Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

>> [MUSIC]

[00:02:00]

>> [BACKGROUND].

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>>THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2021 TO ORDER.

WE DO HAVE A REQUEST FROM STAFF AND TO ADD ONE THING TO OUR MEETING, WHICH IS TO DO A ROLL CALL AT THE OUTSET OF THE MEETING.

THIS IS FOR OUR MINUTES TAKER, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE EVERYONE ON RECORD WHO IS PRESENT.

ADDITIONALLY, I'M GOING TO ASK ON THEIR BEHALF, BUT ALSO FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME THAT WE BE A LITTLE MORE STRICT ABOUT WAITING TO BE RECOGNIZED BEFORE WE JUMP IN.

PARTLY FOR THE MINUTES AND ALSO PARTLY JUST TO KEEP ORDER IN THE MEETING.

WE WILL GO AHEAD AND DO ROLL CALL FIRST OF ALL.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE SAY, "HERE." COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

>> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER BLUMER. COMMISSIONERS SNYDER.

>> HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> HERE.

>> THE CHAIR IS ALSO HERE.

[2. PUBLIC REMARKS]

THAT BRINGS US TO OUR FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK YOUR PUBLIC REMARKS, PLEASE KNOW THAT YOUR TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES AND THEN FILL OUT ONE OF THESE GREEN CARDS AND MAKE SURE IT GETS TO STAFF.

I DO HAVE ONE.

THERE WILL BE, I GUESS, FOUR OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC REMARKS IF WE'RE NOT DOING OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS CONCURRENTLY. THREE, IF WE ARE.

YOU MAY SPEAK NOW ON ANY TOPIC OR AT THE END OF THE MEETING ON ANY TOPIC OR EITHER THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WITH THAT, WHAT CAN WE HAVE? CRAIG PATTERSON, PLEASE.

PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> GOOD EVENING, CRAIG PATTERSON 518 LAKESIDE DRIVE, MACKINAW CITY.

I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT OUR CHANGE WITH OUR SITE PLAN ON WOODWARD WAY, AND I'LL FIELD ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND MOVE ON TO

[3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.

>> I MOVE.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ANY AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA?

[00:05:01]

SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? THE AGENDA COULD PASS THIS.

NEXT UP IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WE HAVE ONE SET OF MINUTES FROM OUR JULY 26TH REGULAR MEETING. REALLY, THE LAST ONE WE HAD?

>> THE JOINT MEETING WAS TECHNICALLY A TOWNSHIP ORDERED.

>> VERY GOOD. THEN WE WILL TAKE THEIR ADOPTION AS GOSPEL.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 26TH? MOVED BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED COMMISSIONER TREZISE. ANY COMMENTS, CHANGES, OR ADDITIONS TO THE MINUTES, COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> ON PAGE 4, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A TYPO.

IT WAS IN REFERENCE TO THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND INSTEAD IT WAS BRE.

>> [LAUGHTER] IT SHOULD BE BRA.

>> IT'S MISSPELLED OUT, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

>> EVEN BETTER. ANY OTHER CHANGES? SEEING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MINUTES AS AMENDED SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT UP ON OUR AGENDA IS COMMUNICATIONS.

WE HAVE NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[6A. Special Use Permit #21-19-111 – Woodward Way, modification of plans to construct a multi-family housing development.]

WE HAVE OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EVENING, WHICH ESPECIALLY USE PERMIT NUMBER 21-19-111 WOODWARD WAY, MODIFICATION OF PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 07:06 PM AND TURN THINGS OVER TO OUR DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST WANT TO SHARE THIS WITH YOU BRIEFLY.

THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY US IN 2019.

AS YOU CAN SEE, FOUR BUILDINGS, 49 DWELLING UNITS, PARKING IN THE CENTER, ACCESS POINT HERE IN THE NORTH TO SIRHAL DRIVE, ACCESS HERE TO THE SOUTH POTENTIALLY TO GREENCLIFF.

APPLICANT HAS BEEN MOVING FORWARD IN THE PROCESS IN THE INTERVENING TIME, OBVIOUSLY, COVID HAS SLOWED PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE DOWN AT THIS POINT, BUT THEY GOT TO THE POINT OF REQUESTING APPROVAL FROM THE INNER COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT, AND BECAME ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THESE ACCESS POINTS OF GREENCLIFF WAS NOT ONLY TO BE PERMITTED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE UNLESS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS EXTRAORDINARILY NEEDED.

THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS TO DO THIS GIVEN THAT IT'S UNDER 50 UNITS, THEY ARE OKAY WITH THE PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS IN ONE POINT OF ACCESS.

THE POINT OF ACCESS OFF SIRHAL WAS NOT GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT NEEDED TO BE THE FORMAL ROAD ENTRY AS WE WERE LEAVING THE PUBLIC PROPERTY ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT WENT BACK TO REDESIGN AND THIS IS THE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US THIS EVENING WITHOUT FORMAL CUL-DE-SAC ON IT MEETING THE CATEGORY DEPARTMENT STANDARDS, YOU'D HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS, NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.

THE CHANGE IS THAT WE'VE GONE FROM FOUR BUILDINGS WITH A MIX OF TOWN HOUSES TO TWO BUILDINGS WITH ALL [INAUDIBLE] THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY THE CHANGES IN PLANNING THIS EVENING.

THE BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN BEFORE, 52,861 VERSUS THE 49,288 THAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE.

THEY DO MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS NOW, VERY EXPLICITLY WITH THE ACCESS ONTO THE NEW CUL-DE-SAC WHICH WOULD BE ON THEIR PROPERTY AND NOT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

THE FIVE CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN FROM 2019 HAS CONTINUED TO BE MET, AND JUST TO REVIEW THOSE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WEREN'T HERE.

PROPERTY WILL ONLY BE DEVELOPED AS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT USING MICHIGAN STATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES.

THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT EXCEED TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT.

AT THIS TIME, THE BUILDINGS HAVE NOT CHANGE HEIGHT, THEY WILL BE THE EXACT SAME HEIGHT AS THEY WERE BEFORE.

SIRHAL DRIVE WILL BE EXTENDED TO CREATE 100 FEET OF PUBLIC ROAD FUNDING AND TO BE DEDICATED TO THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC UTILITY.

IN THIS CASE, THAT IS BEING PROVIDED WITH A CUL-DE-SAC AS OPPOSED TO THE SIMPLY EXTENDING ROADS STRAIGHT AS IT WAS BEFORE.

[INAUDIBLE] PARCEL TO THE WEST OF THE DIVISION OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT [INAUDIBLE].

THAT'S TALKING ABOUT THIS AREA RIGHT HERE TO THE SOUTH OF THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT WILL BE COMBINED WITH THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST DONE BY THE SAME PERSON.

THEN THE NUMBER OF UNITS [INAUDIBLE] 49 ALLOWING FOR ONE [INAUDIBLE] AS WE TALKED ABOUT THERE ARE STILL 49 LONG ENDS.

THIS IS A RELATIVELY MINOR CHANGE FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, IS STILL CERTAINLY MEETING THE INTENT OF BRINGING IN A QUALITY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING [INAUDIBLE] RIGHT NOW CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS AND IDENTIFY THEIR MAJOR PROBLEMS AS THIS WAS WELL ALONG ITS WAY ENGINEERING LINES BEFORE THIS ISSUE WITH THE ROAD DEPARTMENT CAME UP, AND SO AS STAFF, WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM RECOMMENDING APPROVALS THIS EVENING.

AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING.

I WILL POINT OUT ONE UNIQUE PIECE TO THIS PART OF THE REQUEST.

THE REQUEST TO DO MULTIPLE-FAMILY HOUSING IN

[00:10:01]

MULTIPLE FAMILIES' OWN DISTRICT IS THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE SECOND PART OF THE REQUEST AND WHY THERE'S TWO PUBLIC HEARING, THE 25,000 SQUARE FEET IS ACTUALLY AND THE COMMISSION IS SIMPLY MARKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT PIECE, SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THAT'S ALL I HAD, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SCHMITT. HERE TO CORRECT EARLIER WHEN I SAID THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS.

WE DO HAVE ONE COMMUNICATION THAT WAS LEFT AT OUR PLACE FROM CRAIG PATTERSON OF WODA COOPER COMPANIES REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAVE OUR OWN BYLAWS 6.4A TO CONSIDER THESE ITEMS ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA AS OPPOSED TO WAITING TILL OUR NEXT MEETING.

SO IF WE COULD AMEND THE PACKET TO SO NOTE THAT COMMUNICATION, WE WILL APPRECIATE THAT.

WITH THAT SAID, THE FORMAT OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING IS THAT WE GET AN UPDATE FROM OUR DIRECTOR ON THE MATTER BEFORE US, FOLLOWED BY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK, FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC COMMENT, FOLLOWED BY COMMISSION TIME.

SO AT THIS TIME, IS THERE A MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT'S TEAM WE'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT?

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CRAIG PATTERSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT WODA COOPER COMPANIES.

THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.

WITH ME IS BRUCE KILLEEN, OUR ENGINEER FROM KILLEEN ENGINEERING.

COMMENT WAS MADE ENGINEERING.

BACK IN FEBRUARY, WE WERE DEEP INTO THE PLANS GOING THROUGH.

ALL THE ENGINEERING NOTES WERE THERE, WE WERE MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANS.

SOMETIME, I THINK IT WAS LATE APRIL OR EARLY MAY, WE FOUND OUT THAT THE ROAD COMMISSION REQUIRED THIS CUL-DE-SAC.

THEN WHEN IT WAS A MATTER OF NEGOTIATING THE SIZE OF THE CUL-DE-SAC ON TOP OF IT TRYING TO ACQUIRE THE LAND TO BUILD THE CUL-DE-SAC, WE MADE ATTEMPTS, WE COULDN'T GET THERE.

WE PRESENTED TWO SIZE CUL-DE-SACS TO THE ROAD COMMISSION AND THE ROAD COMMISSION SAID IT NEEDS TO BE 150 FEET WIDE.

AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE STARTED LOOKING AT IT ONSITE, WE DEVELOPED THE SITE PLAN SKINNY DIP FROM FOUR BUILDINGS TO TWO BUILDINGS.

LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE AS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR SAID.

HEIGHT, BY THE WAY, IS A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THE HEIGHT ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS WERE ABOUT ONE AND A HALF FEET BELOW THAT. I'M NOT SURE.

TIM KNEW THAT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GIVE HIM THAT DETAIL.

WELL THE DETAIL'S ON THE PLAN, BUT WE DIDN'T CALL IT OUT IN A WAY THAT WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE.

THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES WITH MATERIALS IS WE'RE NOT PUTTING ON SHINGLES.

THE OLD DESIGN WAS SHINGLES.

WE'LL PUT ON A DURO-LAST TYPE OF ROUGH ON THE FLAT ROOF.

I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR A DECISION TONIGHT IS AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, WITH THIS PROPERTY, WITH THIS PROJECT FULLY FUNDED BY MSHDA HOUSING TAX CREDITS, AND THE FACT THAT WE SPENT THE LAST NINE MONTHS OR SO IN BUILDING PLANS AND SITE PLANS AND THEN HIT THIS SNAG, WE NEED TO GET INTO THE GROUND AND THE SOONER THE BETTER.

OUR GC WHICH IS WODA CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN ON THE SITE SEVERAL TIMES AND THERE'S A HIGH LEVEL OF ORGANICS.

ON THE SITE THERE ARE SOME OTHER ISSUES ON THE SITE AND HE'S CONCERNED THAT IF WE DON'T GET IN THE GROUND BEFORE THE GROUND FREEZES AND WE'RE DELAYED UNTIL AFTER FREEZE, WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE A GREASY MESS OUT THERE COME SPRING.

WE HAVE TO BE FULLY BUILT OUT IN ORDER TO RETAIN OUR CREDITS.

FULLY BUILT OUT AND START LEASE-UP BY THE END OF 2022.

WE REQUEST IF POSSIBLE, IF YOU COULD MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT, BUT WE ALSO PREFER TO DO A BETTER JUDGMENT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU, SO DON'T GO TOO FAR.

>> OKAY.

>> AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? I'M SEEING NONE.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

ANY PLANNING COMMISSIONER WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? COMMISSIONER CORDELL. [NOISE]

>> ELEVATIONS FOR US TO LOOK AT? [BACKGROUND]

>> THEY'RE A LITTLE SMALL.

[00:15:01]

>> YES, THEY ARE.

>> APOLOGIES FOR THAT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO LET MR. PATTERSON WALK THROUGH THEM BRIEFLY HERE.

THIS IS THE EASTERN ELEVATION OF BUILDING 1 AND THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION OF BUILDING 1, SO WHAT YOU WOULD SEE AS YOU'RE IN THE CENTER.

>> THE ELEVATIONS MATERIAL-WISE IS A COMBINATION OF BRICK AND HARDIE.

WE TRIED TO ACCENT THE ENTRANCES ON THE MAIN ENTRANCES GOING INTO THE BUILDING.

[INAUDIBLE].

>> YOU'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO THE MICROPHONE.

>> SURE. IT'S HARD TO SEE YOU.

WHAT WE TRIED TO DO WAS DUPLICATE AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY COULD OUR ORIGINALS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF BUILDING AND THE LENGTH OF THE BUILDING WHICH BY THE WAY, THE TOTAL LENGTHS OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE NO MORE THAN THEY WERE BEFORE.

I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T EXCEEDED THE FOOTPRINT IN TERMS OF LENGTH, BUT WE HAD TO DO SOME CHANGES IN TERMS OF THE WAY THE LOOK IS AND THAT'S MOSTLY BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PRODUCT.

BEFORE, WE HAD STACKED FLATS IN ONE OF THE BUILDING, BUT WE HAD TOWNHOMES AS WELL, AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DISTINGUISH THE MAIN ENTRANCES AND GIVE IT A HANDSOME LOOK, AT LEAST AT EYE LEVEL WHEN PEOPLE WALK UP.

THEN WE'VE DONE SOME THINGS UP ON TOP TO DISTINGUISH THAT FLAT ROOF.

>> WHAT IS THE SIDING LIKE?

>> IT WOULD BE HARDIE PLANK AND BRICK.

>> WHAT'S HARDIE PLANK?

>> HARDIE PLANK, IT'S ALMOST LIKE CLAP. [OVERLAPPING]

>> CLAPBOARD?

>> YEAH, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE SIDING ON A HOUSE, BUT IT'S NOT VINYL.

SOME VINYLS IF THEY'RE PAINTED, FOR THEIR COLOR, THEY CAN LOOK LIKE CLAP, BUT THIS DURABILITY IS VERY GOOD.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT IN MICHIGAN BECAUSE OF OUR WEATHER HERE, BUT WE STILL BUILD IT WHEN THE TOWNSHIPS OR THE MUNICIPALITIES REQUIRE IT. WE USE IT.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE BROKEN UP THE EXPANDS EVERY SO.

HOW MANY FEET OR SO TO BREAK UP. [OVERLAPPING]

>> I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER BUT IT'S DONE IN A DIMENSIONAL WAY TO BREAK UP WHEN IT'S PATTERNED AFTER WHAT WE'VE DONE ON OTHER, I DON'T HAVE THE DIMENSIONS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I'M SORRY.

I MEAN, IT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO SOME OF OUR AWARD-WINNING PROJECTS WE HAVE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE WHERE WE POP IT OUT LIKE THAT AND IT'S AESTHETICALLY APPEALING, BUT YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THEM, YOU'VE GOT DIFFERENT WIDTHS THERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE FAR RIGHT-ISH, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT.

NOT THE FAR-FAR RIGHT, BUT THE FIRST ONE HAS THE TWO WINDOW DOORWAYS THERE.

I GUESS THERE'S A WINDOWS INTO THE LEFT.

YOU HAVE A MORE NARROW THAN YOU POP WITH THE LARGEST FENESTRATION WITH WHICH YOU'VE GOT THREE WINDOWS ON THE BOTTOM, THEN A DOORWAY, AND THEN YOU MATCH THAT.

THE ARCHITECT WHO DESIGNED THIS IS THE SAME ARCHITECT THAT DID THE TOWNHOMES ON THE PREVIOUS 2019 PLAN AND HE'S WITH HOOKER DEJONG OUT OF MUSKEGON.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDELL, JUST TO ADD ON TO THAT.

IT'S NOT A CONSISTENT IN OUT ACTUALLY.

THE WIDTH OF THOSE FENESTRATIONS BACK VARIES DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT'S AN ENTRY DOOR OR WHETHER IT'S A BEDROOM WINDOW, WHETHER IT'S BOTH, WHICH TO THEIR CREDIT, MAKES FOR A SLIGHTLY MORE INTERESTING DESIGN.

>> SURE. VERY GOOD.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> I GOT A NEWBIE QUESTION.

I ASSUME THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TOWN HOME AND A FLAT STACK IS THAT THE TOWN HOME HAS STAIRS INSIDE THE UNIT AND THE FLATS DON'T. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT?

>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO SUMMARIZE THAT YOU HAVE TWO FLOORS IN A TOWN HOME WITH AN INTERIOR SET OF STAIRS.

SOMETIMES THE TOWN HOMES WILL HAVE A BEDROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND THEN UP ON THE TOP FLOOR, THEY MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE MORE BATHROOM, MAYBE HALF BUT ON STACK FLATS, YOU HAVE A FLOOR AND ENTRANCES.

YOU HAVE A GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCE, AND THEN YOU HAVE A STAIRWAY THAT GETS UP TO THE SECOND AND IT SERVICES MULTIPLE UNITS.

>> GOT YOU. THE OTHER THING,

[00:20:02]

SINCE I WASN'T HERE BEFORE, BESIDES THE TRAFFIC CHANGING IN THE NEW DESIGN, HAS THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, THAT'S MADE THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER HAPPIER OR LESS HAPPY?

>> WELL, WE'RE STILL AWAITING SOME INPUT FROM THE DRAIN COMMISSION, BUT WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A NEGATIVE VIEW.

BRUCE, OUR ENGINEER MIGHT BE ABLE TO GIVE SOME ANSWERS TO THAT.

BUT WE DO HAVE SURFACE RETENTION NOW WHEREAS BEFORE WE WERE UNDERGROUND.

WITH THAT SURFACE RETENTION, WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT WE'D HAVE DO WITH THE WATER IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE IT'S HANDLED CORRECTLY.

>> HI. BRUCE CALLEN WITH CALLEN ENGINEERING OUT OF SPRING LAKE, MICHIGAN.

PREVIOUSLY IN THE EARLIER ITERATIONS, WE HAD DONE SUBSURFACE STORAGE IN A MANIFOLD SYSTEM BENEATH THE PARKING LOT.

GIVEN THE SPACE CONSTRAINTS AND ALL OF THE UNSUITABLE SOILS, THERE'S A LOT OF ORGANICS ON THE NORTH END OF THIS SITE, WE CONVERTED EVERYTHING TO SURFACE STORAGE.

I DON'T KNOW IF TIMOTHY CAN GO TO THE SITE PLAN UP IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER, WE'RE ABLE TO FIT A SURFACE DETENTION BASIN. GETTING CLOSE.

>> IT DOESN'T WANT TO ZOOM OUT.

>> THERE WE GO. NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SURFACE BASIN.

IT'LL BE FENCED IN FOR SAFETY, BUT IT'LL HAVE A CONTROLLED RATE DISCHARGE TO THE PROCTOR DRAIN, MEETING ALL OF THEIR SURFACE WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS, THEIR STORAGE REQUIREMENTS.

WE'LL HAVE A MANHOLE THAT'S GOT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SIZE ORIFICES THAT'LL LET WATER GO OUT OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

THEN, THE PROCTOR DRAIN PARALLELS THE EAST PROPERTY LINE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE.

WE ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING CONNECTION POINT AND WE'RE ABLE TO MAKE THIS THING WORK CONNECTING TO THAT. IT WORKED OUT PRETTY WELL.

>> GREAT. DID I UNDERSTAND PROPERLY THAT IT'S INTENDED TO HAVE WATER IN IT MOST OF THE TIME?

>> IT WILL NOT.

I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT IN THE BOTTOM.

WHAT THAT DOES IS IT DEALS WITH THE FIRST FLUSH.

INSTEAD OF THIS BIG TOXIC SLUDGE OF RUNOFF IMMEDIATELY JUST GOING RIGHT INTO THE SYSTEM, IT'LL COME IN AND IT'LL SWIRL AROUND AND MIX WITH EVERYTHING ELSE AND IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF THAT, WE ALSO HAVE A PROPRIETARY STORM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM.

THAT'LL DEAL WITH A LOT OF THE OILS AND GRITS BEFORE IT EVEN GETS TO THIS BASIN.

ONCE IT GETS TO THE BASIN, IT'LL DILUTE AND THEN HIT OR DISCHARGE TO THE PROPER DRAIN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. BUT THIS WAS A GOOD PROJECT TWO YEARS AGO.

IT'S A GOOD PROJECT NOW.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH ALL THE TWIST AND TURN TO GET HERE, BUT I CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR PERSEVERANCE IF NOTHING ELSE.

[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU.

I DO LIKE THE WAY IT'S PUT TOGETHER FROM A FACADE AND VIEW POINT, IT'S MORE INTERESTING THAN A FLAT FRONT. THANK YOU.

>> YEAH, I'LL ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER TREZISE SAID.

THIS WAS A GOOD PROJECT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND STILL A GOOD PROJECT.

I THINK THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT WE HEARD, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY AT THAT TIME WAS THE CONNECTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST.

THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POSSIBLE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC AT THAT TIME.

REGARDLESS OF HOW IT TURNED OUT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE AVOIDING THAT THIS TIME AROUND.

>> THE OTHER THING, I'M NOT SURE TIM KNEW THIS, BUT THAT WAS NOT A SET ROADWAY.

IT WAS AN EMERGENCY EXIT THAT WOULD BE COVERED AND WHATEVER.

IT WASN'T GOING TO DIRECT TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR GREEN MONITORING PLACE OR WHATEVER.

>> THERE WAS THE BALANCE, RIGHT?

>> BUT IT STILL CAUSED CONSTERNATION AMONG THE NEIGHBORS THAT THAT COULD ULTIMATELY BE OPENED UP.

THIS TAKES CARE OF THAT CONCERN APPROPRIATELY.

>> IN THAT VEIN THOUGH, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

IT APPEARS AS THOUGH YOU'VE GOT FUTURE PARKING HIGHLIGHTED ON MY PAGE 77.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT THERE BUT DOWN IN THE, MY GUESS IS THE EAST OF THE LOOP THERE.

CAN YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE

[00:25:02]

AND WHAT TIMETABLE OR WHAT CONDITIONS YOU WOULD SEE TO HAVE TO ADD THAT?

>> WELL, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

THE FUTURE PARKING AS PER THE CODE, IT'S REQUIRED, WE HAD TO PUT THAT IN.

WE REALLY APPLAUD THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRING US TO PUT IN ALL THAT PARKING NOW.

BASED ON THE HISTORY WE'VE HAD WITH OUR GENERAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENTS, SOME COMMUNITIES YOU GO IN, THEY SAY TWO TO ONE AND THEN YOU LOOK AT YOUR PARKING LOT AND IT'S NEVER MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS FILLED.

[NOISE] EXCUSE ME.

WHAT WE WOULD DO IS IF THERE WAS AN OVERFLOW AND A NEED, WE WOULD BUILD LATER IN THAT AREA AND WE BUILD UP THE CODE.

>> FROM THE PAST REFLECTED, WHEN I'VE HAD SITUATIONS LIKE THIS IN THE PAST, WE WOULD NOT ENFORCE IT UNLESS WE GOT CONSISTENT COMPLAINTS ABOUT PARKING OFFSITE, PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BLOCKING CARS, PARKING GRASS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

IT IS AN INTERESTING PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT REQUIRES THIS BY RIGHT, ACTUALLY.

IT'S A GOOD THOUGHT.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> SORRY. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE DESIGN THAT WOULD PREVENT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE END OF GREENCLIFF?

>> THERE'S NOTHING WE'VE BUILT IN TO PRECLUDE IT.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? YOU KNOW THE TOPO BETTER.

>> YEAH. NO, ACTUALLY, THAT RIGHT OF WAY IS THERE.

IT'S TRAVERSABLE [NOISE] BY FOOT AND I'M SURE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MAKING THEIR WAY.

THERE IS AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY OFF OF GREENCLIFF'S THE RIGHT OF WAY, PROBABLY NON-COMPLIANT, BUT THAT HOMEOWNER'S ADOPTED A BIT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT THERE'S STILL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS THROUGH THERE.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF STANDING CONCRETE COLUMNS BUT YOU CAN MAKE YOUR WAY THROUGH.

>> THANK YOU [NOISE].

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> JUST REAL QUICKLY, HOW TALL IS THE FENCE AROUND THE RETENTION POND?

>> I BELIEVE WE GOT IT AT SIX FEET.

>> IS IT A CHAIN LINK?

>> WE TIED IT INTO THE BUILDING ONLY FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES.

>> IS IT A CHAIN LINK?

>> YEAH.

>> I'M SORRY. I SAW PLANS BUT IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO DISCERN.

CAN YOU JUST ADDRESS THE TREES AND LANDSCAPING THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING?

>> I WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE SCREENING.

ZONING REQUIRES FOR PARKING LOTS THAT FACE THE OUTER PROPERTY LINES TO BE SCREENED.

OF COURSE, MOST OF OURS IS SCREENED WITH BUILDINGS BUT WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF CONIFEROUS AND DECIDUOUS TREES THAT DEAL WITH THOSE AREAS THAT ARE EXPOSED FROM THE PARKING LOT.

WE DON'T SHOW THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE SMALL DIAMETER, BUT IN THE NORTH WEST CORNER, UP IN THERE, THERE'S QUITE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EXISTING TREES THAT ARE THERE AND THERE'S A NUMBER ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TOO.

WE ARE SURROUNDED, ON AT LEAST THE NORTH, WEST, AND EAST SIDES, BY EXISTING FENCING THAT BELONGS TO THE NEIGHBORS.

THEY'RE OFFSITE, NOT ON OUR PROPERTY.

WE'VE GOT THE BENEFIT OF THE FENCES AND THEN, I THINK, MY GUYS DID A GOOD JOB OF COMING UP WITH A NICE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN TO FILL IN THE GAPS.

>> OKAY. YOU'LL PRESERVE WHAT YOU CAN IN THAT SECTION TO THE NORTH WEST? [NOISE]

>> ABSOLUTELY, WE ALWAYS DO.

IN FACT, WE WALKED THE LAND WITH THE GC, BRUCE AND I, AND WE POINTED OUT WHERE WE SHOULD.

IN FACT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE OF THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WHERE THAT WOODEN FENCE IS.

THERE'S A LOT OF SCRUB IN THERE AND I TOLD THE GUYS THERE'S NO NEED TO GO IN THERE AND CHOP ALL THAT DOWN.

WE HAVE THE EARTH BALANCE, WE HAVE TO BUILD THE RETENTION SO SOME WILL HAVE TO COME DOWN.

THERE'S SOME TREES IN THE MIDDLE THAT HAVE TO COME DOWN BUT ON THAT WESTERN BORDER, UP AGAINST THAT OTHER APARTMENT, WERE VIRTUALLY NOT TOUCHING ANYTHING UNLESS IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO FALL DOWN.

THEN, OF COURSE, ON THE SOUTH TOWARD WHOLE FOODS THAT'S OPEN ANYHOW AND IT LOOKS AT THAT OTHER RETENTION.

ON THE EAST THERE IS THAT FENCE THERE AND THERE'S SOME BRUSH IN THERE

[00:30:05]

BUT IN THE CORNER WHERE THE RETENTION IS PRETTY GOOD SHAPE ONCE WE GET DONE WITH THE LANDSCAPING.

>> LOOKS GOOD, THANK YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE PUT YOU'RE PLANNING ON TREES IN THE CUL-DE-SAC AREA.

>> WE'LL SEE IF THEY ALLOW IT.

IT'S OUR GOAL JUST TO BREAK THAT VIEW UP AS YOU COME DOWN THE CUL-DE-SAC.

>> RIGHT. THE ROAD DEPARTMENT OR COMMISSION REQUIRED THE DIMENSIONS AS THEY ARE.

>> THE SIZE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE SIZE OF THE ROADWAY AND THE LOCATION OF THE SIDEWALK ARE ALL FOR INGHAM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT?

>> IS THAT A SIDEWALK THAT I SEE?

>> IT IS.

>> OKAY.

>> IN SIRHAL, WE'RE GOING TO CONNECT THE SIDEWALK AND WE'RE PROVIDING SIDEWALK CONNECTION TO BOTH OF THE BUILDINGS RIGHT FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC.

WE'RE CONNECTING WATER MAIN IN SIRHAL.

WE'LL BE LOOPING THAT FROM THE ROADWAY DOING AN INTERIOR LOOP AND THEN CONNECTING TO THE WATER MAIN FOR WHOLE FOODS, AND THEN OUT TO WARDCLIFF OUT AT THAT INTERSECTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT, BUT ON THE NORTH END, WHICH IS ON THE RIGHT, THERE'S A LINE THAT PARALLELS PROPERTY LINE, THAT'S THE SANITARY SEWER RIGHT THERE.

EXCEPT WHERE OUR DETENTION BASIN IS, WE'RE NOT PLANNING TO TOUCH ANY OF THE FOLIAGE AND TREES TO THE NORTH BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'LL BE MAKING OUR SANITARY SEWER CONNECTIONS TO THAT EXISTING SANITARY SEWER.

[NOISE] APART FROM THAT, UTILITIES ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

>> YEAH, THANK YOU.

>> YEAH.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT, WHICH IS THE SIDEWALK.

I THINK, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, TOUCHED ON THIS A MINUTE AGO.

ALSO, I SEE, BASED ON THE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED HERE, [NOISE] THAT THERE IS THE SIDEWALK UP TO WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE PROPOSED PLAYGROUND AND THAT THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK PLAN SHOULD YOU NEED TO TAP INTO THE FUTURE PARKING.

THAT'S THE PART OF THE ORDINANCE AS WE POINTED OUT.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO SEE THAT SIDEWALK CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE GREENCLIFF ACCESS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ADDITIONAL PARKING IS REQUIRED TO CREATE ONE CONTINUOUS PATHWAY.

CAN YOU TALK TO ME ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY OF THAT?

>> [OVERLAPPING] WELL. OH, GO AHEAD.

>> TALK ABOUT IT FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT.

>> FROM AN ENGINEERING, IT'S FEASIBLE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY SIDEWALK OUT IN WARDCLIFF OR GREENCLIFF AT ALL.

>> NO.

>> NO, THERE'S NOT. BUT THERE IS A PATHWAY THAT CONNECTS FROM THE ROAD.

MY POINT IS, UNDER THE PLAN AS YOU'VE GOT IT CURRENTLY SHOWN HERE, THAT PATHWAY COMES UP TO THE FENCE, STOPS, THEN THERE'S 20 FEET OF NOTHING FOLLOWED BY YOUR SIDEWALK AT THE PLAYGROUND.

MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE A WAY TO CONNECT THE SIDEWALK THAT YOU ARE CREATING TO THAT PATHWAY ENTRANCE SO THAT THERE'S NOT THE 20 FEET OF NOTHING IN BETWEEN?

>> IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU.

>> WE'LL LOOK AT IT. I THINK ONE OF OUR BIGGEST CHALLENGES RIGHT NOW IS BUDGET ON THIS SITE BUT IF IT'S A REQUIREMENT WE'LL PUT IT IN.

I DON'T KNOW, 20 FEET, WHAT IS THAT? A FIVE FOOT OR SIX FOOT?

>> THAT ONE THERE IS A SIX FOOT.

ESSENTIALLY, SO YOU'LL BE WALKING ON LAWN OR JUST PATHWAY FOR 300 AND SOME FEET INTO A NICE LAWN AREA.

WE'RE ADDING 20 OUT OF 320 IF [NOISE] THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?

>> I DON'T ACTUALLY.

>> SEE, THERE IS NOT A FORMAL PATHWAY.

IT'S JUST GROUND COMING FROM GREENCLIFF, WARDCLIFF TO THE SITE.

>> YEAH.

>> THAT WILL NEVER GET BUILT.

>> NO. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE PATHWAY WITH THE DRIVEWAY ON IT, THERE IS A PATH THAT CONNECTS THE STREET ON THE WARDCLIFF NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> IT'S JUST WORN GROUND.

THERE'S NO FORMAL PATH.

>> MAYBE I'M MISREMEMBERING IT.

>> DOES IT LOOK LIKE IT'S USED CONSISTENTLY?

>> NO, NOT AT ALL. NO.

>> I WOULDN'T EXPECT IT TO BE USED CONSISTENTLY BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ON THE PROPERTY PASSED THE ENTRANCE TO IT.

[00:35:02]

MY QUESTION WAS, NOW THAT THERE WILL BE SOMETHING THERE, THERE'S A PLAYGROUND THERE, AND I PRESUME THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CLOSE IT OFF TO A NEIGHBORHOOD USE SHOULD SOMEONE [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE WOULD LET OTHERS USE IT AS LONG AS THEY SHARE RESPECTFUL. WE'LL LOOK AT THAT.

>> I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, AT LEAST, MAKING AN EFFORT TO LOOK AT IT.

THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME.

>> OKAY. WHAT IF WE IMPROVED IT IN SOMETHING LIKE WOOD CHIPS OR SOMETHING TO DEFINE IT MORE AND NOT CONCRETE BECAUSE WITH CONCRETE THEN I'VE GOT A SHOVEL IT AND ALL THAT.

>> SURE. YEAH. THAT SEEMS CLOSER, AT LEAST TO SOMETHING. BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CANAL.

>> PERHAPS ONE FALLBACK PLAN IS TO APPROACH IT FROM THE TOWNSHIPS PATHWAY PLAN AND SEE IF THAT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF A PRIORITY ON THE TOWNSHIPS PATHWAY PLAN, AND THEN THE TOWNSHIP CAN PARTICIPATE IN CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING IT SO THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IF WE BUILD PATHWAYS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

>> TYPICALLY NOT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, THE QUESTION WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT THE GREEN FILLER FORM WOULD RISE TO A LEVEL OF A CONNECTION.

I'M SURE AT SOME POINT IT WOULD [INAUDIBLE].

MY INITIAL CONCERN IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM CODE FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE, JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEING TREATED AS SOMEONE'S DRIVEWAY RIGHT NOW.

AS I GET A CALL ABOUT IT.

IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO DO THOUGH.

>> I MEAN, YOU GET A CALL ABOUT IT.

YOU'VE GOT IT GOT BIGGER PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE GOT, RIGHT? [LAUGHTER]

>> NO, I AGREE. YEAH.

>> THE WAY THEY MOVE THEIR DRIVEWAY IS THE SHORT ANSWER, BUT THERE'S A PAVED PATH FOR ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN [OVERLAPPING] THE TWO.

IT JUST HAPPENS NOT TO BE THEIRS MR. JONES.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> WE COULDN'T ASK THEM TO MAINTAIN A PATHWAY BEYOND THEIR PROPERTY LINE.

>> NO.

>> THAT WOULD BE STILL QUITE A WAY SHORT OF GETTING OVER TO WORK.

>> UNDERSTOOD. I'M SAYING THAT THERE MAY COME A TIME IN THE FUTURE WHEN THAT DRIVEWAY SITUATION IS OR IF THE TOWNSHIP DECIDES THAT THIS IS A PATHWAY THAT WE WANT TO CONNECT, THAT BENEDICTS IT IS CONNECTED.

AND AT THAT TIME SHOULD THAT DECISION BE MADE, I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A PATHWAY AND THEN X SPEED OF NOTHING AND THEN ANOTHER PATHWAY.

LET'S BE FORWARD THINKING ABOUT IT AND TRY TO CONNECT IT TO WHAT IS ALREADY AN ESTABLISHED CONNECTION TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOW WOULD BE MY THOUGHT. I WOULD PREFER IT TO BE CONCRETE.

I WOULD OVER CEMENT, I WOULD PREFER IT TO BE AN ACTUAL SIDEWALK.

FOR THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY.

IF SOMEONE WANTS TO RIDE YOUR BIKE OR WHATEVER, I DON'T WANT THEM TO END UP HAVING TO DIE FROM CEMENT SIDEWALK DOWN TO FULL WOOD CHIPS FOR A DISTANCE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DONE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT CONNECTED SO THAT IF IN THE FUTURE THE TOWNSHIP DECIDES THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT, THAT WE THAT WE CONNECT THOSE THINGS THAT BE POSSIBLE.

AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT NOW'S OUR OPPORTUNITY TO ASK.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND ASK FOR IT DOWN THE ROAD.

I UNDERSTAND THAT I'M COMING OUT OF THROWING SOMETHING UP [BACKGROUND] 11TH HOUR HERE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT PREVIOUSLY IN TERMS OF CONNECTED MAKING HER COMMUNITY MORE WALKABLE OR BIKEABLE AND MORE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY.

I THINK THIS FALLS IN LINE WITH THAT GOAL.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD LET THE OPPORTUNITY PASS WITHOUT AT LEAST TALKING ABOUT IT. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> [INAUDIBLE] PATHWAY, SIDEWALK.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? OKAY. COMMISSIONER SNYDER,.

>> AM JUST CURIOUS, IS THIS HOW CONVERSATION DURING THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL PROCESS? I'M JUST CURIOUS.

>> MY RECOLLECTION OF THE APPROVED THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS.

WELL, THERE WAS A ROAD THERE.

THERE WAS A ROAD CONNECTION TO GREEN CLINIC.

>> THERE WAS A FUTURE.

>> A POSSIBLE CONNECTION WITH BOARDS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

>> THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY ACCESS?

>> YES. IT WAS GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, BREAK THROUGH THAT BARRIER FOR FIRETRUCKS [LAUGHTER] AND GET THERE.

I DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS A SIDEWALK.

[00:40:02]

I DON'T SEE ONE ON THAT PLAN.

>> THERE WAS NO INTEGRATE THERE WAS ALL PLANS UNDER REVIEW JUST TO INTEGRATE THE ENDS OF THE DRAWING.

>> YEAH. HOWEVER, I'M VERY PLEASED ABOUT [LAUGHTER] THAT THOUGHT POSSIBLE SIDEWALK, BUT I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YEAH. I GUESS I'M NOT SURE I'M FOLLOWING THIS A 100 PERCENT, BUT IN THE FUTURE IF THERE'S ACTUALLY A PAVED PATHWAY THAT'S PROPOSED IN THE AREA WHERE THERE ISN'T ONE RIGHT NOW TO INCLUDE THIS AREA, THE TOWNSHIP CAN GET AN EASEMENT TO PUT HERE.

WE CAN REQUEST AN EASEMENT.

WE HAVE EASEMENTS ACROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND APPOINTED PATHWAYS AND IT PASSED.

I DON'T THINK BY NOT PUTTING IN NOW, WE WILL BE PROHIBITING IT FROM BEING PAID IN THE FUTURE. I GUESS.

I'M NOT A BIG PROPONENT OF HAVING SOMETHING SIT THERE AND THAT ACTUALLY THE USE IF I UNDERSTAND AND RIGHT IT MAY LOOK A LITTLE BIT STRANGE.

YOU'VE GOT A PIECE OF SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING CONSISTENT WITH MOVING FORWARD.

AGAIN, MAYBE I'M NOT SEEING THE WHOLE PICTURE AND I'M NOT SURE HOW BIG OF A DEAL IT IS TO HOLD UP THE WHOLE PROJECT FORWARD.

>> I MEAN, I'M NOT TRYING TO HOLD UP THE WHOLE PROJECT.

GO OVER THIS, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ASK FOR OURSELVES.

>> YEAH.

>>FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE.

IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT BIG OF A LIFT TO ASK FOR IT.

FOR SUCH A SHORT RUN HERE.

BUT I CERTAINLY SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR THAT CONNECTION.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR OUR SCHOOL SITUATION.

WE'VE GOT A MOVEMENT IN THIS COMMUNITY TO REOPEN WORK WITH ELEMENTARY.

SHOULD THAT HAPPEN, THIS MIGHT BE A PATHWAY THAT STUDENTS COULD USE TO GET TO SCHOOL.

AND I SEE VALUE IN AT LEAST PROVIDING THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY.

THAT'S AN OPTION FOR THEM.

I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF ADDING AS A REQUIREMENT IN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS WE'RE OBSERVING IT.

WHETHER THAT'S LATER AT THE NEXT MEETING.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HOPE TO SEE INCLUDED. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> IF I'M READING THE PLAN CORRECTLY, THERE'S CURRENTLY A 20 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A STORM BRAIN THAT'S PLANNED TO CONNECT BETWEEN THE CUL-DE-SAC AND AT THE END OF GREEN GLYPH.

I'M I READING THAT PROPERLY?

>> YES.

>> RIGHT THERE IN THAT DRAWING IS THAT?

>>YEAH..

>> THERE'S ANOTHER DRAWING THAT SHOWS PUBLIC ROAD WAY STORM SEWER IN 20-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT.

IT'S ON PAGE 30.

>> YEAH, IT [OVERLAPPING] IS OUR GOAL TO TAKE THE DRAINAGE FROM THE PUBLIC CUL-DE-SAC, AND THEN DRAIN THAT TO THE PROCTOR DRAIN RATHER THAN ROUTE THAT PUBLIC STORM SEWER DRAINAGE THROUGH OUR SITE.

>> THERE'S GOING TO BE A TRENCH DUG FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC TO THE END OF THE DRAIN TO THE MUG.

>> YEAH. THE DRAIN IS JUST OFF OUR PROPERTY.

>> IT'S REALLY A QUESTION OF ONCE THAT DRAIN IS IN HOUSING, WHAT GOES BACK ON TOP OF IT?

>> EARTH?

>> YEAH.

>> NOT NECESSARILY DRIVABLE OR A GOOD SUPPORTIVE EARTH.

>> JUST WHATEVER WAS THERE.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> CAN WE GO BACK TO THE SIDEWALK JUST BRIEFLY?

>> PLEASE.

>> LET'S SAY IN THE FUTURE THERE WAS A DESIRE TO CONNECT WHATEVER WE HAVE WHEREVER IT TERMINATES TOWARD GREEN GLYPH AND BEYOND WITH THE TOWNSHIP, THEN REQUIRE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALK AND THEN IT'S ASSESSMENT.

HOW IS THAT NORMALLY DONE IN THE TOWNSHIP?

>> I WOULD DEFER TO STAFF ON THAT.

>> THE ONLY SIDEWALK ASSESSMENTS I'M AWARE OF HAVE BEEN REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING HAZARDOUS SITUATIONS FOR ASSESSMENTS.

[00:45:05]

TYPICALLY, WHEN WE INSTALL SOMETHING AND IN MOST RECENT ONES I'M AWARE OF HAVE BEEN SELF-FUNDED OR GRANT FUNDED, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD ASSESS FOR SOMETHING THIS TINY TO PERFECTLY BALANCE.

THAT'S A VERY SMALL PIECE FOR A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT THAT WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

IT'S LIKELY IT WOULD BE SOMETHING PAID FOR OUT OF GENERAL FUND DOLLARS.

>> SO WHEN YOU SAY TOO SMALL, YOU'RE REFERRING TO EVERYTHING THAT CONNECTS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLUS MY 20 FEET IF WE DIDN'T.

>> YEAH.

>> OKAY.

>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT CHRISTIAN RICHARDS WAS GETTING AT THAT.

WE'VE PREVIOUSLY ASKED REASONS FOR PEOPLE TO BUILD THE SECTION ON THEIR PIECE THAT WE NEED TO FILL IN A GAP IN VARIOUS PLACES.

>> YEAH. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> YEAH. I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE THING IF IT'S LISTED ON A MASTER PLAN FOR PATHWAYS.

BUT I THINK THIS IS SOMEWHAT OUT OF THE ORDINARY.

I MEAN, WE'VE DONE IT AND REQUESTED IF IT'S CONNECTING TO THE GREEN RIVER AND THERE'S A PATHWAY THERE.

BUT WE'RE REALLY NOT CONNECTING TO ANYTHING AT THIS POINT.

SO I GUESS I'M OPPOSED TO REQUIRING IT AS PROBABLY I SHOULD BE.

>> SO WE WOULD BE WILLING IF IN THE FUTURE THROUGH A GRANT OR WHATEVER, WE'D BE WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE OUR PORTION INTO THE GRANT OR INTO THE GENERAL FUND OR WHATEVER TO BUILD IT.

BUT WE WOULD RATHER NOT BUILD IT NOW AND LET IT SIT THERE UNUSED AND HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED BECAUSE IT'S REALLY GOING NOWHERE FROM WHAT I HEAR FROM MY ENGINEER NOW.

I CAN GO OUT THERE LATER, NOT TONIGHT, IT'S TOO DARK, BUT AT ANOTHER TIME, LOOK AT IT, RE-EVALUATE AND COME BACK.

BUT I REALLY DON'T KNOW THE LAND THAT WELL ON THAT END.

BUT I MEAN, IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE AND SAY THAT IN THE FUTURE, IF THERE IS A CONNECTION NORTH, THAT EVERYBODY TIES IN, WE, OUT OF OUR OWNERSHIP FUNDS, WILL PAY FOR OUR 20 FEET SOME FORM OR FASHION AND MAYBE THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO STILL MEET THE NEED.

>> IT'S PRETTY SKETCHY THROUGH THERE AND THAT RIGHT AWAY.

SO I WOULD THINK THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE SOME LIABILITY ISSUES.

OF COURSE, IT'S ROAD COMMISSION AND NOT NECESSARILY TOWNSHIP.

BUT I'M PRETTY CERTAIN [BACKGROUND] WE WOULD NOT BE INTERESTED IN SHARING IN ANY KIND OF LIABILITY THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THERE BECAUSE THERE'S NO LIGHTING.

I KNOW THERE'S A COUPLE OF MANUALS JUST STICKING OUT OF THE GROUND.

YOU COULD MAKE YOUR WAY, BUT IT'S PRETTY OVERGROWN AND THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF TRASH AND IT FALLS OFF ON BOTH SIDES.

SO TRYING TO PROMOTE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC THROUGH THERE UNTIL IT'S EITHER FORMALIZED OR SOMEBODY TAKES OWNERSHIP OF THAT OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT, I WOULD SAY, IF IT EVOLVES ORGANICALLY THEN ADDRESS IT THEN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YEAH.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THINGS TO THINK ABOUT?

>> ONE LAST COMMENT.

I JUST WANT TO SAY YOUR STAFF, EVERYBODY WHO'S WORKED HARD WITH US, WE APPRECIATE IT.

THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CREATIVE THOUGHTS.

TIM, EVEN THOUGH HE'S NEW IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT, WAS VERY BOLD EARLY ON AND CONTACTED THE ROAD COMMISSION ON OUR BEHALF AND GAVE US SOME INSIGHTS ON WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE AN ALTERNATIVE AND IT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL SO I THOUGHT SHE SHOULD KNOW THAT.

>> THANK YOU. WE'VE BEEN ASKED BY THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER SUSPENDING OUR BYLAWS TO ALLOW FOR A DECISION ON THIS MATTER DURING THE INITIAL PUBLIC HEARING MEETING. COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE BYLAWS AND ALLOW ACTION TONIGHT ON [INAUDIBLE].

>> 1911, I THINK.

I'VE LOST IT IN MY AGENDA BUT I THINK IT'S THAT.

>> ME TOO.

>> 29-19-111.

>> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE GOT IT.

[00:50:02]

SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

I NEED DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO SUSPEND OUR BYLAWS. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE GIVEN DELAY AND THERE'S NOT THE NEED FOR NEW INFORMATION COMING IN.

WE HAVEN'T HAD THE PUBLIC REMARKS TO DIGEST, TO SORT THROUGH.

>> THANK YOU. YEAH. I GENERALLY OPPOSE THESE MOTIONS TO SUSPEND OUR BYLAWS.

WE HAVE THEM IN PLACE FOR A REASON.

PARTLY AS COMMISSIONER CORDILL ALLUDED TO, TO CONSIDER THE PUBLIC INPUT.

PARTLY SO THAT IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS THAT COME UP IN OUR FIRST MEETING, THEY CAN BE ANSWERED IN TIME FOR OUR SECOND MEETING WHEN WE TAKE ACTION.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, HEARING YOUR INFORMATION AS I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SIDEWALK AND NOT TO GET HUNG UP ON IT.

BUT HEARING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN RESPONSE TO THIS, I WOULD LIKE MORE TIME PERSONALLY TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD PURSUE, WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

I COULD SPEAK TO OUR STAFF FURTHER ABOUT THIS.

THAT BEING SAID, I WILL LIKELY OPPOSE THE MOTION TO SUSPEND OUR BYLAWS EVEN THOUGH I SEE THIS PROJECT AS A WIN FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED.

BUT I DON'T LIKE BEING HASTY ABOUT DECISIONS LIKE THIS.

AS NOT HASTY AS I'M SURE THIS PROCESS FEELS TO YOU.

IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THE PLANS HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT.

SO I'D LIKE TO TAKE LITTLE MORE TIME TO CONSIDER IT. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> THE ISSUE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.

COULD THAT BE ADDRESSED DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS?

>> ABSOLUTELY. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE'LL BE REQUIRING AN EASEMENT FOR THIS.

THEY'LL HAVE A TERM WITHIN IT THAT REQUIRES THEM TO PAY FOR THE INSTALLATION AT SUCH TIMES AS THE TOWNSHIP'S ENGINEER DETERMINES IT TO BE NECESSARY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> NOT TO TELEGRAPH A LETTER I'M GOING TO SEND THEM.

[LAUGHTER]

>>OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO SUSPEND OUR BYLAWS? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE?

>> YES.

>> THE CHAIR VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES.

WE WILL CONSIDER THIS TONIGHT.

THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE THEN TO HAVE A MOTION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO BE MADE?

>> WE DO. [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER]

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S ACTUALLY WRITTEN OUT.

>> IT IS.

>> IS IT?

>> ON THE ACTUAL MOTION IT'S NOT WRITTEN UP.

THE RESOLUTION IS PROVIDED FOR YOU.

>> THE RESOLUTION IS THERE, RIGHT.

>> WE'RE JUST DOING ONE AT A TIME.

>> THAT'S IT?

>> ONE AT A TIME

>> JUST ONE AT A TIME.

>> IT'S PAGE 10

>> PAGE 10 IS THE RESOLUTION. YES.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T GET THE WRONG ONE INTO THE RECORD.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT 21-19-111.

>> DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

>> ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? IT SOUNDS LIKE OUR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RATHER, DON'T SHORT CHANGE THE TITLE.

>> I'M SO USED TO IT MYSELF. [LAUGHTER]

>> HAS GOT A PLAN TO ADDRESS MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE PATHWAYS, SO I WILL ALLOW OUR STAFF TO DO THEIR GOOD WORK WITHOUT ENDING THIS MOTION AS IT IS TONIGHT.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS?

>> I JUST COULD POINT OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS THAT WERE A PART OF THE ORIGINAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT ARE CONTINUING THIS AS FAR AS LAND DIVISIONS AND THE DETAILS THAT THEY AGREED TO, THE TWO-STORY LIMIT, ALL OF THAT, SO THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR BUILDING OR THEIR SITE.

[00:55:04]

IT JUST APPROVES A DIFFERENT SETUP.

>> YES, INDEED. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE?

>> YES.

>> THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 PM.

NEXT ON THE AGENDA,

[6B. Special Use Permit #21-19-121 - Woodward Way, modification of plans to construct a group of buildings greater than 25,000 square feet in size.]

NOW I GOT TO DO THE SCROLLING HERE, IS SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 21-19-121, WOODWARD WAY: MODIFICATIONS OF PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A GROUP OF BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 PM AND TURN THINGS OVER TO DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

>> AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THIS IS ACTUALLY A RECOMMENDATION.

THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] TOWNSHIP BOARD.

THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS THE FINAL SAY OVER ANY BUILDING GREATER THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET.

GIVEN SIMPLY THAT WE'RE TALKING SAME NUMBER OF UNITS, SLIGHTLY LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND ROUGHLY THE SAME DIMENSIONS WIDTHWISE TO THE BULK THAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM THE STREET, STAFF HAS NO MAJOR CONCERNS OF THIS.

THIS IS ACTUALLY, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, AN EASIER CHANGE THAN THE OTHER ONE.

>> WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE?

>> WELL, I TAKE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR SUMMARIZED IT VERY WELL.

FRANKLY, LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE, WE'RE STILL HAVING BEDROOM SIZES AND THINGS THE WAY THAT WE HAD PLANNED BEFORE, SO WE DON'T THINK OUR TENANTS ARE GOING TO SUFFER.

WE THINK THESE BUILDINGS ARE MUCH BETTER, MORE FUNCTIONAL, AND IT'S EASIER FOR US TO MANAGE TWO BUILDINGS THAN FOUR BUILDINGS.

WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT WITH YOUR APPROVAL AND RECOMMENDATION GOING FORWARD TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, THAT WE'LL GET AN APPROVAL LIKE WE DID THE LAST TIME.

>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME PUBLIC REMARKS WILL BE OPEN.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS AND MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DISCUSSION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE.

THIS WAS APPROVED BEFORE AND IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

WHAT I WOULD DO IS AGAIN MOVE TO WAIVE THE CUSTOMARY BYLAW WHICH WOULD REQUIRE US TO PUT THIS BACK FOR FINAL ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

I'D RECOMMEND WE'LL WAIVE THAT AND PROCEED WITH THE FINAL ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS EVENING.

>> I SECOND THAT.

>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

THAT IS FOR THE RECORD, OUR BY-LAW 6.4A.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON SUSPENDING OUR RULES TO ALLOW FOR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO TO A VOTE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE?

>> YES.

>> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. MOTION CARRIES.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT? COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL MOVES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, THANK YOU, FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 21-19-121.

DO YOU HAVE A SUPPORT? SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER CORDILL?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER RICHARDS?

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

>> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> YES

>> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. THE MOTION CARRIES.

WE WILL CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 PM.

THREE MINUTES HAS GOT TO BE PRETTY CLOSE TO A RECORD.

FOR ALSO SUSPENDING OUR BYLAWS, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD.

[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMING BACK AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO THIS PROJECT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I DON'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE MAYBE, BUT I THINK I SPEAK FOR EVERYONE.

[LAUGHTER] WE LOOK FORWARD TO THIS PROJECT.

WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

WE HAVE NONE. OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS OTHER BUSINESS. WE HAVE NONE.

REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.

[9A. Township Board update.]

TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE, DIRECTOR SCHMITT, WHAT HAVE YOU GOT FOR US?

>> TOWNSHIP BOARD HAD A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MUPUD ORDINANCE AFTER THE JOINT MEETING AND THE COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT THEY'D ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO I'M CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO FINALIZE THOSE FOR THE FOLLOWING MEETING.

THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD BRING UP IS THE BUDGET WAS INTRODUCED AT THE LAST TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETING.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMPLAINTS, THOUGHTS, FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT.

[01:00:01]

I'M HAPPY TO PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH THE RIGHT PERSON.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED A DOWN PAYMENT ON THE BEGINNING OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE FOR NEXT YEAR.

AS I PREVIOUSLY SAID, SORRY THAT'S AN ALARM GOING OFF, I WILL GET THE COMMISSION AN OUTLINE OF HOW I SEE THIS GOING GIVEN THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND BREAK THE BUDGET HEAD UP FOR OVER TWO YEARS, BUT GOOD THING IS THE CENSUS DATA IS STARTING TO COME OUT.

HOPEFULLY THE OTHER LAST TIME WE REALLY KICKED THIS OFF WELL AND GOOD UPDATED DATA WILL CONCLUDE AS A KICKOFF TO THAT PLAN UPDATE.

THOSE ARE THE TWO REALLY BIG THINGS FLOATING AROUND RIGHT NOW THE TOWNSHIP BOARD DIRECTLY GERMANE TO THE PLAN IN QUESTION.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE DIRECTOR ON THOSE? COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

>> HAS THE TOWNSHIP BOARD SINCE WE LAST MET WITH REGARD TO SPARROW HEALTH SYSTEM REQUEST, HAVE THEY TAKE ANY ACTION ON THAT?

>> ABSOLUTELY. I APOLOGIZE.

>> IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE [INAUDIBLE].

>> THEY DID TAKE ACTION ON THAT.

APOLOGIES. THEY DID TAKE ACTION ON.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A MEETING ON-SITE WITH SPARROW WEDNESDAY MORNING TO TRY AND BREAK THEIR CONSTRUCTION CYCLE LOOSE.

THEY'RE TRYING TO GET SOME COMMENTS BACK FROM THE [INAUDIBLE] OFFICE AS I UNDERSTAND.

THEY ARE VERY BACKED UP.

THEY HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF STAFF DOWN THERE.

ROAD DEPARTMENT APPEARS TO BE ON BOARD.

WE HAVE SOME ITEMS THAT NEED TO GET INTO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, GREAT LAKES, AND THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO GETTING UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

I EXPECT IT'S FAIR. WE'LL START WITH DEMO HERE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE AND AT LEAST START PUSHING DIRT AROUND SO THAT THEY CAN GET THE BALL ROLLING QUICKLY.

>> I ASSUME THAT MEANS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPROVED IT?

>> THEY DID. [LAUGHTER]

>> THANK YOU.

>> I KNOW THAT I'M ASKING ABOUT THIS EVERY THIRD MEETING OR SO.

I HEAR THERE ARE SOME UPDATES ON THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS.

CAN YOU GIVE US A BRIEF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S HAPPENED RECENTLY?

>> THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS A SUBCOMMITTEE OF MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER IN THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS TO TRY AND NAIL DOWN WHAT THE BROWNFIELD PACKAGE LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THE DDA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AND THEN THEY ASKED THE MRF AND ALL THOSE ITEMS. WE HAD A VERY PRODUCTIVE MEETING LAST WEEK WHERE WE BELIEVE WE'VE GOTTEN TO A SOMEWHAT FINALIZED NUMBER.

WHAT THAT ALLOWS THEM TO DO IS GO TO THE STATE AND TALK ABOUT HOW TO FILL THE GAP BECAUSE THERE IS A GAP.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN THE PERIOD OF TIME SINCE THIS PROJECT STARTED.

THEY'LL BE APPROACHING MEDC IN THE NEAR FUTURE HERE TO TRY AND CLOSE THAT GAP.

THEY ARE STILL VERY HOPEFUL TO TRY AND GET UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN SOME WAY THIS YEAR, WHETHER THAT'S FOUNDATIONS OR FINALIZING THE SHORING OF THE UTILITIES, AND ROAD, AND A LOT MORE.

THEN MORE FORMAL GOING UP COME SPRING.

THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW.

THE PLAN HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE MINOR AMENDMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED THIS SUMMER.

>> THANK YOU. SOMETHING ELSE, I CAME ACROSS IT IN MY DAY JOB, SO IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE COME TO US EVENTUALLY, IS THAT THE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA PETITIONS THAT HAD BEEN COLLECTED, THEY ARE NOW GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT IN AUGUST OF 2022.

WE LIKELY WON'T SEE THAT FOR A WHILE, I WOULD THINK, UNTIL AFTER THAT TIME.

I KNOW THAT A COUPLE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE EXPRESSED THAT THEY WERE WAITING UNTIL THE PUBLIC HAS A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.

>> WE CAN'T PREDICT WHEN WE'LL SEE IT BECAUSE THEN IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE IS SHIFTING MIGHTILY, BUT THAT IS THE LIKELY THE SCENARIO RIGHT NOW, IS THE VOTE IN AUGUST OF '22, AND THEN DETERMINATION AFTERWARDS AS TO HOW WE PROCEED.

>> RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS FOR THE DIRECTOR ON THE TOWNSHIP BOARD UPTAKE? ALRIGHT. HOW ABOUT LIAISON COMMITTEE UPDATES?

[9B. Liaison reports.]

ANYONE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THEIR MEETINGS THAT THEY'VE BEEN TO. COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

>> TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HAD A MEETING.

AUGUST 19TH, IT'S QUITE A PRODUCTIVE MEETING TOO.

ONE OF THE MAJOR TOPICS OF DISCUSSION WAS THE INTERSECTION AT LAKE LANSING AND TOWER.

THE SLIP LANE, THERE, DISCUSSION OF MAKING THAT MORE SAFER CROSSING FOR PEDESTRIANS.

THERE'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, CITY OF EAST LANSING IN COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT, OCTOBER 4TH.

[01:05:02]

THE TRI-COUNTY BIKE ASSOCIATION, THEY'VE SUGGESTED A FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION AS BEING SAFER, BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS THERE TOO.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGER TOPICS OF DISCUSSION ALONG WITHIN THAT AREA.

THERE'S A PATHWAY THERE THAT'S LIKE CEMENT AND THEN DIRT AND THEN IT DISAPPEARS BY WHITE HILLS.

THAT WAS A BIG TOPIC OF DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER POTTER TALKED ABOUT IN THE MUPUD ORDINANCE MAKING PERHAPS PROVIDING A CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT COVERED BIKE PARKING IS.

HE TALKED ABOUT CONCERNS THAT HE'S SEEN WITH THE USE OF CAR PORTS FOR BIKE PARKING.

I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL MIGHT LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT?

>> YEAH. I THINK THE CONCERN IS WITHOUT A PROPER DEFINITION.

THERE'S ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT ONE COULD TRY TO CLAIM AS PUBLIC PARKING AND SIMPLY LOCKING A BIKE TO A POST IN A CHLOROFORM IS MORE AN OBSTRUCTION IN MANY CASES THAN A SOLUTION.

I HAVE NOT YET SEEN A DEFINITION OF BIKE PARKING, BUT I'M SURE ONE IS OUT THERE AND WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE.

>> WELL, HOW TIMELY?

>> WE ARE READING IT OUT RIGHT NOW AS A MATTER OF FACT. [LAUGHTER]

>> I SAW THAT SECTION TODAY.

I HAVEN'T FINALIZED IT THOUGH.

>> [LAUGHTER] THANKS. SORRY FOR CALLING YOU OUT LIKE THAT.

BUT I FIGURED YOU'D BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE ELOQUENTLY TO THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ALSO, THE ALCHEMISTS WERE A BRIDGE PROJECT AT ONE OF OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS.

SOMEONE HAD MENTIONED A TIMELINE FOR WHEN THOSE DETOURS ARE GOING TO BE HAPPENING.

IT WAS PROJECTED THAT FEBRUARY 2022 THE BRIDGE WOULD BE COMING OUT AND THE NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC ON OKEMOS ROAD WOULD BE DIVERTED OVER TO MOUNT HOPE AND THEN NORTH ON HAG ADORN AND EAST ON GRAND RIVER.

SO IT'S QUITE THE DETOUR.

>> IT'S JUST ONE SIDE DETOUR NOW?

>> THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.

>> I BELIEVE IT STILL BEING FINALIZED, BUT THAT'S THE CURRENT THOUGHT.

IT'S RATHER THAN TRY AND PUT BOTH SIDES ON ONE BRIDGE.

>> HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO PUSH THE PLUNGER? [LAUGHTER]

>> COULD JUST PUSH, I THINK.

[LAUGHTER]

>> YEAH, THAT'S COMING UP. [LAUGHTER] LET'S SEE.

ALSO, THERE IS DISCUSSION ABOUT IMPLEMENTING A SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL INITIATIVE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DONE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BUT IT'S BEEN SPRING BOARDED BY A FIFTH GRADE TEACHER, [INAUDIBLE] MR. PUTIN.

HE LAUNCHED A BIKING PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL KIDS.

HE AND COMMISSIONER POTTER TALKED ABOUT DOING THAT IN PARTNERSHIP POTENTIALLY WITH MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

THERE ARE FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO FUND THESE PROGRAMS AND IMPLEMENT THE NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE.

THERE'S A RENEWED INTEREST IN THAT SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL INITIATIVE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND THEY'RE DISCUSSING THAT.

I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER UPDATES PUSHING TO CORDEL.

>> THE CORDEL IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY MET AUGUST 26TH.

UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WAS NO QUORUM.

THEY'LL TRY AGAIN IN SEPTEMBER IN CONJUNCTION WITH TRANSPORTATION.

THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF CALMING CREATING CROSSWALKS ON GRAND RIVER.

LET'S SEE HOW THAT GOES.

THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO ACT ON THAT.

THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE AND I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT COMING TO ME.

[LAUGHTER] IT'LL COME TO ME ONCE I PULL IT INTO THE DRY RED HOME.

>> NO DOUBT. NO DOUBT. [INAUDIBLE]

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS CHAIR BAGSNAZZY FROM PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY, WHO REQUESTED TO HAVE A TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION LIAISON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DURING THAT MEETING AND I DON'T KNOW.

I JUST WANTED TO REPORT THAT BACK.

I DON'T KNOW HOW ALL THAT WORKS.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME TO STOP BY ANYTIME.

>> YEAH. [LAUGHTER] I DON'T THINK THAT A FORMAL LIAISON IS POSSIBLE UNDER OUR ENABLING LEGISLATION BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE LIKE EX OFFICIO MEMBERS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WHEREAS THE BOARDS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED LOCALLY IN THE TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, ETC.

ALL CAN HAVE ALL THE EX OFFICIOS THAT THEY WANT.

PLANNING AND ZBA ARE PRETTY EXPLICIT IN THE STATE LAW.

[01:10:02]

WHO WAS A MEMBER. BUT WE'D LOVE TO HAVE.

[LAUGHTER]OKAY

>> THE ZBA HAS MET THREE TIMES? I THINK SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, MAYBE FOUR.

DONE A BUNCH OF STUFF, GUYS. WE DID A LOT.

THE PROVED, I THINK ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT CAME BEFORE US, INCLUDING ONE THING THAT WE SAW HERE A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, WHICH WAS THE CAR WASH OVER ON GRAND RIVER AND DAWN.

THE SITES CHANGED CONSIDERABLY SINCE THE LAST TIME WE SAW IT.

INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE BUILDING ON THE SHORT SIDE OF THE EAST, IS NOW ON THE LONG SIDE ON THE WEST, WHICH ALLOWED THEM TO MISS OUT ON THREE OR FOUR VARIANCES AND ONLY ASKED FOR ONE OR TWO VARIANCES.

THE WAY OUT OF THAT HAS CHANGED A BIT, BUT THAT WAS PASSED THROUGH EVENTUALLY.

THEN MORE RECENTLY, WE HAD A PROPERTY ON PARK LAKE.

THIS WAS JUST LAST WEEK.

WE DISCOVERED THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WAS [NOISE] SMALLER.

HE SETBACK, RATHER THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WAS SMALLER THAN WHAT OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES.

ANOTHER, THAT THIS WAS A PERSISTENT PROBLEM, BASICALLY UP AND DOWN PARK LAKE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD FOR ALMOST EVERY PROPERTY ON THAT STREET.

I WAS CHARGED WITH BRINGING THAT BACK TO STAFF TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO PRECLUDE 1520 PROPERTY OWNERS FROM BEING NONCONFORMING ON THAT STREET.

I'LL BE TALKING WITH HIM A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEM HAVE ALREADY ABOUT WHAT, IF ANYTHING, CAN BE DONE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AREA.

WE HAD PREVIOUSLY NOTED THAT THE LAKE DISTRICT ALSO HAD LOTS OF ISSUES WITH SETBACKS AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE GRANDFATHERED INTO THAT RENDERING, ALMOST ALL OF THEM NON-CONFORMING AS WELL.

BIG LIFTS COMING, MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN TALK ABOUT IN 2022.

BUT [LAUGHTER] AFTER WE GET DONE WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

LOTS OF FUN HAPPENING AT THE ZBA.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO STOP BY AND CHECK IT OUT ANYTIME YOU LIKE.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, IF I WANTED TO SEE THE REVISED PLAN, WHICH MEETING WOULD I LOOK AT?

>> GOODNESS, IT WAS A BLUR.

IT MUST HAVE BEEN RIGHT AFTER THE ELECTION.

IT MUST HAVE BEEN LIKE THE FIRST MEETING OF AUGUST.

>> AUGUST 11, 25 OR SEPTEMBER 8TH.

>> IT MUST BE 11.

>> OKAY. THANKS.

>> IT'S ONE OF THOSE TWO. THAT WOULD HAVE RUN FOR IT.

>> ALL RIGHT. I'LL TRY THAT.

>> I THINK THAT'S THE ONE.

>> ANY OTHER UPDATES FROM THE ZONES?

>> ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE WE'LL GO AHEAD IN TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS PROJECT UPDATES.

WE HAVE THREE NEW APPLICATIONS, NO NEW SITE PLANS RECEIVED, BUT ONCE I PLAYED APPROVED, SPIRAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, HOW ABOUT THAT? PUBLIC REMARKS, WE HAVE NO PUBLIC, SO WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

MOVE BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF GERMAN SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? SO WE ARE STILL THERE, OFF WE GO.

WE ADJOURN AT 8:13PM

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.