Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

ALL RIGHT, IT IS NOW 7:00.

[00:00:03]

I'M CALLING TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

WE WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL OF THE MEMBERS.

WE ARE ALL PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.

THE NEXT IS PUBLIC REMARKS.

THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT.

DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? THERE WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY DURING SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT THE BOARD WILL DISCUSS.

AT THAT TIME YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY IF THAT'S THE REASON YOU'RE PRESENT, AND ALSO AT THE END.

I'M SORRY.

OKAY, THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT NO ONE WISHED TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.

SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING'S MEETING? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

IS THERE A SECOND? SUPPORTED.

AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGENDA? I MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE THE VOTE ON ITEM B OF OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS RELATED TO THE APPROVAL OF SUP #2291 TITLED GRAND RESERVE UNTIL WE HAVE CONSULTED THE OKEMOS SCHOOL BOARD TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT THAT A POTENTIAL INFLUX OF STUDENTS ON AN ALREADY OVERCROWDED CORNELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MIGHT HAVE, AND I FURTHER MOVE THAT WE APPOINT A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION TO CONTACT THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THIS DETERMINATION AND REPORT BACK TO OUR NEXT MEETING.

IF I GET A SECOND, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

IS THERE DISCUSSION? I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT MY PROBLEM IS WITH THE LOCATION.

SINCE OUR MEETING, I HAVE GOTTEN SEVERAL PERSONAL CONTACTS OF FEEDBACK UPHOLDING MY OBJECTIONS.

I THINK THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THE COST BENEFIT TO MAKE THE DECISION AT THIS POINT, AND I THINK ONE OF THOSE DECISIONS IS THE FACT THAT IN THREE YEARS CORNELL ELEMENTARY HAS TO EITHER BE TORN DOWN AND REBUILT OR EXPANDED BECAUSE THEY ARE SEVERELY OVERCROWDED AT THIS POINT.

THE ADDITION OF THAT MANY RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA ONLY EXACERBATES THE PROBLEM, IN MY OPINION.

SO THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE ISSUES.

I ALSO THINK CONSULTING WITH OUR ECOLOGY COMMISSION AND LOOKING AT OTHER FACTORS IS IMPORTANT, AND LIKE I SAY, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE IDEA, BUT I THINK THAT IT BEHOOVES US TO BOTH LISTEN TO OUR CITIZENRY AND I'VE HEARD A LOT FROM THEM, AND I THINK WE NEED MORE INFORMATION TO MAKE AN ADEQUATE DECISION, AND THAT'S WHY I RAISED THE ISSUE.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD ELIMINATE THAT THE VOTE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM 8A? YES, NO. EXCUSE ME.

IT'S ITEM BE ITEM B.

CORRECT. THAT'S THE COMMUNICATION, BUT THE VOTE IS B, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

IT'S 8A.

GOT YOU, OKAY, I'M SORRY, THEN, YES, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MAYBE JUST A CLARIFICATION.

IS THE MOTION TO REMOVE THAT ITEM FROM THE AGENDA OR TO CHANGE THE WAY WE ACT ON THAT ITEM.

SO PROPER MOTION IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AGENDA, WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE ITEM FROM THE AGENDA COMPLETELY AND NOT DISCUSS IT.

IF THE INTENT OF THE ACTION THIS EVENING IS TO SEEK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, THE PROPER MOTION WOULD BE WHEN THAT ITEM COMES UP TO TABLE IT, AND WE WOULD WANT TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WHAT INFORMATION IS NEEDED GIVEN THAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING AND I THINK I STATED THAT IN MY PROPOSAL, IF TABLING IS WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE, THEN TABLING IT IS.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

[00:05:01]

I GUESS AGAIN, JUST THINKING ABOUT THIS OUT LOUD, IF THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION, WE COULD LEAVE IT ON THE AGENDA.

HAVE THE DISCUSSION WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR A VOTE IS WHEN WE COULD TABLE IT IF THERE WAS MORE DISCUSSION NEEDED IN ADDITION TO THE POINTS RAISED BY COMMISSIONER PREMOE.

THAT'S FINE. I, I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THE ISSUE AND GIVE YOU MY OPINION.

IF THAT'S THE PLACE TO DO IT, THAT'S FINE.

SO I GUESS I WOULD REMOVE MY SECOND, AND IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE YOUR MOTION--WE CAN THEN DO IT THAT WAY.

THAT'S FINE. ALL RIGHT, IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, THEN WHEN WE GET TO ITEM 8A, THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA ITEM 8A, BUT THERE WILL BE A MOTION TO TABLE THE VOTE ON IT UNTIL FURTHER INFORMATION IS GATHERED, AND I GUESS THE OTHER THING THAT IT DOES ALLOW, OF COURSE, IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT TO SAY IN THIS PROCESS.

IF WE REMOVE IT RIGHT NOW, THE APPLICANT DOESN'T GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY ANYTHING THAT MAKES SENSE.

RIGHT. DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT WE ALSO NEED AN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE CONSIDERATION OF PRIOR MINUTES SINCE THEY'RE NOT IN OUR PACKET? YES. SO I WOULD MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE AGENDA TO REMOVE THE CONSIDERATION OF PRIOR MINUTES, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO.

ALL RIGHT, LET ME STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE HAVE YOU--I WITHDRAW MY MOTION, YES.

THEN WE WILL CONSIDER COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL'S MOTION TO REMOVE THE AGENDA ITEM, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES ITEM FIVE FROM THE AGENDA.

WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THE AGENDA YET.

CORRECT. SUPPORT.

ALL RIGHT, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR THAT.

VOTE ON THE AGENDA TO APPROVE IT AND THEN A VOTE ON THE AGENDA TO AMEND IT.

SO WE JUST NEED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS WE GO TO THE MINUTES.

APPROVE IT AS AMENDED.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO THAT THEN.

SO WE ARE WE ARE NOW AN ITEM FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

NO OPPOSITION.

THE AGENDA IS AMENDED BY REMOVING THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, WHICH HAD BEEN ITEM FIVE ON THE AGENDA.

[6. COMMUNICATIONS]

SO WE ARE THEN ON ITEM SIX COMMUNICATIONS.

THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.

ANYONE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE COMMUNICATIONS OR SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE ARE THEN ON TO ITEM SEVEN PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[7.A. SUP #22101 – MSU to Lake Lansing Connector Trail, Phase I]

FIRST IS ITEM 27A SUP #22101 MSU TO LAKE LANSING CONNECTOR TRAIL PHASE ONE.

GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

TOWNSHIP ENGINEERING STAFF HAS SUBMITTED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE ONE OF THE MSU TO LAKE LANSING CONNECTOR TRAIL.

THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE TRAIL BECAUSE IT IS BUILT IN THE FLOODPLAIN OF THE RED CEDAR RIVER.

THE SEGMENT THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS FROM HAGEDORN ROAD.

CROSSES RED CEDAR RIVER FOLLOWS THE RIVER TO ABOUT DON AVENUE AND THEN FOLLOWS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACK AND THEN CONNECTS TO GRAND RIVER AVENUE HERE ROUGHLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM PARK LAKE ROAD.

THIS PROJECT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE TOWNSHIP PATHWAY BICYCLE MASTER PLAN.

NOTE, THERE IS A PHASE TWO THAT IS GOING TO FOLLOW VERY SHORTLY.

OUR TOWNSHIP ENGINEER YOUNES IS HERE.

HE CAN SPEAK TO THIS MORE SPECIFICALLY.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF PHASE TWO IS GOING TO FOLLOW VERY CLOSELY AND OR CONCURRENTLY WITH PHASE ONE.

THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE IS FLOODWAY COMPENSATING CUT THAT'S REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS THAT IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE OVERALL PROJECT, BUT WILL HAPPEN IN PHASE TWO, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE.

AS FAR AS STANDARDS FOR THE SUP GO, IT'S NOT HUMAN HABITATION, SO THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

THEY WILL GET A LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT FROM FEMA PRIOR TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

THAT'S IN PROCESS.

THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY INCREASE IN THE FLOOD LEVEL THANKS TO THIS CONSTRUCTION, AND AS I SAID, THE COMPENSATING CUT MORE THAN COMPENSATES IN THIS CASE, BUT THAT WILL BE DURING PHASE TWO, WHICH YOU WILL SEE SHORTLY.

THAT'S THE GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THIS PROJECT.

[00:10:03]

IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASK SPECIFICS, AGAIN, TOWNSHIP ENGINEERING STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I MIGHT JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT THAT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THIS APPLICATION AS MUCH AS THE BROADER VIEW.

WE DO HAVE A FORMAL PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE MASTER PLAN AND WE MAKE REFERENCE HERE TO NON-MOTORIZED USERS, AND AS THE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPS, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL THINKING ABOUT WHAT NON MOTORIZED MEANS UNLESS WE'RE INTENDING TO RESTRICT USE ON THESE PATHWAYS TO VEHICLES THAT HAVE NO MOTOR, THEN THAT TERM IS GOING TO BECOME PROBLEMATIC.

I DON'T WANT IT TO INTERRUPT OUR DISCUSSION TODAY.

IT JUST CAUGHT MY EYE BECAUSE WE'RE SEEING A LOT MORE MOTORIZED ELECTRIC MOTOR VEHICLES, SOMETHING TO PUT IN THE HOPPER AND THINK PROBABLY AT THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ABOUT.

FAIR ENOUGH. SKATEBOARDS, THERE ARE SO MANY OF THESE THINGS SEGWAYS, E-BIKES.

STONE WHEELS WITH A STICK THROUGH THEM HOWEVER.

MOTORIZED WHEELCHAIRS.

EXACTLY, 14 FEET IS FOR A REASON.

RIGHT. I CAN LEAVE THIS HERE FOR YOU IF YOU NEED IT.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR ME, I CAN LET OUR TOWNSHIP ENGINEERING STAFF TALK ABOUT THIS FOR A LITTLE BIT.

GOOD EVENING PLANNING BOARD.

I'M AN YOUNES ISHRAIDI TOWNSHIP CHIEF ENGINEER.

I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE BEFORE YOU TO DISCUSS THIS PROJECT.

BRIAN PRETTY MUCH SUMMED UP THE ENTIRE PROJECT, PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO.

AS YOU MAY KNOW, THIS WHOLE THING, THIS PROJECT, THE MSU TO LAKE LANSING PROJECT, IS WHAT IT IS, MSU TO LAKE LANSING, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS JUST PHASE ONE, WHICH YOU COULD SEE AT THIS PART HERE BETWEEN HAGEDORN TO GRAND RIVER.

PHASE TWO WE'LL PICK UP FROM GRAND RIVER ALL THE WAY TO BASICALLY NANCY MOORE PARK OR THE SERVICE CENTER ENTRANCE.

THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE TONIGHT.

WHAT WE GOT ALREADY DONE AS PART OF PHASE TWO, WHICH WE CALL PHASE 2B, WHICH IS WIDENING THE PATHWAY ALONG OKEMOS ROAD TO TEN FOOT.

WE ALSO DID A SECTION OF PHASE THREE WHICH WOULD BE FURTHER TOWARDS THE LAKE.

WE BROUGHT UP A LITTLE CONNECTOR FROM HASLETT ROAD TO LAKE LANSING ALONG SHAW ST . ON THE WEST SIDE.

THE BIG BULK OF THIS WILL BE REALLY AFTER PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PHASE THREE, WHICH IS BASICALLY TAKING IT FROM MARSHALL ALL THE WAY TO THE COUNTY.

PARKS TRAILS ALONG THE CONSUMER ENERGY RIGHT AWAY, BUT I'M HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT PHASE ONE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND AS BRIAN MENTIONED, THIS FLOOD PLAINS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH PROJECT INVOLVES CROSSING THE RED CEDAR ROUGHLY 190 FOOT OF PREFABRICATED STEEL BRIDGE WITH WOOD DECK, AND IT'S NOT A TIMBER BRIDGE, IT'S PREFAB STEEL, AND WE HAVE SEVERAL BOARDWALK SECTIONS AS WELL, AND THE BALANCE OF IT WOULD BE TEN FOOT WIDE PAVED PATHWAY, AND LIKE I SAID, WE JUST HAVE TO BE IN A FLOODPLAIN.

THAT AREA IS FLOODPLAIN AND WE HAVE TO JUST DO THAT, AND WE ALREADY GOT THE EGLE PERMIT FOR THAT.

SO WE'RE READY TO GO.

AS FAR AS THE STATUS OF THE PROJECT, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN BID AND IT'S BEEN AWARDED TO DAVIS CONSTRUCTION.

WE ARE WAITING THE PRE-CON MEETING.

WE'RE READY TO DO THAT, BUT WE WANT TO GET THIS THING BEHIND US IF WE CAN, SO WE COULD PROCEED.

IT'LL TAKE A WHILE.

ONCE WE HAVE THE PRE-CON THEY HAVE TO ORDER THE BRIDGE AND OTHER THINGS, YOU KNOW, WITH THE SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES LATELY WE'D LIKE TO SEE THIS THING PROGRESS AS FAST AS WE CAN.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE AT RIGHT NOW, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

I SEE IT AS A BENEFICIAL PROJECT.

I MY QUESTION IS KIND OF LIKE THE LINK FROM PHASE ONE TO PHASE TWO BECAUSE IT CROSSES GRAND RIVER, AND I WAS LOOKING AT WHERE THE STREET LIGHTS ARE TO SAFELY CROSS GRAND RIVER.

[00:15:06]

IS THAT THE QUESTION: HOW DOES IT CONNECT? RIGHT, EXACTLY.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS IF YOU COULD SEE IT AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ZOOM THIS, BUT I GUESS THERE'S A LIGHT THAT RIGHT AT PARK LAKE AND GRAND RIVER, AND YOU TURN LEFT TO THAT FOODS FOR LIVING.

THAT'S WHERE THAT PATHWAY IS GOING TO CROSS.

IT'S GOING TO CROSS AND YOU'RE GOING TO CROSS TO THE NORTH SIDE OF GRAND RIVER.

THERE'S AN EXISTING, I DON'T KNOW, 12 FOOT WIDE PATH ALREADY NORTH OF THE BRIDGE CONCRETE, WHICH YOU WILL FOLLOW.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT.

IT'S ALREADY THERE. SO THAT'S THE GOOD PART, AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE ALL THE WAY TO THE ALONG THAT ROUTE AND THEN UNTIL WE GET TO CAMPUS HILL APARTMENTS AND THAT'S WHERE BASICALLY WILL BE THE CONNECTOR.

WHAT WE WILL DO, WE ALREADY GOT AN EASEMENT FROM CAMP HILL APARTMENTS.

WE WILL CONVERT ONE OF THE EXISTING DRIVES TO THE PATHWAY, WHICH IS THE EASTERLY, THE NORTHBOUND.

THAT WOULD BE THE PATHWAY THAT WILL CONVERT IT.

THE ENTIRE LANE WOULD BE ASPHALT AND THEN WE WILL MODIFY THEIR ENTRANCE.

SO THEN WE WILL CONTINUE ALONG THAT EXISTING DRIVE UNTIL WE GET TO THIS DRAIN CROSSING RIGHT HERE, AND THAT'S HOW THE CONNECT . GOT YOU. I THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.

THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER.

TWO THINGS. ONE IS EXTREMELY MINOR.

THE CROSSWALK ACROSS GRAND RIVER IS ACTUALLY TO THE WEST OF THE INTERSECTION.

IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, BUT THERE IS A SIGNALIZED CROSSWALK.

YOU'LL CROSS TWICE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AND THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA.

IT'S ALREADY SIGNALIZED.

WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT.

I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE PICTURES IN MY OLD LAPTOP, BUT I SEE THE COMPENSATING CUTS MARKED. WHAT I HAVEN'T SEEN IS WHERE THE FILL IS GOING THAT REQUIRES THE COMPENSATING CUT.

IS THAT PART OF THE BRIDGE THAT CROSSES THE RIVER? THERE'S GOING TO BE FILL OR.

YEAH, IT SHOULD BE ON THOSE PLANS.

THERE'S FLOODPLAIN.

THIS WHOLE AREA WHERE WE PUT PAVING, ONCE YOU CROSS THE BRIDGE, ONCE YOU CROSS THE RIVER, YOU'RE GOING TO COME INTO THIS AREA, RIGHT IN THIS AREA, THAT'S ALL FLOODPLAIN.

SO WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND FILLING PRETTY MUCH IN THIS AREA, AND THAT'S THE BULK OF IT, AND THEN REALLY, THAT'S THE AREA FOR PHASE ONE.

SO RIGHT IN THIS AREA 14 FOOT PEDESTRIAN BOARDWALK.

WELL, YEAH, THERE ARE SECTIONS OF BOARDWALK AGAIN.

FILL IS IN SECTIONS WHERE THE BOARDWALK WHERE THERE ISN'T BOARDWALK.

IT'S ACTUALLY FILLED AND THEN BUILT ON TOP OF THE FILL, AND THEN IN OTHER SECTIONS IT'S SO STEEP THAT YOU HAVE TO DO A BOARDWALK.

WELL, THE BOARDWALK DOESN'T REALLY REQUIRE A FILL, SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO THOSE ARE THE AREAS REALLY IT'S GOING TO BE MAINLY AFTER YOU CROSS THE BRIDGE, ONCE WE PUT THE BRIDGE, THE ABUTMENTS AREA, THEN IN THIS AREA, THERE'S AN EXISTING ROUTE.

ACTUALLY, WE HAVE AN EXISTING SANITARY MAIN THAT WE'RE GOING TO CO-LOCATE THE PATH SO WE DON'T DISTURB AS MUCH AS WE NEED IT TO, BUT THEN AS YOU COME TO THOSE, I DON'T KNOW, 2900 PL THOSE BIG TALL BUILDINGS TO THE WEST OF IT, THERE'S A BIG DROP.

THAT'S THE FLOODPLAIN AREA, AND THEN AS YOU CONTINUE GOING EAST, AGAIN, THIS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE FILLING IN THAT AREA.

YOU'RE IN THE FLOODPLAIN, ESSENTIALLY.

SO THAT'S MAINLY THE AREA RIGHT IN THIS AREA, RIGHT IN THIS ZONE THAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE , AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO A MENTION OF SOME WETLAND IMPACTS AND SOME MITIGATION AREAS, AND I DIDN'T FOLLOW EXACTLY WHERE--THAT WILL HAPPEN IN PHASE 2.

PART OF PHASE TWO.

THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTION? UM, I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW THE TOPOGRAPHY PLAYS INTO IT, OR IF IT DOESN'T, BECAUSE I WAS JUST PICTURING, LIKE, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE? I'M THINKING OF SOMETHING ON OKEMOS ROAD THAT'S NORTH OF GRAND RIVER, BUT CAN YOU

[00:20:09]

HELP ME? DID ANYONE SKETCH THAT OR DRAW WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE? WE DO HAVE CROSS SECTIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED WITH THE APPLICATION? BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE BRIDGE, RIGHT.

WHICH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE OKEMOS BRIDGE, THE GREEN ONE OVER HERE, PRETTY MUCH, EXCEPT IT'S GOING TO BE WIDER.

IT'S GOING TO BE 14 FEET WIDE, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE [INAUDIBLE] STANDARDS BECAUSE IT'S A FEDERAL PROJECT, AND SO THAT'S THE BRIDGE PART, AND AS YOU CROSS, IT'S GOING TO BE JUST A TEN FOOT PAVED TRAIL AS YOU GO EAST TOWARDS THOSE THOSE APARTMENTS AND THEN THE REST OF IT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FILL AND THEN MAKE IT TEN FOOT UNTIL WE GET TO THE SECTIONS WHERE YOU HAVE BOARDWALKS AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOARDWALK OVER HERE ON OKEMOS ROAD, THEY LOOK PRETTY MUCH THE SAME, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE IT.

YOU DON'T HAVE A ROAD. IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT NEXT TO THE RIVER, RIGHT? SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FIND THOSE CROSS SECTIONS AND YOU COULD JUST FOLLOW.

YEAH. OKAY, I DIDN'T SEE IT IN OUR MATERIALS, BUT THERE ARE PAGES THAT LOOK LIKE THIS, AND THERE ARE CROSS SECTIONS THAT SHOW DIFFERENT POINTS ALONG THE TRAIL.

YEAH, I THINK A GOOD WAY OF THINKING ABOUT THIS MIGHT BE LIKE THE INTERURBAN TRAIL.

IF YOU'VE BEEN ON THAT, THAT'S TEN FOOT ASPHALT SIMILAR.

SO MOST OF THIS SO A MINGLING OF PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES AND YEAH, IT'S A SHARED PATH.

SO FOR PEDESTRIANS AND FOR BICYCLISTS, WELL, THEY SEPARATE OUT OR I MEAN REALLY, I MEAN THEY WILL SHARE IT.

IT'S A SHARED PATH SO THEY WILL BE BOTH USING IT AGAIN SIMILAR TO THAT IN URBAN OR THE OTHER TRAIL I CAN THINK OF IS THE HEWLETT TO OKEMOS TRAIL.

IF YOU FAMILIAR WITH IT.

THIS MAY SEEM LIKE AN ODD COMMENT, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE IT USED TO BE THAT BICYCLES WOULD YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS, AND NOW IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND WHERE PEDESTRIANS ARE ALMOST LIKE FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT TO GET OUT OF THE WAY.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW.

HERE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP SINCE 74, WHEN WE FIRST PASSED THAT NON-MOTORIZED PATHWAY MILLAGE, IT WAS ALWAYS THE INTENT TO USE NON-MOTORIZED, WHICH INCLUDED PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS, AND OVER THE YEARS YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, ROLLERBLADERS AND, YOU KNOW, I GUESS WITH TIME THINGS HAPPEN AND I GUESS I SECOND BILL'S COMMENT, YOU KNOW, THE TECHNOLOGY YOU KNOW THE EV BIKES AND I DON'T KNOW THOSE ARE MOTORIZED OR NOT I HAVE NO IDEA IF THE REFERENCES TO CARBON FUEL GENERATED MOTORS OR.

RIGHT. I MEAN, NOT FROM MAYBE WELL, NOT DIRECTLY AN ENGINEERING SENSE, BUT I MEAN, HOW HOW DO WE SHARE THIS? I MEAN, I'VE EVEN SEEN SOMETIMES SIDEWALKS ON THE AREA THAT I WALK IN, BICYCLISTS CAN COME UP REALLY FAST BEHIND YOU.

SOME GIVE YOU WARNING, SOME DON'T.

I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THIS CAN BE SAFELY USED.

IT'S DEFINITELY WIDER THAN MY SIDEWALK THAT I WALK ON.

I CAN SPEAK TO USING THE INTERURBAN TRAIL AS MUCH AS I HAVE.

YOU DON'T REALLY RUN INTO AN ISSUE UNLESS YOU HAPPEN TO BE LIKE A RUNNER OR A WALKER GOING THIS WAY EXACTLY WHEN A RUNNER/WALKER IS COMING THIS WAY AND THERE'S A BICYCLIST, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM FOR BICYCLISTS TO GET AROUND SAFELY.

THE PATHWAY UP AND DOWN MARSH ROAD, IS A DIFFERENT CREATURE, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIKE THIS.

YEAH, THIS IS THIS IS WIDER THAN THAT.

IN FACT, THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF ROOM.

IN FACT, IT'S A GOOD POINT.

YOU BROUGHT YOU BRING UP ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE FIRST ENVISION THIS, I GUESS WE I'M SPEAKING COLLECTIVELY HERE TOWNSHIP YOU KNOW, ELDERS BACK IN '74 THEY PICKED SEVEN FOOT.

THE REASON THEY PICKED SEVEN FOOT, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE FEDERAL STANDARD FOR SHARED PATH.

NOW IT'S TEN FOOT.

HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE A BRIDGE OR HAVE A BOARDWALK, YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO FOOT ON EACH SIDE.

YOU HAVE TO ADD THAT BECAUSE THAT'S--LIKE A SHOULDER?

[00:25:03]

RIGHT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A 14 FOOT WIDE BRIDGE AND A 14 FOOT WIDE BOARDWALK.

IT'S A SHY DISTANCE.

PEOPLE DON'T TEND TO RIDE THEIR BIKES AT THE EDGE, YOU KNOW, SO IF YOU HAVE TWO PATHS AND BICYCLISTS, YOU WANT TO CREATE THAT LITTLE SHOULDER, IF YOU WILL, FOR SAFETY PURPOSES.

THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THOSE BRIDGES 14 FOOT WIDE.

GOTCHA. YEAH, IT ALMOST AT FIRST BLUSH, SEEMS OVERKILL AND DESIGNED, BUT WITH AS MUCH TRAFFIC AS I GUESS IT CAN WITNESS, AND I THINK IT PROBABLY WILL.

WELL YEAH, I GUESS IN OUR CASE, IT REALLY DIDN'T MATTER.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE HAD TO DO IT, THOUGH, BECAUSE WE HAD FEDERAL FUNDS AND WE'RE MANDATED TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL STANDARDS, WHICH IS THE [INAUDIBLE] STANDARDS, WHICH BASICALLY SAID IF YOU HAVE A BRIDGE OR A BOARDWALK, IT NEEDS TO BE 14 FOOT WIDE.

SO THE BRIDGE PART, BUT THEN THE PATH TAPERS DOWN TO TEN, CORRECT.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

ONCE THIS IS CONSTRUCTED, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE? SO THIS PROJECT WAS FUNDED THREE WAYS.

YOU GOT THE BIG FEDERAL GRANT FROM MDOT, [INAUDIBLE] FUNDS.

THAT'S $1.7 MILLION, AND WE HAVE THE INGHAM COUNTY TRAIL MILLAGE, $950,000, AND THEN WE HAVE OUR OWN TOWNSHIP PATHWAY MILLAGE, $350,000. PART OF THE AGREEMENT IS ONCE IT'S BUILT, THIS WILL BELONG TO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP AND THE TOWNSHIP WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN IT, AND THAT WOULD BE FUNDED BY OUR OWN TOWNSHIP PATHWAY MILLAGE.

I DON'T SEE A RESOLUTION.

SO I GUESS WE'RE LOOKING FOR A STRAW VOTE THIS EVENING.

IS THAT WHERE WE'RE HEADED? THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE CALL FOR [INAUDIBLE] VOTE.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO IF ANYONE IS HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS.

OH, I'M SORRY. IS THERE ANYONE INTERESTED IN MAKING COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC? OKAY, SORRY, YOU'RE RIGHT.

GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THEN.

THE CHAIR CALLS FOR A STRAW VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE THE PLAN AS PROPOSED.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? STRAW VOTE SHOWS SUPPORT.

[7.B. SUP #22111 – Douglas J Floodplain]

ALL RIGHT, WE ARE NOW THEN TALKING ABOUT ITEM SEVEN B SPECIAL USE PROJECT 22111, THE DOUGLAS FLOODPLAIN OK.

THIS IS YOUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING OF TONIGHT.

AS NOTED, THIS IS DOUGLAS J.

THIS IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT LANDSCAPING RAMPS AND STAIRS IN A FLOODPLAIN.

SO THE BACKGROUND ON THIS DOUGLAS J CAME IN EARLIER THIS YEAR AND THEY WENT THROUGH SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND RIGHT HERE THIS PART OF THEIR BUILDING IS WHAT THEY WANTED TO IMPROVE, AND BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING AN ENCLOSURE, IT WAS A SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND DURING THE SITE PLAN WHAT WE FOUND THE FLOOD PLAIN GOES AGAINST THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING.

IT TOOK A LOT OF WORK TO DETERMINE THAT THE VESTIBULE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED MAY OF THIS YEAR ARE INDEED OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT WE DID CONFIRM THAT THE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE IN YOUR PACKET AS RELATED TO THIS IS THAT DOCUMENT.

SO THE BUILDING IS NOT IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

AFTER THEY CONSTRUCTED IT, THEY INSTALLED THESE RAMPS, STAIRS AND LANDSCAPING BEDS.

THEY'RE REALLY NICE LOOKING, BUT THEY ARE IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO WE GAVE THEM AN OPTION CONFORM WITH THE SITE PLAN IS APPROVED OR COME AND GET A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND HERE WE ARE TONIGHT.

THE COMMENT NUMBER FOUR ON THE SECOND PAGE GIVES YOU THE DETAILS.

THERE'S 3.29 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL THAT ARE BEING COMPENSATED FOR.

THEY HAVE A 6.3 CUBIC YARD CUBIC COMPENSATING CUT.

THAT IS ON THIS PART OF THEIR SITE RIGHT HERE.

AS FAR AS TOWNSHIP ENGINEERING GOES.

THEY'RE REALLY PLEASED WHAT THEY SEE.

AGAIN, HE CAN SPEAK TO THIS IF HE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

THIS IS WHAT ENGINEERING WAS LOOKING FOR BACK IN MAY, AND THEY'RE REALLY HAPPY WITH THE RESULTS.

[00:30:01]

SO I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY AROUND THE LETTERS THAT I SENT OUT.

SOME OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ARE IN YOUR PACKET AND I'VE GOT PHONE CALLS AND EMAILS AS WELL, NOT EMAILS, I WOULD HAVE PUT THOSE IN THE PACKET.

SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.

I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS REPRESENTED.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THAT THIS ONLY REQUIRES TOWNSHIP APPROVAL.

THERE'S NO STATE OVERSIGHT OVER THE FLOODWAY.

I'M SORRY. SINCE YOU'RE HERE, I'LL ASK YOU.

EGLE, GOT TO SIGN OFF ON THIS? YES, THAT'S IN OUR ORDINANCE.

THAT'S IN OUR ORDINANCE. EGLE IS REVIEWING THIS.

VERY SMALL AMOUNT.

I MEAN IT WAS OBVIOUS IT WAS JUST A SMALL YEAH I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

FOR SUCH A SMALL PROJECT, THERE'S SO MANY REQUIREMENTS, BUT THIS IS OUR ORDINANCE AND WE JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW IT AND WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT IT, THE FIRST QUESTION REALLY WAS THE FLOODWAY, AND WE ESTABLISHED THAT THE FLOODWAY ON THE PLANS, THEY SHOWED IT ON THE PLANS, WHICH IS GOOD, THEY WERE NOT IMPACTED, BUT THEN THE ISSUE WAS WHERE'S THE FLOODPLAIN? AND I THINK WE IT WASN'T CLEAR TO US WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN WAS THE [INAUDIBLE] PLAN OR SURVEYOR'S PLAN SHOWED IT, BUT THERE WAS NO ELEVATION CERTIFICATE.

SO TO REALLY KNOW FOR SURE IF THE BUILDING IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, YOU NEEDED WHAT FEMA CALLS ELEVATION CERTIFICATE.

SO THEY DID THAT AND IT DID SHOW THE BUILDING IS NOT IN THE FLOODPLAIN, BARELY, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO WHAT HAPPENED, THEY NEEDED TO DO THEIR IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH THEY DID, BUT THE IMPROVEMENTS INVOLVED WORK IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND HENCE THE SUP.

HOWEVER IT TURNS OUT, IT'S REALLY SMALL AMOUNT.

I MEAN, THREE SOMETHING.

YEAH, REALLY SMALL AMOUNT.

SO WE'RE SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT THREE CUBIC YARDS OF FILL AND COMPENSATING CUTS, BUT THAT'S WHAT OUR ORDINANCE SAYS . TO ANSWER THE QUESTION NOW THAT I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT IT.

YES THEY CITE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER REVIEW BY THE STATE IN THIS CASE ENVIRONMENT GREAT LAKES ENERGY (EGLE) SITE PLAN WILL FOLLOW THIS AND SITE PLAN WILL NOT BE APPROVED WITHOUT EGLE APPROVAL. OKAY, WELL, YOU ARE CORRECT.

I GUESS THE AMOUNT OF IMPACT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT'S RELEVANT, WHETHER IT'S BIG, SMALL, TINY OR HUGE.

IF IT'S REGULATED, IT'S REGULATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFRESHING MY MEMORY AND MAYBE THE LISTENING AUDIENCE.

COULD YOU HELP US RECALL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE FLOODWAY AND HOW THAT IMPACTS REGULATORY STANDARDS? THIS IS ON THE FIRST PAGE OF MY REPORT.

I MADE IT IN COLOR AND IT DEMONSTRATES THE DARK BLUE.

YOU CAN'T SEE IT ON THIS MAP, BUT THIS IS THE RED CEDAR RIVER DOESN'T SHOW UP VERY WELL, ESPECIALLY ON SCREEN.

THE DARK BLUE AROUND IT IS THE FLOOD WAY AND THEN THE LIGHT BLUE IS THAT YOU CAN SEE ON MOST OF THE PROPERTY IS THE FLOODPLAIN.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT.

I DON'T HAVE THAT DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME.

THIS IS A FLOODWAY DEVELOPMENT, THOUGH.

THIS IS THE LESSER OF THE TWO.

SO FLOODPLAIN IS, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THOSE AREAS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO FLOODING AT A CERTAIN FREQUENCY AND FLOOD WAY IS WHERE WE EXPECT WATER TO BE MOVING MORE RAPIDLY DURING THOSE FLOODING EVENTS.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF FLOODING EVENTS.

LIKE THE DARK BLUE IS MORE LIKELY TO FLOOD THAN THE LIGHT BLUE.

IF THE LIGHT BLUE IS FLOODING, IT IS A MORE MAJOR EVENT THAN THE DARK BLUE.

SO ONE'S A 100 YEAR FLOOD AND THE OTHER IS SOMETHING ELSE.

YEAH. YEAH, SURE.

I HAPPEN TO BE A CFM CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN MANAGER SO I COULD TRY AND HELP HERE.

SO WHEN YOU HAVE A 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, YOU HAVE THE FLOODWAY AND YOU HAVE THE FLOODWAY FRINGE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE FLOODWAY IS

[00:35:05]

THE PORTION OF THE FLOOD THAT WHEN YOU HAVE THE RIVERS FLOWING, THE FRINGE IS JUST FLOODS, BUT IT'S NOT FLOWING.

SO THAT'S THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO THE FLOOD PLAIN IS THAT PART THAT'S NOT FLOWING AND WHICH IS WIDER THAN THE FLOODWAY.

I THINK THE REST OF US HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING HOW AN AREA GETS FLOODED IF THE WATER IS NOT MOVING.

IT'S WHAT NOW? HOW DOES AN AREA GET FLOODED IF THE WATER IS NOT MOVING? ONCE IT'S FLOOD, IT RISES, THEN IT'S IT SITS.

SOME PORTIONS OF IT WILL CONTINUE TO FLOW AND THAT'S THE FLOODWAY, HENCE FLOODWAY, AND BASICALLY FEMA, THAT'S HOW THEY MODEL IT.

YOU HAVE A FLOOD PORTION THAT'S FLOWING, THAT'S A DARK BLUE IN THIS CASE, AND THEN THEY HAVE THE FLOODWAY FRINGE, WHICH IS THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY PUT THE FILL IN THIS CASE.

SO THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY TO UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGAIN, IT'S BASED ON FEMA'S MODELING.

THAT'S HOW THEY CREATE THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATIONS THAT WE USE FOR OUR DETERMINATION IF YOU'RE IN THE FLOODPLAIN OR NOT.

ALL RIGHT.

HAVE THEY ALREADY DONE THE RAMPS AND YES, THEY HAVE.

SO THEY'RE COMING IN FOR A SUP AFTER THEY'VE DONE THE WORK TO GET APPROVAL, AND THEN THEY STILL HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT TO EGLE.

THAT IS CORRECT.

IF AT ANY POINT THIS FAILS, THEY'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND CONFORM WITH THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN APPROVED IN MAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING. EXCUSE ME, BRIAN.

GO AHEAD. SO THE DARKER BLUE WAS THE FLOODWAY AND THE LIGHTER BLUE WAS THE FLOODPLAIN.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

I'M JUST CURIOUS, AND THEN THE FLOODWAY, FOR SOME REASON, I STRUGGLED TO GET THIS STUCK IN MY BRAIN AND THEN THE FLOODWAY.

IS THAT DEPICTED.

YES, THAT'S THE LIGHTER BLUE ON THIS IMAGE ON THE FIRST PAGE OF MY MEMO.

OH, I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE FLOODPLAIN.

OKAY, SO I'M DOING IT BACKWARDS.

I'M SORRY. SORRY.

THE WHOLE THING IS THE PLAIN.

THE DARK BLUE IS THE FLOODWAY.

SO THIS IS TAKING PLACE RIGHT IN HERE.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I HAVE A QUESTION.

IT'S RELATED TO THIS SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMMUNICATION ON THIS SUP.

THE. DENNIS AND [INAUDIBLE].

THEY WERE ASKING ABOUT THEIR PREVIOUS REQUEST TO BUILD A DECK AND NOT BEING ABLE TO PUT ONE IN BECAUSE THE POST THAT THEY NEEDED TO PUT IN WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF THEIR CONCERNS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BECAUSE I CAN SEE WHAT THEY'RE GETTING AT.

I'VE HAD SEPARATE EMAILS WITH THEM AND THAT'S BACK CHANNEL.

YES, BUT WE'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION.

YES. I WAS JUST CURIOUS.

THANK YOU. AGAIN, APPLICANT'S HERE, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ANY HERE, DOES ANYONE WANT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

TELL US YOUR NAME, PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSION.

I'M CHRIS WEIR. I'M AN ARCHITECT WITH STUDIO [INAUDIBLE] ARCHITECTS.

WE WERE THE DESIGNER FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS.

SO ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IS THE INTENT WAS NEVER TO CONSTRUCT THE ADDITIONAL RAMP AND LANDSCAPING AND STAIRS DURING CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION WHEN WE REMOVED ACTUALLY PROBABLY A FOOT TO 18 INCHES OF STONE MULCH THAT REVEALED THE EXISTING GRADE FROM THE EXIT VESTIBULE DOWN TO THE PARKING LOT.

SO TO CONSTRUCT A RAMP AT THAT SLOPE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN ADA COMPLIANCE.

SO THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT FORTH THE NEED FOR THE RAMP AND THE STEPS OUT TO THE EXISTING PARKING LOT.

DID THE CONTRACTOR GET AHEAD A LITTLE BIT WITH CONSTRUCTION BEFORE WE RECEIVED APPROVAL? YES. THAT HAPPENED, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT THAT WAS HOW THIS ALL CAME ABOUT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

IS IT SAFE TO ASSUME THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S UNLIKELY TO MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN? I CERTAINLY HOPE SO.

THEY MAY NOT GET PAID. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION WITH THIS?

[00:40:05]

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE? THERE IS NONE FOR THE RECORD.

ALL RIGHT, THEN, LET'S CALL FOR A STRAW VOTE ON APPROVAL OF THIS SUP REQUEST.

IT IS ITEM #22111.

I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THE ROLL ON THIS.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST #22111 SAY AYE.

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? I'M STILL TRYING TO MAKE UP MY MIND.

THERE'S ONE ABSTENTION.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE OUT FOR ACTION AT THE NEXT MEETING.

STAFF WILL PRESENT A PROPOSAL FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

YES, THAT IS TRUE.

THANK YOU. SO WE ARE NOW ON UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM EIGHT.

[8.A. SUP #22091 – Grand Reserve]

THIS IS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT #2209 ONE THAT YOU GUYS DISCUSSED BEFORE GRAND RESERVE 115 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 60 DUPLEXES, 55 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ALL RENTAL TOTALING MORE THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET BETWEEN CENTRAL PARK DRIVE AND POWELL ROAD.

YOU HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ON OCTOBER 24TH, AND YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS FROM THAT.

ANSWERS ARE PROVIDED AND YOU DID ASK ABOUT THE CATA STOPS.

THOSE ARE REPORTED THERE.

YOU ASK SOME OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING LANDSCAPE SCREENING AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER WITH THE KIRK PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED ROADWAY.

THAT'S GOT TO GO THROUGH THE WETLAND BUFFER ON THE WEST SIDE.

INFORMATION THROUGH THOSE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN THE PACKET.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS INSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.

IT IS SERVED BY PUBLIC SEWER AND WATER.

IT WAS REZONED FROM R.A.

IN FEBRUARY OF 2021.

THE REZONING WAS CONDITIONAL AFTER THE APPLICANT OFFERED SIX CONDITIONS WHICH ARE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WAS LIMITED TO NO GREATER THAN 220 UNITS.

THEY'RE PROPOSING 115.

THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL INCLUDE NO FEWER THAN 25 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES, DEVELOPERS PROVIDING 55.

NUMBER THREE AND NUMBER FOUR, THEY'RE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT.

THEY HAVE ENCLOSED GARAGES.

CONDITION NUMBER FIVE THE REZONING IS CONDITIONED ON THE APPROVAL THAT WITHIN TWO YEARS, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND WETLAND USE PERMIT, IF ANY NECESSARY WILL BE APPROVED OR THE ZONING WILL REVERT TO THE RA DISTRICT NOT AND THAT WAS MADE CLEAR AT YOUR PUBLIC HEARING, AND FINALLY, THE EASTERN 11 ACRES OF THE SITE ARE TO BE DEVELOPED AS A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES, WHICH THEY'VE ALSO COMPLIED WITH.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN THAT YOU STATED EARLIER WE CAN REACH OUT DIRECTLY AND OR IF YOU WANT TO APPOINT A PERSON, THAT'S FINE.

WE HAVE CONTACTS WITH THE SCHOOL.

I'M GOING TO A SCHOOL MEETING TOMORROW MYSELF, BUT AS FAR AS WHAT I'VE PRESENTED HERE, IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER.

OF COURSE THE APPLICANT IS WELL REPRESENTED.

DISCUSSION. I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WORDING OF THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.

THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS ON PAGE 52 OF THE PDF, HAS TEN CONDITIONS LISTED.

CORRECT. CONDITION THREE REFERS TO THE SITE PLAN AND THE CONCEPT PLAN, AND I'M TRYING TO.

I APOLOGIZE.

THAT'S TERMINOLOGY FROM A FORMER LIFETIME I'VE CARRIED IN.

I CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN TO BE THE OFFICIAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL THAT COMES AFTER BY REQUIREMENT AFTER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS [INAUDIBLE].

THE POINT HERE IS THAT IF DURING THE OFFICIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, WE FIND THAT THEY HAVE CHANGED SOMETHING, THEN IF THAT VARIANCE IS NOT APPROVED, THEN THE SITE PLAN CANNOT BE APPROVED.

IT COMES BACK HERE AND THE PLAN ATTACHED TO THIS HAS TO BE CHANGED TO REFLECT THAT.

THE VARIANCE FOR THE ROAD THROUGH THAT BUFFER ON THE WEST SIDE WASN'T APPROVED.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSING TERMINOLOGY.

[00:45:05]

I'LL JUST SAY THE SUP WILL NEED TO BE CHANGED AND THE APPLICATION BROUGHT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT'S A MORE PROPER WAY OF STATING THAT.

I'LL FIX THAT.

BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT. YES.

CORRECT. ALSO ON CONDITION NUMBER SEVEN, ANY REVIEW COMMENTS FROM THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION AND TOWNSHIP ENGINEERING STAFF WILL NEED TO BE COMPLIED WITH. WOW, NO MATTER WHAT THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEERING STAFF COME UP WITH THAT'S LAW THAT'S REQUIREMENT WELL [INAUDIBLE] DRAINAGE COMMISSION IS THAT COMMON? IT'S A COPY PASTE.

I DROPPED THAT IN THERE.

IT'S PRETTY STANDARD.

I MEAN I'M ASSUMING THEY'RE COMMENTING ON THE APPLICATION BEFORE THEM AND THEY'RE NOT ENERAL COMMENTS.

YEAH. I THINK THAT'S PRETTY WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE DANIELS DRAIN PROJECT, THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER CARRIES A LOT OF WEIGHT AND INFLUENCE. IT'S AMAZING.

I WAS IN EMAIL COMMUNICATION WITH ONE OF YOU TODAY ABOUT NUMBER TEN.

I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS.

DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE APPLICANT PRESENTED FOUR FACADES THAT WERE AVAILABLE.

WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT WITH NUMBER TEN IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO REPEAT OF THE FACADES WITHIN THREE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD.

SO FACADE A CAN'T BE NEXT TO FACADE A ON EITHER SIDE AND IT CAN'T BE IN FRONT OF IT OR KITTY CORNER AS WELL.

[INAUDIBLE] SO WE END UP WITH A GOOD MIX OF THE DIFFERENT FACADES AVAILABLE.

THAT'S WHERE THAT'S TRYING TO GO.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, IT'S JUST YOU DON'T HAVE REPEAT IN THERE.

SHALL BE WITHIN THREE HOUSES.

NO DESIGN, COLOR OR MATERIAL SHALL BE WITHIN THREE HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE.

OKAY, BUT YOU SEE WHERE WE'RE GOING.

[INAUDIBLE] TRYING TO SAY.

SO WHAT WE'VE GOT IS A FAIR AMOUNT OF CONFUSION ON THE WORDING, AND I'M STILL NOT SATISFIED THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH THE SCHOOL ISSUE, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE GOING TO TALK TO THEM TOMORROW.

WE DO HAVE A SCHOOL THAT IS STRUGGLING IN TERMS OF POPULATION RIGHT NOW AND THEIR PLAN IS THREE YEARS AWAY.

I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE SOONER THAN THAT, AND I'M ALSO ASSUMING FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PERSON BRINGING THE PROPOSAL, THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A COMMUNITY FOR TRANSIENT FAMILIES WHO WILL PROBABLY BE YOUNGER WITH KIDS , AND THAT MEANS WE'RE GOING TO PUT ADDED PRESSURE ON A SCHOOL THAT IS ALREADY OVERBURDENED.

LIKE I SAY, IF WE DECIDE TO GO WITH IT, THAT'S FINE, BUT I STILL THINK WE NEED TO GET MORE INFORMATION, AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE IN TERMS OF THE COST EFFECTIVENESS, AND SO I REALLY THINK THAT IT DOESN'T HURT US. IT'S GOING TO SNOW 2 TO 4 INCHES TOMORROW.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SHOVELS WILL GO IN THE GROUND TOMORROW TO PUT IT OFF UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION IN MY MIND.

I'M GOING TO BACK OFF.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE CRITERIA ON PAGE TWO OF THE STAFF REPORT.

BRIAN, YOU INCLUDED THE REVIEW CRITERIA ON PAGE TWO AND I WAS LOOKING AT SIX NUMBER SIX, AND TONIGHT IS THE FIRST MENTION APPARENTLY OF NOT HAVING ENOUGH PUBLIC FACILITIES TO SUPPORT BY WAY OF SCHOOLS.

THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING TONIGHT.

I MEAN, ARE YOU I WILL SAY THIS.

THERE IS SCHOOL PROPERTY WITHIN THE 300 FOOT NOTIFICATION OF THIS PROJECT, AND WE HAVE NO COMMENT FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT NOW.

[00:50:01]

THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR COMMISSIONER PREMOE'S CONCERN, AND I DON'T MEAN TO EQUATE THOSE THINGS.

BUT YOU'RE SAYING THEY'VE BEEN NOTIFIED.

AT SOME LEVEL OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THEY KNOW THIS PROJECT IS GOING ON.

I JUST HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THEM.

SO THAT PUTS THE TOWNSHIP IN A DIFFICULT POSITION.

IF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS NOT COMMUNICATED I MEAN, WHO IS IT THAT WE'RE IN CONTACT WITH.

I MEAN, OR FOR EXAMPLE, IF CORNELL IS CROWDED, WELL, ARE THERE OTHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WITHIN THE DISTRICT THAT COULD PICK UP THE SLACK? I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, NO.

SO JUST BRIEFLY, MY HISTORY WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS IS THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY PLANNING FOR GROWTH BECAUSE UNDER MICHIGAN SYSTEM OF FUNDING, THAT IS HOW THEY SURVIVE.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT ARE NOT DOING WELL WITHIN THE STATE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE STAGNANT OR DECLINING POPULATION.

SO THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY PAYING ATTENTION AND LIKELY HAVE SOMEONE ON STAFF.

IT USED TO BE A GIS PERSON BACK WHEN I STARTED MY CAREER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO DO, BUT GENERALLY, THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE ABSOLUTELY PAYING ATTENTION AND ARE ASSUMING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF BACKGROUND POPULATION GROWTH BECAUSE ASSUMING THIS GETS BUILT, NOT EVERY UNIT WILL HAVE CHILDREN IN IT AND SOME WILL HAVE MORE CHILDREN IN IT THAN OTHERS, AND SO THEY THERE IS LIKELY AN ASSUMPTION THEY MAKE IT'S LIKELY BASED OFF CENSUS DATA AND THE PAST DECADE OF GROWTH THAT THEY EXPECT TO SEE AND A NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE POPULATION GROWTH THAT THEY EXPECT TO SEE.

THE TOWNSHIP DOES HAVE A MEETING WITH SUPERINTENDENT HOOD IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING THIS UP, BUT I CAN SAY WITH SOME CERTAINTY THAT THE ANSWER IS GOING TO BE WE WOULD LOVE MORE STUDENTS BECAUSE THAT IS THE ANSWER FROM EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT I HAVE EVER HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH IN THE HISTORY OF TIME.

OKAY.

I SERVED ON A SCHOOL BOARD FOR 16 YEARS, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, AND IN GENERAL, MORE STUDENTS IS BETTER, BUT I DO KNOW THAT OKEMOS IS FACING A GROWTH ISSUE RIGHT NOW TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY JUST PASSED A $275M BOND ISSUE ONE PURPOSE IS TO REPLACE THE SCHOOL CLOSEST TO THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY QUITE CROWDED.

I THINK PART OF THEIR CONCERN MIGHT BE TIMING IF THIS ALL COMES IN PLACE IN THREE YEARS AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT SCHOOL REPLACED FOR FIVE YEARS, THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE FOR THEM. I THINK IT'S WORTH DISCUSSING WITH MR. HOOD. I'M DEFINITELY HAPPY TO REACH OUT AND GET SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT CORNELL ELEMENTARY AND CONCERNS WITH THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT OF THE NOTICE YOU SEND TO THEM AS FAR AS THE DETAIL OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD RESPOND TO A NOTICE WITHOUT CONTACT.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

YEAH, I THINK IT'S ALSO FAIR TO ASSUME THEY COULDN'T ASSUME THAT THE MILLAGE WAS GOING TO BE PASSED UP UNTIL LAST WEEK WHEN IT GOT PASSED. SO IT'S HARD TO COMMENT REALLY WITHOUT KNOWING FOR SURE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GET APPROVAL AND THAT SORT OF THING.

SO I WOULD AGREE THAT AND THEY'RE NOT THEY HAD AN ELECTION GOING ON FOR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND THE MILLAGE.

SO THEY HAD A LOT OF OTHER THINGS ON THEIR MIND BESIDES A PROJECT THAT WAS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE AND TO RUN A SCHOOL SYSTEM.

SO I GUESS I'M SAYING I SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT WE GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT.

I THINK ONE OTHER ISSUE FOR ME IS I GET THE EXCEPTION THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN TERMS OF THE WETLAND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE GET A ROAD ALL THE WAY ACROSS.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE RULES AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS, YOU KNOW, SO WHAT PREVENTS THE NEXT PERSON THAT COMES IN TO SAY, WELL, YOU MADE AN EXCEPTION HERE, AND I FEEL MY ARGUMENT IS JUST AS VALID.

I JUST THINK THAT FOR ME PERSONALLY, WE JUST NEED TO DO A LITTLE MORE HOMEWORK, AND LIKE I SAY, IN TWO WEEKS, IF IT MAKES SENSE TO US, THEN LET'S SAY YES, BUT IN TERMS OF GATHERING MORE INFORMATION,

[00:55:05]

I DON'T LIKE BEING PRESSURED, AND I ALSO DON'T LIKE THE ARGUMENT THAT IT'S ZONED TO BUILD ON ANYWAY.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.

WELL, THAT COMES ACROSS AS A BIT OF A THREAT TO ME, AND I THINK, AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT A GOOD PROJECT.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT MIGHT NOT WORK, AND THE WORD I ALSO HEARD IN THE IT NEVER HAPPENS WAS THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION, AND I THINK WE ARE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT HAVING HAD THE CONVERSATION, AND IF I'M REPEATING MYSELF AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT AND I DON'T NEED TO TAKE UP MORE TIME IN THE MEETING, I JUST THINK IT'S NOT GOING TO KILL US PERSONALLY TO WAIT AND THEN MAKE A DECISION.

IF YOU DO BRING THAT MATTER UP WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OR WHOMEVER IT'S APPROPRIATE WITH, I WOULD SAY NOT ONLY TO EXAMINE CORNELL, BUT IF THE DISTRICT WIDE THAT THERE WOULD BE ROOM FOR PROJECTED NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN THE DISTRICT.

I MEAN, WE HAD AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON THE WESTERN EDGE, BUT, YOU KNOW, DECISIONS WERE MADE WITHIN THE DISTRICT, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD LIMIT THAT DISCUSSION JUST TO CORNELL ELEMENTARY.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE EXAMINED DISTRICT WIDE.

OKAY, YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT.

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER CORNELL CAN ACCEPT AN INFLUX OF STUDENTS, IT'S WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CAN HANDLE AN INFLUX OF STUDENTS.

COMING FROM THE [INAUDIBLE].

I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS, AT LEAST FROM A PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE.

I'M LIVING IN A COMMUNITY THAT'S VERY SIMILAR AND THERE'S ABOUT 82, IF I RECALL EXACTLY--I COULD BE A LITTLE OFF ON THE NUMBER, COULD BE 84, BUT I THINK IT'S 82 UNITS THAT I'M CURRENTLY LIVING IN BECAUSE I WAS TELLING YOU, I LIVE IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE DEVELOP.

THERE'S LESS THAN I'D SAY THERE'S APPROXIMATELY SIX OR EIGHT HOMES THAT HAVE STUDENTS.

I THINK IN THAT DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY, I'M NOT TELLING YOU IT DOESN'T VARY OVER TIME BECAUSE WE DON'T SAY, HEY, WE DON'T WANT KIDS, RIGHT? WE SAY WE WANT WHOEVER WANTS TO COME HERE IN A FAIR HOUSING APPROACH, AND SO WE WANT TO ATTRACT PEOPLE THAT WANT TO LIVE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITIES AND MAKE IT A VIABLE PLACE FOR CHILDREN TO EDUCATE AND GROW AND MOVE ON.

SO BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S NOT 90% STUDENTS WHERE THIS IS PACKED AND IT'S A CO-OP LIKE I USED TO LIVE IN A CO-OP WHEN I WAS YOUNGER, IN ANN ARBOR, WHERE ALMOST EVERY UNIT HAD CHILDREN.

IT'S NOT THAT CASE. THIS IS GOING TO BE A MIX THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO HOMES, YOU GUYS; WERE BUILDING HOMES AND YOU'RE GOING TO ATTRACT THE SAME KIND OF CLIENT.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS GOING TO BE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO OWN A HOME FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME OR THEIR JOB WASN'T CONDUCIVE TO IT.

SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S KIND OF REALLY PUTTING 115 HOMES IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND WHETHER YOU RENT THEM OR YOU BUY THEM, YOU'RE GOING TO GET SIMILAR MIXES.

OUR RENTS AREN'T LOW, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT I THINK I HAVE LESS THAN 10% OF THE HOMES THAT WE THAT I'M LIVING IN CURRENTLY HAVE HAVE SCHOOL AGE KIDS AND I HAVE TWO AND ANYWAY, THAT'S THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF AT LEAST SOME PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE THAT I COULD GIVE YOU GUYS. EXCUSE ME.

HE SHOULD GIVE HIS NAME AND ADDRESS.

I AM SO SORRY. I'M RAJI UPPAL WITH DTN MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

YOU ALWAYS TEST ME ON MY ADDRESS, BUT I'M ON CLARK ROAD, AND DEWITT, AT QUARRY VILLAGE APARTMENTS.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE OF THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA.

ONE IN HOLT AND ONE IN DEWITT. COULD YOU GET US SOME SORT OF AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT HAS GENERATED AS FAR AS STUDENTS, K-12? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY TO YOU IS MY GUESS THAT OUT OF THE 84 UNITS THAT I HAVE TODAY, IT'S LESS THAN I MIGHT SAY TWO PER HOUSEHOLD, AS I'M GOING TO SAY, IS AN AVERAGE, AND THAT'S JUST A GUESS.

I'M LIVING THERE AND LOOKING, BUT NOT COUNTING AND MONITORING, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO MY GUESS, I THINK IT'S 20 MAYBE, IN THE 84, I THINK IT'S LESS THAN THAT, EVEN TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BUT IT'S NOT HUNDREDS.

[01:00:01]

IT'S IN THE SCHEME OF 10% OF THE PEOPLE HAD CHILDREN, AND MAYBE YOU CAN SAY ON AVERAGE THERE'S TWO.

I THINK THAT'S NOT A CRAZY ASSUMPTION.

LET'S JUST SAY IT THAT WAY, AND DO I THINK IT VARIES OVER TIME AND IT'S GOING TO VARY DEPENDING ON WHO LIVES THERE? IT DOES VARY, AND WE ENCOURAGE FAMILIES AND WE ENCOURAGE EMPTY NESTERS AND WE ENCOURAGE, AND WHAT I REALLY LIKE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITIES IS THAT DIVERSITY OF MIX, WHERE YOU HAVE AN EMPTY NESTER WHO'S, YOU KNOW, BACK IN THE DAY IT USED TO BE IT WAS A BIG COMMUNITY, RIGHT? IT TOOK A VILLAGE TO RAISE CHILDREN, AND TO SOME DEGREE, YOU SEE THAT VILLAGE KIND OF APPROACH HAPPENING IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

THANK YOU. SO YOU'RE GOING TO GET EMPTY NESTERS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUNG PROFESSIONALS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET FAMILIES, YOU'RE GOING TO GET SCIENTISTS THAT ARE WORKING AT THE [INAUDIBLE] AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS? I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS VOTE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

JUST SO THAT YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND OUR OUR OUR CONCERN FROM OUR STANDPOINT, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PUT A GUN AT YOUR HEAD OR TRYING TO PUSH IT FORWARD, BUT WE DO HAVE A TIMELINE IN WHICH WE HAVE TO MOVE THE SUP PROCESS FORWARD AND IT'S RELEVANT.

SO FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE'D LIKE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD FROM THE STANDPOINT JUST THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MEET OUR LIMITS THAT ARE COMPLYING WITH IT.

WE THINK WE COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING WITHIN THE SUP AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, TRIED TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

THE LAST THING I'D LIKE TO ADD ON THIS, TOO, AS YOU TALKED ABOUT THE ROAD AND THE VARIANCES AND THINGS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT TO TRY AND GET OUR ROAD THROUGH, WE COULD MITIGATE AND MAKE ROOM FOR THIS AND I CHOSE NOT TO.

WE ARE TRYING NOT TO MITIGATE AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN THIS WETLAND BUFFER, BUT IF SOMEONE CAME BACK TO ME AND SAID, GO MITIGATE THIS, WE COULD GET OUT OF THE WETLAND BUFFER AND THAT'S A VIABLE OPTION AND WE HAVE THE LAND TO DO IT.

WE JUST THOUGHT THAT WASN'T THE DESIRE OF THE COMMUNITY, SO WE WERE TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING WE COULD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE WETLAND. OUR ORIGINAL PLAN HAD TRUE MITIGATION IN IT TO MAKE IT SO THAT WE HAD HIGHER DENSITY.

I'VE DONE EVERYTHING I CAN OR WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE THAT AS LITTLE IMPACT AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE THAT SEEMED LIKE A HIGH PRIORITY FOR THIS TOWNSHIP.

IF I CAN ADD ON TO THAT, THAT ROAD THAT GOES THROUGH IS IN THE WETLAND BUFFER.

IT'S NOT TAKING OUT WETLAND, IT'S IN YOUR 40 FOOT DESIGNATED WETLAND BUFFER, WHICH IS OFTEN COMMON PRACTICE, AND AS RAJI SAID, YOUR BOARD HAD ASKED TRY TO AVOID MITIGATION.

WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE LAND WHERE WE COULD GO ELIMINATE WETLAND MITIGATE IT TO A MITIGATION STANDARD, BUT WE ARE AVOIDING THAT AT EVERYBODY'S REQUEST. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE TIMELINE CONSIDERATIONS, AND THERE WERE SEVERAL ITEMS THAT WERE LAID OUT BY THE BOARD AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OR THAT WERE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AND ONE OF THEM WAS THE TIMELINE, AND THIS BASICALLY HAS TO BE THROUGH THE SUP WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM NOW.

SO IF THIS GOES BACK AND A SCHOOL BOARD IS LOOKING AT THIS AND WE DON'T HAVE ANSWERS QUICKLY AND WE GET DELAYED ON AN AGENDA OR WHATEVER, WE'RE NEARING THE HOLIDAYS, WE COULD SLIP ON OUR TIMELINE AND WE DID WE DID EVERYTHING THAT WAS ASKED OF US QUICKLY, AND SO IT'S A MAJOR CONCERN OF OURS.

THE OTHER THING IS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, RA, BRIAN, IS FOUR UNITS TO THE ACRE, BASICALLY 10,000 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

SO IF THIS REVERTS BACK TO RA, WHICH IS A USE BY RIGHT ZONING WITH 30 ACRES AT FOUR TO THE ACRE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 120 UNITS THAT CAN BE BUILT THERE USE BY RIGHT.

WE'RE LESS THAN THAT, AND WE'RE A DIFFERENT PRODUCT TYPE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, AS ROGER SAID, A BLEND OF RESIDENTS.

SO IF THIS FALLS BACK AND IT REVERTS, THEN WE COME BACK WITH AN RA PLAN.

THAT'S A USE BY RIGHT.

IT REALLY DOESN'T FALL ON THE SCHOOLS.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY ZONED WITHIN YOUR DISTRICT.

SO I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, THIS REQUIREMENT COMING UP NOW AT THIS POINT IN OUR PROCESS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER PREMOE HAS MADE A MOTION TO TABLE IT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.

I THINK SPECIFICALLY, IN ORDER TO SEEK AND RECEIVE INPUT FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT.

WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION IS THERE A SECOND?

[01:05:02]

SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION.

AS A FORMER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, I GET THE BUILDING ISSUES.

I DON'T THINK TWO WEEKS IS GOING TO HURT.

I ALSO HEAR THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU COULD BUILD MORE UNITS, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ECONOMIC CLIMATE IS MORE FAVORABLE TO RENT THAN BUILDING AND BUY.

SO THAT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE I MEAN, YOU KNOW THAT IT IS WHAT IT IS.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT CAN'T HAPPEN.

I'M JUST SAYING LET'S GET A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION, AND I DON'T THINK TWO WEEKS IS GOING TO HURT YOUR 60 DAY SCHEDULE.

MORE THAN LIKELY IN TWO WEEKS, WE'RE GOING TO SAY THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO SAY, FINE, AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY FINE, BUT UNTIL WE KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I DID, BUT WHY DON'T WE LISTEN TO DIRECTOR SCHMITT, AND THEN--OH, I'M SORRY.

IT'S QUITE ALL RIGHT, I JUST SNUCK UP REAL QUICK.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE DO NOT MEET IN TWO WEEKS.

WE MEET IN A MONTH.

WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER.

THIS IS NOVEMBER.

WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING IN NOVEMBER? THAT'S CORRECT. OH, I APOLOGIZE.

I WAS GOING TO ASK IF STAFF COULD SPEAK TO THIS TIMELINE SO WE KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL PARAMETERS ARE.

WE WILL BE MUCH MORE FORCEFUL IN DECEMBER ASKING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TAKE ACTION, GIVEN THE TIMELINE THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD PUT IN PLACE IN 2021. SO IF WE MEET IN APPROXIMATELY A MONTH, DOES THAT STILL MEET THE 60 DAY TIMELINE? YES, WE'LL MAKE IT HAPPEN.

IT'S GOING TO BE EXTREMELY CLOSE BECAUSE THE 25,000 SQUARE FOOT SUP HAS TO GO TO THE TOWNSHIP.

IT DOES, AND IT REQUIRES TWO MEETINGS.

YES. THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WILL NOT HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO POSTPONE.

SO CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? SO TODAY IS THE 14TH.

CORRECT. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MEETING IN NOVEMBER? YOU DO NOT.

OKAY, COULD YOU CALL ONE? EXCUSE ME. I'M SPEAKING OUT OF ORDER.

I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME SUGGESTING WE CALL A SPECIAL MEETING IN NOVEMBER, GIVEN WHEN THANKSGIVING FALLS.

SURE. ADDITIONALLY, IF THE REQUEST IS FOR STAFF TO TOUCH BASE WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE YOU CALL A SPECIAL MEETING IF I CAN'T GUARANTEE I'LL HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

BEST CASE WOULD BE TO MOVE UP YOUR DECEMBER MEETING IF YOU HAD SOME DESIRE TO DO THAT, BUT AGAIN, THERE'S BASED ON HOW THE CALENDAR FALLS, IT'S UNLIKELY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET TWICE IN DECEMBER EITHER.

YOU KEEP SAYING TWICE IN DECEMBER, BUT YOU MEAN TWICE IN NOVEMBER, RIGHT? NO. BOTH MONTHS ARE THAT WAY? CORRECT. THERE IS ONLY ONE MORE MEETING THIS YEAR.

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM.

MY SENSE IS THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN AT IT FOR QUITE A WHILE.

THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS MADE ITS FEELINGS CLEAR AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS GONE TO SIGNIFICANT LENGTHS TO COMPLY WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S DESIRES ON THIS PROPERTY.

MY SENSE IS THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS, IN MY VIEW, AN IMPROVEMENT OVER WHAT COULD BE BUILT BY RIGHT.

I DON'T RECALL EXAMINING THE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AS A SERVICE BEING A CRITERION THAT WAS THIS STRICTLY USED IN MAKING THIS SORT OF DECISION.

I FIND THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE ILLOGICAL.

I HAVE POINTED OUT SOME MINOR FLAWS I FIND IN THE RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF DELAY.

SO I OPPOSED THE MOTION TO TABLE AND INTEND TO PROPOSE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE.

[01:10:08]

ALL RIGHT, BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE, I'D LIKE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL'S POSITION JUST STATED.

MY REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PROJECT IS THAT IT IS A LOWER LEVEL INTERRUPTION OF LAND USE THAN COULD BE POSSIBLE.

IT IS HIGHLY CONTROLLED.

IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE WELL THOUGHT OUT, AND I AGREE THAT THE IMPOSITION ON THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IS SPECULATIVE AT BEST, WITH NO REAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WOULD CAUSE A PROBLEM.

I'VE HAD KIDS IN THIS SCHOOL SYSTEM, AND THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, IF THERE WERE 100 CHILDREN PRODUCED IN THIS IN THIS PROJECT, THE SCHOOL SYSTEM COULD EASILY ABSORB THOSE HUNDRED CHILDREN, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT NOT END UP AT CORNELL.

SO I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL'S POSITION.

I THINK WE HAVE TO CALL A ROLL CALL VOTE ON COMMISSIONER PREMOE'S MOTION TO TABLE THIS.

SO LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

ALL RIGHT, I BELIEVE IT'S TWO YES, AND THE REST ARE NO.

THE MOTION FAILS.

NOW, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SUP 22091 GRAND RESERVE.

IS THERE A SECOND? SUPPORT.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE? I HAVE ANOTHER. IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THIS? YES. I NORMALLY AM IN FAVOR OF BEING THOUGHTFUL AND EVEN WANTING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF OF OTHER COMMISSIONERS NEED FOR MORE INFORMATION.

I WOULD WANT THAT SAME RESPECT, AND SO I DON'T TAKE MY NO VOTE ON TABLING LIGHTLY, BUT I DO, GIVEN THE TIME FRAME, AND ALSO I THINK COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL MADE A GOOD POINT THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS GIVEN SOME PRETTY CLEAR DIRECTION WHEN WHEN THEY RE-ZONED THIS PROPERTY OVER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY AND SO I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE VESTED IN THIS WORK AND ARE GOING TO HAVE AN OPINION ON IT, AND WHILE IT IS OUR JOB TO GIVE OUR THOUGHTS TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO RESPECT THEM AND NOT PUT THEM IN A BIND WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, GIVEN SOME THOUGHTS, AND IT IS THE BY RIGHT, AND SO GIVEN ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ONE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO KEEP THE PROCESS GOING AND NOT THE DEVELOPER IN JEOPARDY OF NOT BEING ABLE TO DO ANYTHING OR DOING SOMETHING THAT IS THE LESS BEST OPTION HERE.

SO THAT'S WHY I VOTED TO TABLE AND WHY I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE RESOLUTION TO MOVE FORWARD.

ANY FURTHER COMMENT BEFORE THE VOTE? YEAH, I WOULD SAY BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS GOING TO GET PASSED ON TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, RIGHT? CORRECT. THAT THE INFORMATION THAT COMMISSIONER PREMOE HAS REQUESTED, WE STILL GET THAT INFORMATION AND PROVIDE THAT AS PART OF THE FEEDBACK TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

THAT'S NO PROBLEM. I'D ALSO LIKE TO MENTION YOU DO HAVE TO MAKE TWO MOTIONS BECAUSE PART OF THIS, THE 25,000 SQUARE FOOT GOES TO THE BOARD. YOU ARE APPROVING THE SINGLE FAMILY IN AN RD DEVELOPMENT.

SO YOU HAVE TWO RESOLUTIONS BEFORE YOU.

JUST A REMINDER.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I WILL BE VOTING NO, MAINLY IN SUPPORT OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONTACTED ME AND MY ATTEMPT TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE CITIZENS WHO EXPECT US TO LISTEN TO, AND THAT'S SIMPLY A JUSTIFIED PERFORMANCE OF YOUR FUNCTION.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE HOLDS A NO VOTE ON THIS AGAINST YOU THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE USE OF.

I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT.

I'VE BEEN SMACKED BEFORE.

[01:15:03]

[CHUCKLING] FOR ME, IT WAS PART OF EARNING A LIVING.

GO AHEAD. NOT TO PROLONG THIS ANY NECESSARILY LONGER, BUT I THINK ANY COMMENTS MADE TO ONE PARTICULAR PLANNING COMMISSIONER SHOULD BE MADE TO THE WHOLE BOARD INSTEAD OF INDIVIDUAL.

I MEAN, THAT'S NOT OF YOUR DOING, BUT I MEAN, IT WAS SHARED.

OH, I KNOW, BUT ANYWAY, I'M PREPARED TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

WHICH IS THE FIRST ONE WE ARE VOTING ON? I BELIEVE YOU ARE FIRST VOTING ON SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 2209 ONE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE.

I MOVED APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT 22091 GRAND RESERVE.

THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN MY PACKET HAS THE SAME NUMBER, BOTH FOR THE LAND USE AND FOR THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.

MY MOTION WAS CONCERNING THE LAND USE DECISION.

RIGHT, AND THE SECOND RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY STATES BUILDINGS OVER 25K SQUARE FEET.

RIGHT. SO THE FIRST I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE DOING THE FIRST ONE I WAS ADDRESSING THE FIRST RESOLUTION IN OUR PACKET.

ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, THEN THE MOTION AS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, I'LL CALL A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR THAT.

THE SECOND.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION ON THE SECOND RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING WITH MORE THAN 25,000 SQUARE FEET BUILDING OR BUILDINGS IN EXCESS OF 25,000.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE SECOND? I THINK [INAUDIBLE] IT'S OKAY, YOU LOOK SO MUCH ALIKE.

YOU'RE WEARING THE SAME CLOTHES.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE SECOND MOTION? NO, SEEING NONE. WE'LL CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE SECOND MOTION.

IT'S GOING TO GET REALLY EXCITING.

[9.A. 2023 Meeting Schedule]

WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT OUR MEETING SCHEDULE, SO DON'T GO ANYWHERE.

[CHUCKLING] WE ARE NOW ON ITEM NUMBER NINE ON THE AGENDA.

OTHER BUSINESS, ITEM 9A 2023 MEETING SCHEDULE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS IS TRADITION, WE BRING THIS FORWARD EVERY YEAR.

THE ONLY QUESTION THAT'S REALLY IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AT THIS POINT IS STAFF HAS RAISED THE COMMENTS THAT OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS DO MEET AT EARLIER HOURS.

SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO DESIRES TO MOVE THEIR START TIME FROM 7:00 TO SOMETHING EARLIER, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO SO.

OTHER THAN THAT, THESE ARE THE PROPOSED MEETING DATES FOR NEXT YEAR.

WE HAVE CHECKED THEM AGAINST ALL OF THE HOLIDAYS AT THE TOWNSHIP RECOGNIZES AND WE SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM GETTING PACKETS OUT IN AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR EACH OF THESE DATES. DO WE NEED A MOTION ON MEETING CALENDAR? WE DO. IT'S TECHNICALLY A RESOLUTION.

SO, THERE IT IS. WELL, I WOULD MOVE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION , AND WHEN WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DISCUSS IT, I'LL SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF TIMING.

THE CHAIR SECONDS THE MOTION.

SO I'M PERSONALLY VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF CONSIDERING AN EARLIER START TIME.

BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN I WAS WORKING LONG, LONG HOURS, 6 OR 6:30 WAS A REAL CHALLENGE TO GET ALL THE WAY FROM THE CAMPUS TO HERE ON MY TWO LITTLE PEDAL BIKE, BUT MY LIFE HAS EASED UP A BIT AND EARLIER START TIME WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENT FOR ME PERSONALLY.

[01:20:02]

I KNOW OTHER COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE OTHER RESTRICTIONS, SO I'M AMENABLE TO EITHER WAY, BUT MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO START EARLIER IF POSSIBLE. HOW MUCH EARLIER? I COULD GO WITH 6:00.

6:30 WOULD BE A FINE COMPROMISE FOR ME, BUT I'M HAPPY EITHER WAY.

I'D ALSO BE INTERESTED IN AN EARLIER STARTING TIME.

I'D BE MORE PARTIAL TO 6:30 MYSELF, BUT I COULD PROBABLY MAKE 6:00 WORK ALSO.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. GIVEN THAT I AM STILL WORKING THOSE LONG, LONG, LONG HOURS, 6:00 WOULD BE A REAL CHALLENGE FOR ME BECAUSE I'D BE PROBABLY RACING TO GET HERE AND FINISH UP, BUT I COULD COMPROMISE WITH 6:30 IF THAT WAS THE PREFERENCE OF EVERYONE ELSE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SOME OF US ARE FREE ALL DAY LONG [CHUCKLING] THE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE DONE AT LEAST. ALL RIGHT, THEN, ARE YOU PROCEDURALLY, IT WOULD BE A MOTION.

ARE YOU PROPOSING TO AMEND THE PROPOSAL TO 6:30? YES. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

ALL RIGHT, ALL IN FAVOR OF AMENDING THE PROPOSAL? THE CALENDAR TO 6:30 RATHER THAN 7:00? I GUESS WE NEED A ROLL CALL, DON'T WE? IT'S AN AMENDMENT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. THERE IS NO OPPOSITION, SO THE CALENDAR, IF APPROVED, WOULD START AT 6:30.

NOW WE GO BACK TO THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE CALENDAR AS AMENDED.

I'LL MOVE.

THE CALENDAR IS APPROVED TO START AT 6:30.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH; MY DAUGHTER APPRECIATES YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE ARE NOW ON ITEM OTHER BUSINESS ITEM 9B SIGN ORDINANCE UPDATE.

[9.B. TA #2022-16 – Sign Ordinance Update]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I THINK WE'RE THERE AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WORKING ON THIS.

THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY AND I WERE ABLE TO HASH OUT THE LAST TWO ITEMS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL MONTHS BACK WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS.

FIRST OFF IS THE FLAG LANGUAGE.

SUBSECTION 14 HAS THE LANGUAGE WE BELIEVE IS GOING TO BE PERFECTLY WORKABLE IN THIS ORDINANCE.

DOESN'T CHANGE A WHOLE LOT FROM WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

IT JUST CLARIFIES A FEW THINGS, SPECIFICALLY THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL IN SOME CASES.

THE SECOND ITEM WAS THE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE, WHICH FRANKLY IS THE MAIN POINTS OF THIS ENTIRE EXERCISE.

THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS RECOMMENDING THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU FIND IN SUBSECTION 20.

THIS TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ANOTHER SUPREME COURT CASE THAT WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED, I BELIEVE, EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT ALLOWS FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF OFF PREMISE VERSUS ON PREMISE SIGNAGE, AND SO THE WAY THEY'VE STRUCTURED THIS NOW IS FUNCTIONALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THE POLITICAL SIGNS BECOME OFF PREMISE SIGNS, BECAUSE IF YOU SAY VOTE FOR TIM, TIM IS NOT ACTUALLY ON THOSE PREMISES.

SO THAT IS AN OFF PREMISE SIGN.

IT IS A REASONABLE WORKAROUND THAT WE'VE FOUND TO TRY AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS WAY WE STRUCTURED THE POLITICAL SIGNS BY GIVING THEM ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE BECAUSE IT WAS AN EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH, THEY BELIEVE BECAUSE WE ARE CALLING IT OUT SPECIFICALLY, WE WOULD OPEN OURSELVES UP TO POTENTIAL CHALLENGE.

THIS WAY WE ARE REMAINING ENTIRELY CONTENT NEUTRAL WITH RESPECT TO THOSE SIGNS.

THERE'S A TIME PERIOD, THERE'S A SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT.

ALL THOSE THINGS ARE STILL IN PLAY.

THEY'RE JUST CALLED SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT NOW IN TERMS OF ON PREMISE SIGNAGE.

THIS IS THE SIGNS ANNOUNCING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, PROPERTY FOR LEASE, GRAND OPENINGS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND SO THOSE NOW HAVE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THOSE ARE SPECIFIC RELATED TO THE ACTIVITY ON THE PROPERTY.

THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY TWO CHANGES FROM THE LAST TIME YOU SAW THIS.

WE DID ADD A FEW DEFINITIONS THAT WE HAD MISSED THE FIRST TIME, BUT LARGELY WE'RE PRETTY HAPPY WITH THIS.

[01:25:04]

IT CERTAINLY IS A MASSIVE CHANGE TO OUR ORDINANCE, BUT IT DOES NOT FUNCTIONALLY CHANGE.

AS COMMISSIONER RICHARDS POINTED OUT, WE HAVE A VERY GOOD ORDINANCE AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS DURING THE SUBCOMMITTEE LAST YEAR.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE GREAT SIGN PROLIFERATION, BUT THIS DOES ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY WHILE NOT GETTING TO GIANT SIGNAGE EVERYWHERE.

SO STAFF WOULD AT THIS TIME RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE BOARD.

IS THAT CALLING FOR TWO DECISIONS OR ONE? ONE DECISION, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE UPDATE.

I MOVE THE RECOMMENDATION.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SUPPORT.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

DISCUSSION? YES.

COMMISSIONER CORDILL. I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT FLAGS IN THE MEMO.

SECOND PARAGRAPH.

SO THE NEW REGULATIONS FOR SIGNS WHICH ALLOW FOR TWO SIGNS AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND ONE IN OTHER DISTRICTS.

THE TOWNSHIP TOWNSHIP COMPLEX IS LOCATED WHAT KIND OF DISTRICT? AS A REMINDER, WE ARE GENERALLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

THE TOWNSHIP COMPLEX? YES. THIS PROPERTY AND THE MAJORITY OF OUR PROPERTIES.

AS A REMINDER, THOUGH, EARLIER THIS YEAR THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT ALL TOWNSHIP SIGNAGE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.

THE REASON WHY, I THOUGHT, IS BECAUSE A MUNICIPAL BUILDING WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A STATE IN US FLAG AND MAYBE SCHOOLS AS WELL.

EXACTLY. THANK YOU, THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS.

ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER TREZISE. I'M CURIOUS HOW THE OFF PREMISES TEMPORARY SIGN PROVISION WOULD WORK.

HOW MANY SIGNS CAN YOU HAVE ON YOUR OFF-PREMISES? I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE 24 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE PER SIDE IN TOTAL.

LET ME GET TO THE RIGHT SECTION.

SECTION 20. AN INDIVIDUAL SIGN CAN BE UP TO EIGHT SQUARE FEET.

IN TOTAL YOU'RE ALLOWED 24 SQUARE FEET.

SO GENERALLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT THREE OR FOUR SIGNS PROBABLY, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT HAVING DONE A LITTLE BIT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT THIS CYCLE FOR SIGNS WAS ABOUT WHERE I SAW PEOPLE BY AND LARGE.

THERE WAS ONE OR TWO OUTLIERS THAT HAD A LOT MORE, BUT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE HAD HAD THREE OR FOUR SIGNS, AND IT WAS A SPECIFIC PATTERN OF SIGNAGE.

SO WE DID LOOK INTO THIS SOMEWHAT SPECIFICALLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT 24 IS A REASONABLE NUMBER, AND WE BELIEVE IT IS.

I KNOW I MEANT TO BRING THIS UP BEFORE, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I DIDN'T.

I'M GRAPPLING WITH THE NOTION OF CONTENT NEUTRALITY, AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND IT.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW EXEMPTING GASOLINE STATIONS WORKS IN THE SPIRIT OF CONTENT NEUTRALITY, IT FEELS TO ME LIKE A VERY BIG EXCEPTION HAS BEEN CARVED OUT HERE FOR GAS STATIONS, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT AS CONTENT NEUTRAL.

SO PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT.

SO IT'S NOT WHAT THE SIGN SAYS, IT'S THE USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT HAS AN EXCEPTION.

SO CONTENT NEUTRAL GENERALLY IS IF I HAVE TO READ THAT SIGN TO KNOW HOW TO REGULATE IT, THEN THAT'S NOT A LEGAL REGULATION.

IN THIS CASE, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE SAYING THIS CATEGORY OF USES BECAUSE WE KNOW THEY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE FOR SPECIFIC REASONS, HAS ITS OWN SET OF STANDARDS. ADDITIONALLY, YOU'LL NOTE THAT DRIVE-THRUS ALSO HAVE THAT BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS ARE IN OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE.

WE'VE JUST MODERNIZED THEM AND BROUGHT THE LANGUAGE UP TO PAR.

SO IF WE TRIED TO REGULATE GAS STATION SIGNS AND SAY IN NO CASE WILL THEY EVER SAY MORE THAN $5 A GALLON, YOU'D BE STUCK BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO FIND SOMEBODY IF THEY TRIED TO SAVE MORE THAN $5 A GALLON.

THAT WOULD BE CONTENT, NOT NEUTRAL.

CORRECT, I WORKED IN A LOCATION WHERE THAT SAID THE COLOR OF A GASOLINE STATION SIGN CAN ONLY BE RED.

IT CANNOT BE ANY OTHER COLOR.

THAT IS CONTENT.

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT SIGN TO DETERMINE HOW TO BECAUSE IT COULD BE ORANGE.

THEY DIDN'T WANT GREEN FOR SOME REASON, ODDLY ENOUGH.

THAT WAS LITERALLY THE REASON BEHIND IT.

THANKS FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

[01:30:01]

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, OUT OF CURIOSITY.

WHEN THERE ARE SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHOSE JOB IS IT TO REMOVE THEM OR CAN CITIZENS REMOVE THEM? PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THEM.

I TELL EVERYONE, DO NOT REMOVE THEM.

JUST GIVE US A CALL AND LET US KNOW WHERE THEY'RE AT.

WE HAVE A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT'S OUT ON A REGULAR BASIS.

IF HE SEES THEM, HE TRIES TO GRAB THEM.

OBVIOUSLY, GIVEN CONSTRUCTION, WE'VE TRIED TO BE FLEXIBLE ALONG GRAND RIVER AND OKEMOS ROAD THIS YEAR.

WE ALSO HAVE, OUR INTERN IS GREAT.

HE WAS VERY AGGRESSIVE AT FIRST PULLING SIGNS AND SO WE HAD TO DIAL HIM BACK A LITTLE BIT, HELP HIM UNDERSTAND SORT OF THE GRAY AREA SOMETIMES, BUT YEAH, JUST LET US KNOW IF YOU SEE SOMETHING. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE PULLED TEN OR 15 TODAY.

ONE OF THE AREAS WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH IS FRANKLY THE COMPANIES THAT NOW START ATTACHING THE TELEPHONE POLES BECAUSE THEY ATTACH THEM WITH LIKE LAG BOLTS THAT ARE THIS LONG THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT TO GET A TRUCK OUT THERE TO REMOVE IT.

SO WE HAVE TO CALL THOSE IN TO CONSUMERS GENERALLY.

WELL, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION PENDING? ALL RIGHT, AND SECONDED.

ALL RIGHT, I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT.

WHEN I FIRST READ THE EXISTING SIGN ORDINANCES IN THIS TOWNSHIP, I HAD A HEADACHE LIKE I HAVEN'T HAD IN YEARS.

I'D LIKE TO COMPLIMENT STAFF ON THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE TO SIMPLIFY AND CLARIFY THE SIGN ORDINANCES.

IT'S AN IMPRESSIVE PIECE OF WORK.

THANK YOU. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS.

THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY IS TO BE COMMENDED FOR REELING US BACK IN WHEN NEED BE.

ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL CALL A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR APPROVING THE MOTION.

WE'RE NOW ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TEN.

[10.A. Urban Service Boundary Discussion]

MASTER PLAN UPDATE.

THIS IS OUR EDUCATION TOPIC FOR THE MONTH.

I'D LIKE YOU GUYS TO START THINKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE AS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE TOLD MULTIPLE PEOPLE SINCE I STARTED HERE IS THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REVIEW IT EVERY FIVE YEARS BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG DEAL.

THERE ARE VERY FEW COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE THIS.

IT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE MASTER PLAN, AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS EARLY ON, GIVE YOU OUR INITIAL THOUGHTS ON IT, AND THEN AT SOME POINT, PROBABLY AT THIS POINT, AFTER THE FIRST YEAR, WE'LL HOLD A FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING, INVITE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS TOPIC SPECIFICALLY AND GO FROM THERE, AND SO THIS ON THE SCREEN IS THE CURRENT BOUNDARY.

IT IS NOT A STRAIGHT LINE.

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY WHICH WOULD MAKE THIS DISCUSSION A WHOLE LOT EASIER, BUT TRIES TO FOLLOW SOME OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP, AND SO BRIEFLY, I THINK YOU CAN BREAK THIS DOWN INTO THREE PARTS, REALLY.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU HAVE THE NORTHERN END UP AROUND THE LAKE.

THIS REALLY JUST FOLLOWS THE LAKE AND THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ESSENTIALLY, UNTIL YOU GET DOWN TO ROUGHLY HASLETT RD.

THIS IS THE ONLY AREA OF ANY CONCERN THAT WE HAVE.

IT'S JUST CUTTING RIGHT THROUGH A PROPERTY, AND SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND MAKING A MINOR CHANGE HERE TO JUST NOT CUT A PROPERTY IN HALF BECAUSE ALL THAT DOES IS BECOME THAT ONE WEIRD EXCEPTION THAT TEN YEARS FROM NOW WE TRY TO HAVE TO RESOLVE SOMETHING ON IT AND NO ONE KNOWS WHY IT'S LIKE THAT AND SO AT SOME POINT STAFF WILL RECOMMEND WE JOG THIS A LITTLE BIT TO THE NORTH TO BRING THAT WHOLE PROPERTY IN.

SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION, AND I'M GOING TO SKIP DOWN TO THE SOUTH BECAUSE THAT'S THE OTHER EASY PART.

THE SOUTH PART, ROUGHLY, ONCE YOU GET SOUTH OF GRAND RIVER, REALLY STARTS TO FOLLOW THAT CONSUMERS ENERGY CORRIDOR BETWEEN CORNELL AND VAN ATTA WRAPS AROUND A COUPLE OF SUBDIVISIONS, LEAVING OUT PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE TOWNSHIP OR THAT ARE LARGELY WETLANDS.

THIS IS THE REAL ONLY EXCEPTION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S AWARE OF IT.

THE SUBDIVISION WELLINGTON ESTATES AND THE WINSLOW MOBILE HOME PARK, ALONG WITH THE PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, ARE ALL ACTUALLY IN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY , AND SO THAT'S JUST AN IMPORTANT ITEM TO KNOW GOING FORWARD.

IF THERE WAS EVER REDEVELOPMENT IN THE WINSLOW AREA OR THE GAS STATION THERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THOSE ARE ACTUALLY IN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.

THE MAJORITY OF THE REST OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

IT'S IRRELEVANT WHETHER THEY'RE IN OR OUT BECAUSE NOTHING IS EVER GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THEM, BUT THOSE TWO AREAS, I SIMPLY WANT TO POINT OUT, AND SO EVERYONE'S AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T EVEN GO TO CORNELL ROAD AND I HAVE TO CORRECT PEOPLE.

[01:35:02]

NO, THERE IS A SECTION THAT GOES ALL THE WAY OUT PAST VAN ATTA.

REALLY THE PART THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TALK ABOUT AS WE GO FORWARD IS HERE IN THE MIDDLE, THE JOG AROUND.

EXCUSE ME, CAN I STOP YOU FOR A SECOND? I'M SORRY. YEAH. CAN YOU DEFINE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY FOR US, PLEASE? SO IT IS AN AREA IN WHICH THE TOWNSHIP INTENDS TO PROVIDE SERVICES VERSUS THE AREA OUTSIDE.

THIS IS WHERE WE DO NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE SERVICES.

SO FIRE SERVICE, POLICE, [INAUDIBLE] SEWER AND WATER IS THE BIG ONES.

THAT'S THE KEY.

WE WILL ALWAYS PROVIDE FIRE AND POLICE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

IT'S JUST YOU'RE CONSIDERED MORE RURAL THERE.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GOING TO PUT A NEW STATION OUT THERE.

IT'S REALLY THE WATER AND SEWER ARE THE KEYS, BUT THERE IS NOT AN INTENTION FOR US TO EXTEND OUT TO YOU.

THE REASON MIDDLE PART'S THE KEY IS BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE SERVICES AVAILABLE TO SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES, AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF COME AROUND THE I JUST BLANKED ON IT, THE GEORGETOWN SUBDIVISIONS, AND THEN PICK UP POWELL ROAD AND THEN LEAVE THOSE PROPERTIES OUT, BUT THEN COME BACK IN FOR SILVERSTONE, WHICH WASN'T THERE AT THE TIME, AND THEN GO BACK OUT AND THE GOLF COURSE, THE DRIVING RANGE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY CUT INTO TWO.

SO WE HAVE A BIT OF A CONUNDRUM HERE.

I HAD A PROFESSOR IN COLLEGE THAT ALWAYS SAID, YOU KNOW, STRAIGHT LINES ARE THE BEST FOR US TO DO BECAUSE GOD DOESN'T MAKE STRAIGHT LINES. WE KNOW IT'S MANMADE.

IT'S A STRAIGHT LINE GENERALLY, AND SO STAFF WOULD ALWAYS PREFER A STRAIGHT LINE, AND OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS HERE.

WE HAVE THE CORNELL ROAD, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A STRAIGHT LINE AND THEN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTIES ALONG CORNELL ROAD.

ADDITIONALLY, AT SOME POINT, WE DO NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE DRIVING RANGE BECAUSE PARTS IN PARTS OUT.

THE PROPERTY IS UP FOR SALE.

THE OWNERS OF THAT PROPERTY WILL ABSOLUTELY BE PROVIDING REQUESTS TO THE.

PLANNING COMMISSION THAT IT BE INCLUDED BECAUSE IT IS ADJACENT TO SERVICES, IT IS ON GRAND RIVER.

IT IS A DRIVING RANGE THAT IT'S AN OLD USE THAT NEEDS RENOVATION AT THIS POINT.

IT HAS DEVELOPMENT ALL AROUND IT.

SO THERE'S NO DECISIONS THAT ARE NEEDED TO BE MADE.

THIS EVENING WE'D OBVIOUSLY WELCOME ANY INPUT, BUT I KNOW IT'S A LATE HOUR AND I'D LIKE YOU GUYS TO THINK ABOUT THIS, BUT I REALLY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY ON YOUR RADAR EARLY ON BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A UNIQUE ITEM IN OUR MASTER PLAN, AND SO OBVIOUSLY, IF ANYONE'S WATCHING AT HOME RIGHT NOW, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE US WITH ANY COMMENT INPUT THAT YOU HAVE ON ANY PART OF OUR MASTER PLAN.

IF YOU GO TO THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S WEBSITE, YOU HAVE A SPOT THERE FOR THE MASTER PLAN AND YOU CAN PROVIDE US DIRECT FEEDBACK THROUGH AN EMAIL LINK, BUT ALSO SPECIFICALLY ON THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY AS WE MOVE FORWARD, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AND I START YOU GUYS THINKING ABOUT THIS REALLY BECAUSE WE'RE SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE MIDDLE, THE NORTH AND SOUTH PRETTY GOOD.

IT'S THE MIDDLE WHERE IT JOGS EAST AND WEST A LOT THERE.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? SO THE URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY, GIVEN THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PRETTY UNIQUE TO THIS COMMUNITY, AS YOU'VE STATED, AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY WHEN I ASSUME THAT ITS PURPOSE IS PERHAPS TO CONTROL THE RATE OF DEVELOPMENT? 100%, IT IS A TOOL THAT CAN BE USED TO SLOW THE RATE OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT'S ALSO A TOOL TO HELP US FROM A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PERSPECTIVE THAT WE KNOW THIS IS ROUGHLY THE AREA WE'RE PLANNING FOR IN TERMS OF WATER AND SEWER AND ROADS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WE'RE ABLE TO PLAN FOR THAT A LITTLE MORE EFFECTIVELY THAN NOT KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY TO MERIDIAN RD.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

I THINK IT'S MORE A FACTOR OF DENSITY.

YOU CAN ASSUMING YOU CAN PUT IN WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS, YOU CAN STILL DEVELOP PROPERTY.

IT'S A MATTER OF HOW DENSELY YOU CAN DO THAT, AND TYPICALLY, ONCE YOU GET INTO QUARTER ACRE LOTS OR EVEN A LITTLE BIT LARGER, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER IN ORDER TO DO THAT EFFECTIVELY.

TO BUILD ON WHAT COMMISSIONER RICHARDS SAID IS I HAPPEN TO BE ON THE COMMISSION WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THIS PLAN AND IT WAS RECOGNIZED THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY WAS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE TOWNSHIP WAS MORE RURAL IN CHARACTER AND THAT WAS SOMETHING WORTHY OF PRESERVATION.

SO HENCE THE BOUNDARY AND THAT THE SERVICES, WATER AND SEWER WERE NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER.

[01:40:12]

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THIS IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS ONE, BUT YOU JUST REMINDED ME THAT WE HAD TALKED A WHILE AGO ABOUT HAVING SORT OF STOCK LANGUAGE THAT PEOPLE MIGHT BE ABLE TO THROW INTO A COMMUNITY NEWSLETTER OR A WEBSITE OR SOMETHING, AND I KNOW WE HAVE A VERY SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I AM, BUT WE DO DO EMAILS AND NEWSLETTERS TO FOLKS PERIODICALLY, AND I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SHARE THAT, THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD GIVE TO US, AND I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS BEYOND THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YOU'LL HAVE IT BY THE END OF THE WEEK.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.

I DID NOT KNOW WHAT AN URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY WAS UNTIL I JOINED THIS PLANNING COMMISSION.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY HAVE IN LANSING.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT, WE ARE NOW ON ITEM TEN OF THE AGENDA.

OH, NO, I'M SORRY. ITEM 11, TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

[11.A. Township Board update.]

SO GENERALLY, WHAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO START DOING IS KIND OF CONSOLIDATING THIS ALL INTO THE SORT OF PROJECT UPDATE THAT WE'VE PROVIDED TO YOU.

I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY FOR US TO KEEP TRACK OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON.

I WILL JUST ADD THAT THE BOARD DID FORMALLY INTRODUCE THE RRA DELETION ORDINANCE AT THEIR LAST MEETING, AND SO THAT'S ON TRACK FOR ADOPTION.

THEY DID APPROVE THE BROWNFIELD PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS, AND JUST A REMINDER, TOMORROW NIGHT'S THE JOINT MEETING.

SO WE MAY HAVE MORE COMING OUT OF THAT TOMORROW NIGHT.

LIAISON REPORTS.

[11.B. Liaison reports.]

I JUST WANTED TO THROW OUT THAT THE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY AFTER SOME TIME WILL BE MEETING THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH AT 6 P.M.. HOWEVER, I'M UNABLE TO ATTEND, SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND IT AND SEE WHAT IT'S ABOUT.

IF ANYONE'S INTERESTED. WE'RE HAPPY TO GET THEM THE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED.

TO COMMISSIONER CORDILL'S POINT, WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO SERVE NEXT YEAR ON THE CA.

MAYBE I SHOULD ADD THAT THERE'S CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A TIF DISTRICT ALONG GRAND RIVER, WHICH WOULD BE A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT.

SO THAT'S WHAT THAT COMMITTEE IS LOOKING AT DOING.

ANY OTHER LIAISONS? I ATTENDED THE DDA ATTEMPTED MEETING.

THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY IS THAT THEY ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY ACQUIRING A QUORUM FOR THEIR MEETINGS, AND THAT WAS THE MAJOR TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING. THEY'VE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY PUTTING TOGETHER A QUORUM SO THAT THEY COULD ACTUALLY FORMALLY FUNCTION.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE DISCUSSING IN GREAT DETAIL.

ASIDE FROM THAT, NOT MUCH ELSE HAPPENED.

ANY OTHER LIAISON REPORTS? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'RE ON ITEM NUMBER 12 PROJECT REPORT UPDATE.

[12. PROJECT UPDATES]

SO IF YOU DO HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ABOUT THE SPREADSHEET THAT WE'VE PROVIDED, WE'D LOVE TO HEAR IT.

SENIOR PLANNER SHORKEY AND I WERE DISCUSSING THIS AFTERNOON FORMAT AS IT RELATES TO THE ANNUAL REPORT, WHICH WE'LL BE PROVIDING YOU SOON.

SO WE WELCOME ANY FEEDBACK AT THIS POINT.

JUST SHOOT US A QUICK EMAIL.

THAT'D BE GREAT. OKAY, ITEM 13 PUBLIC REMARKS.

ANYONE? DID YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD? I'M SORRY. TELL US WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOUR ADDRESS IS, PLEASE, SIR.

MY NAME IS DAVID MEDLEY.

I LIVE AT 1804 HAMILTON ROAD.

I'M SORRY WE DON'T HAVE MORE PUBLIC HERE IN ATTENDANCE.

IS THIS COMMON? YES, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE, BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU.

THAT'LL DO IT FOR NOW, I GUESS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THERE ARE NO FURTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT.

SO THEREFORE WE ARE NOW ON THE LAST ITEM OF THE AGENDA, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT.

IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER.

SECOND COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE IN ADJOURNMENT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.