DON'T SHOW UP ON ZOOM.

WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE IN THE TOWNSHIP HALL

>> I'VE BEEN WONDERING ABOUT THAT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.