[00:00:25]
ONLY HOLLY CAN'T BE HERE TODAY, APPARENTLY.
CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE NEXT TIME WE HOLD A MEETING IT'S SOME PLACE WHERE THE TEMPERATURE IS OVER 60 DEGREES.
[LAUGHTER] YOU HAVE TO BE DRESSED WARM.
YEAH. I'M CALLING FROM NEW ORLEANS.
YEAH. THERE YOU GO. LET'S TAKE A CARRIAGE RIDE AROUND CHARLESTON.
ACTUALLY, WE DID THERE WAS A TOUR A RHODES SCHOLAR TOUR, AND WE DID A LOT OF EDUCATIONAL THINGS AND FASCINATING HISTORY THERE.
YEAH. COLLARD GREENS BEING ONE.
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
TODAY IS MARCH 28TH, 2022.THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'M NOW CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
FIRST, WE'LL HAVE THE ROLL CALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HENDRICKSON, IS NOT THAT PRESENT? COMMISSIONER PREMOE.
HERE. COMMISSIONER CORDILL GAVE ADVANCED NOTICE SHE WOULD NOT BE HERE THIS EVENING.
HERE. I AM THE CHAIR, MARK BLUMER.
PRESENT. AND VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONER TREZISE.
PRESENT. AND WE HAVE DIRECTOR SCHMITT HERE THIS EVENING.
VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE WAY THESE WORK, THERE WILL BE THREE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC REMARKS THIS EVENING.
THE FIRST IS AN OPEN SESSION WHERE YOU CAN MAKE ANY REMARK THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE FUNCTION OF THIS COMMISSION.
IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING EVENTS THAT WE WILL BE HOLDING, ONE OF THOSE BEING THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL REQUEST, I ASK THAT YOU HOLD THOSE COMMENTS UNTIL THAT BECOMES AN OPEN ISSUE FOR THE COMMISSION.
AND THEN AT THE END WE'LL HAVE A THIRD OPEN PUBLIC SESSION.
NOW, AGAIN, I ALSO ASK THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR REMARKS WHEN WE ARE IN THE OPEN MEETING THE HEARING, PUBLIC HEARING OF ONE OF THOSE ISSUES LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE AND ALSO PLEASE ADDRESS THE BOARD AS A BOARD.
WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS SOMEBODY TO GET INTO AN ARGUMENT WITH AN INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HELP US HERE.
ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WE ASK THAT YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AS PART OF YOUR ADDRESS TO THE BOARD. AND THERE IS A TIME LIMIT TO YOUR ADDRESS.
AND WE ASK THAT YOU BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES AND WE'LL GIVE YOU A 30 SECOND WARNING BEFORE THAT TIME LIMIT HAS BEEN REACHED.
GOT THE GREEN CARDS OUT THERE FOR SIGNING UP? OH, YEAH. I'M SORRY.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, THERE ARE GREEN ADDRESS CARDS ON THE TABLE THERE.
IF YOU'LL FILL ONE OF THOSE OUT, WE WILL CALL YOUR NAME FROM THE CARD AND THEN YOU CAN MEET WITH US. ALL RIGHT.
WHAT WAS THAT? PUBLIC COMMENTS.
YEAH. WE WILL ASK IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS POINT.
ANYONE WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN OPEN ISSUE THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE SPECIFIC ITEMS WE'LL BE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT THEN THERE BEING NONE.
FIRST THING IS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING?
[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
SO MOVED.ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS MOVES AND COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY SECONDS.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NOBODY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
NEXT, WE HAVE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS MARCH 14, REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMISSION.I MOVE APPROVAL. MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE.
[00:05:04]
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY.I HAVE ONE ADJUSTMENT LET ME FIND A PAGE ON IT.
THERE WAS ONE VOTE STRAW POLL WHERE I WAS LISTED AS ABSTAINING ON PAGE TWO OF THE MINUTES THAT I THINK I WAS A NAY.
I SAID I COULD GO EITHER WAY, BUT I WAS FORMALLY A NAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTARY ON THE PREVIOUS AGENDA OR PREVIOUS MINUTES? I'M SORRY. ALL RIGHT.
SO THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE WITH THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. ALL IN FAVOR.
AYE. OPPOSED? NOBODY. THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING ARE APPROVED.
[6. COMMUNICATIONS]
A IS FROM SHENG-MEI MA.I THINK THAT RELATES TO THE QUESTION OF THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL.
HAS EVERYONE RECEIVED AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW? YES. WE HAVE COMMUNICATIONS FROM JAMES HEWITT ALSO ON THE SAME ISSUE.
WE HAVE TWO LETTERS APPARENTLY FROM SARAH SCOTT.
ALL OF THOSE RELATE TO THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL ISSUE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT.
OH, I'M SORRY. THERE WAS A LATE LETTER THAT COMMISSIONERS HAVE ALL RECEIVED COPIES OF FROM MR. KEITH.
NO, I'M SORRY FROM THOMAS AND MARY BETH VALLEY.
ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ISSUE.
[7A. Special Use Permit #22-041 – 2745 Mount Hope – Montessori Radmoor Addition]
THE FIRST ISSUE, 7 A, ITEM 7 A ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 22-041, WHICH RELATES TO THE REQUEST FROM THE MONTESSORI RADMOOR SCHOOL.DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THAT? SURE. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING. AS YOU NOTED, THIS IS MONTESSORI RADMOOR SCHOOL.
THEY'VE SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO AMEND THEIR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 5,635 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION AT THEIR PROPERTY AT 2745 MOUNT HOPE ROAD.
THE SCHOOL PROPERTY IS 9.64 ACRES AND ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL.
THE PROPOSED MAJOR AMENDMENT INCLUDES THE 5635 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 15,600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, SECTION 86-129 B1 STATES THAT ADDITIONS TO BUILDINGS IN EXCESS OF 2000 SQUARE FEET FOR BUILDINGS UNDER 20,000 SQUARE FEET IN GROSS AREA IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT.
SECTION 86654 C LISTS NONRESIDENTIAL USES THAT MAY BE PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BY SPECIAL USE PERMITS.
THE MONTESSORI RADMOOR SCHOOL IS ONE ONE OF THOSE, AND THEY DID RECEIVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION BACK IN 1974.
SINCE THEN, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL AMENDMENTS TO THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THE LAST ONE BEING IN 2019, IT WAS A MINOR AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF A HALF ACRE PARCEL TO THE SUBJECT SITE. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM THE 27 MASTER PLAN DESIGNATES THE SUBJECT SITE IN THE R2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
YOU SEE THAT MAP ON PAGE TWO OF YOUR PACKET OR OF THE PACKET FOR THIS.
AS FAR AS ZONING GOES, AS I SAID, THE PROPERTY IS IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 200 FEET OF LOT WIDTH AND 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA.
THIS PROPERTY MEETS BOTH OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
PHYSICAL FEATURES IT IS, THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH THE SCHOOL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AREA AND LANDSCAPING.
THERE IS AN APPROXIMATELY 400 SQUARE FOOT GREENHOUSE LOCATED IN THE NORTH NORTHWEST OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING.
THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FOR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP INDICATES FLOODPLAIN IS NOT PRESENT ON OR NEAR THE SITE.
THE WETLAND MAP DOES INDICATE THAT A SECTION OF WETLAND IS PRESENT ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE. THEY DID DO A WETLAND DELINEATION RELATED TO THAT IN 2009 AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE NEXT PAGE AS WELL.
ACCESS TO THE SUBJECT SITE IS PROVIDED FROM MOUNT HOPE ROAD.
THIS IS CLASSIFIED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL SEVEN FOOT PATHWAY IS INSTALLED ON THE MOUNT HOPE ROAD PROPERTY FRONTAGE.
APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT WHICH ESTIMATES FUTURE VEHICLE TRIPS THAT COULD BE GENERATED. THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER TRIP GENERATION RATES FOR DAYCARE CENTER AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WERE USED.
[00:10:02]
THERE IS A TABLE THERE THAT SHOWS THE NUMBERS, BUT THE UPSHOT OF IT IS, NUMBER ONE, THE INTERSECTION OF MOUNT HOPE AND THE MONTESSORI DRIVE IS FORECASTED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE PROJECTED TRAFFIC TO THE EXISTING VOLUMES.THE SECOND POINT THE SCHOOL WITH THE ADDITION WILL HAVE MINIMUM IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC AROUND THE DRIVE, BUT IS ANTICIPATED TO CAUSE A SOMEWHAT LONGER QUEUE LENGTH AND DELAY WITHIN THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF.
THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA FOUND IN 86-126 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES IS USED WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING A MAJOR AMENDMENT.
SO LOOKING AT THOSE, FIRST OF ALL, IS THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THE CHAPTER? IT IS RECOGNIZED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT SOME RESIDENTIAL USES MAY BE USEFUL TO THE OCCUPANTS OF [INAUDIBLE] RESIDENTIAL AREAS, AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ALLOWED, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SECTION 86654 C LISTS NON RESIDENTIAL USES THAT MAY BE PERMITTED AS SUCH AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, HIGH SCHOOLS, INSTITUTES OF HIGHER EDUCATION MAY BE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE.
AND AS I SAID, THIS WAS PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE IN 1974.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS, AS R2 RESIDENTIAL.
SCHOOLS MAY BE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
SO THIS IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR MASTER PLAN.
ALLOWING THE BUILDING ADDITIONS DOES NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA.
THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THEIR OPERATION OR WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
BASED ON ARCHITECTURAL PLANS THE BUILDING HAS THE SAME APPEARANCE AS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THE SCHOOL ADDITION IS GOING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. HAVING SAID THAT, THE SCHOOL PERSONNEL, I UNDERSTAND, HAS MET WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY'RE INSTALLING THEY'RE PLANNING TO INSTALL A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT BEING LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SCHOOL CORRELATES TO A REDUCTION IN PROPERTY VALUES.
AS FAR AS PUBLIC FACILITIES, IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THAT ANY ALTERATIONS ARE GOING TO BE NEEDED TO THE EXISTING ROAD, THE DRAIN, ANY DRAINAGE SYSTEM ANY ALTERATIONS OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS GOING TO NEED APPROVAL BY THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER.
THERE IS CATA BUS SERVICE APPROXIMATELY 2/10 OF A MILE EAST OF THE SITE AT THE INTERSECTION OF COMANCHE DRIVE AND MOUNT HOPE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 2/10 OF A MILE WEST OF THE SITE AT FAIRLANE DRIVE AND MOUNT HOPE ROAD.
THE ROUTE 2223 TRAVELS TO MERIDIAN MALL, MEYER, AND THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS.
THE PROJECT IS ADEQUATELY SERVED BY MUNICIPAL SEWER AND WATER, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO NEED ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT I MENTIONED.
AS I SAID, THE SCHOOL DOES INTEND TO CONTINUE USE AS A SCHOOL.
ANY FUTURE ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING ADDITION OF LAND AREA OR EXPANSION OF PARKING WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SCHOOL SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
MAJOR AMENDMENTS, AS YOU KNOW, WOULD COME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MINOR AMENDMENTS CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
AND FINALLY, IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THE BUILDING ADDITION TO THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO IMPACT NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE TOWNSHIP.
THERE ARE WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS NOT TAKING PLACE IN THOSE WETLANDS.
WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE STANDARDS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
SO AND THOSE ARE FOUND IN SECTION 86-654 E.
ANY PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THE EDGE OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WHICH THIS IS AT THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
THERE'S A 13 ACRE WETLAND ON THE PROPERTY, AS I MENTIONED, THAT DOES SEPARATE THE FACILITY TO RESIDENCES TO THE EAST AND THE SOUTHEAST.
AND MOUNT HOPE ROAD SEPARATES THE SCHOOL SITE FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE NORTH.
THE SCHOOL FACES MOUNT HOPE ROAD, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRIMARY ROAD BY THE NATIONAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AS DEFINED BY THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT.
AND THAT MEETS THAT SECOND CRITERIA YOU SEE THERE FACES A MAJOR STREET.
THERE'S A SINGLE DRIVEWAY TO MOUNT HOPE ROAD THAT SERVES THE SITE.
MOUNT HOPE ROAD IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE OR NORTH EDGE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE 13 ACRE WETLAND IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE.
APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THEY'RE ACTIVELY PLANTING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.
THAT SHOULD SAY THE WEST PROPERTY LINE THERE.
AND AS NOTED, PUBLIC WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVE THE SITE.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A 5635
[00:15:03]
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 15,600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.THE ISSUE OF SCREENING NEIGHBORS PROPERTY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES HAS COME UP SEVERAL TIMES, AND FROM SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.
THE APPLICANT IS ACTIVELY WORKING WITH NEIGHBORS TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SCREENING AROUND THEIR PROPERTY.
IN 2002, THERE WAS A CONDITION ADDED TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT THAT CAPPED THE STUDENT ENROLLMENT AT 150 STUDENTS BASED ON STATE LICENSING.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AMENDING THAT CONDITION TO SAY THAT THEIR STUDENT ENROLLMENT BE CAPPED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE STATE LICENSE ITSELF.
IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY ARE LOOKING TO INCREASE THEIR STUDENT ENROLLMENT AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
YOUR OPTIONS, YOU MAY APPROVE, APPROVE THE CONDITIONS OR DENY THE PROPOSED SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THERE IS A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST WITH CONDITIONS ATTACHED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS THE PERMIT APPLICATION MATERIALS AND THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE.
AND I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
HAVE THEY SAID WHAT THE ADDITIONS IS GOING TO BE USED FOR SPECIFICALLY? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN HERE.
I ANTICIPATE THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT WHEN WHEN THEY GET TO COME TO THE PODIUM. OKAY.
IS THAT CORRECT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS GENTLEMAN FROM THE COMMISSION? YEAH. I'M SORRY. IT IS ON THE APPLICATION.
ADDITION OF THREE CLASSROOMS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FROM THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD? SIR.
GOOD EVENING. I'M LEROY STEVENS, STEVENS ARCHITECTS.
AND MY ADDRESS IS IN PORT HURON.
IT'S 209 HURON AVENUE PORT HURON MICHIGAN.
AND THAT'S WHERE OUR HEAD OFFICE IS.
WE'RE THE ARCHITECTS FOR THE SCHOOL AND FOR THIS ADDITION AT THE TIME.
WHAT I HEAR IS IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THE SCHOOL IS LOOKING TO EXPAND BY THREE CLASSROOMS. SO NOW THEY HAVE STUDENTS THERE.
THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR 45 YEARS.
SO THEY'VE BEEN ON THIS SITE A LONG TIME.
SO THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.
THE THREE CLASSROOMS ARE RIGHT, CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING AND THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL BATHROOMS THERE.
THE SCHOOL DOES HAVE A LANDSCAPE PERSON ON BOARD, A BOTANIST, AND THEY HAVE BEEN LOOKING AND THEY HAVE BEEN PLANTING SOME TREES THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
SO THIS IDEA OF LANDSCAPING TO THE WEST, EXCUSE ME, IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING AND ARE PLANNING.
IT'S A WOODED SITE. IF YOU'VE BEEN ON THE SITE, YOU KNOW, IT'S PRETTY WOODED ALREADY, BUT SOME LANDSCAPING ALONG THAT WEST PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE NICE.
THE AREA WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, WE HAD A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE JUST TO SEE HOW IT WOULD DO, WHICH IT LOOKS GOOD.
WE'RE ALL IN CONFORMANCE WITH YOUR MASTER PLAN AND WE DO HAVE THESE DRAWINGS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE AND WE'LL HAVE STATE APPROVAL BECAUSE THE STATE REALLY APPROVES THE SCHOOL USE AND THEY'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE AMOUNT OF STUDENTS AND THEY'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE BUILDING AND THEY'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND ALL THAT.
AND IS ACTUALLY HAVE THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ALREADY DONE IT'S THE FINAL APPROVAL WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR.
BUT WE DO NEED YOUR SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW US TO BUILD THERE WITH THE SCHOOL.
SO WE'RE REALLY REQUESTING A SPECIAL LAND USE TO PERMIT.
WE WILL MEET ALL THE SCHOOL STATE REQUIREMENTS AND WE CAN SUBMIT THOSE TO YOU AS WE GET THEM FROM THE STATE. SO YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE PERMITS AND THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE IT'S THREE CLASSROOMS, BY THE WAY.
SO IT'S THREE CLASSROOMS. SO IT'S NOT A, IT'S A 5000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, WHICH IN A SCHOOL TERMS FOR US IS VERY SMALL ADDITION. BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS HERE.
AND I'D BE WILLING TO ANSWER AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THE PROJECT OR THE SCHOOL. OH, BY THE WAY, THE SCHOOL IS HERE, THE CHAIRMAN AND ONE OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE CONTRACTOR'S HERE ALSO THAT'S DOING THE ADDITION.
SO WE GOT A PRETTY GOOD RESOURCES TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
[00:20:04]
YES. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.I SEE IN THE DOCUMENTATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED THAT THREE CLASSROOMS, NO MORE THAN 30 STUDENTS PER CLASSROOM, WHICH COULD INDICATE AN INCREASE OF 90 MORE STUDENTS.
BUT HERE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ONLY PROPOSED TO INCREASE BY 33.
IT SAYS CURRENT IS 144 AND FUTURE WOULD BE 177.
IS THAT CORRECT OR WHAT? YEAH, THOSE NUMBERS ARE WHAT THE SCHOOL HAS PROVIDED US.
NOW THE STATE WILL COME BACK WITH SOME OTHER NUMBERS.
SO HOW THE STATE CALCULATES STUDENTS IS THE AGE OF THE STUDENT AND THE SIZE OF THE SQUARE FOOT. SO THEY GO BY AGE AND SQUARE FOOT.
THE SMALLER THE CHILDREN, THE LARGER THE SQUARE FOOT PER CHILD.
SO I THINK WE'LL BE AT THOSE NUMBERS WITH THE STATE, BUT IT COULD VARY A LITTLE BIT.
THE STATE MIGHT COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, WE CAN ONLY HAVE 32 OR, IT WON'T VARY MUCH, BUT IT'LL BE CLOSE TO THAT.
BUT THEY WILL COME BACK WITH A NUMBER FOR US.
BUT THE INTENT IS CLOSER TO ADDING 30 SOME STUDENTS VERSUS 90 SOME STUDENTS? YEAH, YEAH. COMMISSIONERS, I AM PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THIS CHUNK OF TERRITORY.
THE LAND TO THE EAST AND SOUTH IS A COMBINATION OF SWAMP AND FOREST, WHICH DOESN'T REALLY PRESENT ANY PROBLEMS FOR NEIGHBORS AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, AS A MATTER OF FACT I'M CLOSE FRIENDS WITH THEIR NEIGHBOR TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST AND EVEN THOUGH HE'S GOT A TOWER BUILT ONTO HIS HOUSE, YOU STILL CAN'T SEE THE SCHOOL AT ALL.
IT'S 100% INVISIBLE FROM THAT PROPERTY.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS REALLY QUITE CLOSE TO THE LINE.
YES. AND IF YOU DRIVE UP TO IN THE CUL DE SAC AND LOOK AT THE FENCE, THERE'S AN UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW OF THE SCHOOL.
RIGHT. IS THAT PART OF WHAT THE SCHOOL IS TRYING TO LANDSCAPE OUT OF VIEW? YES. YES. IT'S THAT AREA RIGHT ALONG WHERE THAT CUL DE SAC COMES IN.
WE HAVE ACCESS FROM THAT IN A WAY.
BUT THAT'S WE'RE LOOKING AT LANDSCAPING FROM THERE TO THE SOUTH.
BUT ALONG THAT LINE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT'S EXPOSED.
AND WILL THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING TEND TO OBSCURE THE UNOBSTRUCTED VIEW OF THE SCHOOL FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
SURE. BECAUSE WE WILL USE SOME EVERGREENS.
SO YEAH, WE'LL I MEAN, IF YOU WALKED UP THERE, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO LOOK THROUGH AND SEE.
SURE AND IF YOU CLIMB THE FENCE, YOU CAN SEE IT TOO.
YEAH. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. RIGHT.
BUT NO, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING THE LANDSCAPING.
PLUS WE'RE ADDING SOME TREES JUST GENERALLY ON THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL FLOCK OF DEER THAT LIVE IN THERE OR HERD OF DEER, I SUPPOSE YOU'D CALL IT. IS THERE.
PROBABLY WREAK HAVOC ON THE LANDSCAPING.
YEAH, WE DON'T OFFER HUNTING IN OUR CURRICULUM, SO THEY'LL STILL BE THERE, I GUESS.
[LAUGHTER] ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? KIND OF JUST PIGGYBACKING ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I WAS ON THE SITE TODAY JUST NOTICING THE LANDSCAPING, AND I REALLY DIDN'T SEE A LOT OF EVERGREENS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S DUE TO THE DEER.
I KNOW THEY LOVE OUR VARIETIES, BUT I WAS JUST IT SEEMED FROM THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WE RECEIVED THAT THAT WAS THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN IS THE LANDSCAPING BARRIER.
AND I DID NOTICE A LOT OF OTHER VEGETATION, BUT IT CLEARLY WASN'T EVERGREEN.
SO I'M WONDERING IF THAT IS THE MAIN PART OF THE PLAN FOR THE LANDSCAPING, BECAUSE IN THE WINTER, THE CURRENT SHRUBBERY DOESN'T PROVIDE THAT BORDER.
SO WHAT'S HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE ADDITION, WE'RE TAKING OUT SOME TREES ON THE SITE, SO WE'RE TAKING OUT SOME OF THE BIG TREES WHERE THE BUILDING GOES.
SO WHEN WE GET THAT GOING NEXT SUMMER, WE WILL BE PLANTING A LANDSCAPING RIGHT ALONG THERE. IT'LL BE EVERGREENS SO WE CAN DO EVERGREENS ALONG THE FENCE.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING A SOLID FENCE IN, BUT I THINK THE EVERGREENS REALLY DO TWO THINGS. THEY REALLY BLOCK BETTER IN THE LONG RUN, AND THEY BECOME TALL AND THEY ABSORB SOUND. SO A FENCE DOESN'T ABSORB SOUND TOO WELL.
SO THIS KIND OF SOLVES MORE THAN A FEW PROBLEMS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT, MR. STEVENS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE LOOK FORWARD TO DOING THE PROJECT AND GROWING THE SCHOOL BECAUSE THE SCHOOL HAS BEEN THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
SO IT'S THEY LOVE THE LOCATION.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS PUBLIC ISSUE, PUBLIC HEARING?
[00:25:02]
SIR, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.I'M THE HEAD OF SCHOOL AT RADMOOR AND MY ADDRESS IS 1609 NORTH HARFORD AVENUE IN LANSING.
SO ONE OF YOU ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT THE CLASSROOMS IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING THREE NEW CLASSROOMS OR JUST 30 STUDENTS, WE'RE PUTTING IN THE THREE CLASSROOM ADDITIONS SO THAT WE CAN TAKE OUR THREE CURRENTLY EXISTING ELEMENTARY CLASSROOMS AND MOVE THEM INTO A NEW SPACE. THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO VACATE THREE SPACES ON THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING. ONE SPACE WILL BECOME A LIBRARY, ONE SPACE WILL BECOME A DEDICATED NAP ROOM BECAUSE RIGHT NOW OUR OUR KIDS ARE NAPPING IN THE ROOM WITH OTHER KIDS WHO ARE LEARNING.
AND THE THIRD SPACE WILL BECOME THE NEW CLASSROOM HOLDING 30 STUDENTS.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE ADDING THREE CLASSROOMS, BUT ONE CLASSROOM OF NEW STUDENTS. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD? YES, SIR. SURE.
EXCUSE ME. BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, AFTER YOU ADDRESS, WOULD YOU MAKE SURE THAT YOU FILL OUT ONE OF THOSE CARDS TO MAKE SURE WE GET YOUR NAME CORRECTLY PLEASE? YES, SURE. THANK YOU.
SO MY NAME IS SERGEI [INAUDIBLE] 2767 [INAUDIBLE] HOPE ROAD.
AND AGAIN, SOME OF YOU MAYBE REMEMBER ME, AND WE DISCUSSED THIS ADDITIONAL PROPERTY THAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE SCHOOL.
AND AT THAT TIME, I WAS RAISING CONCERNS THAT IT MAY.
AND YOU SAID, I THINK, SORRY, I FORGOT YOUR NAME.
SIR THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WERE AFRAID THAT WE WERE CRACKING THE DOOR OPEN TO BASICALLY INCREASING THE CAPACITY OF THE SCHOOL.
AND THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW.
SO NOW AS A NEIGHBOR I'M JUST TRYING TO RELAY AND I'M HAPPY THAT WE START COMMUNICATING BETTER WITH THE SCHOOL NOW.
BUT I DO WANT TO ON THE RECORD RAISE THE CONCERN THAT FOR US AS A NEIGHBOR AND THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA STILL RIGHT WHERE WE LIVE.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AFRAID THAT, YOU KNOW, INCREASED CAPACITY LEADS TO INCREASED OPERATION CAPACITY AND INCREASED OPERATION CAPACITY LEADS TO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC.
AND WE'RE REALLY CONCERN THAT THIS GREEN SPACE THAT MAINTAIN THIS GREEN SPACE CAN BECOME SOME SORT OF A DRIVEWAY WHICH WILL BE NOT GOOD FOR US.
NOW I'M GETTING CONFUSED MESSAGES AND I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT BECAUSE AS IN A WEEK, I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BE BUILDING A FENCE ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IT WAS SO TRANSPARENT.
RIGHT. AND THAT WAS WAS CONCERNED.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON.
BUT ARE YOU PLANTING OR ARE YOU BUILDING A FENCE? MAKE YOUR ADDRESS TO US.
YES. YES. SO THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING, BECAUSE I'M GETTING MIXED MESSAGES IN LANDSCAPING WAS ON MAP FOR A LONG TIME AND WE HAVE LITTLE BASICALLY A NATURAL SORT OF PLANTING ON BOTH SOUTHERN BORDER OF OUR PROPERTY IN THE SAME ISSUE WE STILL HAVE ON THE EASTERN BOARD OF OUR PROPERTY.
AND WE NOW HAVE TWO SIDES OF OUR PROPERTY SHARING WITH THE SCHOOL.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE MY CONCERNS AND JUST BASICALLY HAVE TO HAVE MORE COMMUNICATION MOVING FORWARD.
THANK YOU, SIR. MAKE SURE YOU FILL OUT.
REMEMBER WHO YOU WERE? YES. MAYBE STAFF CAN EXPLAIN THAT THERE IS A SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS THAT WILL ADDRESS FENCING OR NOT FENCING AND THAT SORT OF THING.
THE SECOND PIECE OF THIS PROCESS THAT IS LARGELY ADMINISTRATIVE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IS THAT WE REVIEW THE SITE PLAN, WHICH IS THE TECHNICAL DETAILS, WHICH IS THE LOCATION OF ALL THE TREES AND THE LOCATION OF ALL THE PARKING, IF ANY, IS BEING ADDED.
THE SPECIFIC GRADING, ANY ENGINEERING CONCERNS THAT COME UP.
SO IN THIS CASE, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE TO MAKE A CONDITION OF THIS APPROVAL, THAT ADDITIONAL EVERGREEN SCREENING BE ADDED ON THE NORTHERN AND EASTERN AND TO THE EXTENT SOUTHERN PERIMETERS OR WESTERN AND SOUTHERN PERIMETERS, WE WOULD ENFORCE THAT THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHOSE TO AMEND THE CONDITION OF 150 UP TO 177 TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE PERMIT, WE WOULD ASK FOR A COPY OF THE STATE PERMIT WHEN THAT WAS GRANTED.
SO WE CAN CONFIRM THAT THAT IS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE APPROVAL IS.
SO THIS IS SORT OF THE BIGGER PICTURE REVIEW.
AND THEN WE WILL GO INTO THE TECHNICAL DETAILS FURTHER ON IN THE PROCESS.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.
[00:30:02]
IF THE ATTENDANCE IN THE SCHOOL IS INCREASED, AND THE STATE PERMITS THAT AT WHAT POINT WOULD THAT TRIGGER A REVIEW OF THE PARKING SPACES TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE ADEQUATE OR IS IT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD DO THAT? AND ARE THEY WITHIN THOSE REQUIREMENTS? THE TRAFFIC STUDY, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT'S SUBMITTED WITH THIS WAS DONE AT MAX CAPACITY, NOT WHAT THEY'RE EXPECTING THE STATE TO COME IN WITH THE NUMBER.THANK YOU. THAT WHICH IS GOING TO BE A LOWER NUMBER THAN THEY ALREADY PLANNED FOR.
NO GO AHEAD. I THINK IT'S GREAT.
I WAS REALLY PLEASED TO SEE ONE NEIGHBOR THAT WROTE IN WITH SOME CONCERNS AND THEN WROTE AGAIN SAYING, I'M VERY HAPPY WE'VE BEEN TALKING AND THIS IS GOOD AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON THAT.
I DID NOTICE THE ONE THAT WE GOT TODAY MENTIONED SOME ISSUES WITH LIGHTING, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S IN THE PURVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
STAFF WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO ADD A CONDITION TO THE SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT, AND WE CAN BRING THAT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT WOULD ADDRESS THAT GOING FORWARD. AND I REMEMBER THIS GENTLEMAN HERE TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO AND HIS PROPERTY IS ON MOUNT HOPE AND IT CUTS A CORNER OUT OF THIS PROPERTY.
SO HE ACTUALLY HAS BORDER ON HIS EAST SIDE AS AND I BELIEVE IT WAS USUALLY THE SOUTH SIDE THAT WAS THE MOST PROBLEMATIC.
BOTH OF THEM SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE NICE TO CHECK AT LEAST THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF HIS PROPERTY TO SEE IF THAT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL SCREENING ALSO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? I HAVE.
I JUST WANT TO GET BACK TO THE LIGHTING ISSUE FOR A SECOND BECAUSE.
I FORGOT YOUR NAME, SIR JOSEPH WOOD.
MR. WOOD. ALL RIGHT. A COUPLE OF THE NEIGHBORS MENTIONED LATE DISTURBANCE AT NIGHT BECAUSE APPARENTLY THE SCHOOL DOESN'T TURN OFF ITS LIGHTS OR THERE'S AT LEAST ONE LIGHT ON A HIGH POLE THAT APPARENTLY IS JUST GOING RIGHT OVER THE FENCE.
ARE THOSE ITEMS THAT THE SCHOOL ITSELF CAN SIMPLY CONTROL DOWN AND ELIMINATE THEM AS AN ISSUE BEFORE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE? SURE. SO IT WAS NEWS TO US WHEN THE NEIGHBORS BROUGHT IT TO US A WEEK AGO TODAY.
WE DID SOME LOOKING INTO IT AND IT'S ACTUALLY OUR SECURITY LIGHTS.
SO WE HAVE TWO SETS OF SECURITY LIGHTS.
WE HAVE INTERIOR SECURITY LIGHTS WHERE WHEN YOU SHUT THE LIGHTS OFF, WE'LL HAVE ONE LIGHT STAND ON EACH CLASSROOM.
AND THEN WE HAVE EXTERIOR LIGHTS TO WHERE IN THE WINTER IT GETS DARK.
SO WHEN FAMILIES WERE PICKING UP AT 6:00, THEY WOULD KNOCK ON THE DOOR THE TEACHERS COULDN'T SEE WHO IT WAS BEFORE THEY OPENED THE DOOR.
ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE WAY COMPLAINED ABOUT THE EXTERIOR LIGHTS AND WE PUT A TIMER ON IT.
WE CONSIDERED A MOTION SENSOR, BUT WE THOUGHT THE WILDLIFE WOULD TRIGGER IT.
SO WE HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM THAT NEIGHBOR SINCE WE SET THE TIMER.
THE NEW ISSUE IS ABOUT THE INTERIOR LIGHTS ILLUMINATING THE WOODED AREA IN THE BACK.
SO I FIRST CHECKED THE LAW REGULATIONS TO SEE IF WE HAD TO HAVE SECURITY LIGHTS ON.
THEN I CALLED THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP POLICE.
WE HAVE A RESOURCE OFFICER THAT WE TALKED TO ABOUT SECURITY ISSUES TO SEE IF IT'S NECESSARY FOR US TO HAVE THE SECURITY LIGHTS ON INSIDE.
HE SAID, NO, IT DOESN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT THE SCHOOL FROM BREAK IN OR THEFT.
SO WE JUST HAVE TO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING AN ELECTRICIAN OUT TO REWIRE THE LIGHTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED TO THE SWITCH.
SO ONCE THE SWITCH GOES OFF, IT SHOULD BE FINE.
BUT I THINK WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IS PERHAPS THE CLEANERS HAVE BEEN LEAVING THE LIGHTS ON AT NIGHT. SO I'VE BEEN GOING AND CHECKING IN THE EVENINGS TO MAKE SURE THE LIGHTS ARE OFF SINCE THIS PAST WEEK, WHEN WE WERE MADE AWARE OF IT, THEY'VE BEEN OFF.
IT'S BEEN DARK, SO WE'RE BEING DILIGENT ABOUT IT.
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? YES, SIR. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO FILL OUT ONE OF THOSE GREEN CARDS.
MY NAME IS JEFF FREDERICK 2758 EAST WAY DRIVE RIGHT NEXT TO THE SCHOOL, RIGHT NEXT TO HIM. AND I WAS HOPING TO SEE I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF EMAILS GOING AROUND IN THE EAST GATE ABOUT THIS AND WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF INFORMATION.
BUT I WAS HOPING TO SEE SOME SORT OF LAYOUT THAT SHOWS EXACTLY WHERE THE ADDITION IS GOING TO BE AND HOW THE EITHER THE FENCE OR THE TREES WHERE ALL THAT STUFF IS GOING TO BE LOCATED. AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WILL BE FORTHCOMING OR IS ALREADY AVAILABLE?
[00:35:06]
THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.SO GENERALLY IN THE PACKET THAT'S ONLINE, IT HAS A LOCATE, IT HAS MAPS THAT SHOW WHERE THE ADDITION IS THE DETAILS IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING AND THINGS ARE GOING TO BE FORTHCOMING WITH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW THAT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THIS IS APPROVED.
AND LAST MAYBE IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS BY NOW, THEY PUT UP THE GREEN FENCE TO PREVENT PARENTS FROM COMING IN AND AND CUTTING THROUGH AND BLOCKING RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN.
IS THAT GOING TO BE PART OF AND MAYBE WE CAN'T ANSWER THAT.
IS THAT GOING TO BE TREES IN FRONT OF THAT GREEN FENCE, TOO, OR IS THAT GOING TO BE LEFT OPEN SO THEY OBVIOUSLY CAN GET THROUGH AND MOW THEIR GRASS THERE? YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO THEY'LL SUBMIT A PLAN TO US AND WE'LL HAVE TO REVIEW IT.
JUST AGAIN FOR STAFF JUST THIS IS NOT FOR THE GENTLEMAN THAT JUST SPOKE.
BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW IS AN OPEN MEETING.
IS THAT WITH THE STAFF THAT THE NEIGHBORS COULD COME IN AND LISTEN.
SO THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.
RIGHT. I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT, BUT WE WILL NOTICE IT.
SO THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TELEVISED, BUT IT WILL PROBABLY BE IN THIS ROOM TO GO OVER THE SITE PLAN.
OK. THANK YOU. IS IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER SOUTHWEST CORNER, YES.
LET ME JUST MAKE SURE. IS THERE ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? NO.
ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO ASK THEN FOR A STRAW POLL OF THE COMMISSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT OR HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
ANYONE WANT TO OFFER? BUT I'LL JUST DO IT FROM THE CHAIR.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SAY AYE.
I JUST I WANTED TO REVIEW THE CONDITIONS AND PERHAPS DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING A CONDITION REGARDING THE EVERGREEN SCREENING, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN THERE.
AND THAT REALLY SEEMED TO ME LIKE THE BIGGEST CONCERN OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
I AGREE WITH THAT. I HAVE A QUESTION.
WHAT IS. MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING, BUT WHAT IS OUR AUTHORITY RELATIVE TO ADDING CONDITIONS? SO CERTAINLY IN THE CASE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, YOU CAN RECOMMEND A CONDITION AND IN THIS CASE, ADD ONE BECAUSE YOU ARE THE DECIDING BODY.
OK. AS LONG AS IT HAS A ESSENTIALLY A NEXUS TO THE REQUEST AT HAND.
IF YOU WERE REQUESTING THEM TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE TRAFFIC LIGHT AT MOUNT HOPE AND HAGADORN I WOULD HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT REQUEST.
BUT GIVEN THE CONVERSATION THAT'S HAPPENED THIS EVENING, STAFF WILL WORK UP A COUPLE OF CONDITIONS BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION AND INCLUDE THEM IN THE PACKET THE NEXT TIME THIS IS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.
YEAH, I TAKE IT THAT WE WILL ALSO INCLUDE IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE RESOLUTION, TO ADDRESS THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS? ABSOLUTELY. JUST SO THAT JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS PART OF IT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER RICHARDS DID YOU WANT TO SAY.
I'M SORRY. IT'S BEEN A VERY LONG DAY.
COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. I APOLOGIZE.
DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? IT LOOKED LIKE YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.
NO. I JUST WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD THAT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SNYDER.
I GENERALLY APPROVE THE AMENDMENT, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PLANTINGS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THE ESPECIALLY THE WEST LINE BECAUSE THE SCHOOL IS QUITE CLOSE TO THAT FENCE LINE. AND I CAN SEE WHERE THAT WOULD BE A LEGITIMATE CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
SO IF THEY CAN WORK UP AN ADDITION TO THE PROPOSAL, I WOULD BE STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THAT.
I WOULD I THINK ALSO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF IN THEIR PROPOSAL WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT THE LIGHTING ISSUE WOULD BE PUT IN WRITING SO THAT IT'S CLEAR
[00:40:04]
AND ALSO EXPECTED.THEN WE'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC ISSUE, PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.
[7B. Rezoning #21060 – 2260 Jolly Oak Road, PO to C-2]
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE NOW ON ITEM 7B PUBLIC HEARING.OK REZONING NUMBER 21060 BECKY BEAUCHINE KULKA INC..
REZONE APPROXIMATELY CALL IT AN ACRE OF LOCATED AT 2260 JOLLY OAK ROAD FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO C2 COMMERCIAL.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE PARCEL.
AS I SAID, THE SPECIAL USE CASE, JUST THE BACKGROUND OF IT IS SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A BANK WITH A DRIVE THRU HAD BEEN APPROVED IN 1990 ON THIS SITE THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEVELOPED, IS CURRENTLY VACANT.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM THE 2017 MASTER PLAN DESIGNATES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE COMMERCIAL CATEGORY.
AS I SAID, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT THAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET OF LOT WIDTH AND 5000 SQUARE FOOT OF LOT AREA.
THE REQUESTED C2 ZONING REQUIRES 100 FEET OF LOT WIDTH FOR 1000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT WITH APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET OF LOT WIDTH ON JOLLY OAK ROAD THAT IT FRONTS ON, TECHNICALLY THAT'S THE ADDRESS AND 232 FEET ON OKEMOS ROAD.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS VERY CLOSE TO A FULL ACRE OF LOT AREA.
AS A RESULT, THE SITE DOES MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOT WIDTH AN AREA FOR THE PROPOSED C2 ZONING DISTRICT AND YOU CAN SEE A TABLE THERE COMPARING THE LOT AREA AND THE LOT WIDTH FOR THE TWO DISTRICTS.
YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS.
THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE AN ISOLATED POCKET OR ANYTHING.
IT'S A CONTINUATION OF C2 ZONING FOR THE SOUTH.
IT WOULD BE SURROUNDED IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE WEST, TO THE NORTH AND THE EAST.
THERE'S MORE CONDITIONAL C2 ZONING TO THE TO THE WEST OF THAT AS WELL.
THE SITE CURRENTLY CONTAINS A VACANT BUILDING THAT USED TO HOUSE A BANK WITH A DRIVE THRU. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RENOVATE THE BUILDING, REMOVE THE DRIVE THRU AND ACCOMMODATE A PROPOSED JEWELRY STORE.
NOW, THIS ISN'T A NEW JEWELRY STORE.
THIS IS AN EXPANSION AND RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING STORE YOU KNOW ALREADY.
THE TOPOGRAPHY IS MAINLY FLAT.
THERE'S THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP INDICATES IT'S NOT IN A FLOODPLAIN.
THERE ARE NO WETLANDS DEPICTED ON THE SITE AS WELL EITHER.
AND THE TOWNSHIP GREENSPACE PLAN DOESN'T SHOW ANY PRESERVATION CORRIDORS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS I SAID, THE SITE DOUBLE FRONTS ON JOLLY OAK AND OKEMOS ROADS.
THE TOWNSHIP DOES HAVE A PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE MASTER PLAN THAT DESIGNATES OKEMOS ROAD AS AN ON ROAD PATHWAY.
THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY ROAD CUTS ON OKEMOS ROAD, SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THAT.
YOU CAN SEE THE TRIP GENERATION.
THESE NUMBERS DO COME OUT OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, COMPARING THE TRAFFIC USING THE HIGHEST AND BEST IF YOU WILL USE FROM BOTH THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND THE C2 ZONING.
THERE'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IN TRAFFIC.
OF COURSE, YOU KNOW THIS WILL GO THROUGH SITE PLAN REVIEW AND THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT WILL REVIEW IT.
BUT WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING ANY CHANGES TO THE ROAD NETWORK IS GOING TO BE NECESSARY FOR THIS. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY SERVED BY MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER.
REALLY, I TOLD YOU THE REASONS.
I'VE GOT THAT IN THE APPLICATION, IN THE PACKET THAT'S ATTACHED THERE.
THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE DISTRICT THAT IS CURRENTLY IT ACCOMMODATES NON RESIDENTIAL USES, ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL NATURE, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, MEDICAL CLINICS, THINGS LIKE
[00:45:07]
THAT, BANKS.THE C2 DISTRICT COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS SERVICES PROMOTES PERMITS A VARIETY OF BUSINESSES AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES BY RIGHT THAT DOES INCLUDE THE REQUESTED USE NOT SPECIAL USE PERMIT YOU KNOW IT'S A COMMERCIAL RETAIL STORE IT'S A USE BY RIGHT.
BUT AS I SAID, IT WILL GO THROUGH SITE PLAN REVIEW.
THE COMMERCIAL CATEGORY OF THE 2017 FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS INTENDED TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY'S NEED FOR LARGE NATIONAL RETAILERS AND RESTAURANTS MIXED WITH REGIONAL DRAWS AND SPECIALTY STORES AT VARYING SCALES.
A JEWELRY STORE IS CERTAINLY A SPECIALTY STORE.
IT DOES CORRELATE WITH THE C2 ZONING DISTRICT, AND SO IT'S IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST, OR IT MAY RECOMMEND A DIFFERENT ZONING DESIGNATION THAN PROPOSED IF THEY SEE NECESSARY.
A RESOLUTION SHOULDN'T SAY WILL BE PROVIDED AT A FUTURE MEETING.
SORRY ABOUT THAT, A RESOLUTION SHOULD.
YEAH, RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IS INCLUDED IN THIS PACKET AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION MATERIAL REZONING WHEN AND THE REZONING CRITERIA ANSWERED BY THE APPLICANT AND A COPY OF THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I'M CURIOUS, HOW LONG HAS THAT PROPERTY BEEN VACANT? IT'S CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED AS A BANK.
IF YOU KNOW? I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY THIS APPLICATION ACTUALLY GOES BACK TO 29 OR EXCUSE ME, 2020.
SO OR 2021 EXCUSE ME, IT WAS VACANT AT THAT POINT.
SO AT LEAST A YEAR AT THIS POINT.
THANK YOU. FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT ALLOWED THEM TO HAVE THE DRIVE THRU BEFORE WOULD THAT BE NEGATED IF THE ZONING IS CHANGED TO THE PROPOSED ZONING? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THEY COULDN'T HAVE A DRIVE THRU OR? IF THEY WANTED TO DO A DRIVE THRU FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, THEY'D HAVE TO APPLY FOR A NEW SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
OK. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE PRESENTATION? DOES ANYONE SEE ANY POSSIBLE OBJECTION TO THIS PERMIT REQUEST? WELL, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. OH, I'M SORRY.
BECKY KULKA 6137 COTTAGE DRIVE IN HASLETT.
I'M HERE TODAY JUST TO SAY, PLEASE LET THIS GO THROUGH.
MY CHILDREN HAVE GONE THROUGH OKEMOS, I'VE GONE THROUGH OKEMOS.
THIS IS OUR HOME AND WE JUST WE BELONG HERE.
AND I'VE RENTED THE ENTIRE TIME THE BUILDING BECAME AVAILABLE.
MY DAUGHTER, KAYLA, IS THE FUTURE OF OUR BUSINESS.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO SAY.
I JUST THINK THAT WE ARE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT MY CLIENTS THAT HAVE KIND OF HEARD THE INSIDE THAT WE WERE PURCHASING THE BUILDING, THEY'RE LIKE, YOU KNOW, LOCAL GIRL DONE GOOD.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALL EXCITED ABOUT IT.
AND I HOPE YOU GUYS ARE AS WELL.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
YOU DON'T THINK YOU NEED A DRIVE THROUGH FOR YOUR JEWELRY? YOU KNOW, IT'S FUNNY. THERE ARE JEWELERS WHO DO IT, BUT NO, WE DO NOT NEED THAT.
DRIVE THRU DIAMONDS. [LAUGHTER] I'VE GOT A QUESTION NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE SITE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS AT LEAST SOME CONFUSION BACK A WHILE AGO THAT YOU WERE GOING OUT OF BUSINESS.
YOU KNOW. SO WHAT CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE? BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS A GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE AND THEN.
BUT YOU DIDN'T GO OUT OF BUSINESS.
RIGHT. AND IT WASN'T A GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE.
IT WAS A, WE NEEDED TO LIQUIDATE TO BRING ALL BRAND NEW MERCHANDISE IN.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE COMPANY I HIRED WHO DO THIS FOR ME DID NOT DIRECT US IN THE RIGHT WAY TO MAKE SURE WE ADVERTISED THAT WE WEREN'T GOING ANYWHERE.
[00:50:03]
THEY WERE THEY'RE A LIQUIDATION COMPANY.SO I ACTUALLY SAID ON THE WAY HERE THAT I HAD A CLIENT IN ON SATURDAY WHO SAID, I THOUGHT YOU RETIRED.
AND I SAID, [INAUDIBLE] THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE TOLD US TO ADVERTISE DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE WE JUST LITERALLY WHEN YOU HAVE THE PRODUCT WE SELL AND WE DON'T DO SALES ON A REGULAR BASIS. THERE NEEDED TO BE A WAY FOR US TO FRESHEN EVERYTHING IN THE STORE AND WE WANTED TO BRING IN BRAND NEW LINES AND GET RID OF THE OLD SO THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING NEW AND INTERESTING FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN AND SEE.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE MISLED WITH WHAT WE NEEDED TO BE DOING FOR THE FUTURE OF BBK, BUT IT REALLY DID HELP.
WE BROUGHT IN SOME AMAZING LINES THAT WE'RE DOING GREAT WITH AND HINDSIGHT IS 2020.
THANKS FOR CLARIFYING. YOU BET.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT THE RENOVATION IS BASICALLY THE REMOVAL OF THE DRIVE THRU, BUT THE REST OF THE BUILDING WILL WORK FOR YOUR PURPOSES, THE REST OF THE BUILDING WILL WORK. WE ARE PLAYING WITH THE IDEA THAT POSSIBLY DOING A LITTLE EXTENSION OUT UNDER WHERE THE OVERHANG IS FROM, WHERE THE DRIVE THRU WAS FOR STORAGE AND THAT TYPE OF [INAUDIBLE] GOLDSMITH AND STORAGE, THAT TYPE OF THING.
BECAUSE I HAVE A CRAWL SPACE OVER WHERE I LIVE AND GOING DOWNSTAIRS WITH GIANT TUBS OF THINGS IS NOT FUN.
SO IF WE CAN DO THE LITTLE EXPANSION, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE PERFECT.
SURE. YEAH. WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE THE BUILDING IS IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE AND WAS WAS KIND OF BUILT TO LAST. I PRESUME IF YOU'RE STAYING ON THAT SORT OF SAME CORNER, SAME AREA THAT YOUR CUSTOMERS AND YOUR STAFF FEEL LIKE THE ACCESS TO THE SITE IS PRETTY GOOD.
IT'S YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN IN MY STORE FROM THE STREET, I JUST KIND OF LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, BUT WHEN YOU GO INTO OUR STORE, THERE'S THIS AMBIANCE AND WE REALLY WE'RE SPECIAL. AND OUR CURRENT LOCATION DOESN'T SHOW THAT.
RIGHT. WHAT WE CAN DO WITH THE NEW LOCATION AND WHAT THEY SAY IN OUR INDUSTRY.
AS SOON AS YOU GO FREESTANDING, IT'S A HUGE IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT GAME.
AND WE HAVE ALL THOSE HOTELS AROUND US AND RESTAURANTS AND VISITORS WHO RIGHT NOW DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO WE ARE.
BUT ONCE YOU HAVE A FREESTANDING BUILDING AND THEY CAN SEE IT, OUR BUSINESS IS GOING TO FLOURISH. SO WE'RE REALLY HOPEFUL FOR IT.
I GUESS I'M MAINLY CURIOUS ABOUT THE EXIT FROM JOLLY OAK NORTHBOUND ON OKEMOS ROAD THAT LEFT TURN.
DO PEOPLE EXPERIENCE DIFFICULTY GETTING OUT THAT WAY OR NOT? NO, WE'VE BEEN IN THE LOCATION WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW FOR 22 YEARS, I THINK.
SO THERE'S REALLY NO DIFFERENCE OF ME BEING IN THE NEW PLACE COMPARED TO WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW. IT'S THE SAME TRAFFIC GOING THE SAME PLACE.
THANKS. GREAT TO SEE A LOCAL BUSINESS DOING WELL.
COMMISSIONER PREMOE, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? DO I UNDERSTAND FROM STAFF THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND FUNCTION OF THAT PORTION OF THE CITY? ABSOLUTELY. [INAUDIBLE] DOES STAFF SEE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAL HERE? WE HAVE NONE, NOR HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT.
I WILL ADD THAT IT'S PART OF A CONDO ASSOCIATION WHICH IS ALL OFFICE.
EVERYONE IN THERE HAS TOLD ME WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO HELP YOU GET THIS THROUGH, WE'RE ON SO WE HAVE FULL SUPPORT OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
I'M GOING TO TRY A MOTION TO WAIVE THE RULES AND APPROVE THIS TODAY SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DELAY THE PROJECT ANY FURTHER.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SUPPORT THAT? IS IT BYLAW 6.4 A? YES. YOU'RE GOING TO GET TECHNICAL ON ME.
COMMISSIONER PREMOE COMMISSIONER TREZISE YES.
YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES? YES. DID I MISS ANYBODY? NO. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE WAIVING THE RULES.
THANK YOU. NOW A MOTION TO APPROVE THE THE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER.
DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL FOR THIS? ALL RIGHT. CAN I JUST ASK A QUICK QUESTION? YOU MENTIONED THE MENTION WAS THAT THIS IS PART OF A SITE CONDO, I'M ASSUMING.
IS THERE ANY ISSUE WITH BECAUSE WE'RE NOT APPROVING THE WHOLE SITE, THE WHOLE CONDO FOR
[00:55:07]
ZONING. SO IS THERE ANY KIND OF A TECHNICAL ISSUE REGARDING PIECING OFF OF A CORNER, A FOURTH OR WHATEVER? NO. ONCE THE ONCE THE SPECIFIC PARCELS HAVE BEEN CREATED UNDER THE SITE CONDO, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A CONCERN UNDER THE, IT'S NOT AN HOA IN THIS CASE, BUT THE CONDO BYLAWS. THAT'S A PRIVATE MATTER.
BUT FROM A PUBLIC MATTER, IT IS A SEPARATE PARCEL AND WE CAN ZONE IT WHATEVER WE DEEM FIT UNDER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO THESE ARE SEPARATE PARCELS THERE IN A SINGLE CONDO ASSOCIATION WITH A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER. CORRECT.
THEY'RE FIVE SEPARATE PARCELS, I BELIEVE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE ONE OF THE BUILDINGS HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO CONDO UNITS.
ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL.
COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY SUPPORT.
THE MOTION PASSES. CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ALL.
ALL RIGHT. IT IS NOW 5 MINUTES UNTIL EIGHT.
NOW WE HAVE SITE ITEM SEVEN C, WHICH IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE TRIPLE R DISTRICT.
[7C. Text Amendment 2022-07 – Delete RRR District]
OKAY, GO AHEAD.TEXT AMENDMENT 2022-07 1 FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY TRIPLE R DELETION.
WE BROUGHT THIS TO YOU FOR DISCUSSION A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO.
I THINK 2017 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDS THAT THE NINE ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE, QUOTE, SIMPLIFIED AND CONSOLIDATED.
IN LIGHT OF THAT RECOMMENDATION, PLANNING STAFF HAS BEEN ANALYZING OUR RESIDENT, R SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES TO SEE WHERE THEY CAN WHERE THAT CAN BE DONE.
WHILE WE WERE DOING THAT, WE SAW THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THE TOWNSHIP ZONED TRIPLE R AND NO, BUT WE DON'T ANTICIPATE IT BEING ZONED TRIPLE R.
STAFF IS PROPOSING TO DELETE SECTION 86-369 TRIPLE R DISTRICT AND ALL REFERENCES TO THE TRIPLE R DISTRICT THROUGHOUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THIS EFFECT WAS INTRODUCED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON YOUR REGULAR MEETING ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28TH.
DELETING THE SECTION WOULD COMPLY WITH THE 2017 MASTER PLAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND HELP SIMPLIFY THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY REMOVING UNNECESSARY TEXT.
BECAUSE NO PROPERTY IS ZONED TRIPLE R, DELETION OF SECTION 86-369 WOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON ANY HOMEOWNERS IN THE TOWNSHIP.
ONE OF THE COMMENTS FROM THAT MEETING WAS THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE PROPOSED THE ORDINANCE AS I PRESENTED IT.
SO WHAT I DID, AND I HOPE THIS CLARIFIES THE TEXT AS IT EXISTS, IS IN MY MEMO, SECTION 8 6-369 TRIPLE R DISTRICT IN ITS ENTIRETY IS IN FRONT OF YOU.
AND THERE IS A MOTION WE ARE RECOMMENDING A MOTION TO TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZONING AMENDMENT 22-07 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVISED DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE DATED MARCH 24TH, 2022.
THERE IS AN ORDINANCE IN HERE AND THIS IS MUCH MORE IN DEPTH, IF YOU WILL, THAN WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY PRESENTED TO YOU.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE [INAUDIBLE] THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND FOUND ALL OF THE SPOTS WHERE THE TRIPLE R DISTRICT IS REFERRED TO.
AND IT SHOWS EVERY PLACE THAT'S GOING TO BE PULLED OUT OF.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ISSUE? SO IN EFFECT, IT WOULD SIMPLIFY THE LAW AND HAVE NO EFFECT ON ANYBODY.
[INAUDIBLE] JUST NOTICED ON PAGE FOUR.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU STRUCK THE EXAMPLES OF OUR.
IS THAT JUST BECAUSE IT WAS REDUNDANT? A REFERENCE TO A ONE OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS?
[01:00:03]
LET'S SEE, IT LOOKS LIKE LINE 28 AND THEN LINE 34.YOU SAID PAGE FOUR, PAGE FOUR.
I'M SORRY. PAGE FOUR OF THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
BE A COUPLE. AND RATHER THAN CONTINUE TO STRIKE THAT SECTION, WE'RE SIMPLY SAYING LET'S JUST REFER TO THE ONE FAMILY TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
AND I DIDN'T MEAN TO IMPLY THAT I DON'T READ THE PACKETS.
I DO READ THEM. BUT THIS ONE I ACTUALLY HAD SOME TIME TO DIG INTO.
I HEARD THAT YOU DUG INTO THIS ONE WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB, MUCH LIKE EVERY OTHER TIME YOU READ. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT.
ARE THERE ANY MOTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL ON THIS ISSUE? MOVE TO APPROVE THE CHANGES AS PROPOSED.
RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY TO APPROVE? YES. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE.
THIS WILL BE DONE AS A STRAW POLL AND VOTED ON NEXT TIME.
SPEAKERS] THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YES.
TECHNICALLY, YOU WOULD NEED TO EXPAND YOUR RULES.
SORRY. AND THEN THE CHAIR WILL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND AMEND THE RULES WITH RESPECT TO THIS PUBLIC PUBLIC ISSUE AND GO FOR AN IMMEDIATE VOTE ON THE APPROVAL.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE.
CORRECTION IT'S NOT AMEND THE RULES, BUT SUSPEND, SUSPEND THE RULES AND THEN WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.
YES. YEAH. SO WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. SO THE RULES ARE SUSPENDED NOW.
THERE WAS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY TO APPROVE.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE.
YOU WISH TO RETAIN THOSE POSITIONS.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT.
THE MATTER OF THE AMENDMENT IS APPROVED.
SO WE ARE NOW ON PUBLIC HEARING SEVEN D, WHICH IS UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY STANDARDS.
[7D. Text Amendment 2022-08 – Update Traffic Study Standards]
ANOTHER THING PLANNING STAFF HAS RECENTLY BEGUN LOOKING INTO IS HOW TO MODERNIZE AND STREAMLINE OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC STUDIES.WHILE INVESTIGATING THIS ISSUE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE REALIZE IS THAT THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT HAVE THEIR OWN LANGUAGE ABOUT TRAFFIC STUDIES REQUIRED FOR SUCH AS SPECIAL USE PERMITS, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, ETC.
AND THE LANGUAGE BETWEEN THOSE FOUR SECTIONS IS SOMEWHAT INCONSISTENT.
THIS IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO STREAMLINE THE CODE LIKE THE MASTER PLAN SUGGESTS, AND UPDATE THE TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT TRAFFIC CURRENT TRAFFIC STUDY STANDARDS.
WE INTRODUCED A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY, JANUARY 10TH.
STAFF RECEIVED SEVERAL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS THAT NIGHT, AND WE'VE UPDATED THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AS NECESSARY.
JUST TO REVIEW, WE CREATED A NEW SECTION 36-1 30 TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS.
THAT NEW SECTION CONSOLIDATES ALL THE STANDARDS INTO ONE LOCATION, UNDER UNDER THE SITE PLAN REVIEW LANGUAGE.
THAT'S THE TRIGGER. ALL OF THIS ALL OF THESE PATHS FROM ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS LEAD TO SITE PLAN REVIEW.
SECOND, WE STRUCK OUT EXISTING INCONSISTENT TRAFFIC STUDY LANGUAGE AND REFER READERS TO THE NEW LANGUAGE IN SECTION 36 OR 36-1 30.
WE'VE UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS FROM 100 TO 250 DIRECTIONAL TRIPS OVER A PEAK HOUR. AND CLOSE THE GAP THAT YOU GUYS POINTED OUT ON JANUARY 10TH BETWEEN A TRAFFIC STUDY AND A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT.
THERE WAS A LIKE A 50 TO 99 AND THEN THERE WAS A 50 TRIP GAP BETWEEN AN ASSESSMENT AND
[01:05:03]
A STUDY. BUT WE CLOSED THAT GAP.WE SPECIFY THAT AN ASSESSMENT OR A STUDY MUST FOLLOW THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE HANDBOOK ENTITLED EVALUATING TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES A RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR MICHIGAN COMMUNITIES. AND FINALLY, WE WE CLARIFIED THE LANGUAGE THAT ENSURES THAT A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT OR IMPACT STUDY HAS TO BE PREPARED BY A CERTIFIED TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
AS WITH BEFORE, YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS WRITTEN.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A REVISED VERSION OR RECOMMEND DENIAL.
THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING AMENDMENT PROVIDED AS WELL AS A CLEAN AND A REDLINED VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND I WILL SIMPLY ADD, THIS ACTUALLY CAME OUT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S WORK ON THE [INAUDIBLE] ORDINANCE THAT STARTED THIS.
WE MADE IT UPDATES TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS IN THE [INAUDIBLE] SECTION THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIVE SECTIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY REFERENCED.
REALIZED THEN WE HAD INCONSISTENT STANDARDS AND STARTED THIS BALL ROLLING.
ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER TREZISE. I DO LIKE THIS DRAFT.
OH, THANK YOU. CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN AN ASSESSMENT AND A CERTIFIED OR A STUDY.
THE RULES ARE 250 OR UP TO 249 IS FOR AN ASSESSMENT AND 50 TO 249 AND THEN ABOVE WOULD BE AN IMPACT STUDY AND ALSO TALKS ABOUT GENERATING 250 OR MORE DIRECTIONAL TRIPS DURING A PEAK HOUR OR 750 A DAY.
SO THAT EXPANDS THE INSTANCE WHEN A AN IMPACT STUDY MIGHT BE NECESSARY BASED ON DAY USAGE, NOT JUST PEAK HOUR USAGE.
AND I THINK THAT'S VERY VALUABLE FOR THIS COMMUNITY AND FOR MEANINGFUL ANALYSIS OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY. SO THANK YOU.
AND IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE TOO [INAUDIBLE].
COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL YEAH, I GUESS I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE IS, IS MORE PHILOSOPHICAL AND THE OTHER IS MORE PROCEDURAL.
THE FIRST ONE I KNOW THIS QUESTION WAS IN MY MIND, BUT I DON'T THINK IT GOT ARTICULATED LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT.
BUT THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT MIGHT BE GENERATED TO TRIGGER AN ASSESSMENT OR A STUDY SEEMS TO BE A BLANKET NUMBER REGARDLESS OF WHERE THAT IMPACT IS HAPPENING IN THE TOWNSHIP.
SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT 2204 ONE EARLIER THIS EVENING, WE WERE TOLD THAT MOUNT HOPE IS A MINOR ARTERIAL.
IN THE TOWNSHIP WE'VE GOT COLLECTOR STREETS, NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS, MINOR ARTERIALS AND MAJOR ARTERIALS.
AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT FEELS A LITTLE.
A BIT LIKE A ONE OR TWO SIZES FITS ALL.
RIGHT? 50 ADDITIONAL TRIPS ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL IS A DROP IN A BIG BUCKET.
50 ADDITIONAL TRIPS ON A QUIET RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET IS A NOTICEABLE CHANGE.
IS THERE A REASON WHY WE HAVE THE SAME NUMBER REGARDLESS OF THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THAT'S BEING IMPACTED? ORDINANCES THAT I HAVE WORKED IN WITHIN OTHER PLACES, THEY DO TEND TO HAVE THIS, AS YOU CALL IT, A ONE SIZE FITS ALL.
AS DIRECTOR SCHMITT SAID, THIS IS BASED ON THE STANDARDS THAT WERE AGREED UPON IN THE [INAUDIBLE] ORDINANCE AND MIRRORED THAT.
SO THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THIS COMES FROM.
TO GET INTO A TIERED SYSTEM OF TRAFFIC STUDIES WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND RESEARCH THAT.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT DONE IN MY TRAVELS.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT DIRECTOR SCHMITT.
I, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO HOW TO ACHIEVE THAT.
AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO.
WELL, DO YOU DO YOU TALK ABOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS? DO YOU TALK ABOUT VERSUS ROAD CLASSIFICATION? YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF VARIABLES THAT YOU'RE OPENING THAT DOOR TO AT THAT POINT. MY PERSONAL FEELING AND YOU CAN CALL ME OUT IF YOU WANT A LINE HAS GOT TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE. YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT TO YOU'VE GOT TO BE SOMEWHERE.
THIS ISN'T THIS ISN'T SUDDENLY CREATING A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENT WHERE THERE WAS NONE. THIS IS UPDATING TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS TO KIND OF STREAMLINE THEM AND
[01:10:03]
MODERNIZE THEM. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS OR NOT, BUT THAT'S THAT'S MY THAT'S MY THAT'S HOW I WOULD ANSWER THAT.JUST TO COMMENT, ULTIMATELY, IF IT COMES BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT OR DENY, AND WE FEEL LIKE EVEN WITH THE TRAFFIC STUDY, IF THAT DOESN'T SEEM REASONABLE TO US, THEN WE CAN STILL SAY NO.
AND ASSUMING THAT GOES BACK TO YOUR EARLIER QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S YOUR AUTHORITY UNDER A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN TELL AN APPLICANT, WE DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU'VE LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC, GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC.
AND I HAVE AND I HAVE SEEN IT.
I HAVE WORK WITH APPLICATIONS WHERE THAT KIND OF THING HAS HAPPENED.
SO IN EFFECT, THERE IS A WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S STANDARDIZED.
IN FACT, YOU SAW THAT TONIGHT.
THE KALKA REZONING WAS OVER A YEAR OLD.
SHE GOT SENT BACK AND TOLD, DO A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT.
WE GOT THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT.
WE MOVED THE APPLICATION FORWARD.
IT'S A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION THAT YOU RAISE.
COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.
APOLOGIES TO THE CHAIR, IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME FOR JUST A SECOND.
I THINK THE FIRST THING THAT COMES TO MIND IS THAT, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY A USE THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY.
I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN ALL POSIT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A NON RESIDENTIAL USE, TYPICALLY A RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR. YEAH, RIGHT.
AND THEY'RE REQUIRED GENERALLY TO NOT BE ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS.
SO YOU KIND OF GET PAST THE INITIAL THOUGHT THERE.
BUT YOU KNOW, AT THE SAME TIME, I CAN I CAN SEE THE CONCERN.
I THINK THE KEY IN THE END IS WHERE IS THAT TRAFFIC GOING? AND THAT'S WHERE WHEN YOU GET INTO A FULL TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AND THEY START DOING ANALYZES OF THE INTERSECTIONS, I THINK THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PIECE TO YOUR SPECIFIC CONCERN.
BECAUSE THE IMPACT ON LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR A MAJOR ARTERIAL OF THE SAME NUMBER IS GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFERENT IMPACT ON LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR A MINOR ARTERY.
MY SECOND QUESTION IS, IS THE PROCEDURAL ONE, AND THAT'S WHETHER THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE MAKING A DECISION ON THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IF THAT BODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL AND PROVIDE SOME INPUT.
THEY HAVE NOT. THIS WAS A CLEANUP.
WE CONSIDERED THIS MORE OF A CLEANUP ORDINANCE THAN A POLICY CHANGE ORDINANCE, BUT WE ARE HAPPY TO TAKE IT TO THEM AT THEIR NEXT MEETING, IF YOU'D LIKE.
I HAVE MANY UNDERLYING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WE COUNT TRAFFIC AND HOW RELIABLE THE NUMBERS WE GET ARE, AND I THINK THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT'S WORTH HAVING IF WE'RE SETTING SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS AND PEOPLE OR APPLICANTS ARE PAYING MONEY TO TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TO GO OUT AND DO THESE THINGS, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT RARELY IMPACTS A DECISION.
IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT WOULD BE IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT ANYWAY, I'LL TAKE THE TIME TO SEE. I'LL THROW IT OUT TO THE PLANNING COMMUNITY AT LARGE AND SEE IF ANYONE ELSE HAS A TIERED SYSTEM. THE WAY THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING.
THANK YOU. SURE. WE'LL BE DOING IS REFERRING IT BACK. YEAH, I THINK I WOULD AGREE THAT IT'S WORTHWHILE SENDING IT TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND CHECKING AROUND.
I THINK COMMISSIONER O'CONNELL'S QUESTIONS ARE LEGITIMATE, CONCERNING.
THERE MAY BE MAYBE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT IT MAY NOT HAVE THE IMPACT THAT WE THINK.
BUT UNTIL WE GET THE ANSWERS, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO DEFER THIS.
I THINK THE POSITION THEN IS THAT WE'RE JUST SIMPLY REFERRING IT BACK FOR FURTHER STUDY.
AND YOU CAN PRESENT IT BACK TO THE BOARD WHEN YOU BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
WE'RE CLOSING THAT PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WE ARE NOW FINISHED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
[8A. Text Amendment 2022-02 – Zoning Board of Appeals standards of review]
FIRST ISSUE OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS EIGHT A IS TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STANDARDS OF REVIEW.SO AFTER THE LAST MEETING, I WAS REMINDED WHAT THE STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION ACTUALLY SAYS. AND SO MY APOLOGIES FOR FORGETTING THIS CLAUSE WAS IN THERE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO FIND I LOOKED UP THE COURT CASE THAT
[01:15:02]
I THOUGHT IT WAS IN, AND THEN SENIOR PLANNER SHORKEY REMINDED ME, NOPE, THAT'S THAT'S IN THE THE LAW SO THE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE LANGUAGE IS ACTUALLY LANGUAGE THAT IS DIRECTLY IN THE STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION.AND THEREFORE, STAFF WOULD DEFINITELY RECOMMEND NOT AMENDING THAT LANGUAGE AT THIS POINT AND WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AS WE'VE PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING.
AGAIN, MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT CONFUSION.
WELL, THE FACT THAT THE STATE IS VAGUE [INAUDIBLE] YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE VAGUENESS OF IT.
I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN FROM THE START WHERE IT WAS FROM.
ALL RIGHT, THEN, WERE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ISSUE? SO THEN I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A VOTE ON APPROVAL.
SO IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE APPROVE? SO MOVED. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE SECOND, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER.
LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.
NO. THE REMAINDER? YES. THE MOTION PASSES.
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE NOW ON AND THAT IS 8:15.
WE ARE NOW ON UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM EIGHT B, WHICH IS THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL
[8B. Text Amendment 2022-03 – Lake Lansing Residential Overlay District – Lot Coverage]
OVERLAY DISTRICT LOT COVERAGE.THERE WERE NO CONCERNS WITH THIS MATTER, SO WE HAVE BROUGHT IT BACK TO YOU IN FINAL FORMAT AND WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE COMMISSION? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE A MOTION? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.
SECOND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.
AGAIN, WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
AT 8:15 AGAIN, WE'RE NOW ON ITEM EIGHT C TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAKE LANSING RESIDENTIAL
[8C. Text Amendment 2022-04 – Lake Lansing Residential Overlay District – Front Yard Setbacks]
OVERLAY DISTRICT FRONT YARD SETBACKS.AGAIN, PLANNING COMMISSION HAD NO MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THIS AND WE HAVE BROUGHT IT BACK IN FINAL FORMAT WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION? SO MOVED.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE SECOND? SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS.
I'LL START WITH MYSELF. THE CHAIR VOTES YES.
AND COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, YES.
ALL RIGHT. AT 817, WE ARE NOW ON.
THAT WAS A EIGHT C WASN'T IT? CORRECT. I CAN'T GO PAST EIGHT, ITEM EIGHT D TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE FENCE HEIGHT ORDINANCE
[8D. Text Amendment 2022-05 – Fence Height]
. PLANNING COMMISSION AND NO MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THIS OF THE LAST MEETING.WE HAVE BROUGHT IT BACK IN A FINAL FORMAT AND WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE SO MOVED.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.
SO WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
THE MATTER IS APPROVED AND THE LAST ITEM UNDER UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS ITEM EIGHT E, WHICH
[8E. Text Amendment 2022-06 – Yard Encroachments Permitted]
IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO 2206 YARD ENCROACHMENTS PERMITTED.STAFF HAS WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS AS WELL.
PLANNING COMMISSION NO MAJOR CONCERNS.
SO WE BROUGHT IT BACK IN A FINALIZED FORMAT.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS FINAL ISSUE? NO. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S CALL FOR A ROLL CALL ON THIS.
COMMISSIONER, LET'S MIX IT UP A LITTLE BIT.
THE MOTION IS APPROVED AND WE HAVE NOW FINISHED UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO OTHER BUSINESS UNDER ITEM NINE.
[01:20:04]
AND LET'S GO TO ITEM TEN, WHICH IS REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.[10A. Township Board update.]
ITEM TEN A IS TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.JUST BRIEFLY, THE MERIDIAN COMPANY BUILDING WAS APPROVED.
THEY ARE PLANNING ON STARTING CONSTRUCTION YET THIS YEAR, ASSUMING CONSTRUCTION COSTS DON'T GET TOO MUCH CRAZIER ON THEM.
FINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED.
THIS IS A PROJECT THAT STARTED IN 2019.
GOT TEMPORARY PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THEN THERE WAS A LAWSUIT BY A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER THAT HAS DELAYED THIS PROJECT SOMEWHAT SUBSTANTIALLY.
THE TOWNSHIP HELD OFF ON TAKING ANY ACTION UNTIL THE LAWSUIT WAS FULLY RESOLVED SO AS NOT TO PUT OUR THUMB ON THE SCALES.
THAT WAS FULLY RESOLVED ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF AGO.
AND THEN UNDER STATE LAW, WE HAD 20 DAYS TO TAKE ACTION, WHICH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD DID ON THE 28TH DAY. THEY EXPECT TO START CONSTRUCTION HOPEFULLY THIS YEAR AS WELL.
LASTLY, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT A TOWNSHIP BOARD REPORT UPDATE, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLACE TO SIT.
I AM TAKING A VACATION AND WILL NOT BE HERE AT THE NEXT MEETING.
SO SENIOR PLANNER SHORKEY IS JUMPING JUMPING IN THE DEEP END TO FINALIZE LUCKILY, IT'S A RELATIVELY LIGHT MEETING.
YOU'LL JUST HAVE THE MONTESSORI [INAUDIBLE] FOR DISCUSSION, BUT HOPEFULLY, WE APPROVED THAT DIDN'T WE? WE DID NOT.
WE'LL BE BACK TO TO TALK TO YOU.
OH, NO, WE DID APPROVE THAT TONIGHT.
YES, MY NOTES ARE VERY SCRIBBLING TONIGHT, SO APOLOGIZES FOR THAT.
I'M THINKING ABOUT YOUR VACATION.
YES. THAT'S ALL I HAVE WITH RESPECT TO MY REPORT.
[10B. Liaison reports.]
NONE. IT'S QUIET.ALL RIGHT. PROJECT UPDATES, NEW APPLICATIONS.
OH, I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. THE VRA COMMITTEE DID GET A RECOMMENDATION FOR OFFICERS AND ELECTED THEIR SLATE OF OFFICERS FOR THE COMING YEAR.
AND WE ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWING MORE OF THE DOWNTOWN OKEMOS.
YOU DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT THAT PROJECT.
NOW MOVING ON TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.
ANY FURTHER LIAISON REPORTS? THIS IS NOT A LIAISON REPORT, BUT I WOULD REMARK THAT WE ARE DOWN A MEMBER ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF SCOTT HENDERSON TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.
I WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS LEADERSHIP OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, TWO YEARS AS CHAIRMAN AND ACTUALLY HE'S BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.
SO WE'LL MISS HIM HERE AND WISH HIM WELL AT THE TOWNSHIP.
ABSOLUTELY. I SHOULD PUT IN THE RECORD THAT I ASKED HIM TO GIVE ME A SCRIPT AND HE DID, WHICH IS WHY PERIODICALLY I'M LOOKING DOWN, READING FROM A SCRIPT.
SO YEAH, HE WAS A VERY GOOD LEADER.
YES. THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO ASK THE QUESTION, MAKE A COMMENT OR SHOULD I DO THAT LATER? AND NOBODY HERE, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY NOT.
GO AHEAD. I JUST I KNOW IN THE PAST WE HAVE REALLY HESITATED TO MAKE DECISIONS ON SAME DAY, AND WE'VE BEEN KIND OF EASING THAT UP A LITTLE BIT.
AND I REALLY FOR THINGS THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO DO THAT I REALLY DON'T MIND DOING IT, BUT IT SEEMS SILLY TO HAVE A RULE THAT WE WAIVE.
AND THEN I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO BE VERY CONSISTENT IN OUR APPLICATION OF THAT WAIVING SO THAT WE AREN'T PERCEIVED TO BE TREATING PEOPLE APPLICANTS DIFFERENTLY.
AND SO I JUST IF THERE'S A RULE, IT'S THERE FOR A REASON.
AND IF WE INTEND TO NOT FOLLOW THAT RULE, PARTICULARLY KNOWING WE HAVE A MEMBER ABSENT TONIGHT WHO PROBABLY EXPECTED TO SEE AT LEAST A COUPLE OF THINGS ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA AT THE NEXT MEETING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION.
AND SO I JUST AS A BODY, WANT TO THINK ABOUT WHEN AND HOW WE DECIDE TO DO THAT AND MAYBE BE MORE I DON'T KNOW, WE SET THAT RULE RIGHT.
THAT'S NOT A TOWNSHIP RULE THAT WE HAVE TO.
IT'S OUR BYLAWS AND OUR CORRECT.
THAT IS A BYLAW. IT IS ON MY LIST OF THINGS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT. I WILL BE COMPLETELY UPFRONT WITH YOU.
MY POLICY THROUGHOUT MY CAREER HAS BEEN THERE'S NO REASON FOR A RULE LIKE THIS BECAUSE YOU HOLD ALL THE POWER ANYWAY, IF YOU HAVE LITERALLY ANY QUESTION.
OKAY, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING.
BUT THE FIVE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ARE A GREAT EXAMPLE.
THE FOUR OF THEM LARGELY HAVE HAD NO COMMENT ABOUT THE ENTIRE TIME WE BROUGHT IT UP.
SO IT IS SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH THE COMMISSION LATER THIS SPRING.
BUT TO HER POINT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD ONE IN TERMS OF PROPERTY DECISIONS.
[01:25:02]
YOU KNOW, IF WE WAIVE FOR ONE AND, YOU KNOW, THEN THERE'S ALL KINDS OF QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, WAIT A MINUTE, YOU DID THAT FOR THE JEWELER.WHY DIDN'T WHY NOT US? NO, I MEAN, WE DON'T HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS.
AND SO EITHER WE MAYBE IT'S WE DO WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING AND DROP THAT OR WE TAKE IT MORE SERIOUSLY.
I AGREE THAT IF IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO IT, BUT WE CAN RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT FOR THOSE INSTANCES WHERE WE THINK IT'S NECESSARY.
THAT WOULD BE I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT THAN APPEARING TO SHOW A FAVORITISM FOR ONE AND THEN ANOTHER.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP BECAUSE IT REFLECTS A FEELING I HAVE, I GUESS ON THE OTHER SIDE IN A LOT OF THESE SITUATIONS, IF THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE WATCHING ON THE TELEVISION WHO DON'T HAPPEN TO BE WITHIN 300 FEET OF WHERE THIS ACTION IS GOING TO IMPACT, THEY WOULD NOT RECEIVE NOTICE.
SO BY WAITING THE TWO WEEKS OR SOMETIMES THREE, YOU GIVE A CHANCE FOR PEOPLE THAT BECAME AWARE OF IT AT OUR FIRST MEETING TO COME BACK AND OFFER COMMENTS AND RAISE ISSUES THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US BEFORE.
SO THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR THE DELAY.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S ALWAYS THE WAY TO GO, BUT I AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF IF WE'RE GOING TO WAIVE IT, WE OUGHT TO HAVE A GOOD REASON TO DO SO.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE IT, THEN THAT'S OKAY TOO.
BUT WE OUGHT TO DO IT WITH OUR EYES OPEN.
BUT WHAT I HEAR THAT IF I UNDERSTOOD THE ORIGINAL COMMENT, THE COMMENT IS, WHATEVER WE DO, WE SHOULD BE AS CONSISTENT AS WE CAN AND NOT JUST CAPRICIOUSLY MAKE EXCEPTIONS.
AND NOT THAT WE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED, BUT WE WE NEED TO TAKE OUR ORDINANCES SERIOUSLY AND BE AS CONSISTENT AS WE CAN IN UPHOLDING THEM.
AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN, IN THE CASE OF THE FOUR AMENDMENTS THAT MADE PERFECT SENSE. IT DIDN'T IT DIDN'T IMPACT ANYBODY'S PROPERTY.
BUT I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT THERE.
I THINK THAT THE CONSISTENCY ISSUE IS AN IMPORTANT ONE AND THAT IF WE'RE NOT CONSISTENT, IT'S LIKE WE'RE NOT TAKING OURSELVES SERIOUSLY.
WE WILL ABSOLUTELY QUEUE THIS UP FOR A FURTHER CONVERSATION.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO BE COMPLETELY FRANK, IT'S PROBABLY BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE YOU'VE REVIEWED YOUR BYLAWS ANYWAY, SO THAT'S PRACTICE, AT LEAST FOUR BEST PRACTICE WOULD BE EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS.
JUST TAKE A PEEK AT AND MAKE SURE THERE'S NOTHING NEEDS TO CHANGE.
SO THESE ARE ON MY LIST OF THINGS TO BRING FORWARD THIS YEAR.
MUST HAVE, YOU'RE GOING ON VACATION.
THANK YOU. CAN I JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING.
I JUST IN THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION.
SO THE THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT WAS TONIGHT FOR THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
RIGHT. SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ANYONE THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THAT COULD HAVE AND WOULD HAVE IF THEY CHOSE TO BE BEEN HERE TONIGHT ANYWAY.
AND THEN IT'S OUR BYLAWS THAT STATE OUR COMMISSION BYLAWS THAT STATE WE'RE GOING TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING TO ACTUALLY ACT ON WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO DOES THE PUBLIC EVEN HAVE ACCESS TO DOES THE PUBLIC EVEN HAVE THE AWARENESS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACT UNTIL THAT NEXT MEETING ANYWAY, GIVEN THAT TONIGHT IS THE PUBLIC HEARING, DO YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SOME DO, SOME DON'T.
I DO KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. BUT WHAT I'M THINKING IS YOU'RE RIGHT.
THOSE THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THE AREA, THEY GET NOTICE, BUT IT'S ONLY WITHIN 300 FEET. GOTCHA.
AND SO THERE MAY BE PEOPLE JUST BEYOND THAT THAT DIDN'T GET NOTICED AND THEY HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS.
YEAH. THE 300 FEET, THE 300 FOOT DETERMINATION IS THAT AN ORDINANCE, NOT A STATE LAW.
THANK YOU. THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF FRUSTRATION THAT CAN BE BUILT IN BY THE DELAY, TOO, IF THERE IS NO APPARENT OBJECTION TO IT.
LIKE WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION OF STAFF, IS IT IS THIS PROPOSAL COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING LAND USE IN THE AREA AND HAS ANYONE VOICED AN OBJECTION ANYWHERE?
[01:30:04]
AND THE ANSWER IS YES AND NO.THEN YOU'RE SIMPLY BUILDING A FRUSTRATION LEVEL FOR NO APPARENT REASON.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT IS THIS MAY BE A HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AND WE SHOULD GIVE THE PUBLIC A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO IT.
BUT I THINK THOSE ARE SELF APPARENT USUALLY.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DECIDE IT TONIGHT? NO. AND LET HIM HAVE HIS VACATION.
AND BACK TO THE ORIGINAL COMMENT AGAIN, WHETHER WE DO OR DO NOT HAVE THAT PARTICULAR CLAUSE IN OR NOT.
ISN'T THE ISSUE THE ISSUE IS, ARE WE GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR OUR BYLAWS? AND AND AND AT WHAT POINT DO WE SAY, YOU KNOW, WE WE DON'T MAKE EXCEPTIONS UNLESS IT'S REALLY EXTREME.
I MEAN, AND AND I'M A FORMER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, SO I KNOW THE ISSUE OF TWO WEEKS CAN MEAN A LOT TO TO ME IN TERMS OF GETTING MY FOOTINGS IN THE GROUND OR WHATEVER.
BUT I ALSO AS PART OF THAT PROJECT, YOU DON'T LET THE ELECTRICIANS SAY, OH, WE THOUGHT WE'D DO IT THIS WAY INSTEAD.
YOU KNOW, AND THEN SAY, OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? THEY'RE THE RULES ARE THE RULES.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S LOOK AT ITEM 11 ON THE AGENDA.
[11. PROJECT UPDATES]
PROJECT UPDATES, NEW APPLICATIONS, HASLETT VILLAGE SQUARE MUPUD.I BELIEVE THE AT LEAST THE CONCEPT PLANS ARE ONLINE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED.
BUT WE WILL BRING THIS FORWARD MOST LIKELY AT THE SECOND MEETING IN APRIL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. ARE THERE ANY SITE PLANS RECEIVED? WE HAVE NOT. AND SITE PLANS APPROVED? SANCTUARY THREE MENTIONED THAT.
YES, SIR. WE HAVE NO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT.
[LAUGHTER] THAT'S THAT'S THE SIGNAL.
I THINK THAT WAS A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
[LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. THE CHAIR MAKES A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
THANKS. WHERE ARE YOU VACATIONING TO?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.