Oct 25, 2021 Planning Commission

[00:00:13]

I'VE GOT MY EYES OUT FOR GERRY, HE TYPICALLY SHOWS UP AS AN ATTENDEE FIRST SO.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TONIGHT, I JOINED I CLICKED THE DIRECT LINK, I THOUGHT THAT WOULD THAT WOULD GET ME RIGHT THROUGH, BUT.

ARE YOU SIGNED IN UNDER THE EMAIL THAT WE'VE REGISTERED YOU WITH, SIR? I WOULD IMAGINE. I MEAN, I HAVE TO ENTER THE EMAIL EVERY TIME, SO I USUALLY PUT IT IN THE RIGHT ONE ANYWAY. YEAH, IF YOU'RE ENTERING THE EMAIL EVERY TIME, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT ACTUALLY SIGNING IN YOU'RE JUST SAYING THIS EMAIL ADDRESS.

OH, OK. WELL, THAT WOULD DO IT.

OK, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL AND PLEASE REMEMBER TO INDICATE THAT YOU'RE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY AND WHERE FROM.

WE WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

COMMISSIONER DAVE PRIMO FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL. COMMISSIONER CORDILL PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

HI, THIS IS ALISANDE SHREWSBURY PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

I'M APPEARING REMOTELY FROM MY HOME IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER. SORRY.

HI, COMMISSIONER SNYDER, PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM MY HOME IN HASLETT.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE, APPEARING FROM MY HOME IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

AND I AM OH HANG ON.

CHAIR HENDRICKSON IS PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM OKEMOS, MICHIGAN IN MY HOME.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY AND WHERE FROM, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL PARTICIPATING REMOTELY FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OK. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR FIRST OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

THERE WILL BE THREE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC REMARKS THIS EVENING RIGHT NOW AT THE END OF THE MEETING AND AT OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS, WHICH WE'LL BE HOLDING CONCURRENTLY TONIGHT.

AT THE OPENING PUBLIC REMARKS AND THE CLOSING PUBLIC REMARKS YOU CAN SPEAK TO ANY TOPIC.

PLEASE KNOW THAT AT ALL THREE OCCASIONS YOU'LL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES AND PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND PHONE NUMBER AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO JOIN US TO GIVE YOUR COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, YOU CAN GIVE US A CALL AT 517-349-1232.

OUR STAFF WILL PUT YOU THROUGH OR IF YOU ARE IN OUR ZOOM MEETING, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE AND OUR STAFF WILL PROMOTE YOU TO A PANELIST SO THAT YOU MAY SPEAK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO WITH THAT SAID, WE'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LET THE PUBLIC.

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER RICHARDS DID JOIN US HERE AT 7:01.

AND IF ANY CALLS COME IN, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW, BUT COMMISSIONER RICHARDS CAN, OF COURSE, REPORT WHERE HE'S REPORTING FROM AS WELL.

YES, COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR ATTENDANCE REMOTELY AND WHERE FROM? COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, CAN YOU HEAR US? NOW I CAN YES.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

CAN YOU GIVE US OUR PARTICIPATING REMOTELY ROLL CALL AND WHERE YOU'RE COMING TO US FROM? I'M COMING FROM MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, OKEMOS.

THANK YOU. OK.

WELL, WE'VE GIVEN THE PUBLIC SOME TIME TO GET US ON THE PHONE OR RAISE THEIR HANDS, I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS.

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY PHONE CALLS? NO, SIR. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CALLS.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS, THEN.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA THIS EVENING? MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED. AND THE AGENDA CARRIES.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WE HAVE ONE SET OF OUR REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 11TH 2021.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE MINUTES THIS EVENING.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BLUMER. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

[00:05:01]

ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE MINUTES, ADDITIONS AND SUBTRACTIONS? OK. SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MINUTES, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED.

AND THE MINUTES PASS.

OK, SO NEXT UP ON OUR AGENDA IS COMMUNICATIONS.

WE HAVE NONE.

[7. PUBLIC HEARINGS]

WE WILL OPEN BOTH PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 7:05 P.M..

JUST A REMINDER TO OUR PUBLIC AT HOME OF THE FORMAT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET A BRIEF STAFF REPORT FROM DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

AND THEN WE'LL GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE A PRESENTATION ON THIS.

THEN THERE'LL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN, WITH PUBLIC REMARKS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES EACH.

AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL DISCUSS THIS TOPIC.

NO VOTE WILL BE TAKEN TONIGHT.

AT LEAST THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT AT THIS TIME.

WE MAY DO A STRAW POLL AT THE END SO THAT WE CAN GIVE GUIDANCE TO STAFF AS TO HOW TO CRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR US, FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.

WITH THAT SAID, WE WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWENTY ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THREE SQUARE FOOT CREDIT UNION BRANCH ON AN EXISTING LOT AT THE SOUTHWEST-ISH SINCE IT'S NOT TRUE CARDINAL ORDINAL DIRECTION THERE CORNER OF GRAND RIVER AND NORTHWIND.

THIS IS A PART OF THE HOBBY LOBBY PARKING LOT, BUT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SEPARATE PARCEL.

THERE IS NO RECORD OF IT EVER HAVING BEEN COMBINED OR SPLIT OFF FROM HOBBY LOBBY.

MY UNDERSTANDING IN TALKING TO PEOPLE THAT IT USED TO BE PART OF SUNDANCE CHEVROLET BACK IN THE DAY AND THE PARCEL WAS SIMPLY NEVER COMBINED UP WITH THE REMAINING PARCEL.

AND SO THE HOBBY LOBBY PARKING LOT WAS BUILT.

IT WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED AS PART OF A GROCERY STORE.

I BELIEVE IT WAS A GIANT EAGLE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, AND THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2001 IN 2000 IT WAS BUILT IN 2001.

THAT STRUCTURE WAS BUILT ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN THE NUMBERS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND OUTLINE WHAT IS ACTUALLY THERE, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

THE BANK WILL BE ENTIRELY THE CREDIT UNION APOLOGIES WILL BE ENTIRELY ON THE SORT OF OUT LOT PARCEL AS ESSENTIALLY A STANDALONE PARCEL.

THE DRIVE THRU LANES WILL BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WITH THE BANK ORIENTED TOWARDS GRAND RIVER TOWARDS THE CORNER REALLY OF GRAND RIVER AND NORTHWIND IT WILL HAVE ITS OWN PARKING. IT WILL SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE THE LANDSCAPING ON THE SITE AND PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING. NO NEW CURB CUT IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME.

GIVEN HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE NORTHWIND'S INTERSECTION WITH GRAND RIVER, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFICULT ASK OF EITHER GRAND RIVER OR THE ROAD COMMISSION.

SO THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU IS A PAIR OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS.

THE FIRST BEING FOR THE TWO DRIVE THRU LANES AS A CREDIT UNION WOULD NORMALLY BE A PERMITTED USE. THE DRIVE THRU LANES DO REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

THE SECOND IS BECAUSE THE OVERALL BECAUSE THE PARCEL WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL FOR THE OVERALL BUILDING, IT IS CONSIDERED PART OF A GROUP OF BUILDINGS GREATER THAN TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AND THEREFORE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED.

AND SO THOSE ARE THE TWO REQUESTS IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING.

STAFF HAS DONE AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE MAIN REQUEST AND AT THIS POINT HAVE IDENTIFIED NO MAJOR CONCERNS.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER.

I KNOW THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT IS HERE THIS EVENING AND WE CAN PROMOTE HIM TO SPEAK AT THIS POINT, SO I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE COMMISSION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DOES A MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT'S TEAM WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME.

IF YOU DO, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND RAISE YOUR HAND AND OUR STAFF WILL PROMOTE YOU SO YOU CAN SPEAK IN FRONT OF US THIS EVENING.

LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE STEVE BOSCH RAISING HIS HAND THERE.

I'M SURE YOU'LL BE JOINING US SHORTLY.

MAKE SURE YOU GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE AND THEN GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS STEVE BOSCH.

I'M PRESIDENT OF BOSCH ARCHITECTURE AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT CONSUMERS CREDIT UNION FOR THEIR TWENTY ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SQUARE FOOT BRANCH IN FRONT OF THE HOBBY LOBBY.

[00:10:05]

WE'RE TRYING TO BE REALLY SENSITIVE WITH NOT ONLY THE CURRENT LOT, BUT WITH THE PLANTINGS AND THE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS ON THE CORNER.

WE'RE TRYING TO LEAVE AS MUCH AS WE CAN AND STILL MAKE TRAFFIC FLOW REALLY GOOD.

WE ALSO HAVE HAD QUITE A LARGE HILL TO CLIMB WITH HOBBY LOBBY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF CORPORATE ASPECTS THAT THEY WANT TO SEE, WHICH IS VISIBILITY.

WE HAD TO TURN THE BUILDING SO THAT IT WAS THE LEAST OBSTRUCTIVE FOR HOBBY LOBBY AND THE VISIBILITY FOR THEIR WHOLE CORPORATE IMAGE.

WE ALSO ARE UNDER A LITTLE BIT OF A TIMELINE IN THE SENSE OF WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE BRANCH STARTED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, WEATHER PERMITTING.

BUT EVEN THEN WE CAN STILL BLANKET AND DO.

WEATHER IS NOT HELPING OUT, BUT WE CAN STILL MAINTAIN IT.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO TO PRESS AHEAD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US AND HOPEFULLY GET THIS BRANCH UP AND GOING AND IMPROVE THAT WHOLE CORNER. OK, THANK YOU.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND LEAVE YOU IN THE PANELIST AREA AS WE MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU IF YOU DON'T MIND MUTING UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT, I'D VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT.

OK, SO NOW WE'VE ENTERED OUR PUBLIC COMMENT, PUBLIC REMARKS SECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO OFFER PUBLIC REMARKS TO PLANNING PERMISSION CAN GO AHEAD AND RAISE THEIR HAND IF THEY'RE IN THE ATTENDEES AREA.

OTHERWISE, THEY CAN GIVE US A PHONE CALL AND OUR PHONE NUMBER ONCE AGAIN IS 517-349-1232.

WE'LL GIVE EVERYONE A MOMENT TO RAISE THEIR HAND OR GIVE US A CALL.

ANYONE ON THE PHONES? WE HAVE NO TELEPHONE CALLS, SIR.

OK. WELL, GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC REMARKS THEN AND MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION. ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER. THEN COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

ON TWO THINGS, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE GUEST, AND THAT IS, HAS YOUR CLIENT ALREADY PURCHASED THAT PARCEL OR IS THAT CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION? , STEVE, YOU'RE MUTED AGAIN.

YEP, THERE YOU GO. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

IT IS CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL SO THAT WE'RE IN OUR DUE DILIGENCE PHASE WITH THIS.

THE OTHER THING IS, I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION.

I'VE THOUGHT FOR YEARS THAT THAT PARKING LOT WAS SADLY UNDERUSED AND ACTUALLY WAS A DOWN DRAIN ON THE APPEARANCE OF THAT CORRIDOR.

AND I THINK A BANK IN THAT OR A NICELY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING IN THAT LOCATION WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. I AGREE.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE. THE ONLY ISSUE I WOULD RAISE IS IN TERMS OF IF WE DECIDE TO GO TO AND I'VE LOST THE TERM FOR THE GRAND RIVER CORRIDOR OR THE BUILDING IS SET BACK FURTHER THAN WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS.

YEAH, I HAVE A SIMILAR CONCERN TO THAT THE APPLICANT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AWARE THAT WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF VERY SLOWLY MOVING AN INITIATIVE FORWARD IN THIS AREA FOR FORM BASED CODE, AND THE SETBACKS CERTAINLY ARE NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUT OF THAT.

NOW, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD LEVEL TO MY UNDERSTANDING WHERE THEY ARE HOPING TO SEE A SERVICE DRIVE INCLUDED IN THE FRONT OF THOSE BUILDINGS BETWEEN THE GREEN SPACE AND GRAND RIVER.

AND SO I THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE WHERE THIS PROJECT COULD VERY EASILY MEET THE GOALS OF FORM BASED CODE, WHICH PUT THE BUILDING CLOSER TO THE ROAD AND THE PARKING BEHIND. SO WE'RE NOT STARING AT PARKING LOT AND ALSO THE SERVICE DRIVE CAPABILITY.

IF THE BUILDING IF BASICALLY THE WHOLE BUILDING AND DRIVE THRU WERE TO ROTATE ABOUT 90 DEGREES SO THAT THE DRIVE THRU AREA WOULD BE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND IT WOULD PUT OUT ONTO WHAT WOULD BE THE BEGINNING OF A SERVICE DRIVE.

AND SO YOU'D BASICALLY IF YOU ROTATE THE WHOLE STRUCTURE THERE, 90 DEGREES, ALONG WITH THE PARKING AND THE ISLANDS THERE, YOUR PARKING LOTS CLOSE TO THE BUILDING WOULD BE ON THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDE INSTEAD OF THE WEST AND NORTH SIDE.

AND THE DRIVE THRU WOULD ENTER FROM THE SOUTH AND PUT YOU OUT INTO THE NORTH INTO WHERE THE SERVICE DRIVE IS.

AND I THINK THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A SERVICE DRIVE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING WHERE YOUR YOUR

[00:15:06]

AND I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE PROJECT ITSELF.

I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT.

THAT'S WHAT THEY HIRE STEVE FOR HERE, AND I'M SURE THAT HE CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT. BUT CONSIDERING WHERE I HAVE HEARD IN WHAT LIMITED DISCUSSIONS I'VE HAD WITH THE BOARD, THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO INCLUDE A SERVICE DRIVE IN OUR PLAN FOR FORM BASE CODE, I THINK THIS WOULD BE WHILE, THAT'S NOT THE RULES OF THE ROAD RIGHT NOW.

WE WOULD BE FOOLISH IF WE DIDN'T CONSIDER WHERE WE HOPE TO BE WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS PROJECT BECAUSE WE HOPE FOR LONG TERM SUCCESS OUT OF A PROJECT BEING BUILT OUT OF THIS ON THIS PARCEL. AND IF WE MISS AN OPPORTUNITY NOW, IT'S GOING TO BE MAYBE DECADES BEFORE WE HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE TO TAKE A BITE OF THIS APPLE.

SO I GUESS LET ME ASK STEVE, THE FOLLOWING QUESTION, WHICH IS I KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT HERE IF YOU WERE ASKED TO ROTATE THAT BUILDING IN THE WAY THAT I DESCRIBED. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE FEASIBLE? TWO POINTS, NOT REALLY FOR ONE REASON, IS BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY HAD IT THAT WAY.

AND ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THIS PARCEL IS IT'S KIND OF TIGHT.

SO BY MAKING IT IN THAT DIRECTION, WE'RE ACTUALLY SCREENING HOBBY LOBBY MORE THAN WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY SHOWN US.

AND I TELL YOU IT WAS IT WAS PULLING TEETH TO GET THROUGH HOBBY LOBBY'S DESIGN REVIEW AND EVERYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH IT TO GET THIS EVEN ACCEPTABLE TO THEM.

SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET MAJOR PUSHBACK FROM HOBBY LOBBY IF WE ROTATE AND SCREEN IT MORE. THE OTHER ASPECT OF THE SERVICE ROAD AND WE'VE DEALT WITH A LOT OF SERVICE ROADS IN THE PAST. THE PROBLEM IS IS THAT THEY ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE MAIN ENTRY.

SO IF THE SERVICE ROAD IS ON THE GRAND RIVER SIDE, WHICH IS BASICALLY PARALLELING GRAND RIVER, WHERE YOU'RE EXITING OUT ONTO NORTHWIND, IF IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MAJOR TRAFFIC BACKUP OR TIE UP.

WE'VE GOT A HANDFUL OF THEM AROUND IN GRAND RAPIDS AND KALAMAZOO THAT WE DEAL WITH, AND IT'S A TRAFFIC NIGHTMARE.

SO WHERE THE CURB CUT IS CURRENTLY AT IS ACTUALLY GOOD BECAUSE IT'S WAY BACK FROM THE INTERSECTION SO. AND YOU'LL EXCUSE ME, I SAID SERVICE ROAD, REALLY, WHAT IT IS IS A SERVICE DRIVEWAY.

IT'S A THOROUGHFARE IN THE PARKING LOT.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE ADD A CURB CUT IT AT THE OUTLET THERE AT NORTHWIND.

BUT I THINK YOU COULD ACHIEVE SOMETHING SIMILAR BY HAVING SORT OF A RING AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE PARKING LOT AND HAVING THAT NORTH, HAVING THAT MOVING THOSE PARKING SPACES A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE SOUTH AND THE BUILDING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE NORTH.

AND I THINK THAT SOME TWEAKING OF THAT IS VERY DOABLE, BUT I THINK IF YOU START ROTATING THE BUILDING TOO MUCH, I THINK HOBBY LOBBY IS GOING TO BASICALLY SAY NO.

AND THEN THAT'S THAT'LL BE A DEAL KILLER FOR OUR CLIENT AND FOR HOBBY LOBBY.

I THINK PERCEPTION AND VIEW, WE HAD TO ACTUALLY SHOW THEM MANY, MANY, MANY THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIEWS FROM EVERY CORNER AND EVERY ASPECT AND SAYING, HOW WOULD THEY SEE THE BUILDING IN 3-D AS REPRESENTATION? AND THEY FINALLY AGREED UPON THIS ONE.

SO SCOTT, I DO AGREE WITH YOUR ASPECT OF CREATING THE FUTURE CODE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO WORK UNDER THE CURRENT CODE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, SO IT'S HARD TO DO BOTH.

[LAUGHTER] I THINK I SAW COMMISSIONER SNYDER'S HAND UP.

NO, MAYBE I JUST.

OH IT WAS COMMISSIONER CORDILL THANK YOU.

OH YOU'RE MUTED.

UNMUTE THANK YOU. THE FRONT ELEVATION WHERE IS IT FRONTING? I THOUGHT IT WAS A NICELY DESIGNED BUILDING, BY THE WAY.

I THINK IT'LL BE A GREAT ASSET IN THE AREA.

YOU'RE DEALING WITH A VERY INTERESTING LANDLORD, THOUGH, BECAUSE IT IS, I MEAN, KIND OF A LOWER PROFILE.

I MEAN, IT'S ONLY A LITTLE OVER TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, BUT I SAW THE ELEVATIONS.

CAN YOU JUST DIRECT ME OF WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM GRAND RIVER AND WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM THE SIDE STREET.

FROM GRAND RIVER, YOU WOULD SEE THE ACTUAL FRONT DOOR.

IT'S SLIGHTLY COCKED AT A VERY I THINK IT'S ABOUT A 10 PERCENT ANGLE OFF OF THE ACTUAL

[00:20:04]

THAT'S WHERE THEIR OFFICES ARE.

SO THAT'S THE OFFICE AND THE OTHER PART.

THE PART THAT'S PUSHING TOWARD HOBBY LOBBY IS ACTUALLY THE DRIVE THRU, WHICH IN MOST CASES IS THE LEAST APPEALING PART OF THE BUILDING.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO PUSH IT BACK AWAY FROM THE VIEWS FROM THE ROAD.

ALSO, THE LANDSCAPING ALONG GRAND RIVER AND NORTHWIND IS QUITE EXTENSIVE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF VERY MATURE PINE TREES AND TREES ALONG THERE, AND IT'S QUITE A WIDE GREEN STRIP. WE ARE NOT TOUCHING THAT.

WE'RE LEAVING THE EXISTING CURB, WE'RE LEAVING ALL THE LANDSCAPING, WE'RE LEAVING EVERYTHING THAT'S THERE TO HELP SOFTEN IT FROM THE ROAD.

OK, THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER PREMOE? IS THERE? EXCUSE ME, IS THERE A PARTICULAR OTHER? A REASON THAT IT'S NOT MORE SQUARE TO GRAND RIVER AND I MEAN, IT SEEMS COCKEYED, AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S BACK TO THE REQUIREMENTS FROM HOBBY LOBBY OR I DON'T SEE THAT AS AN ACCESS ADVANTAGE NECESSARILY TO YOUR DRIVE THRU, SO I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY IT'S NOT SQUARE.

YOU SEE WHAT I'M ASKING? THERE'S A COUPLE OF REASONS.

ONE IS THE ASPECT OF THE BUILDING AND THE VIEWING OF A BUILDING.

ANY BUILDING THAT YOU LOOK AT IN A STRAIGHT ON FASHION IS NOT AS APPEALING AS COMING AT IT ON AN AXIS.

SO THAT'S ONE ELEMENT.

WHENEVER WE'RE ON A CORNER IN WHICH MOST, MOST OF THE SITES THAT WE DO ARE ON CORNERS, WE TRY TO TURN IT 45 DEGREES OR 30 DEGREES OR 20 DEGREES SO THAT FROM THE CORNER, FROM THE ROAD, YOU'RE SEEING THE BUILDING AND THE SIGNAGE AND EVERYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

THE OTHER PART ON THIS SITE, WE HAVE THERE'S A SMALL ACCESS DRIVE RIGHT ALONG NORTHWIND, WHICH IS CURRENTLY THERE.

AND THAT ACTUALLY DUMPS INTO THE TAIL END OF THE DRIVE THRU THE EXITING PORTION OF IT.

SO BY DOING THAT, WE'RE ACTUALLY SOFTENING THAT TRANSITION INTO IT, WHICH WOULD THEN PUSH THE PEOPLE UP TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING REALLY EASILY.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO HEAR A FEW MORE WORDS ON THAT LAST POINT AND MAYBE PICK UP ON CHAIR HENDRICKSON'S QUESTION ABOUT THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING.

I FEEL LIKE MY MAIN CONCERN AT THIS POINT IS SORT OF EGRESS.

THE WAY THE DESIGN LOOKS TO ME, THE NATURAL EGRESS WILL BE THROUGH THAT CURB CUT THAT SORT OF SERVES HOBBY LOBBY ON THE GRAND RIVER, AND IT IS PRETTY FAR BACK FROM THE INTERSECTION BUT STILL LEFT OUT WESTBOUND TRAFFIC TURNING LEFT OUT OF THERE CAN BE QUITE CHALLENGING, AND I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO SEE A CREATIVE DESIGN THAT REALLY ENCOURAGED ALL THE DRIVERS TO COME OUT ON NORTHWIND AND USE THAT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION BECAUSE RIGHT OR LEFT, THAT'S THE SAFE WAY TO DO IT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE OF SERVICE DRIVES, BUT WHEN THE SERVICE DRIVE BASICALLY LEADS YOU TO A CURB CUT IN BETWEEN TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED. SO IF THERE'S AND I UNDERSTAND THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING AND THE THINGS, BUT IF THERE WAS A WAY THAT THE CUSTOMERS COULD BE ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE THROUGH THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION, THAT WOULD BE SO MUCH MORE PREFERABLE TO ME.

CHAIR HENDRICKSON ALSO BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF WHAT WE'RE STRIVING FOR IN OUR FORM BASE CODE.

WE DON'T YES, THE ZONING WE HAVE IS THE ZONING WE HAVE, WE DO HAVE ASPIRATIONS TOWARDS A WALKABLE, BIKE-ABLE, TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT SO THAT AT THE MOMENT THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IS A FAIRLY SMALL PATH.

IF IT GOES BETWEEN THE BERM THAT COULD BE REALLY NICE.

IT COULD BE GREAT.

THERE IS A CATA STOP THERE.

THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE LIQUOR STORE HAS A SHELTER.

THIS ONE DOESN'T. SO THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ARE ASPIRATIONAL AND THEY CAN'T BE REQUIRED, BUT THEY SURE MAKE A PROJECT LOOK MORE ATTRACTIVE.

THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

[00:25:02]

I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A MINIMAL CHANGE THAT WOULDN'T TERRIBLY AFFECT THE VISIBILITY OF THE BUILDINGS BEHIND IT.

AND IT WOULD AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD.

FIRST OF ALL, IT WOULD GET YOUR CREDIT UNION CLOSER TO THE ROAD, WHICH PROBABLY WOULD BE BETTER FOR YOUR VISIBILITY.

BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, IT MEETS MUCH CLOSER WITH OUR HOPES AND DREAMS FOR WHERE WE'D LIKE TO BE IN THIS AREA AS WELL.

SO PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST HAVE THAT CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT HERE AND UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE BOARD.

THE TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT AMENDMENT IS GOING TO FORCE THAT, AND I EXPECT YOU'LL LIKELY BE HEARING SOME OF THE SAME COMMENTS WHEN YOU GET THERE AS WELL.

YEAH, GO AHEAD. I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCEPT, AND I'M WELL VERSED IN FORM BASED CODE.

I THINK THE ASPECT OF PUSHING OR A BUILD TO LINE ON GRAND RIVER IN THE LONG RUN, I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING. THE OTHER PART OF THIS WHOLE SCENARIO IS JUST TRYING TO ALSO GET PATRONS AND MEMBERS AS CLOSE TO THE FRONT DOOR AS POSSIBLE, AND THAT'S WHY WE ONLY DID SINGLE LOADED PARKING ON THE FRONT JUST TO SOFTEN THAT THE ELEMENT OF THE KIND OF THE PSEUDO SERVICE DRIVE, IF YOU LOOK TO THE LEFT ON THAT TOWARD UP GRAND RIVER, WE'VE TIED INTO THAT EXISTING TWO WAY TRAFFIC AND BROUGHT THEM INTO THE SITE SO YOU CAN EITHER COME INTO IT AND PARK RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING OR YOU CAN ACTUALLY TURN RIGHT, VERY QUICKLY THERE AND GO THROUGH THE PARKING LOT AND COME OUT AND THEN HIT OVER TO NORTHWIND, WHICH THEN TAKES YOU OUT TO THE LIGHT.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO ALSO PARALLEL THE EXISTING PARKING THAT WE HAVE THERE TOO, BECAUSE IT'S ALL ON A KIND OF A WONKY ANGLE.

IF YOU LOOK TO THE LEFT WHERE WE'RE NOT TOUCHING, WE'RE BUTTING UP AGAINST IT.

BUT IT'S ALL KIND OF MATCHED GRADE TO GRAND RIVER, THE EXISTING HOBBY LOBBY PARKING, SO IT'S KIND OF A MELD IN, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT WORK LOGISTICALLY.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU SIMPLY ELIMINATED THE PARKING IN FRONT OF THE FRONT AND PUT A WALKWAY THERE? I THINK THAT WAS MORE OR LESS WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING, EXCEPT IT MIGHT INVOLVE MOVING THE BUILDING A LITTLE BIT CLOSER AS WELL.

I'M TRYING TO DO A QUICK CALCULATION OF PARKING REQUIRED PARKING, SO THERE'S PLENTY OF REQUIRED PARKING.

YEAH, BUT REMEMBER THAT'S HOBBY LOBBY PARKING.

I MEAN, WE HAVE TO STAY WITHIN OUR PARCEL, SO.

THAT'S FAIR.

REQUIRED PARKING IS.

TIM DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT, YEAH, IT'S [INAUDIBLE] 12.

YEAH, IT'S 12 THAT THEY WOULD.

THE BANK WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE 12.

YEAH, WELL, WE'RE STILL GOING THROUGH AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN HOW THE ORIGINAL PARKING WAS APPROVED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH ANY OF OUR CURRENT STANDARDS, BUT I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS 12 THAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.

AND SINCE THE PARCEL IS SORT OF AT AN ANGLE, I'M LOOKING AT PAGE 24 OF THE PACKET AND SINCE THE PARCEL IS AT AN ANGLE, DO YOU COUNT THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PARTIALLY ON ONE SIDE OF THE LINE AND PARTIALLY ON THE OTHER? OK. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS TO TAKE AWAY THE ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN ON THE NORTH SIDE, PARALLELING GRAND RIVER AND JUST MAKING THAT SOFTER ELEMENT AND THEN HAVING THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBER PARKING ON THE.

WEST SIDE. THE WEST SIDE.

YEAH, YEAH. AND STILL MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

[00:30:02]

WE DON'T REALLY YOU HAVE A WALK TO THE FRONT DOOR THAT'S RELATIVELY EASY.

THE BENEFIT TO BOTH SIDES, NUMBER ONE, YOU'RE NOT REALLY LOSING CRITICAL PARKING, YOU'RE JUST LOSING EXTRA PARKING.

NUMBER TWO, YOU'VE INCREASED THE ZONE OF FLEXIBILITY SO THAT YOU COULD BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH FUTURE CODE CHANGES IF IT'S SIMPLY A GREEN SPACE WITH A WALKWAY.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

YEAH, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE THE BUILDING.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD THE BUILDING NOW.

IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THEM MOVE IT CLOSER SO THAT IT MEETS WHATEVER WE'RE HOPING TO DO IN THE FUTURE. I'D RATHER NOT I MEAN, UNLESS THEY ADD TO THE BUILDING, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE HOPE FOR THEIR SUCCESS AND THAT MAYBE THEY WANT TO DO THAT ONE DAY.

THIS IS THE MOMENT TO GET THE BUILDING PLACEMENT CORRECT, IN MY OPINION.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. THAT BRINGS UP A QUESTION I HAD FOR STAFF EARLIER ON PAGE 20 OF THE PACKET. THERE'S A LETTER FROM BOSCH ARCHITECTURAL THAT STATES, IT IS OUR OPINION, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS EXCESSIVE AND UNDERUTILIZED.

AND I THOUGHT I READ ELSEWHERE THAT THERE WAS FEWER PARKING SPACES BUILT THAN WERE ORIGINALLY REQUIRED.

AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, HAVE WE BEEN OVER REQUIRING PARKING? AND IS THIS SORT OF A MOMENT WHERE WE CAN LEARN A LESSON ABOUT RELAXING OR RETHINKING SOME OF THOSE STANDARDS? THE ANSWER IS YES.

EVERYONE HAS BEEN OVER REQUIRING PARKING FOR DECADES.

PARKING WAS BASED OFF THE OLD TWENTY FIVE HOUR STANDARD THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE SEVENTIES WHEN MALLS WERE BEING BUILT.

AND IT DOESN'T.

YOU NEVER SEE THAT ANYMORE.

YOU WE'RE BEING BUILT FOR THE TWENTY FIVE BUSIEST HOURS OF THE YEAR.

HOBBY LOBBY IS FRANKLY A GREAT EXAMPLE OF BEING OVERPARKED.

AND FRANKLY, THE SITE IS UNDERPARKED FROM OUR ORDINANCE PERSPECTIVE.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS ALREADY WITH A COUPLE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, AND I EXPECT YOU'LL BE SEEING AT LEAST AN INITIAL CRACK AT PARKING CHANGES SOON.

THANK YOU.

IT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT 2022 GOAL.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT IT'LL GET THERE.

[LAUGHTER].

YES, YOU [INAUDIBLE] COMMENT, MR. BOSCH. AND I'M JUST KIND OF THINKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN MY HEAD AND IN ELIMINATING THE PARKING STALLS ALONG GRAND RIVER AND THEN POTENTIALLY PUSHING THE BUILDING CLOSER TO GRAND RIVER, KIND OF ON THAT SAME AXIS.

I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE KIND OF WANTING TO HAVE HAPPEN THAT ACTUALLY COULD WORK WELL AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE TO TURN THE BUILDING TOO CRAZY.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT A TRAPEZOID THERE, RIGHT? THE TRAPEZOID OF THE SIDEWALK AND THE TRAPEZOID OF THE PARKING, IF YOU JUST PUSH BOTH OF THOSE, PUSH THEM NORTHWARD.

I FEEL LIKE YOU COULD DO THAT WITH RELATIVELY MINIMAL IMPACT.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE VISIBILITY, RIGHT? CERTAINLY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK TO HOBBY LOBBY ABOUT THAT.

BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S AT THE END OF THE DAY.

IT'S ONE CAR LENGTH DIFFERENCE, AND I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THAT WOULD THROW THAT OFF ALL THAT MUCH. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD, EITHER.

IT'S JUST THAT THEY'RE CHALLENGING IN A SENSE OF THAT, THERE'S A LOT OF HOOPS TO JUMP THROUGH, BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS A GOOD COMPROMISE BETWEEN MOVING FORWARD WITH YOUR FORM BASED AND WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW.

OK. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS? MR. CHAIR, JUST TO CONFIRM YOU DID CLOSE BOTH OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR BOTH OF THE ITEMS, CORRECT? WE HAVEN'T CLOSED ANYTHING YET.

WE'RE STILL TALKING. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CLOSE BOTH OF THEM.

NO WE ARE OPEN FOR BOTH.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

WHAT THE APPLICANT, THE ARCHITECT SAID ABOUT MOVING THE BUILDING UP PRETTY MUCH THE SAME ANGLE. I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL IMPROVEMENT TO A GOOD PROJECT.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS OR QUESTIONS? SO, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION THEN IS HOW DO WE PROCEED, RIGHT, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF IS TWO WEEKS A QUICK ENOUGH TURNAROUND FOR YOU AS THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK TO AND HUDDLE

[00:35:02]

OK. THEN IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTARY.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS. YOU KNOW, JUST TO CLARIFY, ARE WE TELLING THE APPLICANT THAT HE DOESN'T NEED 12 PARKING SPOTS? IS THAT? YES, I DON'T WANT TO.

SO IF THEY ELIMINATE THE PARKING SPOTS ALONG GRAND RIVER, DO THEY STILL HAVE 12 PARKING SPOTS? THEY HAVE 20.

OK, ONE OF THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS IS THAT I CAN SEE IS THAT THE HOBBY LOBBY MAY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS, SO I GUESS FROM MY VANTAGE POINT, YOU KNOW, IF THIS CAN HAPPEN, I MEAN IN TERMS OF MOVING IT NORTH AND AND STILL HAVING A PROJECT, THAT'S I CERTAINLY WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

BUT I ALSO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT IF FOR SOME REASON IT CAN'T BE MOVED.

YEAH, WELL, AND FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, I'LL LEAVE THIS TO THE ARCHITECT TO LOOK AT.

YOU MAY GAIN SOME AREA FOR PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING IF YOU DO PUSH IT UP LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

I SEE. I'M NOT ACTUALLY ENTIRELY CERTAIN WHAT THE LITTLE SEVEN, THE STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE A SEVEN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT JUST BE A BERM OF SOME KIND OR SOME LANDSCAPING, BUT YOU MIGHT GAIN PARKING DOWN THERE FOR ALL I KNOW IF YOU MAKE THE CHANGE. BUT I LEAVE THAT TO THE MORE CREATIVE AND ARTISTIC AMONG US TO PUZZLE OUT, IF INDEED, HOBBY LOBBY HAS THAT CONCERN.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO I THINK AT THIS TIME, IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO GIVE A STRAW POLL FOR HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

WE'LL DO IT AS YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT AS AMENDED.

I GUESS IF THEY ARE WILLING TO DO THAT, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE.

AND JUST A REMINDER TO THE FOLKS AT HOME, THE STRAW POLLS ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WILL COME AT OUR NEXT MEETING.

THIS IS TO GAIN A SENSE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S THINKING ON THIS PROJECT AND GIVE THE STAFF DIRECTION AS TO WHERE WE HOPE TO GO WITH THE RESOLUTION FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.

AND WE'LL DO THIS CONCURRENTLY AGAIN FOR BOTH BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO SEPARATE THEM SEPARATE TO SPECIAL USE PERMITS AT THIS TIME.

SO THAT SAID, WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT COMES OF IT. OK.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE. I WOULD ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER RICHARDS SAID.

I WOULD APPRECIATE THE BUILDING BEING MOVED, BUT IF FOR SOME REASON CANNOT BE, I WOULD APPROVE IT EITHER WAY.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT, I APPRECIATE THE ARCHITECT'S WILLINGNESS TO ELIMINATE THAT FRONT HERE, THAT NORTHERN PARKING AREA AND ALLOWING FOR THE BUILDING TO BE FURTHER MOVED NORTH, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT ASSET FOR THE AREA.

OK. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER RICHARDS AND COMMISSIONER PREMOE, I THINK IT WOULD BE IDEAL IF WE CAN GET IT MOVED A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FORWARD TO ALIGN WITH THE PROPOSED FORM BASE CODE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD WANT TO HOLD THEM TO THAT IF THAT'S NOT DOABLE WITHIN THE SITE AND THE STRUCTURE.

COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS, I LIKE THE PROJECT, I THINK IT'S A POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT AREA.

I WOULD LIKE IT BETTER IF THEY COULD ELIMINATE THE FRONT PARKING ROW, BUT I WILL NOT BE IN A POSITION OF KILLING THE PROJECT IF THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

I WOULD ECHO A LOT OF THE COMMENTS OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN.

THERE'S JUST SO MUCH CONCRETE IN THAT AREA, AND THIS JUST LOOKS LIKE A BEAUTIFUL ADDITION TO AN OTHERWISE, I DON'T KNOW, NOT SO AMAZING CORNER.

SO OVERALL, I'D BE IN FAVOR.

[00:40:01]

COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

I AGREE WITH ALL THE COMMENTS, I WOULD APPROVE THIS AS PROPOSED, AND I THINK THE WILLINGNESS OF THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER MOVING THE BUILDING FORWARD IS APPRECIATED, AND I THINK IT WOULD MAKE A BETTER LONG TERM PROJECT FOR THE AREA IF IT WAS ABLE TO BE MOVED UP A LITTLE BIT. YEAH, YEAH.

AND I WANT TO JUST SAY THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT FOR BEING WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, BE FLEXIBLE IN THIS REGARD.

YOU'VE GOT A GOOD PROJECT.

THIS HAS CERTAINLY BEEN AN UNDERUTILIZED PARCEL.

YOU KNOW THAT PARKING LOT SITS EMPTY ALL THE TIME AND TO BE ABLE TO MAKE PRODUCTIVE USE OF IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT.

AND PART OF THE REASON WHY WE'VE BEEN TARGETING THIS AREA AS ONE OF OUR FORM BASED CODE TEST AREAS HERE IS THAT WE THINK THAT THIS PARCEL SPECIFICALLY WITH THE WHOLE HOBBY LOBBY PARCEL AND THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET OVER IT, ACROSS THE STREET DIRECTLY AT WHOLE FOODS PRESENTS A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY, WITH A LOT OF INTERNAL PARKING INSIDE THOSE PARKING LOTS TO MAKE THE SPACE BETTER UTILIZED.

AND SO I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS BUILDING MOVED A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO ELIMINATE THAT FRONT PARKING, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED.

I THINK YOU'LL, I IMAGINE YOU'LL FIND A SIMILAR THREAD HAPPENING AT THE NEXT LEVEL ON 25,000 SUP WHEN YOU GET TO THE BOARD.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE.

I DEFINITELY DON'T THINK IT'LL BE WASTED EFFORT TO START GETTING TO THAT POINT NOW.

AND TO THE POINT THAT COMMISSIONER SNYDER MADE, I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE ALL THE GREENERY AND THE FOLIAGE THAT IS COMING IN WITH THIS PROJECT TO START TO BEAUTIFY THIS AREA.

SO THAT'S A HUGE THING THAT I SORT OF OVERLOOKED WHEN I STARTED MY COMMENTS ABOUT THIS PROJECT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS.

SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT.

I WOULD BE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE.

AND SO I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN SEE THAT IN TWO WEEKS.

SO THAT SAID, I THINK THAT GIVES SOME DIRECTION.

OH YES, MR. BOSCH. ACTUALLY, I JUST WANTED TO APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION.

THE ASPECT OF MELDING BETWEEN TWO CODES IS ALWAYS DIFFICULT, AND I THINK THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WE'RE VERY PROUD OF.

WE'RE BREAKING GROUND ON ONE OVER ON CEDAR STREET IN LANSING RIGHT NOW OR VERY SHORTLY, AND THIS IS ONE OF MANY IN THE LANSING AREA THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TACKLING.

SO I THINK CONSUMERS CREDIT UNIONS IS EXCITED TO BE IN THE LANSING AREA, AND I THINK YOU'LL BE PROUD OF THE LANDSCAPING, THE BUILDINGS, THE PROFESSIONALISM THAT CONSUMERS CREDIT UNION BRINGS TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE HELP.

SO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THINK THAT GIVES DIRECTION TO DIRECTOR SCHMITT ON WHERE WE'RE FEELING RIGHT NOW.

AND WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, PLURAL FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 21-101 AND 21-111 AT 7:42 P.M..

THAT BRINGS US TO THANK YOU, MR. BOSCH. WE APPRECIATE YOUR JOINING US THIS EVENING AND WE'LL SEE YOU IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

THAT BRINGS US TO OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS 8A UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

[8A. Special Use Permit #21-95151 – 3654 Okemos Road – modification to Special Use Permit for Cedar Classical Academy]

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER BLUMER? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. OK.

SECOND.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE VOTE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YES. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

YES. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

YES AND BEST WISHES TO THE SCHOOL AS THEY ENLARGE THEIR BUILDING AND CAPACITY.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

YES. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

YES. COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

YES. COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

YES. COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES, YES, AND I'LL ECHO COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S COMMENTS, THANK YOU

[00:45:01]

ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP ON OUR AGENDA IS THE MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

[9A. Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Ordinance Update]

WE'LL TURN THINGS OVER FOR A BRIEF INTERLUDE FROM DIRECTOR SCHMITT.

IN HONOR OF HALLOWEEN, I DECIDED TO BRING THE ZOMBIE BACK FOR YOU.

[LAUGHTER] SO FUNDAMENTALLY, I WILL POINT OUT TRYING TO BLEND THE EXISTING LANGUAGE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S THOUGHTS AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD THOUGHTS AND GET A COHERENT ORDINANCE. IT LOOKS LIKE A LOT HAS CHANGED.

NOT A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE LAST YOU SAW THIS.

A LOT OF IT IS TRYING TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE THAT WAS INCONSISTENT.

MOVE THINGS TO PLACES THEY MADE MORE SENSE.

FUNDAMENTALLY, THE BIG CHANGES WERE THE CHANGES TO THE AMENITIES.

AND AS YOU GUYS RECALL FROM THE JOINT MEETING, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH AS TO WHAT GOES WHERE.

SO WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO AND THE BOARD SEEMED OPEN TO THIS AND THEY WANTED TO CONFIRM WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS.

ESSENTIALLY THE TIER THREE AMENITIES ARE THE LARGE, EXPENSIVE GENERALLY PUBLICLY FACING THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY.

THE TIER TWO ARE STILL PRICEY, NOT AS PRICEY AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE AS PUBLIC FACING, BUT STILL CAN HAVE AN IMPACT PUBLICLY.

AND THE TIER ONES, WHICH IS A REMINDER ONLY ONE ARE PERMITTED ARE THE LOW HANGING FRUIT OF AMENITIES.

THE OTHER MAIN PIECE THAT THE BOARD WANTED TO SEE AFTER THEIR DISCUSSION.

OH, AND I WILL POINT OUT STAFF HAS ADDED IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVISION, ESSENTIALLY TO CODIFY WHATEVER MUPUD AGREEMENT OCCURS INTO A FORMAL DOCUMENT THAT IS SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES, LARGELY BECAUSE I'M TIRED OF GOING THROUGH OLD FILES AND TRYING TO FIND THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS.

SO THERE IS GOING TO BE ONE DOCUMENT GOING FORWARD THAT HANDLES ALL OF THIS.

THE OTHER CHANGE THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP AT THEIR LAST MEETING AND WHICH ULTIMATELY, I THINK PUSHED THEM TOWARDS REFERRING THIS BACK WAS THERE WAS A DESIRE TO FIND A WAY TO GET PEOPLE INTO THE TOP TIER.

SO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO ENSURE THAT WE GET SOME OF THOSE BETTER AMENITIES, AND SO THERE'S ESSENTIALLY TWO WAYS TO DO THAT.

YOU EITHER REQUIRE ONE OF THE TOP TIERS OR YOU LIMIT ONE OF THE SECOND OR YOU LIMIT THE SECOND TIER. THE LANGUAGE THAT STAFF HAS PUT FORWARD WOULD REQUIRE A TOP TIER NO MATTER WHAT. WE COULD CERTAINLY FLIP IT TO LIMITING THE TIER 2'S TO TWO AMENITIES, A MAXIMUM OF TWO. THAT IS THE MAIN QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING THAT WE WOULD LIKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON BACK TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD AND HOPEFULLY AND I EXPECT THAT THEY WILL ADOPT US IN THE NEXT MONTH.

OK, THANK YOU. ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? COMMISSIONER PREMOE. I THINK IT LOOKS GREAT.

I WOULD LEAVE IT ALONE, I LIKE THE WAY THEY'VE SET IT UP.

I LIKE REQUIRING A LEVEL THREE AMENITY AND I THINK THAT THAT SPEAKS TO A LOT OF THE ISSUES WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST.

SO I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING TO OBJECT TO, AND I HOPE WE CAN JUST MOVE IT FORWARD TO THE BOARD AND THEY CAN GET IT OFF THE TABLE.

OK. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? COMMISSIONER RICHARDS. YEAH.

I APPRECIATE THE DIRECTOR TALKED SOME ABOUT THE CHANGE IN THE DEFINITION OF AMENITY, I GUESS WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? WAS THAT A STAFF RECOMMENDATION? BECAUSE IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHT, YOU'VE CHANGED WHAT THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED, BE THE DEFINITION OF AN AMENITY.

AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMEWHAT PROBLEMATIC WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT IMPACTING BOTH THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE RESIDENTS.

SO I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHERE THE CHANGE TO THE DEFINITION.

BECAUSE BASICALLY, IF I READ IT RIGHT AND I'M TRYING TO PULL IT UP HERE WHERE I HAVE WHAT WAS CHANGED WHEN IT WAS BASICALLY REWRITTEN.

THE AMENITY DEFINITION HAS NOT CHANGED FROM THE DRAFT THAT I INHERITED.

SO I GUESS WHAT I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THEN IS THE.

YOU HAVE LIKE A DRAFT AS OF 10-21.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE I GUESS THE ONE THAT'S ALL MARKED UP IS THAT EVERY CHANGE TO WHAT

[00:50:02]

YES, THAT IS A FULL RED LINE COPY OF EVERY CHANGE IN THE NEW ORDINANCE.

EVERY CHANGE RIGHT. BUT IT DOESN'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN AND I KNOW IT'S KIND OF A CHALLENGE TO PUT THAT TOGETHER.

BUT IF I UNDERSTAND IT RIGHT, THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WELL, FIRST THE COMMITTEE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE STAFF AND THE BOARD.

SO WE HAVE AT LEAST I MEAN, IF WE COUNT THE PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION ONE, WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT SETS OF KIND OF EYES LOOKING AT IT AND RECOMMENDATIONS BEING MADE.

AND I KNOW IF I HEARD WHAT WAS SAID, THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO SORT OF BLEND IT ALL TOGETHER. IT'S AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE DEFINITION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD FOR AMENITY HAS NOT CHANGED. CORRECT.

OK, WELL, AND I THINK IF I MAY, DIRECTOR SCHMITT, IF I UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY, YOU WERE SAYING THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO BLEND AFTER THE VERSION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PASSED. THEN THERE WAS A MEETING WITH THE JOINT MEETING AND THEN THERE WAS THE TOWNSHIP BOARDS MET ON IT SEVERAL TIMES.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT PERIOD OF TIME WAS DIFFICULT TO BLEND TOGETHER.

CORRECT. AND WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF AMENITY.

WHAT WE DID WAS MOVED SOME OF THEM AROUND BASED ON THE DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED.

I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PREMOE'S ASSESSMENT THAT I AM VERY PLEASED WITH WHERE THIS ENDED UP. THE ONLY THING I HATE TO FLYSPECK IT HERE A LITTLE BIT WAS IN THE AMENITIES SECTION. ONE THING THAT CAUGHT MY EYE WAS THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEM.

THIS IS [INAUDIBLE] AMENITIES E 4 6 IT'S PAGE SEVENTY TWO OF THE PACKET. DO WE NEED TO CLARIFY AT THE TIME OF PEAK OCCUPANCY OR IS 50 PERCENT OF WHATEVER ENERGY GENERATED GOOD ENOUGH.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO ULTIMATELY AND I'M FINDING THIS OUT, WORKING ON THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS, THERE'S YOU KNOW, THEY ESSENTIALLY PLAN FOR A MAX ONE POINT SEVEN MEGAWATTS OR WHATEVER.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE BASED OFF OF THAT ORIGINAL PLAN.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW US THEIR COUNTS THAT THEY'RE PROVIDING FOR 50 PERCENT OF THE PROJECT NEEDS.

THEN I AM GOOD WITH IT.

AND I LIKE THAT. I LIKE THE REQUIRING A TIER THREE.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA VERSUS THE OTHER OPTION.

ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER BLUMER. I JUST LIKE TO COMMENT THAT THIS REPRESENTS ONE HECK OF A LOT OF WORK FROM BOTH THE STAFF AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE, AND I'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE EVERYBODY INVOLVED. IT REALLY IS A REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENT.

YEAH, WE SET SOME VERY AMBITIOUS GOALS FOR OUR STAFF THIS YEAR, THAT'S FOR SURE, AS WE DO ALL THE TIME. AND TO WE HAD SORT OF PETER AND MARK'S TACIT APPROVAL AS WE WERE APPROVING THOSE BACK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

AND DIRECTOR SCHMITT REALLY DIDN'T HAVE MUCH SAY IN THE MATTER WHEN HE CAME AND JOINED AND DISCOVERED THAT WE WERE OVERHAULING THREE TO FOUR MAJOR ORDINANCES OR THAT WAS OUR GOAL. SO CERTAINLY APPRECIATE HIS HARD WORK AND I'M SURE THE REST OF THE STAFF AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YEAH, I LIKE ALL THE STUFF THAT'S ON THE LIST, AND I LIKE THE IDEA OF PUSHING TOWARDS TIER ONE AND ALL THAT, IT CONTINUES TO STRIKE ME THAT THIS IS A REALLY SLIPPERY FISH BECAUSE OF TECHNOLOGY IS DEVELOPING AS THESE INCENTIVES ARE THERE AND THE MARKET RESPONDS. SO IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A TRICK TO KEEP UP WITH WHAT COUNTS AS OVER THE TOP AND WHAT COUNTS AS JUST BOG STANDARD, BUT.

AND IT'D BE GREAT IF IF IN A REGULATORY SENSE, WE COULD FIND A WAY TO NOT HAVE TO REVISE EACH TIME A NEW DEVICE COMES ON THE MARKET, BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. YEAH, I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD FRAMEWORK, RIGHT, THIS IS AN INTERESTING AND NOVEL APPROACH.

I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD FROM NOW SEVERAL MEMBERS OF SEVERAL OLD AND SEVERAL NEW MEMBERS OF STAFF WHO HAVE TOLD US THAT THIS IS NOT THE NORM, RIGHT? THEY HAVEN'T. IT'S NOT REALLY HOW IT'S BEEN ENCOUNTERED BEFORE IN THE WILD.

AND SO PERHAPS WE'RE GROUNDBREAKING.

OR PERHAPS WE'RE MAD, BUT IT COULD BE BOTH.

WE'LL SEE. BUT YEAH, I'M HOPING THAT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN AT LEAST TAKE THE FRAMEWORK IDEA OF.

AND IF WE HAVE TO MAKE SMALL ADJUSTMENTS, THEY'RE SMALL AND THEY WON'T TAKE NINE MONTHS OF DISCUSSION AND REDRAFTING.

YOU DO HAVE TO ASK, THOUGH, I THINK WOULD AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS PASS IN A NON-COLLEGE

[00:55:01]

I THINK AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS IN A NON-COLLEGE TOWN BECOMES A MORE ROBUST, SIMPLY A MORE ROBUST PUD ORDINANCE.

I'VE SEEN VERSIONS OF THIS.

NOT THIS DETAILED BUT VERSIONS OF THIS AS A PUD ORDINANCE.

SO. WELL, I'M GOING TO TAKE EVERYONE ELSE'S SILENCE AS A CENT HERE, UNLESS THEY THEY OBJECT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE RELATIVELY HAPPY WITH THE DIRECTION THIS HAS TAKEN AND WE'RE EXCITED TO SEND THIS BACK AND HOPEFULLY HAVE A NEW ORDINANCE BY THANKSGIVING.

OK. NEXT UP IS TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE, ANYTHING TO BRING TO OUR ATTENTION FROM THE

[10A. Township Board update.]

JUST A COUPLE OF UPDATES FROM THE LAST MEETING.

WE OBVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT THE MUPUD ORDINANCE.

THE SANCTUARY THREE SEVEN LOT SUBDIVISION PLAT HAS BEEN EXTENDED.

THERE IS STILL ONGOING LITIGATION WITH THAT, AND SO THEY HAVE NOT STARTED CONSTRUCTION YET. THE JO DON REZONING APPEARS TO BE WELL ON ITS WAY TO BEING FINALIZED AND JUST ANCILLARY TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF MASON. WE ACT AS THEIR BUILDING OFFICIAL AND BUILDING INSPECTOR AND WE'VE RENEWED THAT CONTRACT WITH SOME UPDATES TO CLARIFY HOW WE FUNCTION WITH THEM, SO WE'RE PRETTY HAPPY WITH THAT. THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS THAT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON THE PARKS MASTER PLAN UPDATE, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO GO TO OUR WEBSITE AND PULL UP THE PAGE ON THAT FOR POTENTIAL INPUT OPPORTUNITIES. THE MORE INPUT WE GET, THE BETTER PLAN WE HAVE.

OK THANK YOU.

AND THEN IF YOU WOULD PLEASE DIRECTOR SCHMITT, I SPOKEN WITH YOU BRIEFLY ABOUT THE SIGN ORDINANCE. CAN YOU JUST GIVE EVERYONE ROUGHLY THE SAME UPDATE THAT I GOT A FEW DAYS AGO? SO WE HAD THERE WAS A COUPLE OF MEETINGS EARLIER, I BELIEVE, EARLIER THIS MONTH.

I OWE THE COMMITTEE A REVISED DRAFT AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE MOVING THIS THING ALONG IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

NOT TO PILE THE NEXT BIG THING ON TOP AS SOON AS THE LAST BIG THING IS LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL. BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE NEVER ENDING NATURE OF THIS, RIGHT? UNDERSTOOD. SO WONDERFUL.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR TIM ON THE TOWNSHIP BOARD'S UPDATE? OK. SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO TO LIAISON UPDATES, ANYONE HAVE ANY INTERESTING LIAISON UPDATES

[10B. Liaison reports.]

WE MET ON THE WOODWARD WAY PROJECT, ALSO KNOWN AS THE [INAUDIBLE] COOPER PROJECT, ALSO KNOWN AS THAT PROJECT THAT'S COME BEFORE US ABOUT 17 TIMES NOW.

AND ULTIMATELY, THE ZBA DECIDED TO APPROVE THEIR PROJECT AS PROPOSED, WITH THE VARIANCES REQUESTED. SO THAT'S EXCITING.

THEY'LL BE HOPEFULLY BREAKING GROUND BEFORE TOO LONG HERE NOW THAT THEY'VE GOT ALL THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW FROM A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE.

SO FINGERS CROSSED.

ANY OTHER LIAISON COMMITTEES THAT HAVE MET IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS.

NONE. Y'ALL GOT IT EASY, NO MEETINGS TO GO TO.

ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS PROJECT

[11. PROJECT UPDATES]

NEW SITE PLANS RECEIVED. WE HAVE NONE.

AND TWO SITE PLANS ARE APPROVED FOR THE WOODWARD WAY APARTMENT COMPLEX, AS WE JUST DISCUSSED. AND AN OUTDOOR PATIO FOR ELLIS AND BREWING COMPANY.

AWESOME. JUST IN TIME FOR WINTER, UNFORTUNATELY, BUT HERE WE ARE.

IT'S MAKING MORE PERMANENT THE EXISTING SITUATION.

IT'S BEEN APPROVED PREVIOUSLY.

EXCELLENT. ALL RIGHT, THEN THAT BRINGS US TO OUR LAST OPPORTUNITY THIS EVENING FOR PUBLIC REMARKS. I THINK WE'VE OUTLASTED ANY OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE SITTING IN OUR PARTICIPANTS AREA. BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO BE A LAST MINUTE JOINER, YOU'RE WELCOME TO JOIN THE ZOOM MEETING AND RAISE YOUR HAND OR COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

ARE YOU MAKING A PUBLIC COMMENT? SORRY, I'M TALKING OUT OF PLACE, BUT I JUST REMEMBERED I SAW A NOTICE FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW ON THE OLD PUB ON GRAND RIVER, AND I WAS CURIOUS FOR AN UPDATE ON THAT ONE.

[01:00:02]

THEY'VE GOT SOME WORK TO DO STILL, BUT IT'S MOVING FORWARD.

AND IS THAT AVAILABLE ON THE TOWNSHIP WEBSITE? IT IS NOT TYPICALLY WE DON'T PUBLISH THE SITE PLANS ON THE TOWNSHIP WEBSITE.

OK. I'M HAPPY TO GET YOU A COPY IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT SOME POSSIBILITIES FOR SIDEWALKS AT THAT LOCATION AND SORT OF REFERRED THAT TO SITE PLAN REVIEWS.

SO I'D APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD.

THANKS. ALL RIGHT.

SO THEN WE'VE GIVEN THE PUBLIC A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO JOIN THE ZOOM MEETING OR GIVE US A CALL ONCE AGAIN AT 517-349-1232 AND YOU'LL MEET OUR STAFF AND THEY'LL PUT YOU THROUGH.

SO GIVE EVERYONE JUST A MOMENT.

I DO NOT SEE ANY NEW ATTENDEES IN THE ZOOM AREA, ANYONE ON THE PHONES, YOU HAVE NO TELEPHONE CALLS AT THIS TIME, SIR.

ALL RIGHTY. WELL, THEN I THANK EVERYONE FOR A VERY PRODUCTIVE MEETING THIS EVENING.

I THINK THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION TO HAVE AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN, PLEASE. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M.

AN HOUR. THAT'S IT. THAT'S NOT SO BAD.

GOODNIGHT, EVERYBODY. HAVE A GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

GOODNIGHT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.