Jun 13, 2022 Planning Commission

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

[00:02:32]

ALL RIGHT. THE TIME IS NOW 7:00.

I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING FOR JUNE 13, 2022, OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION.

WE'LL START FIRST WITH A ROLL CALL.

. WE HAVE A QUORUM.

I NOTICED THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.

I'D LIKE TO INVITE YOU, IF YOU WISH, TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, TO MAKE YOUR PUBLIC REMARKS.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO AT THIS TIME, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF BY NAME AND YOUR HOME ADDRESS.

IF YOU WISH TO RESTRICT YOURSELF TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD, THEN WE WILL ASK FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THAT APPROPRIATE TIME.

IS THERE ANYONE THERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A GENERAL ADDRESS TO THE BOARD? NONE. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

SO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE LIST IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ALL IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT.

NO OPPOSITION.

THE AGENDA IS APPROVED.

NEXT ITEM. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 23 REGULAR MEETING.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER, I HAVE ONE VERY SMALL CORRECTION TO OFFER ON PAGE FIVE, WHICH IS PAGE SEVEN OF THE PACKET.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.

FIFTH PARAGRAPH DEVELOPMENT IS 8 MINUTES FROM MERIDIAN MALL BY BUS AND 24 MINUTES TO MSU CAMPUS.

FURTHER STATED, CATA OPERATES A SHOPPING BUS THAT SERVES SHOPPING CENTER.

IT CIRCULATES TO OR SERVES EITHER ONE OF THOSE.

THAT'S THE MOST TRIFLING AMENDMENT I PLAN TO MEET ALL YEAR.

I PROMISE. ALL RIGHT.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS OR AMENDMENTS TO THE MAY 23 MINUTES? ALL RIGHT, THEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE MAY 23 MINUTES WITH WITH THE CORRECTION SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSITION? THERE IS NONE. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

NOW WE HAVE COMMUNICATIONS ITEM NUMBER SIX.

[6. COMMUNICATIONS]

[00:05:01]

THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN COMMUNICATION FROM RADHIKA PRASAD ALSO REGARDING PUD-22-014 AND FROM KAREN EARLY OR I GUESS IT'S EARLY ON BEHALF OF THE NETTLAUFFE FAMILY.

ALSO CONCERNING THE SAME ITEM.

NO. YES, SAME AMENDMENT.

SHE JUST DIDN'T IDENTIFY IT BY CODE NUMBER.

ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE'RE INTO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN PUBLIC HEARINGS.

ITEM 7A IS THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

[7A. Planned Unit Development #22-014 – 3560 Hulett Road]

IS THERE A STAFF PRESENTATION? VERY SMALL. THANK YOU.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED.

WE'LL HAVE A MORE FULL REPORT COMING IN THE FUTURE.

BUT WE WANT THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

WE WANTED TO GET ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THIS UP FRONT.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

HE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL.

AND THAT'S EVERYTHING I HAVE TO SAY.

WE'RE NOT MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME.

NO RECOMMENDATION. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD CONCERNING THIS ISSUE? MY NAME IS JIM JAGGER.

16900 PINE HOLLOW DRIVE IN EAST LANSING.

I AM THE APPLICANT FOR THE PUD.

I WAS LOOKING TO DEVELOP FIVE OR ACTUALLY SIX LOTS OF WHICH ONE.

THERE'S A CURRENT FARM THAT'S THERE.

I'M GOING TO KEEP THAT.

AND THEN I WOULD TAKE THE THE BARNS THAT ARE THERE DOWN AND IN WHICH IF THERE'S FIVE BARNS AND THERE'S ONE GARAGE AND ANOTHER OUTBUILDING OF SOME SORT WHERE WE REPLACE IT WITH FIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

AND INITIALLY THE IT IS ZONED I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANY ZONING CHANGES.

THE ZONING IS STILL THE SAME.

IT'S JUST I'M LOOKING TO TO DO A PUD AND DEVELOP IT AND FOR FIVE SINGLE FAMILY OR FIVE ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM. COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE? QUESTION? THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A RETENTION POND.

NOW I SEE YOU'VE GOT A WETNESS WETLANDS THERE AND PAXTON POND.

ARE YOU CREATING A ANOTHER AREA FOR RETENTION OR FEEDING INTO THE PONDS THERE? NO, THERE'S THERE'S A RETENTION AREA THAT'S THE MEADOW SUBDIVISION HAS IT AND THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION HAS AN APPROVED OUTLET. WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE AN EASEMENT TO GET TO USE IT.

IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY, SO IT'D BE A VERY CONVENIENT USE.

SO THERE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR THAT THERE.

THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE DRAIN COMMISSIONERS? DRAIN COMMISSIONER, YES. AS FAR AS CAPACITY TO HANDLE YOUR RUN OFF WITH FIVE HOMES.

RIGHT. WE DID CHECK WITH THE ENGINEER THE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR SEWER AND WATER FOR THAT SITE ALSO.

AND THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION WILL ALLOW US TO HAVE ONE DRIVEWAY THERE.

DO YOU HAVE PLANS TO HOOK INTO ONE OF THE STUBS OFF CORIOLIS OR THE NEIGHBORING SUBDIVISION FOR A.

YEAH, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE TOWNSHIP ALLOWS TO DO.

BUT YES, OUR PLAN IS TO HAVE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER THERE.

OKAY. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS DEVELOPED AS A CUL-DE-SAC BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS? YES, THAT'S WHAT THE AND ALSO WHAT THE ROAD COMMISSION RECOMMENDED.

MR. MCCONNEL? YEAH, I'M CURIOUS, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE LETTER FROM THE LAW FAMILY, IT ALWAYS IMPRESSED ME THAT THE FARM STRUCTURES ON THAT, ALL THE STRUCTURES ON THAT SIDE ARE REALLY GREAT CONDITION AND IT LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE AN ACTIVE FARM, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ACREAGE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

AND I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES.

ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EITHER RELOCATION OR RE-USE OF THE MATERIALS FROM THOSE STRUCTURES? THEY SEEM TO BE IN GREAT CONDITION.

YES. SO WE'LL PROBABLY CONTACT PEOPLE WHO USE BARN WOOD AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

[00:10:02]

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

IN GENERAL, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PLAN.

I'M PLEASED THAT YOU'RE PRESERVING THE EXISTING FARMHOUSE AND THERE ARE GENEROUS SIZED LOTS IN THIS POD.

SO ALTHOUGH IT WILL ADD FIVE MORE HOMES TO THE AREA, IT'S NOT A DENSE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT STILL KIND OF PRESERVES THAT OPENNESS TO THE AREA.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF BARNS, WHAT PURPOSES THOSE BARNS HAD? DO YOU KNOW? I GUESS THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING INTERESTING TO FOLLOW UP TO JUST KNOW THEIR PURPOSES ON THE FARM.

IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO KNOW THAT IN ORDER TO SEE THEM HAVE ANOTHER LIFE ELSEWHERE.

I DON'T KNOW.

I CAN CHECK WITH THE NEST LOFTS AND GET BACK WITH YOU LIKE.

SURE. I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON.

QUESTION EITHER FOR THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.

I KNOW THE PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAY DOES NOT CROSS THAT PROPERTY, BUT JUST ENDS ABRUPTLY ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN CONTINUES AROUND DOWN VALLEY.

SO MY QUESTION IS, WILL THERE BE THE IS THERE ROOM IN THIS DEVELOPMENT TO PUT THAT PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAY? YEAH, THE PEDESTRIAN PATH WILL BE INSTALLED.

A SEVEN FOOT PATH, I THINK IS WHAT WE REQUIRE THERE.

AND THEN A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK GOING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE CUL-DE-SAC THAT'LL CONNECT TO THAT PATH ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.

AND I GUESS MAYBE I APOLOGIZE FOR MY HEARING, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD SOME OF THE QUESTION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ASKED ABOUT CONNECTING TO THE STREETS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION OR OK.

AND WHAT WAS THE ANSWER? I GUESS I DIDN'T HEAR THAT CLEARLY.

THERE WOULD BE NO NO CONNECTION WITH THE STREET.

YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. I MEAN, THERE ISN'T ANY WAY TO GET THERE ON THIS.

NO, THERE IS NO WAY.

RIGHT. I GUESS THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS POINT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THIS CITIZEN? THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF, IF I MIGHT.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT, PAGE TWO, IT'S PAGE 12 OF THE PACKET ON THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

NUMBER EIGHT, AND I SHOULD KNOW THESE BY HEART BY NOW, BUT THIS ONE CAUGHT MY EYE EXCEPT IN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

STORM WATER RUNOFF INDUCED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE DETAINED FOR STORAGE AND INFILTRATION ON THE SITE.

AND WHEN I FIRST READ THAT, I THOUGHT, DOES THAT MEAN ONLY DETAINED AND INFILTRATED? OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S SOME EXPECTATION THAT WATER WOULD RUN OFF.

SO I GUESS I'M CURIOUS ABOUT OUR ORDINANCE AND THAT GUIDANCE.

IS IT MEANT TO BE SOME DETENTION AND SOME INFILTRATION OR ALL DETENTION AND INFILTRATION ON IT? WHAT ARE WE GETTING AT THERE? WE'RE FILLING. YEAH, I WILL.

I WILL. SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS PROBABLY A HOLDOVER OF A PREVIOUS ERA WHERE THERE WAS DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN PLACE, ESPECIALLY AT THE COUNTYWIDE LEVEL.

WHAT WE ARE HEARING AND SEEING ON MOST PROJECTS NOWADAYS FROM THE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE, IS THAT THAT IS FUNCTIONALLY THE STANDARD THEY UTILIZE, IS THAT IT WILL BE RETAINED AND ALLOWED TO INFILTRATE ON SITE TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE AND THE DISCHARGE POINTS ARE CONTROLLED PRETTY EXTENSIVELY.

SO I THINK WHAT THAT IS GETTING AT IS THAT YOU JUST CAN'T SHEET FLOW IT OFF THE SITE OR INTO A WETLAND OR SOMETHING.

THERE HAS TO BE A CONTROLLED USE OR A CONTROLLED CONTROL OF THE STORM WATER ITSELF.

I THINK THAT'S JUST AN OLD WAY OF SAYING KIND OF WHAT THE NEW STANDARD HAS BECOME.

SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE TO THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH WE WANT TO DETAIN AND FOR HOW LONG AND HOW IT GETS TREATED BEFORE IT GETS DISCHARGED.

IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION THAT I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH YOU ABOUT IN THE FUTURE.

I HAVE PONDERED THAT IN LIGHT OF THE STANDARDS OF THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE HAS.

[00:15:03]

AND SO I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO BE A LITTLE MORE ACTIVE IN THAT AREA? AND I DO HAVE SOME IDEAS, BUT STILL HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE ABOUT HOW CAN WE BE MORE PROACTIVE TO HELP THEM OUT? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL? IN LAYPERSON OR LAYMAN'S TERMS, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE RUNOFF IS ALL THAT STORM WATER IS HANDLED ON SITE AND THERE WOULDN'T BE RUNOFF ONTO OTHER PROPERTIES? CORRECT. ALTHOUGH THE UNIQUE SITUATION HERE IS THERE'S FUNCTIONALLY A IT'S NOT A REGIONAL BASIN, BUT THERE IS FUNCTIONALLY A REGIONAL BASE AND THAT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THIS LAST REMAINING PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO DISCHARGE TO IT.

SO. BUT IF THIS WAS IF THIS WAS SOMEWHERE ELSE ON ITS OWN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE FOR ALL OF THEIR STORM WATER ON SITE BEFORE IT LEAVES THE SITE. SO IT HAS TO BE PRE TREATED.

IT HAS TO BE A CONTROLLED DISCHARGE.

SO WE HAD RECEIVED AN EMAIL COMMUNICATION FROM THE FROM PRASAD.

AND YOU COULD THEY COULD REST ASSURED THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IF THIS DEVELOPMENT WERE TO GO FORWARD.

ABSOLUTELY. IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT THEIR WATER WILL COME ONTO THIS SITE THAN THE WATER FROM THIS PROPERTY TO GO ON THEIR SIDE.

IS THAT BECAUSE? IS THAT BECAUSE? IMPROVEMENT OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE STORM WATER FOR THIS GENERATION.

ESSENTIALLY, IT'S A NEW SET OF STANDARDS THAT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE UNDER COMPARED TO WHEN THAT WAS APPROVED.

OKAY. DO YOU KNOW APPROXIMATELY WHEN? I KNOW YOU'RE A NEWCOMER TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE WILL FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

I'M JUST WONDERING, ROUGHLY, I WOULDN'T HOLD YOU TO IT, BUT THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW BECAUSE SOMEONE BOTHERED TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THAT CONCERN.

ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I GUESS I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR MR. GARRETT. WE'VE ENTERTAINED A LOT OF PROPOSITIONS RECENTLY FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS.

I'M JUST WONDERING, WHAT DO YOU ENVISION AS A TIMELINE ONCE YOUR PROJECT IS APPROVED, ASSUMING IT'S APPROVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? WILL YOU BE BUILDING IN ANTICIPATION OR DO YOU HAVE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS FOR THESE HOMES? I DO HAVE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS FOR THESE HOMES, YES.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT CONCERNING THIS ITEM? ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD REGARDING THIS ITEM? THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THOSE THREE PERSONS.

THERE IS NOBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD CONCERNING THIS ISSUE.

ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY.

YES, MA'AM. THIS IS REGARDING 3560.

YES. YES, MA'AM.

YEAH. INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

TELL US YOUR NAME AND YOUR HOME ADDRESS, PLEASE.

WELL, COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE.

MY NAME IS LAURIE TETZLAFF ADAMS, AND I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER.

I HAVE A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM MY BROTHER AND SISTER.

THEY LIVE OUT OF STATE.

MY BROTHER IS A PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH AT UNIVERSITY OF MILWAUKEE IN WISCONSIN.

MY NAME IS MARK KNUTSEN.

I'M HAPPY TO JOIN MY SISTERS IN OFFERING OUR FULL SUPPORT FOR JIM KROGER'S POD PROPOSAL FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3560 HEWLETT ROAD.

WE ENTHUSIASTICALLY AND UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT JIM'S PROPOSAL IS AN IDEAL DESIGN FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THE SINGLE ENTRY ON HEWLETT ROAD IS A WELL CONCEIVED WAY OF MANAGING ANY TRAFFIC FLOW.

HIS PLAN FOR FIVE HOMES ON AN INTERNAL CUL-DE-SAC BLENDS IN SEAMLESSLY WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, HIS DESIGN PERVERT PRESERVES THE HOUSE AT 3560 HEWLETT, A HISTORIC STRUCTURE BUILT IN 1870.

OUR FAMILY DEEPLY APPRECIATES THE CARE WITH WHICH HE HAS RESPECTED THIS HOME AND ITS HISTORY.

SPEAKING OF HISTORY, HEWLETT ROAD IS, IN FACT NAMED AFTER THE WOMAN WHO BUILT THIS HOME IN 1870 AND WHO PLANTED AN APPLE ORCHARD ON THE SURROUNDING LAND.

OUR GRANDPARENTS AND PARENTS FARMED THIS LAND, INCLUDING THE ADJOINING FIELDS WHERE OKEMOS HIGH SCHOOL IS NOW LOCATED FROM 1942 TO 2000.

BUT THE BARN AND THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS HAVE REMAINED UNUSED FOR MORE THAN TWO DECADES, JUST AS THE HEWLETT AND THE NUTS LOFTS REMADE THIS LAND.

WE DEEPLY APPRECIATE OF THE STEWARDSHIP OF JIM GOODYEAR AND LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE NEXT GENERATIONS WHO WILL MAKE THIS CORNER OF THE TOWNSHIP THEIR HOME AND MORE FOR MY SISTER.

SHE LIVES IN HARRISONBURG, VIRGINIA.

[00:20:03]

I'M SUBMITTING THIS LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY.

AS YOU KNOW, 3560 HEWLETT ROAD HAS BEEN IN THE NETTLAUFFE FAMILY FOR OVER 80 YEARS.

MY FATHER FARMED THE 75 ACRES AND MANY ACRES OF THE SURROUNDING LAND AS ONE OF THE LAST ACTIVE FARMS IN THE TOWNSHIP BEFORE.

INEVITABLY, DEVELOPMENT, PROGRESS AND MY PARENTS AGE AND RETIREMENT MADE FARMING IN OKEMOS A THING OF THE PAST.

LAST YEAR OUR MOTHER MOVED FROM HEWLETT ROAD INTO A RETIREMENT HOME AND PASSED AWAY UNEXPECTEDLY SOON THEREAFTER.

I GREW UP IN A TIME WHERE I RODE MY BICYCLE TO AND FROM SCHOOL IN DOWNTOWN OKEMOS.

THOSE FOND DAYS ARE GREAT MEMORIES FOR ME.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE LIVE IN A DIFFERENT TIME AND ERA.

OUR FAMILY LISTED THE FARM FOR SALE FOR OVER ONE YEAR AND WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT A LOCAL BUILDER DEVELOPER, JIM GEIGER, HAS ELECTED TO PURCHASE THE NETTLAUFFE'S FARM AND BUILD FIVE HOMES WITH ONE ENTRANCE ONTO HEWLETT ROAD AND TO RETAIN THE HISTORICAL HOME THAT IS PART OF THE FARM.

THERE COULD BE OTHER PROJECTS THAT PEOPLE COULD PROPOSE FOR OUR LAND, BUT OUR FAMILY IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT, AND WE BELIEVE THAT OUR MOTHER AND FATHER WOULD LIKEWISE SUPPORT IT. IN MY PERFECT WORLD, THE LAND WOULD STILL BE FARMED BY MY FATHER.

HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE JIM GOODYEAR'S PROPOSAL IS A REASONABLE PROJECT FOR THIS TIME AND AGE.

WE ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT HIS PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU, MA'AM. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS LADY? OH, SURE, SURE. WHAT'S IN THE GARAGE? WHAT KIND OF WOOD WERE THE BURNS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS ITEM? SHALL WE TAKE A STRAW VOTE ON IT? ALL RIGHT. I'LL PROPOSE A STRAW VOTE ON ACCEPTANCE OF THE POD PROPOSAL.

ROCKER STRAW.

LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YES, COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

YES, COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

YES, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YEAH. I'M PARTICULARLY ENTHUSED ABOUT THE WALKABILITY PORTION OF THIS PROPOSAL.

WE'VE STRUGGLED WITH THE DEFINITION OF THAT TERM IN THE PAST, BUT BUILDING HOMES ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SCHOOL THAT STUDENTS CAN WALK TO.

I CAN'T THINK OF A BETTER ILLUSTRATION OF WALKABILITY THAN THAT.

AND THAT CONTINUATION OF THE PATHWAY IS FULFILLING THE TOWNSHIP'S GOALS.

AND THIS PLAN FITS WITH THE MASTER PLAN I SUPPORTED.

VERY GOOD. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

YES. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

YES. NOW THAT.

THAT THE FAMILY'S PRESENT.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE SOME OF THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY AND WHAT SOME OF THE OUTBUILDINGS WERE ABOUT AT A LATER TIME, I MEAN, YOU COULD DO IT TONIGHT OR JUST MAYBE SUBMIT A DESCRIPTION OR SOMETHING THAT'D BE APPRECIATIVE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

YES. COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

I CALL YOU OK AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND THAT WAS A STRAW VOTE.

YES. YES.

WE'LL DO A FULL ANALYSIS AND BRING IT BACK FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

SO WE NOW ARE ON ITEM 7B, WHICH IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL SIGNAGE ORDINANCE.

[7B. Text Amendment 2022-11 – Municipal Signage]

THIS JUST THE TIMING IS NOT WORKED OUT.

SO WE BROUGHT THIS SMALL PIECE FORWARD NOW.

SUBCOMMITTEE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED THIS AND HAD NO MAJOR CONCERNS WITH IT.

DID DISCUSS IT AT SOME LENGTH.

BUT FUNCTIONALLY WHAT THIS DOES IS IT EXEMPTS MUNICIPAL SIGNAGE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE BECAUSE AS WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS MUNICIPAL SIGNS ARE TRYING TO DO AS IN COMPARISON TO A TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING OR BUSINESS MESSAGE SIGN.

SO STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE THAT WE APPROVE THIS THIS EVENING.

AND IN ONE OF THE FEW TIMES I'M GOING TO DO THIS, WE WOULD ASK THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WAIVE YOUR RULES THIS EVENING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD SO WE CAN GET THIS IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE SIGN PROJECT, WHICH HAS GOTTEN FASTER THAN I EXPECTED TO THIS POINT.

WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPROVED THIS.

DOES IT STILL HAVE TO GO TO THE DOES STILL HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD? OKAY. JUST ONE COMMENT.

IT OCCURS TO ME THAT OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE TO US APPROVING THIS IS THE FACT THAT IT ALLOWS AMBER TO PUT UP TEMPORARY ROAD SIGNS TO HELP PEOPLE AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION ZONES.

[00:25:02]

THOSE SIGNS ARE LEGAL UNDER A CURRENT ORDINANCE, UNDER STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF IT.

THIS DOES HELP SUBSTANTIALLY.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER CORDILL? I APPRECIATE WHERE THE NEED FOR THIS, WHAT STANDARDS WOULD BE IN PLACE FOR, WHAT THAT MUNICIPAL SIGNAGE WILL LOOK LIKE OR TOWNSHIP SPONSORED? SO FUNDAMENTALLY, ALMOST ALL OF THESE TYPES OF SIGNS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL.

THE BOARD HAS SPENT A SOMEWHAT EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF TIME REVIEWING THE SIGN PACKAGE THAT'S CURRENTLY UP FOR CONSIDERATION.

THE SIGN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE TWO SIGNS AND PLANNING COMMISSION ARE REVIEWING LATER THIS EVENING HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXTENSIVELY REVIEWED BY THE BOARD AND STAFF. SUFFICE TO SAY, NOTHING'S GOING TO GET APPROVED UNLESS IT GOES THROUGH MULTIPLE LAYERS OF STAFF REVIEW AND PROBABLY A LAYER OF BOARD REVIEW.

I GUESS I JUST AM CURIOUS, WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT TO SEE AND AND TOWNSHIP SPONSORS SIGNAGE.

I MEAN, I CAN SEE I CAN UNDERSTAND THE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE TO ESCORT PEOPLE THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE HONESTLY, I THINK I COULD USE A LITTLE MORE OF THAT.

SO TECHNICALLY, ONE OF THE EXAMPLES, WHAT ARE THE JUDGING THESE WHAT'S THE TOWNSHIP BOARD JUDGING THE SIGNS AGAINST, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M ASKING OUR BRAND STANDARDS. SO THE THIS IS OUR BRAND STANDARD.

THOSE ARE THE COLORS. THAT'S THE LOGO.

THAT IS THE KIND OF THING THAT ANY SIGNAGE WE DO NEEDS TO BE IN HARMONY WITH.

SO, SO THERE'S, THERE'S THE DESIRE TO USE THE BRANDING.

BUT WHAT ABOUT LIKE SIZE AND PLACEMENT AND NUMBER OF SIGNS AND ALL THAT KIND OF GEEKY SIGNAGE THAT IS THAT WILL BE ENTIRELY UP TO FUNCTIONALLY STAFF AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD SHOULD THEY GET INVOLVED WITH IT.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT A LOT OF THE WE'VE WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION INTERNALLY.

WE THINK THE LAND PRESERVATION SIGNS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST PROBABLY WERE NOT INSTALLED PROPERLY.

THEY PROBABLY DON'T MEET THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THESE TYPES OF SIGNAGE IN GENERAL JUST IS NOT SOMETHING THAT MUNICIPAL LAND DOES.

AND SO WE'RE JUST FUNCTIONALLY WE ARE JUST TRYING TO ALLOW FOR THE EASE OF INSTALLATION AS OPPOSED TO GOING TO THE ZBA OR GOING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AN SUP ON EVERY SINGLE ONE. BUT IT WILL STILL BE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T MEAN TO DOMINATE THE CONVERSATION OF OTHER.

SO CAN YOU JUST KIND OF OUTLINE I MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, I IMAGINE YOU HAVE THERE ARE PLANS FOR SIGNAGE IN THIS AREA.

JUST JUST IF YOU COULD KIND OF DESCRIBE WHERE THESE SIGNS WOULD BE, WHAT KIND OF APPLICATION? I MEAN, YOU MENTIONED LIKE THE LAND PRESERVATION SIGNS AND SO FORTH.

YES. SO LARGELY A SIGN LIKE THIS WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN APPLICATION BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S THE MUNICIPALITY ASKING THE MUNICIPALITY FOR PERMISSION.

SO TYPICALLY, WE WE PROBABLY WON'T APPLY FOR A SIGN PERMIT.

WHAT WE'LL APPLY FOR IS LIKE AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT IF WE NEED ONE LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S STILL SOMETHING WE NEED TO GO THROUGH.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION AT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD LEVEL, THERE IS AN ENTIRE SIGN PACKAGE OUT THERE OF WHAT THE MEETING, OUR BRAND STANDARDS AND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT MOVING TOWARDS.

I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

SUFFICE TO SAY THAT HAS BEEN EXTENSIVELY VETTED BY STAFF, ASSISTANT MANAGER OPSOMMER AND SPECIAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR MASSEY HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS GOING THROUGH IN REALLY EXCRUCIATING DETAIL IN MANY WAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS ALL OF OUR WHAT WE'RE GOING FOR AND IS STILL IT'S NOT AN OVERWHELMING SIGN.

IT'S STILL IN KEEPING WITH THE SCALE AND CHARACTER OF WHERE IT'S BEING INSTALLED.

THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS ALSO REVIEWED THAT, I BELIEVE, AT LEAST THREE TIMES THAT I'M AWARE OF, AND I KNOW THEY TALKED ABOUT IT EXTENSIVELY PREVIOUSLY.

SO IT'S THESE DECISIONS AREN'T MADE IN A VACUUM.

IT DOES GO THROUGH A LOT OF REVIEW BEFORE ANYTHING LIKE THIS GETS INSTALLED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT CHEAP.

TO BE PERFECTLY BLUNT.

IT'S IT'S AN EXPENSE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GET AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD EVENTUALLY.

AND SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE SOMETHING TO THE BOARD THAT'S GOING TO BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA IT'S BEING INSTALLED.

BUT LIKE THE DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE FOR FOR THIS PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.

SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND THE PUBLIC, THE POLICE BUILDING THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.

AND THERE'S REALLY NO SCENARIO UNDER WHICH YOU CAN BUILD AN ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS MUNICIPAL SIGNAGE BECAUSE OUR NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT THAN A COMMERCIAL TENANT OR A COMMERCIAL

[00:30:07]

I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I'D BE INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT THE SIGN PACKAGE LOOKS LIKE.

HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT. THANK YOU.

MR. RICHARDS, YOU MENTIONED THIS AT A PREVIOUS MEETING, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE TOWNSHIP PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

SO WE KNOW HOW RESTRICTIVE THE RESIDENTIAL SIGN ALLOWANCES ARE.

SO THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THAT YOU HAVE, IS THAT VIRTUALLY PRETTY MUCH ANY SIGN IS REALLY NOT TECHNICALLY ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL OTHER THAN FOR SMALL BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF SQUARE FEET.

SO THAT'S THE CHALLENGE.

AND HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE ZBA OR SOME OTHER WAY AROUND, IT IS THE CHALLENGE WHICH I SUPPORT THE THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF.

DO YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS BESIDES THE TOWNSHIP YOU MENTIONED, LIKE IDENTIFICATION OF WETLANDS AND WHAT OTHER KIND OF SIGNS MIGHT WE SEE POPPING UP? SO THEORETICALLY, IF WE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YES, THAT WOULD QUALIFY.

TYPICALLY ON WETLANDS, LIKE IF THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT SOMETHING IS SET ASIDE THAT IS BUILT INTO THE SEP APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

COPPER CREEK IS THE EXAMPLE THAT COMES TO MIND RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH THAT ONE.

THERE IS A SPEC THAT THEY HAVE TO INSTALL AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS THAT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THE PROJECT TO IDENTIFY THESE PROTECTED WETLANDS THAT ARE BEING SET ASIDE AS PART OF THE PROJECT. THINGS LIKE THAT FALL INTO A BIT OF A GRAY AREA BECAUSE THEY'RE APPROVED OVER HERE UNDER THE SUP OR UNDER THE SUBDIVISION, BUT THEY'RE REALLY NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE SIGN ORDINANCE.

SO BECAUSE THEY'VE GOTTEN AN APPROVAL, WE ALLOW THEM TO BE INSTALLED.

BUT PARK SIGNAGE IS THE EXAMPLE THAT COMES TO MIND BECAUSE AS COMMISSIONER RICHARDS POINTED OUT, ALMOST EVERYTHING WE OWN IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL, WHICH FUNCTIONALLY JUST ALLOWS A HOME OCCUPATION SIGN.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE? I WOULD MOVE THAT WE SUSPEND OUR BYLAWS AND SO THAT WE CAN VOTE ON THIS THIS EVENING.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SPORT COMMISSIONER RICHARD SECONDED.

I THINK I HAVE TO TAKE ME BY AN ATTORNEY ON OUR STAFF THAT WE NEED TWO THIRDS OF A VOTE TO WAIVE IT FOR DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION FIRST.

YES. YEAH.

I'M STRUGGLING JUST A LITTLE BIT TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OF URGENCY.

IT SEEMS TO ME WHEN THE TOWNSHIP CONSIDERS APPROVING, CONSIDERS ANY APPLICATION FROM THE TOWNSHIP.

IT'S OUR DUTY, I THINK, TO HOLD OURSELVES TO THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE STANDARD.

I THINK MOVING WITH MORE HASTE THAN WE WOULD WERE A PRIVATE APPLICANT ASKING FOR URGENT ACTION BECAUSE THEY HAD A PLAN THAT WAS COMING TOGETHER FASTER THAN THEY HAD ANTICIPATED.

I THINK AT TIMES THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BALKED AT THAT AS AN ARGUMENT FOR URGENCY.

SO AS MUCH AS I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE TOWNSHIP SIGNAGE MEET THE BRAND STANDARDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, I'M NOT SURE THAT I DON'T SUPPORT THE SUSPENSION OF THE RULES IN ORDER TO TO MOVE FORWARD MORE QUICKLY THAN WE MIGHT IN THE CASE OF OF A PRIVATE APPLICANT.

OFFERING A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE AND I THINK I HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING SERVED ON THE SIGN COMMITTEE.

SO I HAVE HEARD SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS ALSO PART OF A DISCUSSION OF THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE THAT'S BEEN BEFORE THE WHOLE BOARD PREVIOUSLY. SO TO ME THIS DOESN'T FEEL AS RUSHED AS IT WOULD HAVE IF THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME WE WERE HEARING OF IT.

SO I'M VERY COMFORTABLE TAKING THIS PIECE OF THAT PART THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE SIGN COMMITTEE TO PUT FORWARD AS A CHANGE TONIGHT TO SUPPORT THE TOWNSHIP IN ITS WORK.

I DO APPRECIATE YOUR CAUTION AND YOU WANT TO SORT OF FOLLOW THE BOOKS.

AND IN GENERAL, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD A GOOD CAUTION FOR US.

BUT IN THIS CASE, I'M I'M MORE COMFORTABLE CHANGING THAT POLICY BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD ON THE TOPIC.

IT ALSO SUGGESTS THAT IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE URGENCY, THAT, AGAIN, IF WE'RE DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE, WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THOSE ON THE MERIT OF THE CONCERN AS WELL.

[00:35:07]

ANY OTHER COMMENTS THEN? YES, I WOULD FEEL MORE CONFIDENT MOVING FORWARD ON THIS AND SEEING WHAT KIND OF SIGNS AND WHERE THEY WOULD BE LOCATED.

AT LEAST THE SIGN PACKAGE.

I REALIZE THAT THERE MAY BE SIGNS THAT THEY DON'T ANTICIPATE NOW, BUT TO SEE WHAT WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE WORKS.

WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT SOME OF THE SIGNS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING LATER ON IN THE SPEECH.

RIGHT. THE CHANGING MESSAGE.

YEAH, BUT THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF SIGNS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THIS POINT IN LIMITED AREAS.

SO I THINK THOSE ARE PRIMARILY THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN FRONT OF THE TOWNSHIP AT THIS POINT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE WE CALL IT? ALL RIGHT. ON THE ISSUE OF THE WAIVER OF THE BYLAWS FOR IMMEDIATE VOTE.

TWO THIRDS ARE VOTING YES.

THEREFORE THE TIME PERIOD IS WAIVED.

NOW, IS THERE A MOTION ON THE APPROVAL OF THE.

QUESTION TEXT AMENDMENT FOR MUNICIPAL SIGNAGE.

SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR TEXT AMENDMENT FOR MUNICIPAL SIGNAGE 2022-11 BE APPROVED MOVED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS IS SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL TAKE A ROLL CALL.

. WE NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM SEVEN C, WHICH IS TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CONTAINER REGULATIONS.

[7C. Text Amendment 2022-12 – Refuse/Storage Container Regulations]

LAST TIME WE GOT THE GO AHEAD TO GO AHEAD AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'VE RECEIVED NO COMMENT.

THE ORDINANCES ARE AS THEY APPEARED LAST TIME YOU SAW THEM.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THIS.

AS A PERSONAL NOTE, ONE DID GO UP IN MY SUBDIVISION, SO NOW I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT? THE CHAIR WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

I'M SORRY. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE? YES. IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO.

SO YOU NEED TO PROCEED.

I WAS GOING TO SAY IT'S JUST ANOTHER ONE THAT SOMEONE IS SUGGESTING THAT WE WAIVE BYLAWS OR ARE WE JUST.

I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'VE JUST BEEN DOING HEARING.

THE RESOLUTION IS IN THERE IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO.

BUT AT YOUR LEISURE, THIS IS WHAT THE BYLAW SAYS IS WE CANNOT APPROVE IT ON THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS WE WAIVE THE RULE.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT WAS OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT NEW BUSINESS.

YEAH. TONIGHT IS THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS THE THIRD TIME YOU'VE SEEN IT.

I SHOWED IT TO YOU ONCE.

YOU BASHED IT NICELY.

SORRY. SORRY.

YOU HAD COMMENTS ABOUT IT.

I BROUGHT IT BACK TO YOU.

AND WHEN YOU SEEMED OKAY WITH IT, THEN I TOLD YOU I SCHEDULED A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THAT IS TONIGHT.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION.

ALL RIGHT, THEN LET'S TAKE A STRAW VOTE ON THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSITION.

[00:40:06]

IT SEEMS ODD TO ME TO SAY THAT A VOTE CARRIES WHEN IT'S A STRAW VOTE.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO SAY THAT THE VOTE GAINED STRAW VOTE SUPPORT.

OK YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? YEAH, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WE PASSED IT.

IF YOU SAY IT CARRIES.

OK. OK.

I'LL BRING THAT UP.

THANK YOU. ZACH, WHEN YOU'RE LISTENING TO THE MINUTES, DO THAT [LAUGHTER].

AND IT APPEARS FROM THE AGENDA THAT THERE IS NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

SO WE ARE ON ITEM NINE.

OTHER BUSINESS ITEM NINE A IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CHANGING MESSAGE SIGNS.

[9A. Special Use Permit #22-061 – Meridian Township Changing Message Signs]

MARKETPLACE ON THE GREEN IS THE ONE EXCEPTION TO THE PROPERTY BEING ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

I FORGOT ABOUT THAT WHEN COMMISSIONER RICHARDS SAID THAT.

SO TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE IS A PROVISION FOR SIGNAGE THERE AT LEAST.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THE LAST MEETING HAD NO MAJOR CONCERNS, ASKED US TO REWORK A COUPLE OF PIECES OF THE LANGUAGE.

SO WE'VE REWORKED UNDER THE RESOLUTION CONDITIONS TWO AND FIVE.

I'LL START WITH FIVE.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL HAD A CONCERN WITH CONDITIONING IT UPON SPECIFICALLY UPON THE ORDINANCE CHANGING.

SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE REVERSED THAT AND MADE IT SO THAT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD NO LONGER BE VALID UNLESS THAT HAPPENS.

SO TAKING THE BURDEN OFF THE REQUIREMENT TO IT HAPPENING AND THEN THE COMMISSION CLEARLY HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ABOUT HOW OFTEN IT CHANGES.

AGAIN IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, ALL BETS ARE OFF.

WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO AND THAT DOESN'T REALLY NEED TO BE SAID.

BUT IN TRYING TO MESH WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TALKED ABOUT AND WHAT STAFF INTENDS TO DO HERE, WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH IS THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN FIVE MESSAGES PER DAY.

SO AND THEY SHALL NOT TRANSITION MORE THAN ONCE A MINUTE OR ONCE EVERY.

THEY HAVE TO BE UP THERE FOR AT LEAST A MINUTE.

SO THAT TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER PREMOE'S CONCERN ABOUT IT BEING DISTRACTING TO A DRIVER.

FOR BOTH OF THOSE SIGNS, YOU SHOULD BE PAST THE SIGN BY THE TIME IT CHANGES.

BUT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS COMMISSIONER SNYDER HAD ABOUT WHAT IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE THINGS GOING ON.

THIS IS ALSO COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT'S CONCERNS OF OK.

THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE COULD PUT ON MARKETPLACE OF THE GREEN RIGHT NOW IF WE HAD THAT SIGN.

AND SO THIS IS TRYING TO FIND THE HAPPY MEDIUM IN EVERYONE'S CONCERNS WITH THIS LANGUAGE UNDER SUBSECTION TWO.

SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE SIGNS.

THIS IS ACTUALLY IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE A PEEK, THIS IS THE MAY 17TH PACKET THAT HAS THE ENTIRE MAY 17TH TOWNSHIP BOARD PACKET.

THIS HAS THE ENTIRE SIGN PACKAGE THAT'S CURRENTLY BEEN BEING REVIEWED.

THANK YOU, ASSISTANT MANAGER OPSOMMER FOR RESPONDING TO THE TEXT QUICKLY SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO SEARCH FOR THIS.

THIS IS THE MUNICIPAL SIGN THAT THE BUILDING THE SIGN FOR THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, YOU'LL SEE THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD IN THE CENTER HERE, 20 SQUARE FEET.

THE REASON THIS SIGN IS SLIGHTLY BIGGER THAN THE SIGN TO SHOW YOU I'M GOING TO MARKETPLACE ON THE GREEN IS BECAUSE WE ARE ALSO PUTTING THE HISTORICAL VILLAGE SIGN ON THIS SIGN. SO THE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX BUILDING IS SLIGHTLY BIGGER THAN THE MARKETPLACE ON THE GREEN SIGN, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THIS ONE.

THERE IT IS. THIS IS THE THIS IS THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING ZOOMED IN.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE ALTERNATIVE HERE JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE THAT EXTRA PART.

SO WE TAKE OUT THIS MIDDLE PIECE FOR THE MARKETPLACE ON THE GREEN SITE.

BOTH OF THEM HAVE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME MESSAGE BOARDS, 20 SQUARE FEET.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS THIS EVENING.

AND THIS IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKING BODY ON THE SITE.

BUT THIS DID GO THROUGH EXTENSIVE VETTING WITH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

THE TOWNSHIP BOARD IS ON BOARD WITH THESE SIGNS AT THIS POINT.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. ONE TYPOGRAPHICAL AND ONE PHILOSOPHICAL.

THE THANKS FOR TAKING INTO ACCOUNT MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE PHASING OF THE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE SHALL BE VOID IF THE TOWNSHIP

[00:45:01]

CORRECT. AND BUT THOSE DESIGN ELEMENTS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY PART OF THE RESOLUTION.

BUT IT'S THE APPLICATION.

SO YOU ARE APPROVING THE APPLICATION, RIGHT? THIS IS THE SIGN THAT IT WAS PART OF THE APPLICATION.

SO IT'S LIKE A SUBDIVISION.

YOU'RE APPROVING THAT DESIGN, RIGHT? SO IF THE TOWNSHIP DECIDED AFTER APPROVAL THAT IT WANTED TO BUILD SOMETHING TWICE AS BIG, THAT WOULD NOT CONFORM, IT WOULD NOT.

AND AS I STATED AT THE LAST MEETING, MY POSITION IS THAT THESE SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR THESE TWO SITES WILL SURVIVE THE CHANGE IN ORDINANCE.

AND SO ANY CHANGE WILL STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW.

SO I GUESS THEN THE FOLLOW ON QUESTION IS FOR OTHER SIGNAGE THAT'S NOW BEEN EXEMPTED, THERE WOULDN'T BE A SIMILAR POINT AT WHICH THE DESIGN STANDARDS WOULD BE REVIEWED EXCEPT INTERNALLY TO MEET BRAND STANDARDS.

AND AT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD LEVEL, WHICH IS THIS PACKET THAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING.

I WAS THINKING ABOUT OTHER SIGNS THAN THE ONES COVERED BY THIS PACKET, OTHER MUNICIPAL SIGNAGE THERE WOULDN'T BE A FORMAL REVIEW, BUT I THINK IF YOU'VE GOT IT, IF YOU TAKE A MINUTE TO GO THROUGH THIS, YOU WILL SEE THIS IS OUTLINED IN DETAIL FOR PRETTY MUCH ANY POSSIBLE SIGN THAT WE WOULD INSTALL.

I MEAN, THIS IS FUNCTIONALLY THIS IS BASICALLY HOW ANY SIGN THAT THE TOWNSHIP IS GOING TO INSTALL IN THE NEAR FUTURE IS GOING TO LOOK BASED OFF THIS PACKAGE THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS GIVEN THEIR I DON'T WANT TO SAY BLESSING, BUT THEIR HEAD NOD TO.

RIGHT? SO THE LAND PRESERVATION SIGNS, FOR INSTANCE, [INAUDIBLE] PARK AND OTHERS ARE KIND OF UNDER THIS SAME KIND OF SET OF DIRECTIONS.

CORRECT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. ONE MINOR.

THE DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR THIS THAT'S IN OUR PACKET HAS LAST LAST MONTHS LAST MEETINGS DATE MAY 23RD OR 20 YEAH MAY 23RD.

SO JUST IF WE DO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT, IT SHOULD BE UPDATED TO TONIGHT'S DATE, RIGHT ? AT THE BOTTOM ADOPTED ON INSTEAD OF SAYING 23RD OF MAY I THINK BECAUSE YOU GAVE US A DRAFT . YEAH, THERE'S ACTUALLY THERE ARE TWO RESOLUTIONS IN YOUR PACKET, THIS ONE FROM THE LAST ONE.

BUT YES, THE PICKING UP ON THE FOURTH WHEREAS SORRY IF I'M READING THE WRONG ONE GREAT. YOU KNOW, A FEW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO READ THIS STUFF.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS, GO AHEAD. YEAH.

I HATE TO EVEN BRING THIS UP AT THIS TIME, BUT I GUESS I'M GOING TO ANYWAY.

AND IT'S IT'S REGARDING THE ACTUAL VERBIAGE ON THE SIGNS.

ARE THE, IS THE VERBIAGE ON THE SIGNS.

PART OF THE APPROVAL.

PART OF YOUR APPROVAL? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

WE CAN'T REGULATE WHAT A SIGN SAYS.

OKAY. LET ME JUST SAY, AND I KNOW THIS IS PART OF THE LOGO AND EVERYTHING, BUT I HAVE TO GO BACK IN HISTORY A LITTLE BIT WHEN VIRGINIA WHITE WAS CLERK AND WE PUT A NEW SIGN OUT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, AND SHE LOOKED AT ME AND SAID, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT SIGN DOWN.

AND I GO, WHY IS THAT? SHE SAID, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN.

IT SAYS MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

AND THE THE OFFICIAL TITLE FOR US IS THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MERIDIAN.

SO WHETHER THAT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT I WILL ASK THE QUESTION.

I THINK IT WAS PICKED OUT AND PUT IT ON A SIGN.

BUT I WILL ASK THE QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER. QUICK QUESTION.

LOOKING AT THE RESOLUTION NUMBER TWO AND THE MESSAGE ON THE SIGN SHALL CHANGE NO MORE THAN TWICE A DAY.

AND I BELIEVE YOU STATED FIVE TIMES, YOU ARE DEFINITELY ON THE OLD RESOLUTION.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'M VERY CONFUSED THEN, TRYING TO FIND THE CURRENT ONE.

SCROLL BACK UP.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX PAGES.

YOU WILL SEE THE UPDATED RESOLUTION.

[00:50:04]

THAT'S HELPFUL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IS THERE A MOTION? SO MOVED.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

LET'S CALL THE ROLL.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS. YES.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

YES. COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

YES. COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

YES. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

YES. COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

YES. COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES AS WELL.

THE MOTION IS APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A STAFF DISCUSSION FOR ITEM NINE B PLANNING

[9B. Planning Commission By-laws – Discussion]

IT'S BEEN FIVE YEARS, SO ALMOST TO THE DAY.

SO GREAT PRACTICE TO TO DO THAT.

WE CAN CERTAINLY AMEND FURTHER IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD DESIRE BECAUSE THERE IS A BIT OF OVERLAP FROM THE ORDINANCE.

BUT REALLY ALL WE'RE PROPOSING AT THIS POINT IS FUNCTIONALLY IT'S FOUR CHANGES AND ONLY ONE OF WHICH I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION REALLY CARED ABOUT WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY BROUGHT THIS ITEM UP.

BUT I'LL BRIEFLY JUST TALK ABOUT THE THE CHANGE IN THREE D REALLY DOES NOT REFERENCE ANYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE.

SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THAT BE STRUCK.

THE CHANGE AT FIVE A FIVE 8 IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY NECESSARY.

STAFF'S POLICY IS THAT WE RUN THE AGENDA BY THE CHAIR BEFORE WE PUBLISH IT.

SO THAT IS OUR WORKING POLICY.

THE CHANGE IN SECTION SEVEN IS RECREATING THE EXISTING ORDINANCE.

WE WOULD DEFINITELY RECOMMEND REMOVING THAT SO THAT IN THE EVENT WE UPDATE THE ORDINANCE, WE DON'T FORGET TO UPDATE THE BYLAWS AND THEN WE HAVE TO SET STANDARDS OUT THERE.

SO REALLY THE THE ONLY CONTROVERSIAL ONE, IF YOU WILL SAY SAY IS 6.4, WHICH IS THE BYLAWS RESTRICTING ACTION THE SAME NIGHT AS THE PUBLIC HEARING.

STAFF'S POSITION AND I WILL REITERATE THIS IS ENTIRELY YOUR RULE.

YOU CAN TREAT IT HOWEVER YOU WANT.

OUR POINT IS ALWAYS, IF THERE IS LITERALLY ANY QUESTION AT ALL, IF THIS DOESN'T EXIST, THEN WE BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

SO THIS IS BUT THESE ARE THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RULES, SO I WILL STEP ASIDE NOW.

ANYONE WISH TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE TONIGHT? COMMISSIONER TREZISE. I PERSONALLY LIKE 6.4 THE ONE THAT ABOUT DELAYING BECAUSE WHEN WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC MEETINGS SOMETIMES OFTEN WITH ZONING OR PROPOSALS, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THE PUBLIC, AT LEAST ON TV OR WIDESPREAD, HAVE SEEN NOTICE OF THIS CHANGE.

AND WE MAY GET PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE ALSO OFTEN HAVE QUESTIONS THAT REQUIRE FURTHER FOLLOW UP, AND I THINK WAITING TWO WEEKS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IN 90% OF THE CASES, WHATEVER MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO GET FULL INFORMATION AND TO ALLOW FURTHER PUBLIC IMPACT.

THERE IS A PROVISION TO WAIVER UNDER 9.2 AND INAPPROPRIATE SITUATIONS THAT HAS BEEN UTILIZED, AND I CONSIDER IT A VALID USE OF THE BOARD TIME TO WAIVE THAT INAPPROPRIATE SITUATIONS.

BUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF WAITING TWO WEEKS TILL THE NEXT MEETING TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION.

THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT, EVEN THOUGH I'M THE CHAIR, I'M THE SECOND NEWEST MEMBER OF THIS BOARD.

AND I HAVE SEEN THE BENEFIT OF HAVING SOME TIME TO DIGEST, COMMENT AND DISCUSSION AND REVISIT IT TWO WEEKS LATER, WHEN THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED AN EMERGENCY BASIS OR WHEN THERE'S LITERALLY NO DISCUSSION TO BE HAD ON AN ITEM.

IT IS A WAVE ABLE RULE.

IT'S NOT IT'S NOT UN WAVE ABLE.

SO I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO CHANGE IT AT THIS TIME [INAUDIBLE].

I ECHO THAT, I THINK IT SHOULD BE A GIVEN THAT IT'S GOING TO COME UP IN TWO WEEKS, BUT THERE SHOULD BE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE HANDLED THAT NIGHT, AND WE HAVE ACTED ON THAT.

IT'S NOT LIKE IT HASN'T.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE UNREASONABLE ABOUT THAT AS A BODY.

[00:55:03]

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. I ALSO AGREE THAT IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THAT LITTLE CHECK ON US AND TO HAVE THE STANDARD EXPECTATION TO BE THE AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING. WHAT I WOULD ASK THOUGH, IS AS I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE FORMALIZED, EXCEPT SORT OF BY TACIT AGREEMENT OF THE BOARD, IS THAT WE TRY TO USE SIMILAR STANDARDS WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO WAIVE SO THAT WE DON'T FIND OURSELVES WAIVING FOR SOME AND NOT FOR OTHERS, BUT THAT THERE BE SOME CONSISTENCY IN HOW WE PROCESS THAT SORT OF AND I THINK YOU LISTED SOMEBODY DID THE IF THERE IS NO OPPOSITION OR IF IT IS SOMETHING WHERE THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES BY WHICH WAITING WOULD CREATE A PROBLEM AND SOME COMBINATION OF THOSE.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT FORMALIZED, BUT I WOULD LIKE US TO TRY TO ABIDE BY THAT AND AND NOT KIND OF FLIP FLOP ON HOW WE CHOOSE TO USE THAT THAT FLEXIBILITY. I'M SORRY.

THANKS. FURTHER TO THESE POINTS, IT'S REALLY SPARKING THOUGHTS IN MY HEAD.

I CAN IMAGINE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEES AN APPLICATION FOR THE FIRST AS THE FIRST BODY WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP OTHER THAN STAFF, AND IS THE FINAL DECIDER.

BEING SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM COMPLEX APPLICATIONS WHERE THERE MAY BE MULTIPLE PERMITS.

THE APPLICATION MAY END UP GOING TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WHERE THERE'S ALREADY BEEN MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE AND HEAR ABOUT APPLICATIONS WHERE AS BEING VERY DIFFERENT IN NATURE.

SO I'D BE INTERESTED IN STAFF'S VIEW OF WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO THINK ABOUT TREATING APPLICATIONS IN CONTEXT OF OTHER PROCESSES THAT THEY NEED TO PASS THROUGH.

MR. PRESIDENT, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY MY EXPERIENCE OF BEING ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION OF THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST TO WAIVE THAT TWO WEEK WAITING PERIOD, SO TO SPEAK.

AND I THINK MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, I CAN'T SAY THAT I DON'T REMEMBER SOMETHING GOING INTO THE RECORD, LIKE THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION OR IT WILL OR FURTHER DETAILS WILL BE FORTHCOMING.

BUT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD POLICY TO HAVE.

AS OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE NAME OF THIS BODY.

IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO PLAN SOMETHING CORRECTLY, YOU SHOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT.

YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED RUSHED TO JUDGMENT COMMISSION.

[LAUGHTER] DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME RING.

I DO APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER SHREWBURY'S COMMENT THAT IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO HAVE YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE A LIST OR A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT WOULD WOULD TRIGGER AN EXCEPTION.

YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY HEARD THE POINT ABOUT JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING IT'S URGENT, YOU KNOW, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN A BUILDER SAYING IT'S URGENT, BUT A BUILDER MAY COME AND SAY, IF I CAN'T GET A PERMIT TODAY, I CAN'T GET THE MATERIAL AND THEREFORE I WON'T BE ABLE TO BUILD FOR TWO YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THAT WOULD BE A CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD CAUSE ME TO SAY, WELL, YEAH, WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION, BUT PERHAPS IF WE HAD SOME GUIDELINES FOR THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

SO I SUPPORT THAT STATEMENT OR THAT IDEA.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THIS? GO AHEAD. AN OBSERVATION? YES. AS I'M LISTENING TO YOUR CONVERSATION, IT OCCURS TO ME THAT THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A SITE PLAN BECAUSE YOU MAKE A YOU MADE A COUPLE OF YOU MADE THE POINT.

PEOPLE WATCH THIS ON TV LIKE THE PD TONIGHT WE GOT EMAILS.

I VERY WELL COULD GET TWO MORE EMAILS TOMORROW, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THERE'S THAT MAKES SENSE.

THE TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN BRINGING TO HAVE BEEN PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

[01:00:04]

PERHAPS THAT IS A DISTINCTION THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AS AN EXAMPLE.

AND I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, THE REFUSE CONTAINER TONIGHT.

THAT'S THE THIRD TIME YOU'VE HEARD IT.

I HAVEN'T I EVER HAD A COMMENT ON IT THAT SEEMED LIKE THAT COULD GO FORWARD, THAT DIDN'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION PUBLIC OR FROM THE COMMISSION.

AND I DON'T I DON'T ANTICIPATE GETTING IT EITHER.

YOU SEE THAT? I JUST SUGGEST THAT, AS YOU WILL.

WE DELAYED THAT SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE ISSUE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BUT I LIVE IN [INAUDIBLE] TOWNSHIP.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT WAS LISTED AS DISCUSSION.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSION ON THAT, UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

I THINK THE OTHER PROPOSALS THAT THEY HAD IN THERE AS FAR AS ELIMINATING SOME PROVISIONS MAKE SOME SENSE, ESPECIALLY THE SECTION SEVEN, WHICH IS THE APPELLATE PROCEDURE, I THINK THAT'S ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE.

SO WE DON'T NEED TO INCLUDE IT IN OUR BYLAWS.

A REFERENCE SUBSECTION THREE D HAS DUTIES IMPOSED UPON US THAT WE DON'T DO AND ISN'T PART OF OUR ENABLING ORDINANCE OR LEGISLATION.

SOME OF THE LISTING IS FOR, I THINK, THE LIMITATION ON THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS WE HAVE WE MISSED SEVERAL TIMES AND SO AND WE'VE NEVER VOTED TO WAIVE THAT WHICH WE CAN DO.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE A LIMITATION THAT REALLY ISN'T NECESSARY AND WE CAN DEFER PUBLIC HEARINGS AS NECESSARY IF IT GETS TOO LATE.

SO I THINK THOSE CHANGES ARE REASONABLE AND I WOULD SUPPORT THOSE.

I DON'T THINK ANYTHING IS REQUIRED TONIGHT ON THIS.

NO, NO. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, THEN. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GIVE GUIDANCE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, THEN.

SO WE ARE NOW ON ITEM TEN, WHICH IS TEN A IS TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

[10A. Township Board update.]

AND SO I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE ON HERE.

SO THE BOARD HAS ONLY HAD ONE MEETING SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION LAST MET, AND THEY WERE VERY HAD A VERY EXTENSIVE AGENDA'S AS I BELIEVE WE MENTIONED BEFORE THE MEETING THEY HAD THE WORLD CHAMPION HASLETT ROBOTICS TEAM AND FOR PRESENTATION ALONG WITH POLICE AND FIRE CANDIDATES, SPECIAL TRIBUTE FOR THE FLAGS OVER MERIDIAN PROJECT THE TOWN HAS STARTED, PRESENTATION ON THE NEW MASCOT FROM JOHN HOOD WITH OKLAHOMA'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND A PRESENTATION FROM CHIEF HAMMEL ABOUT SEVERE WEATHER AWARENESS, WHICH IS A TIMELY, TIMELY ONE ALONG WITH THE AUDIT.

SO FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PERSPECTIVE, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SPECIFIC ITEMS ON THERE.

ONE, THE BICKFORD HOUSE PROJECT WAS APPROVED FOR A BUILDING LARGER THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET.

THEY ARE WORKING ON FINAL ENGINEERING AT THIS POINT AND WE EXPECT TO SEE A SUBMITTAL FROM THEM SOON.

THEY DID ALSO THEY ADOPTED THE MEETING ATTENDANCE ACCOMMODATION POLICY.

SO UNDER THE STATE LAW THAT WAS CHANGED TO ALLOW FOR REMOTE ATTENDANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH QUALIFIED DISABILITIES, THERE IS A NOW POLICY IN PLACE FOR THAT. I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT FURTHER.

IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

THEY DID SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 12TH ON THE [INAUDIBLE] FOR HASLETT VILLAGE SQUARE.

WE DID THIS A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE CALENDAR FELL, SO WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO TAKE THAT TO THEM NEXT WEEK FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING ALREADY SET.

AND THEY DID APPROVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION DISTRICT, WHICH HELPS THE FINANCING OUT ON THE PROJECT BUT DOESN'T TAKE ANY MONEY OUT OF THE TOWNSHIP'S POCKET THAT NOW GOES TO THE COUNTY FOR REVIEW.

IT'S ONE OF THE FEW ACTS THAT WE TAKE THAT GOES TO THE COUNTY FOR REVIEW.

AND LASTLY, THEY DID AMONG A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS.

ONE OF THE LAST THINGS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY WISH TO UNDERSTAND IS THEY DID BEGIN DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE 2022 TEN, WHICH IS THE DECS AND THE PD, AND THEY HAD A SIMILAR REACTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF YEP, LET'S FIX THAT.

[01:05:02]

WE DO HAVE, AS PREDICTED TO APPLICATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO FALL RIGHT UNDER THAT ORDINANCE RIGHT AWAY.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE A GOOD ONE TO FIX.

SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S THE SHORT VERSION OF A LONG AGENDA.

I'M SORRY. WAS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE ARE ON NOW ON ITEM TEN B, WHICH IS LIAISON REPORTS.

[10B. Liaison reports.]

THANK YOU. WELL, YOU MAY ATTEND A THURSDAY EVENING.

I'LL MAKE SOME SERIOUS DECISIONS BY MYSELF.

YES, WEDNESDAY EVENING.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER LIAISON REPORTS? I ATTENDED. OH, I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

I ATTENDED THE EDC MEETING LAST WEEK OR WEEK BEFORE, AND THEY DID NOT HAVE A QUORUM, SO NOTHING WAS FORMALLY ACTED UPON.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS FLOATING AROUND THAT WILL COME BACK IN THE NEXT MEETING, AND WE HAD A NICE PRESENTATION FROM AMBER ABOUT THE JUNETEENTH DAY CELEBRATION IN THE TOWNSHIP, WHICH IS GOING TO BE VERY NICE.

AND THAT INFORMATION, I BELIEVE, IS ON THE WEBSITE.

I ALSO WAS SWORN IN TO THE BROWNFIELD DEVELOPMENT, SO ADMINISTRATION WILL BE MEETING, I THINK ON THURSDAY THIS WEEK.

SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.

NOT A LIAISON REPORT, BUT YOU TRIGGERED MY MEMORY ABOUT SOMETHING.

YOU AND I, THE ONLY ATTORNEYS ON THE STAFF.

I THINK IT WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT CAME OUT THAT JUNETEENTH WAS MADE A COURT HOLIDAY.

YES. SO THE COURTS WILL BE OFFICIALLY CLOSING FROM NOW ON ON JUNETEENTH, IF IT COMES OUT DURING A WORKING DAY.

SO, YEAH, THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MET ON JUNE 1ST AND CONTINUES ITS WORK TO UPDATE THE CLIMATE SUSTAINABILITY ACTION PLAN ADOPTED BY THE BOARD IN 2017.

AT THE LAST MEETING THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED A PROPOSAL TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE CLIMATE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN THAT BASICALLY EXPANDS WHAT HAD BEEN A PORTION OF THE RECYCLING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT REFERENCED ORGANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT, BUT DIDN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS TO EXPAND THAT AND TO INCLUDE ALSO LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION.

THOSE TALKS ARE IN THEIR EARLY PHASES, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEIR I THINK IT'S LIKELY THAT THERE COULD BE SOME DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE CLIMATE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN AND EFFORTS TO PROMOTE LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION AND POTENTIALLY THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND HOW WE FORESEE THE FUTURE OF OUR UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE TOWNSHIP WITH REGARDS TO UPDATING THE MASTER PLAN.

I ATTENDED THE DDA MEETING.

A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE MEETING WAS SIMPLY DISCUSSING THEIR BUDGET AND HOW THEY PAID ALL THEIR BILLS AND WITH THEIR CURRENT BALANCES.

BUT THERE WAS ONE ISSUE THAT CAME UP THAT IS OF INTEREST TO THIS GROUP, I THINK, AND THAT IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THEY HAD TO REMOVE SEVERAL MAJOR LIGHT POSTS THAT PROVED TO BE SURPRISINGLY EXPENSIVE.

IT WAS $4,000.

THEY THEY FOUND A LOCAL CONTRACTOR WHO WAS WILLING TO DO THE JOB.

AT FIRST, THEY COULDN'T EVEN FIND SOMEBODY WHO WAS WILLING TO DO IT.

THEY FINALLY FOUND A CONTRACTOR WILLING TO DO IT.

AND IT WAS $4,000 SIMPLY TO DIG UP THE POLE.

AND WHAT THEY'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT IT MAY END UP BEING A WHOLE STRING OF LIGHT POSTS ALL THE WAY DOWN THE WAY THAT HAVE TO DO THAT.

WE DON'T YET HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST TO REINSTALL THEM AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.

SO IT'S JUST SIMPLY TO DIG THE THING UP, CAP OFF THE ELECTRICAL OUTLET AND AND GET THAT PULL OUT OF THE WAY OF THE PROJECT WAS $4,000 FOR ONE POLE.

SO TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EXPENSES INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, THAT'LL GIVE YOU AN IDEA.

AND THAT WAS A MAJOR ISSUE OF DISCUSSION AT THAT MEETING.

ANY OTHER LIAISON REPORTS? ALL RIGHT. SO WE ARE. THAT SOUNDS OUTRAGEOUS, BUT IT ISN'T BECAUSE OF THE LIABILITY ISSUES AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS.

[01:10:02]

IT'S NOT OURS.

YEAH, THE CONCRETE POLE AND ALL THE WIRING THAT'S, ALL THEY DO IS SUPPLY THE JUICE THAT GOES THROUGH IT.

SO INTERESTING PROBLEM.

[INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT.

SO WE ARE NOW ON ITEM ELEVEN PROJECT UPDATES.

[11. PROJECT UPDATES]

SORRY. THE FIRST ONE, THE NEW APPLICATION, THE SUP THAT IS AN APPLICATION FOR A GROUP DAY CARE.

AND THE OTHER IS A PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR JULY 11TH ISH.

THE SECOND TO THE FIRST MEETING IN JULY FOR THAT.

TWO SITE PLANS RECEIVED THE COMMONS CHURCH PARKING LOT EXPANSION HAS A PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 4:00 TONIGHT IN THIS FOR 4:00 TOMORROW, IN THIS ROOM.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH SOLAR PANELS IS A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TWO SOLAR PANELS OUT THERE, AND THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW AND SITE PLAN APPROVED FOR SOME PARKING LIGHT LIGHTS AT THE [INAUDIBLE] TEMPLE.

AND THAT'S THAT THAT APPROVAL LETTER HAS BEEN SENT.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE AN ITEM TWELVE PUBLIC REMARKS.

IS THERE ANY ONE PRESENT WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.

SHOULD REFLECT THAT THERE IS NO PUBLIC REMARKS REQUEST.

SO THEREFORE WE ARE ON ITEM THIRTEEN ADJOURNMENT.

IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT SAY AYE, AYE.

THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.