[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER] [00:00:57] [MUSIC] THANK YOU. JUST ONE SECOND. [BACKGROUND] IT IS 6:30, AND I WILL CALL THE SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER AND START WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. >>> HERE. >> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. >> HERE. >> MR. SNYDER. >> HERE. >> COMMISSIONER FOWLER. >> HERE. >> CHAIR SHREWSBURY IS HERE AND COMMISSIONER BROOKS. >> HERE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PERFECT TIMING. WE ARE NOW AT PUBLIC REMARKS. AS MR. SHORKEY NOTED, THIS IS PUBLIC REMARKS ON GENERAL TOPICS. WE DO HAVE TIME ON THE AGENDA FOR TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, FOR WHICH I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE FILLED OUT FORMS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, THIS WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO IT OR AT THE PUBLIC REMARK PORTION AT THE END OF OUR MEETING. IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS? FORWARD TO APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. [4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA] I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. >> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? PLEASED AS PRESENTED. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2025. [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ] >> MOVED. >> MOVED BY MR. ROMBACK. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. >> MS. CHAIR, I DID MAKE ONE CORRECTION AT ITEM 12 AT THE END, MR. NAHOM OVER THERE SPOKE. I JUST DOUBLE CHECK THE CORRECT SPELLING OF HIS NAME, SO I'LL CORRECT THAT IN A MINUTE. >> WE HAVE ONE CORRECTION. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? WITH THAT ONE CORRECTION. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL. PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. >> DID YOU HAVE A MOTION? >> YEAH. MOVED BY ROMBACK. SECONDED BY MCCURTIS. >> ONE AMENDMENT. WE'RE NOW DOWN TO COMMUNICATIONS. [6. COMMUNICATIONS] I SEE THERE ARE TWO IN OUR PACKET. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANYTHING ELSE? >> I HAVE NOT. >> ACCESS TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. [7.A. SUP #25020 – Fedewa (Dobie Road)] ITEM 7A, SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 25020, FEDEWA DOBIE ROAD. I'M SURE YOU'LL START WITH THIS, BUT AGAIN, WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS IS AND WE EXPLAINED IT BEFORE WE STARTED, BUT MAYBE FOR THE RECORD, JUST REMIND PEOPLE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? >> SURE. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL GIVE A REPORT. THE APPLICANTS WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO COME UP AND ANSWER QUESTIONS. THE FLOOR WILL THEN OPEN TO PUBLIC. EVERYONE WHO SUBMITTED A CARD WILL GET THREE MINUTES. I SHOOK THEM UP SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT ORDER THAT'LL BE. THEN YOU WILL SEE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE WHAT THEY CALL A STRAW POLL VOTE. IT IS A NON BINDING VOTE. THE REASON THEY DO THAT IS, AS I EXPLAINED, THEY DO NOT MAKE A FORMAL VOTE TONIGHT. THEY WILL MAKE THAT AT THEIR NEXT MEETING, AND AT THE NEXT MEETING, STAFF HAS TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR THEM TO VOTE ON. TO GIVE US DIRECTION, THEY'LL MAKE THAT. THEY ARE NOT BOUND BY THAT, AND INDEED, THEY HAVE CHANGED IN THE PAST THEIR MIND BETWEEN A STRAW POLL AND A FINAL DECISION. [00:05:04] NOTHING TONIGHT IS BINDING, THAT IS THE PROCESS. THIS IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF SUP IT IS, THIS HAS TO GO TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL DECISION. WITH THAT, THIS IS SUP 25020 FEDEWA HOLDINGS HOLDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET AT 4601 DOBIE ROAD. EVERYBODY HERE IS PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH WHERE THE PROPERTY IS AT THIS TIME. THE PROPERTY WAS CONDITIONALLY REZONED TO RD IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR. CONDITIONS WERE THAT THE REAR YARD SETBACK HAD TO BE INCREASED FROM THE REQUIRED 40 FEET TO 100 FEET. ALSO, THE DEVELOPMENT IS RESTRICTED TO TOWN HOMES WITH NO MORE THAN FOUR BUILDINGS, EIGHT UNITS PER BUILDING, EACH WITH THEIR FRONT DOOR AND GARAGE ACCESSIBLE FROM THE OUTSIDE. BASED ON THE PLAN THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED, THE SUP APPLICATION DOES COMPLY WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. I'M GOING TO SKIP AHEAD A LITTLE BIT. WE GET IN HERE. THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IS BASED ON A COMPARISON OF THE FORMER RAA ZONING AND THE CURRENT RD ZONING AND 32 UNITS. TRAFFIC EXPECTED TO BE GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS IN OUR ORDINANCE FOR A FULL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. THIS WILL BE REVIEWED AND NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT, IF THE SUP IS APPROVED. THEY WILL HAVE TO GO TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL AFTER THAT. INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT AT THAT TIME, WILL REVIEW THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, AND THEY WILL MAKE THE FINAL DETERMINATION ON WHETHER ANY FURTHER STUDY IS WARRANTED. I'LL BRING THE SITE PLAN UP IN A MOMENT AND SHOW BUT AS DESCRIBED DURING THE REZONING, THEY SHOW THAT THEY'RE CLOSING THE EXISTING NORTHERN DRIVE TO FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH. THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT THEIR OWN DRIVE JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT AND A NEW DRIVE TO THE SOUTH OF THAT THAT WOULD EXCLUSIVELY PROVIDE SERVICE TO FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH. I CAN LET THEM SPEAK MORE TO THAT. IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE FOR FUTURE MAINTENANCE OF THAT SINCE IT IS ON THEIR PROPERTY, BUT THAT'S BETWEEN THEM. IT'S A PRIVATE AGREEMENT. FINALLY, THERE IS A SOUTHBOUND CATA BUS STOP ON DOBIE ROAD. THAT'S RIGHT THERE. TOWNSHIP PATHWAY RUNS ALONG THE FRONT OF THE SITE. IT HAS NON-MOTORIZED ACCESSIBILITY. I WILL SAY IT IS QUITE A WALK TO ANYTHING. THE SCHOOLS ARE A GOOD DISTANCE AWAY, BUT THERE IS TECHNICALLY CONNECTION. THE OTHER CONCERN THAT CAME UP QUITE A BIT WAS STORMWATER. THE APPLICANT CALCULATED, AND I'LL LET THEM SPEAK TO HOW THEY GOT TO THESE NUMBERS, WHAT ENGINEER THEY USED, BUT ON THE SITE, ON THE PLAN, THEY SHOW THAT THEY EXPECT THE REQUIRED 100 YEAR STORM VOLUME TO BE HELD ON SITE TO BE A LITTLE OVER 29,000 CUBIC FEET OF WATER. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO RETENTION AREAS ON THE SITE. THOSE ARE DESIGNED TO HOLD A LITTLE OVER 4,000 CUBIC FEET OF STORM WATER. THOSE STORM DRAINS, EXCUSE ME, THOSE DETENTION AREAS ARE CONNECTED VIA STORM DRAIN, THAT ULTIMATELY WILL RUN TO THE SOUTHWEST ACROSS FAITH LUTHERANS PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND AN EASEMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR THAT DRAIN, AND IT WILL GO INTO THE SPRAWLS DRAIN TO THE WEST OF THE SITE. NOTE, JUST LIKE WITH THE ROADS, IF THIS GETS TO SITE PLAN, THE AM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION OFFICE WILL HAVE TO REVIEW ALL OF THAT, AND THEY HAVE TO APPROVE THOSE CALCULATIONS AND THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES AS WELL. OTHER THAN THAT, I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. LET ME BRING UP THE PLAN. YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S UP HERE. THESE ARE SOME OF THE FEATURES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS EXISTING VEGETATION THAT IS STAYING ON SITE. THEY'RE SHOWING THE 100-FOOT SETBACK. [00:10:03] THESE ARE THE FOUR BUILDINGS, EIGHT UNITS IN TWO IN EACH ONE OF THESE. THESE ARE GARAGES. THERE ARE SITE RENDERINGS IN YOUR PACKET THAT DO SHOW FRONT-FACING GARAGES AND FRONT DOORS. THIS IS ONE OF THE DETENTION AREAS. THIS IS THE OTHER DETENTION AREA. THEN IT'S DIFFICULT TO MAKE OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN A DASH LINE. BUT RIGHT IN HERE IS THE EXISTING NORTH DRIVE ONTO THE FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH. YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE THAT DASHED OUT. THIS IS THE PROPOSED NEW FAITH LUTHERAN DRIVE. THEN THIS IS THEIR PROPOSED DRIVE GOING ONTO THEIR SITE. FIRE DEPARTMENT'S GOING TO REQUIRE SOME TURNAROUND. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS TAKING CARE OF. THEN THE STORMWATER CALCULATIONS THAT I ALLUDED TO ARE HERE, THE REQUIRED 100-YEAR VOLUME IS 29,455. RELEASE RATE IS 0.6 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. PANDA SHOWN THREE FEET DEPTH, ONE FOOT OF FREE ABOVE THE DRAIN PIPE, I THINK. FOR A TOTAL HOLDING CAPACITY OF 34,252 CUBIC FEET OF WATER. IF THESE NUMBERS HOLD, THEY ENGINEERED THE SITE BEYOND WHAT THEY'RE CALCULATING. BECAUSE I ZOOMED IN. SORRY. ANYWAY, WITH THAT, I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHORKEY? >> YEAH. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN ON THE AERIAL PHOTO AND TALK A BIT MORE ABOUT THE RED BOXES FOR US? THAT'S FOR THE APPLICANT. I DON'T KNOW. >> I BELIEVE THOSE ARE EXTRA PARKING AREAS? >> YEAH. THOSE ARE DELINEATING EXTRA PARKING AREAS. I WILL NOTE WITH OUR RECENT UPDATE TO THE PARKING ORDINANCE, THIS HAS PLENTY OF PARKING. >> I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THAT, TOO. DOES THAT MEAN IT HAS TOO MUCH PARKING? >> NO. THERE IS NO TOO MUCH PARKING. IT HAS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING. >> OKAY. WELL, THAT'S [OVERLAPPING]. >> THERE'S NO [OVERLAPPING]. >> YES. THAT'S TRUE. WE DON'T HAVE MUCH [OVERLAPPING]. >> YEAH. WE DON'T CAP IT. I WILL SAY, YEAH, THIS THIS MEETS OUR PARKING STANDARDS. >> I DON'T SEE IT IN THE SITE PLAN. I'M GOING TO ASK ANYWAY. WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE STORM DRAINAGE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS A CONCERN JUST FOR OTHER COMPLEXES THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE TOWNSHIP. I DON'T SEE A, I GUESS, NATURAL WETLAND. THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE SITE PLAN AT ALL? >> THERE IS A 0.02 ACRE WETLAND HERE THAT IS NOT REGULATED BY THE TOWNSHIP. THEY HAVE A WETLAND ASSESSMENT THAT I INCLUDED THE REPORT OF IN YOUR PACKET. OTHER THAN THAT, NO, THIS IS NOT A WETLAND CONCERN. THAT WETLAND WAS FOUND BY WETLAND CONSULTANTS, IT DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF REGULATION BY THE TOWNSHIP. >> ALL THE STORM DRAINAGE IS [OVERLAPPING]. >> DOESN'T COME ANYWHERE NEAR THAT ANYWAY. >> YEAH. >> THERE'S THERE'S A LINE HERE CONNECTING THE TWO BASINS. THEN THERE'S A LINE HERE. IF THE WATER WAS TO GET TO THIS POINT, GOES THIS WAY, THIS WAY, INTO THE EASEMENT FOR THE DRAIN EASEMENT HERE AND INTO THIS MANHOLE TO THE SPRAWL DRAIN. >> THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE ONE. THE PARKING. NO, IT WAS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. IT WAS RELATED TO THE PARKING. FOR THE TRAFFIC, I WENT AND LOOKED AT THE ORDINANCE ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT. I WAS GETTING A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. I SAW SOMETHING ABOUT 50 TRIPS DURING A PEAK. OUR REQUIRING A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, AND THEN IN THIS DOCUMENT AND MENTIONED 250 ON AVERAGE FOR THE WHOLE DAY? >> CORRECT. >> THEN I'M ALSO A LITTLE CONFUSED BETWEEN A TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT, AND THEN I THINK THERE WAS A MENTION OF A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. >> THERE'S A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, [00:15:02] WHICH IS WHAT WE ASK APPLICANTS LIKE THE PITA US TO PERFORM. THESE ARE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER LEVEL. YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING MITIGATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS, IF YOU REACH THAT MARK OF AN INCREASE OF 50 PER PEAK ON A DAY OR 250 OVERALL, THAT TRIGGERS A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. THAT IS A MORE LENGTHY STUDY THAT WILL LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC, LOOK AT THE ROAD SYSTEM AND ACTUALLY SUGGEST MEASURES. IF YOU REMEMBER THE PANDA SITE, THE RIGHT TURN TAPER, THAT ONE OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AGAIN, THE ROAD DEPARTMENT WILL LOOK AT THIS AND DETERMINE WHETHER THESE NUMBERS ARE ARE ACCEPTABLE. >> WOULD THE ROAD DEPARTMENT EVER REQUIRE THAT MORE RIGOROUS ANALYSIS BEYOND WHAT WE'VE ALREADY GOT HERE? >> THAT'S WITHIN THEIR PURVIEW, IF THEY THINK THAT THIS ANALYSIS DOESN'T MEET WHATEVER STANDARDS THEY HAVE, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THEIR STANDARDS. BUT IF THIS ANALYSIS THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED IS IF THEY WANT UPDATES, THEY'LL ASK FOR UPDATES. THEY HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? >> AT THIS POINT, WE CAN APPLICANT IS HERE IS HERE AND PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE APPLICANT? >> I THINK THE RECYCLING AND DUMPSTER IS A WONDERFUL THING TO SEE WRITTEN DOWN. I THINK IT MOVED. I'D LOVE TO HEAR THEM TELL US MORE ABOUT THAT. >> GREAT THE APP. >> I'LL TURN IT OVER. >> THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> YOU COME AND LET US KNOW YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> MY NAME IS DAVID FIDDLER. I'M AT 278 HASLETT ROAD, HASLETT, MICHIGAN. >> I'M JERRY FIDDLER AT 6099 EAST LAKE DRIVE HASLETT. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE RECYCLING CENTER? >> YEAH. >> WE HAD IT ORIGINALLY UP FRONT. AND WE FOUND THAT IT'S GOING TO BE HARD FOR A DUMP TRUCK TO GET IN AND OUT AND FLIP THE DUMPSTER. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE LOCATION IN THE DENT CENTER IN THE BACK SO THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET IN AND WITH THE FIRE TRUCK TURN AROUND BACK AROUND AND THEN GET OUT FACING FORWARD. INSTEAD OF HAVING TO BACK DOWN THAT LONG DRIVEWAY. THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE MOVE. >> IN THE CURRENT LOCATION, THE TRUCK WOULD GO DOWN TO THE TURN AROUND AND PICK IT UP ON ITS WAY OUT OR. >> I'M TRYING TO SEE THE CURRENT LOCATION IN THIS DRAWING. >> IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE MAIN DRIVE THE SIDEWALK? >> YES. THAT'S THE ORIGINAL LOCATION, AND WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT PUTTING IT AT THE END OF THE DRIVE. FOR THAT REASON. SO WE KIND OF HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SPOTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TO SEE WHICH ONE WOULD WORK BEST. >> WE HAVEN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE. I MEAN, WE SAW IT IN THE SPRING, BUT HAVE WE SEEN THIS DIAGRAM HERE? >> NO, YOU HAVE NOT. >> NO. >> CAN YOU PLEASE WALK US THROUGH, LIKE, HOW YOU ENDED UP AT THIS AND LEAD UP TO WHERE WE ARE NOW. >> OF COURSE. >> WHAT CHANGED THROUGH THAT PROCESS? >> OBVIOUSLY, WE ALL WORKED TOGETHER THROUGH THE WINTER TO KIND OF GET TO WHERE WE ARE. BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, WE TOOK THE PLANNING AND THE BOARD AND COMMUNITY INPUT TO DERIVE THIS PLAN. TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS WE'VE KEPT THE 100 FOOT SET BACK. IN DOING THAT, IN ONE OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS, THE DETENTION WAS IN THE BACK, BUT WE OBVIOUSLY GOT PUSHED BACK ON THAT AND FELT THAT IT WOULD BE MORE HARMONIOUS OF OUR DESIGN TO BRING IT UP FRONT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE DETENTION WRAPPING AROUND THE BUILDING IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT WE WOULD GET IT OUT OF THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. THAT WHOLE BACK BEHIND THE FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND IS UNDISTURBED. [00:20:03] WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THAT AS IT IS, ALL THE WAY UP TO THE FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND. WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO HAVE TO PAVE THAT, BUT BEHIND THAT SPACE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO LEAVE. THEN ALSO, WE HAVE THE FIRE TRUCK TURN AROUND. WE HAVE THE DESIGN. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, IT STARTED OUT LIKE 64 UNITS. THEN WE REDUCED THE SIZE DOWN TO THE FOUR BUILDINGS AND THE 32 UNITS AS EIGHT UNITS PER PER BUILDING. THEN WE MOVE THE BACK PROPERTY LINE 100 FEET. FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND TRADE IN AN AREA THAT IS TO THE WEST OF THE TURNAROUND, THE FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND, TO LEAVE THAT NATURAL SO THAT THAT WOULD GIVE US AN ADDITIONAL BARRIER FOR THE NEIGHBORS BEHIND THERE. WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS, ALTHOUGH I CAN'T SAY, THAT WAS, LIKE, THE PERFECT AREA TO PUT THE DETENTION POND BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY LOW AND SUCH. THAT WAS OUR FIRST SPOT THAT WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE PLACED IT. WE WERE ABLE TO FASHION IT AROUND THE TWO BUILDINGS, WHICH WAS MORE COSTLY, AND BUT SATISFIED THE NOT CLEARING OF THE BACK 40, WHICH IS BACKS UP TO THE NEIGHBORS. THAT AND THEN WE ADDED THE EASEMENT TO THE CHURCH PROPERTY. AFTER SPEAKING WITH YOUNES TODAY, HE SUGGESTED MAYBE. >> WHO'S YOUNES? >> YOUNES IS THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER. >> THEY ALL KNOW. >> BUT THEY MIGHT NOT. YOUNES IS OUR TOWNSHIP ENGINEERS OUR CHIEF ENGINEER. >> I'M NOT I HAVEN'T HEARD OF THIS CONVERSATION SO GO AHEAD. >> YOU HAVEN'T. >> HE SUGGESTED POSSIBLY RUNNING SANITARY SEWER AND THE WATER BACK THAT WAY AS WELL. WE HAVE WE'LL TALK TO OUR ENGINEERS AND SEE IF THAT SEEMS TO BE A MORE FEASIBLE LOCATION FOR THOSE. BUT THEY ARE AVAILABLE ACROSS THE STREET ON HAMILTON OR ON ADOBE, AND THEY ARE OFF TO THIS ANGLE TO THAT VACANT LOT THAT IS. >> WHERE THE STORM SEWER EASEMENT GOES, THERE'S ANOTHER SANITARY SEWER BACK THERE THAT WE CAN ALSO HOOK TO. I KNOW THAT WAS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE CONCERNS WAS BEING ABLE TO HOOK TO UTILITIES, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE BORE UNDER STREETS ALL THE TIME AND THE EXPECTATION WITH A NEW BUILD IS THERE'S NOT LEADS JUST SET ON THE PROPERTY READY TO GO. IT'S ALWAYS, WE MAY HAVE TO. >> YOU GOT TO GO FIND IT YOU GOT TO GO FIND. >> YEAH AND WATER AND YOUR SEWER. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> DID YOU WANT UP IT? >> ON THE DECKS, I NOTICED THAT ON THE DECKS ON THE UNIT, CAN YOU SCROLL UP A LITTLE BIT, MR. SHORKEY, OR THANK YOU. THAT SOME OF THEM LIKE ON THE ON THE NORTHEASTERN SIDE, THAT DECK THAT UNIT ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT THERE. THERE'S THAT DECK RIGHT THERE. THEN I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY IS THAT DECK THERE VERSUS POINTING TO THE NORTH. THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER UNIT IF YOU GO ONE UNIT DOWN AND THEN FOUR UNITS TO THE LEFT. GO ACROSS THE STREET. THERE'S ONE RIGHT THERE, BUT THERE'S ALSO ONE RIGHT THERE. WHY ARE THOSE TWO DECKS RIGHT THERE? WOULD THAT TRIGGER A VARIANCE WITH THESE TRIGGER VARIANCE REQUESTS? >> NO. >> NO. >> ON PREVIOUS BUILDINGS THAT WE'VE DONE, WE'VE PUT THE DECK ON THE SIDE AND PEOPLE HAVE REALLY LIKED THAT. THEY JUST FEEL IT'S A LITTLE MORE PRIVATE DECK. >> WE CAN MAKE IT A LITTLE LARGER AS WELL. >> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE PARKING. I READ THAT IT LISTS I THINK IN THE ASSESSMENT, THERE WAS SOMETHING LIKE 110 PARKING SPOTS. I THINK IS WHAT IT SAID? >> I HAVE TO RUN THE MATH ON THAT. >> BUT WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT WITH THAT WAS, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE GARAGE SPACES, [00:25:01] OR IS THAT JUST OUTSIDE. >> HOW MANY WAS HOW MANY SPOTS? >> I THOUGHT IT SAID 110. I COULD BE MISREMEMBERING. >> GOT IT WELL, THERE'S GOING TO BE 64 SPOTS WITHOUT INSIDE PARKING. THEN IF IT WAS 64, THEN IT WOULD BE DOUBLE THAT BECAUSE YOU'D THEN INCLUDE THE TWO GARAGE SPACES INSIDE THE GARAGE. THOSE ARE THOSE ARE RENTER SPOTS, NOT INCLUDING ANY OF THE VISITOR PARKING SPOTS. >> THERE'D BE 128. BECAUSE THERE'S FOUR PER UNIT, AND THEN THE AUXILIARY OR VISITOR PARKING. >> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >>MY QUESTION IS NOT REALLY RELATED TO IT IS RELATED TO THE BUILDING, BUT IT'S NOT IN THIS IN THE PACKET. ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THE MARKET IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY. WHEN NEW I GUESS THIS IS ALWAYS A QUESTION THAT COMES UP BECAUSE YOU HAVE, WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT, LIKE, POLICE FIRE, TEACHERS, CAN'T AFFORD TO TO LIVE IN. WHAT IS THE WHAT IS YOUR MARKET SHARE MARKET SHARE? MARKET RATE IN TERMS OF COST. FOR RENTING OR TOWN HOME, THESE UNITS. >> I'M GOING TO SAY THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BUILD PROCESS, AND THAT WOULD HAVE SOME BEARING ON IT. BUT POSSIBLY STARTING AT $2,500. RENTS WOULD BE STARTING AT, LIKE, $2,500. >> PER MONTH? >> YES. >> AND YOU HAVE FOUR BEDROOMS AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS? >> AND SOME TWO BEDROOM UNITS. >> WHEN YOU SAY 2,500, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE STARTING, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE LOWEST OF TWO BEDROOMS? >> PROBABLY, YES. WHICH ARE SURPRISINGLY QUITE POPULAR. >> QUESTION [LAUGHTER] >> I CAN SEE YOU THINKING [LAUGHTER] >> I'M JUST THINKING THAT WITH THE COST OF RENT AND THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, MY IMMEDIATE CURIOSITY IS IF THIS IS MEANT TO BE MARKETED TO MSU STUDENTS, MSU GRAD STUDENTS. WHO IS THE MARKET THAT YOU'RE AFTER HERE? JUST THE PARKING THAT'S A LOT OF PARKING SPOTS. >> WE TRY TO AVOID RENTING TO STUDENTS. THAT'S ON OUR MARKET. OKAY. BUT WE DO HAVE A LOT OF MSU PEOPLE. WE HAVE, OFFICE, ADMINISTRATIVE PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE PROFESSOR TYPE PEOPLE. WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST A FEW GRADUATE STUDENTS IN MEDICAL SCHOOL AND THOSE THINGS. PROBABLY THE BASIS WOULD BE OUR BIGGEST DRAW WOULD BE THE UNIVERSITY. >> THE BEDROOMS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALL HAVE, LIKE, LOCKS ON THEM. AS YOU HAVE IN, LIKE, A ROOMMATE SITUATION? >> NO. WE DON'T DO THAT. >> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? >> JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND. EACH OF THE SIDES OF THE TOWN HOME HAS A TWO CAR GARAGE AND PARKING FOR AT LEAST TWO CARS IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE. THEN THERE'S STREET UNCOVERED PARKING FOR AS MANY PEOPLE AS ARE ALREADY PARKED IN THE GARAGES? >> RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE GARAGES. THEY HAVE THEY THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER THOSE TWO SPOTS. >> NOW, I UNDERSTAND. MUCH BETTER. THANK YOU. >> STREET THOUGH. LIKE THE DRIVEWAY IN YOUR DRIVEWAY. >> BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RED BOXES. SORRY. TELL ME ABOUT THE RED BOXES, PLEASE. >> THE RED BOXES ARE THE VISITOR PARKING SPOTS. AND SO THE WELL, AND I CAN GET YOUR SPECIFIC ON IT. THAT WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND. >> I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY. >> THIS IS A TWO CAR GARAGE, AND THIS IS A TWO CAR GARAGE. THERE IS SPACE FOR FOUR CARS TO PARK ACROSS HERE. THIS IS A UNIT, AND IN THAT UNIT, YOU HAVE THE TWO CARS HERE AND TWO CARS OUT FRONT. >> GOT YOU. IF I HAVE A BIRTHDAY PARTY AND SEVEN PEOPLE SHOW UP, [00:30:03] SOME OF THEM CAN PARK IN THE BACK. >> IN THE VISITOR PARKING, YES. >> YOU WOULD HAVE OBVIOUSLY YOUR TWO SPOTS IN THE GARAGE, TWO SPOTS IN FRONT, AND THEN WE HOPE NOT EVERYBODY HAS A BIRTHDAY PARTY THE SAME DAY. BUT THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF PARKING. >> THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS GOOD. I'M READY TO MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT. LET US START HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC. WE MAY MORE QUESTIONS VICTOR, WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU. YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK. I HAVE FORMS IF YOU GOT HERE AFTERWARDS AND HAVE NOT TURNED INTO FORM, BUT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. PLEASE PICK UP A FORM FROM THE TABLE, GIVE IT TO MR. SHORKEY. I WILL CALL YOUR NAME AND I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHO IS ON DECK. YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK. AND IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THE BOARD OR THE COMMISSION NOT TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'RE HERE TO LISTEN TO YOU. BUT WE'LL NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS TODAY, ALTHOUGH YOUR COMMENTS MAY GENERATE QUESTIONS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE FOR MR. SHORKEY OR FOR THE APPLICANT. WE WILL START WITH PEGGY ANDERSON FIRST AND THEN FOLLOWED BY BRADLEY SHAW. YOU COULD GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES. >> GOOD GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PEGGY ANDERSON, 45504 SENECA DRIVE. I'M A 32 YEAR RESIDENT AT THAT ADDRESS. AND I'M HERE TO OPPOSE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 25020, SUBMITTED BY PETO HOLDINGS FOR THE 32 TOWN HOMES ON DOBIE ROAD. I LOOKED THROUGH ALL THE CRITERIA THAT YOU HAVE FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS, AND MY FIRST ONE IS, AS IT WAS ALL THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD PROCESS FOR THIS REZONING, THE DETENTION PONDS, AND NOW WE'RE CONNECTED TO MY SPRAW STRAIN. NOW WE'RE CONNECTED ON THE SITE PLAN TO THE CATCH BASIN, THAT'S THEY SHOW THAT 30 FOOT STORM EASEMENT THAT'S ON FAITH LUTHERNS NORTHWEST PROPERTY. IT'S GOOD TO HEAR THAT THERE IS AN AGREEMENT WITH FAITH LUTHERNS BECAUSE WE'RE SOLVING A DRAINAGE PROBLEM BY USING SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE STARTED FIXING DRAIN ISSUES. FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS BY EASEMENTS ON OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THAT DOWN INTO THE CATCH BASINS, THAT IS THE LOWEST POINT ON SENECA DRIVE. IT IS ALREADY THE PLACE WHERE WHEN IT RAINS REALLY HARD LIKE IT DID, THAT STANDING WATER IN THERE. ARE WE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT NOW THIS NEW HARDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING INTO THE SAME PLACE THAT FAITH LUTHERNS HARDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT GOES INTO. MY BACKYARD IS LOWER THAN FAITH LUTHERNS PARKING LOT. SO IF THIS NOW CAN'T HANDLE EVERYTHING THAT'S NOW COMING TO FAITH LUTHERNS EASEMENT AND DRAINAGE, THAT WATER IS GOING TO BE IN MY BACKYARD. >> THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY. I REALLY, AGAIN, APPARENTLY, THERE IS AN AGREEMENT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE BUILDING A DRIVEWAY ON THEIR PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY, IT ACCESSES THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. AND THAT'S THE PROPERTY AND THAT DRIVEWAY WILL BE THE ONE THAT YOU USE FOR ALL YOUR POLLING PRECINCTS, SO I HOPE THAT YOU'LL HAVE A FUTURE AGREEMENT FOR LIABILITY AND EVERYTHING ELSE FOR THAT DRIVEWAY THAT WILL BE ON THE FEET TO A HOLDINGS PROPERTY BEHIND US, THAT DOESN'T ACCESS THE DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU'VE AGREED TO, IT ACCESSES A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THROUGH THIS WHOLE ENTIRE PROCESS, LITTLE SURPRISES LIKE THIS COME UP AND SO I'M RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT YOU REJECT THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT. >> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE BRADLEY SHAW, FOLLOWED BY WOODY ISAACS. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BRAD SHAW, 4504 DOBIE ROAD. THE STAFF REPORT AGAIN STATES THE AWKWARD REALITY THAT ONLY A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH A FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE SITE PLAN IS INADEQUATE TO ADDRESS DRAINAGE AND FLOODING CONCERNS. THE DEVELOPER OFFERS A TWO PROPERTY WATER APPROACH YET IGNORES MOST OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS SURFACE WATER DIRECTED EAST TOWARDS DOBIE ROAD THEN BACK WEST UNDERGROUND TO A DRAIN THROUGH THE CHURCH PROPERTY. THE UNSHOWN SOUTHERN PART OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY, INCLUDING THREE OPEN IRON GRATES, DRAIN SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER TO THE SAME DRAIN TARGETED BY THE SUBJECT PROJECT. [00:35:01] THE DEVELOPER NEEDS TO SUBMIT A FULL PLOT OF THE CHURCH'S CATCHMENT AREA. INGHAM COUNTY PROVIDES NO DITCHING OR CULVERTS OF ANY KIND ON THE SECTION OF DOBIE ROAD THAT SHOULD ALLOW WATER TO REACH SUITABLE DRAINS. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS NO TIE INTO THE DOBIE ROAD STORM SYSTEM FOR A REASON. THE IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD FIRST BE NEEDED FROM THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT. THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY NOT THERE TO DO IT RIGHT. THE DEVELOPER PROVIDES A LAND RECORD DEED THAT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE NEW CHURCH DRIVEWAY IS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CURRENT AND FUTURE DEED HOLDERS OF BOTH PROPERTIES MUST BE CLEARLY DEFINED AND MADE PUBLIC FOR MAINTENANCE, DIC, SNOW REMOVAL, SAFE, PUBLIC ACCESS, LIABILITY INSURANCE ON THE NEW NORTH CHURCH DRIVEWAY TO BE LOCATED ON FEED LOT HOLDINGS PROPERTY. THIS IS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BY THE DEED. THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE PARTIES. AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION KNOWS, THE MASTER PLAN WAS REVISED TO GIVE A GREEN LIGHT TO REZONING FOR THIS PROJECT. AT THAT TIME, PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOOD WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN NON COMPLIANCE TO STATE LAW. PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, AND COUNTY'S SUBSTANDARD RURAL ROAD LEADS DIRECTLY TO UNSAFE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN CHURCH DRIVEWAY, REPEATEDLY FLOODS CAUSING PEDESTRIANS TO PROCEED PRECARIOUSLY UP THE EMBANKMENT TO THE SHOULDER OF DOBIE ROAD. IN ADDITION TO THE CATA BUS STATE STOP, THERE IS ALREADY A VERY BUSY SCHOOL BUS STOP AT THE NEXT DRIVEWAY NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROJECT, THAT IS CHIEF OKEMOS CIRCLE. AS A RESULT, TRAFFIC ROUTINELY BACKS UP PAST HAMILTON ROAD. WITH AN EXISTING AND POTENTIALLY GROWING CONCENTRATION OF YOUNG FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN ON THE VERY BUSY DOBIE ROAD, THERE IS NO CROSSWALK BETWEEN HAMILTON AND HASH ROAD, WHICH IS A DISTANCE OF 0.85 MILES. THE TOWNSHIP NEEDS TO ADDRESS CROSSING A ROAD AND THE LACK OF ACCESS TO RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR THESE FAMILIES. NO KID IS GOING TO WALK A HALF A MILE TO AVOID CROSSING A VERY BUSY TWO LANE ROAD. THIS PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THE PERMIT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. >> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE WOODY ISAACS, FOLLOWED BY DAVID CLOCK. >> LET'S HAVE WOODY AND THEN WE'LL [INAUDIBLE] THROUGH. >> OH, OKAY. I'LL TURN THE OTHER ONE. THANK YOU. I HAD THAT IN THE WRONG PLACE. THANK YOU. SO DAVID CLOCK, FOLLOWED BY JOEL MAJOR. >> HI, THERE. DAVE CLOCK, 4538, SENECA DRIVE OKEMOS, AND I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING TIME TO LISTEN TO ME TONIGHT, AND I WANT TO SAY I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2502 NOT BE APPROVED UNDER THE ISSUES I STATE BELOW. THERE'S A COUPLE OF ISSUES IN THE PACKET THAT I BELIEVE IS INCORRECT OR MISLEADING, AND ONE OF THEM IS THAT THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED, AND MAINTAINED SO AS TO BE HARMONIOUS AND APPROPRIATE IN APPEARANCE WITH THE EXISTING AND INTENDED CHARACTER OF THE GENERAL VICINITY, AND THAT SUCH A USE WILL NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SAME AREA. IN THERE, IT MENTIONS AGAIN, THE MASTER PLAN FROM 2023, AND I GO BACK TO PRESERVING THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. TREASURER DUCHENE MADE THAT POINT AT THE BOARD MEETING ABOUT AND HIS WORD WAS STARK. THERE'S GOING TO BE A STARK DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HOMES ON SENECA TO THE DEVELOPMENT. SO PLEASE KEEP THAT WORD IN MIND IN YOUR SITE PLAN DECISION MAKING. THE OTHER ONE IS THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ECONOMIC WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, THAT WAS IN THE PACKET TO YOU, THAT IS NOT TRUE. THERE'S A HOME FOR SALE ON SENECA DRIVE. IT'S HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ATTEND THE HOUSE TO PURCHASE, AND THEY'VE ALL TURNED IT DOWN FROM THE REASON THAT THE PROPERTY AFTER DOING HOMEWORK AND LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY WANT TO BUY, AND THE REALTOR HAS TOLD THEM TO KEEP LOWERING THEIR PRICE. AGAIN, THAT DOES, AND I MENTIONED THAT BEFORE, THAT'S AN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP FOR US RESIDENTS. AGAIN, MY CONCERN GOES BACK TO WATER. I'M GOING TO NOT USE MY WORDS, I'M GOING TO USE THE WORDS FROM THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET. THAT TOWNSHIP ENGINEER SAYS THE WESTERN HALF OF THAT SITE IS GOING TO BE FILLED, WHICH POTENTIALLY WOULD IMPEDE BACK YARD RUNOFF FROM THE ADJACENT HOMES, WHICH ARE OUR HOMES, WITH POTENTIAL PONDING AND POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL FLOW INTO THE NEIGHBORS BACKYARDS. [00:40:01] THAT'S NOT MY WORDS, THAT'S THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER'S WORDS. AND THEN THERE'S COMMENTS IN THERE ABOUT SOIL EROSION. AGAIN, CONFIRMING OUR CONCERNS ALL ALONG ABOUT WATER, SOIL EROSION. THEN THERE WAS A COMMENT IN THE PACKET TO YOU THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED NO MAJOR CONCERNS THAT WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. WELL, I JUST MENTIONED A COUPLE RIGHT HERE, THAT IS FROM YOUR OWN TOWNSHIP ENGINEER. FOR THOSE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU NOT APPROVE THIS PERMIT UNTIL THOSE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT IS JOEL MAJOR, FOLLOWED BY KRIS CLOCK. >> I NEED TO VERIFY, DID YOU SUBMIT THAT UP THERE? >> I DID. THAT'S A COMMUNICATION. >> WONDERFUL. >> THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS JOEL MAJOR. MY ADDRESS IS 4570, SENECA DRIVE. IF YOU SCROLL, WE'RE AT THE TOP NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU SEE IN THERE, AND IN THE PACKET AND IN THE EMAIL I SENT YOU, I GAVE YOU THREE DIFFERENT DRAWINGS OR FIGURES. THE FIRST ONE IS A LOT CORNER FLAG THAT A SEPARATE SURVEYOR HAD DENOTED AS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. IF THAT IS THE CASE, AND THAT IS SIX FEET MOVED, ALL OF THIS SITE PLAN NEEDS TO MOVE FURTHER SOUTH IF THE DIMENSIONS ARE CORRECT THAT YOU SEE ON THERE. SO MY QUESTION IN MY BRIEF WAS, HEY, THIS IS A PICTURE OF A LOT CORNER, WHO VERIFIES THAT? WHO CHECKS THAT? IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THE CHIEF ENGINEER DOES. BUT IF YOU MOVE ALL THAT, IT MOVES INTO THE ENCROACHED EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH OF FIGURE 2, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE SITE PLAN. AND JUST HEARING TONIGHT, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT EVEN CHANGED ON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN THAT MIGHT BE GET TO LATER OR NOT. THE SECOND POINT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE IS ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF. HERE AGAIN, IT'S THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S NOTED THAT'S MOVED THAT IS NOT TO BE USED BY ANYONE AT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. IT'S NOT PART OF THE APARTMENT, IT IS SOME AGREEMENT WITH THE FORMER OWNER OF THAT. WHY IS IT EVEN ON THERE IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE RATIFIED BY THE TOWNSHIP BOARD PRIOR TO ITS EXISTENCE? YOU'RE GOING TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE SOMETHING WITH THE CODICIL THAT THAT PARTICULAR DRIVEWAY CAN'T EXIST UNTIL IT'S APPROVED BY THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE PLAN. THE SITE PLAN, AS IT'S SUBMITTED, SHOULD BE INACCURATE, RIGHT THERE, YOU CAN SEE IT. THE HIDDEN LINES YOU SEE GO ALL THE WAY UP TO WHERE THE PROPERTY IS WHERE THE HOUSING WAS DENOTED IN THAT. THE THIRD ITEM IS SPECIFICALLY THE SATELLITE IMAGE THAT I GAVE YOU OF TWO PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, FEDEWA DEVELOPED ANOTHER APARTMENT, TOWN HOME DWELLING THAT HAS A RETENTION POND OR A DETENTION POND SITTING THERE. NICELY FILLED WITH WATER. GREAT, SEEMS TO BE WORKING. STILL FILLED WITH WATER. NO ONE CAN DENY THAT THAT SIZE OF BOTH OF THOSE L SHAPED DETENTION PONDS, A DETENTION POND DESIGNED TO HOLD THAT MUCH WATER, THAT'S GREAT, THE STORM DRAIN RUNS RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN FEEDS NORTH AND SOUTH, AS YOU CAN SEE, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE, RIGHT WHERE COMMISSIONER BROOKS DEBATED ON THE DECKS AS AN EASEMENT, AND THEN THERE'S THE OTHER DRAIN THAT FALLS ONLY ON THE SOUTH END, ALL THE WAY TO DRAIN ALL THE WAY OUT ONTO SENECA, IF YOU KNOW, RIGHT THERE ON THE SIDE OF THAT PARTICULAR DRAWING. WHY THE ONLY DRAIN ON THE SOUTH SIDE, AND IF THEY'RE BOTH DESIGNED TO HOLD THAT MUCH WATER, THAT'S NOT WITHIN ANY FLUID MECHANICS, IT'S ALL GOING TO DRAIN DOWN THAT OTHER DRAIN. THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD ALL HAVE, AND THEN IT GOES THROUGH THE EASEMENT AND THEN DUMPS INTO THIS CROSS DRAIN ON SENECA, WHICH THIS COMMISSION AND PLANNING AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HAD ALREADY CHECKED THAT IN APPROVAL OF THE TACOMA HILLS DRIVEWAYS AND PAVEMENT ISSUE? IS IT EVEN CHECKED TO EVEN HOLD THAT MUCH WATER, WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE OPPOSED MANY NUMEROUS TIMES BEFORE, AND THAT'S THE QUESTION. IS, BY THE RENDERING ITSELF, ISN'T IT INVALID? HOW CAN YOU APPROVE SOMETHING THAT IS INACCURATE AND THEN SOUNDS LIKE IT'S EVEN GOING TO CHANGE? THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. [00:45:01] >> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE KRIS CLOCK FOLLOWED BY CECILIA KRAMER. >> IS YOUR NAME KRIS, K-R-I-S? >> YES. CORRECT. KRIS CLOCK, SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TONIGHT, I ONLY HAVE 3 MINUTES SO I CAN ONLY HIT UPON A FEW OF THE INACCURACIES THAT ARE IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS AND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION. NUMBER 3 IN THAT PACKET IS THAT THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED SO AS TO BE HARMONIOUS IN APPEARANCE WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE GENERAL VICINITY. THAT'S NOT TRUE. I POINTED OUT, STOOD IN FRONT OF THIS VERY BOARD ON JANUARY 13, 2025, AND I SAID TO YOU ALL, THE DEVELOPER SAYS THAT HE'S GOING TO WANT TO PUT THREE STORY BUILDINGS IN THERE. TWO STORIES WITH A GARAGE UNDERNEATH, THREE STORY BUILDING. HE GOT BEFORE ALL OF YOU AT THAT VERY SAME MEETING AND GAVE HIS WORD THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD ONLY BE TWO STORIES, NOT THREE. HERE WE ARE TODAY LOOKING AT THE PLANS FOR THREE STORY BUILDINGS ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. TO THE EAST IS ONLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, SO THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK OUT THEIR WINDOWS TO A THREE STORY BUILDING, WHICH NOTHING AROUND THAT IS THREE STORIES. THERE'S NO VISUAL HARMONY HERE. NOT TO MENTION, THE DEVELOPMENT'S ONLY DRIVEWAY INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU LOOK ON THE MAP, HITS A HOME ON SENECA SMACK IN THE MIDDLE. I DON'T IMAGINE HAVING HEADLIGHTS IN YOUR HOME AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT IS HARMONIOUS WITH THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, AND LET'S NOT FORGET ABOUT ALL THE LIGHT POLLUTION FROM THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES. NUMBER 4, IN YOUR PACKET IS THE PROJECT WILL NOT BE HAZARDOUS TO EXISTING NEIGHBORING USES. THE TOWNSHIP'S OWN ENGINEER, AGAIN, STATES THAT THE WESTERN HALF OF THE SITE WILL BE FILLED, WHICH CAN LEAD TO POTENTIAL PONDING AND ADDITIONAL FLOW INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARDS. EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE SAID CONSISTENTLY ALL ALONG. AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, WE'VE NEVER HAD WATER IN OR NEAR OUR HOME IN 25 YEARS SO IF WE SUDDENLY DO, IT WILL BE A DIRECT RESULT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. NUMBER 5 IN YOUR PACKET, THE PROJECT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ECONOMIC WELFARE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AGAIN, NOT TRUE. I WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU TO TELL THAT TO MY NEIGHBOR WHO'S TRYING TO SELL THEIR HOME CURRENTLY THAT BORDERS THIS DEVELOPMENT. BUYER FEEDBACK HAS OVERWHELMINGLY INDICATED THAT PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO PURCHASE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT BORDERS A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT SO CLOSELY. THE ECONOMIC LOSS FOR HOMEOWNERS IS HUGE. PERHAPS AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE SHOULD BRING IN A REALTOR TO ATTEST TO THE DEVALUATION OF OUR HOMES. AND NUMBER 9, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE TOWNSHIP, INCLUDING WETLANDS AND WILDLIFE AREAS. OBVIOUSLY, THE DEVELOPER IS TEARING DOWN TREES THAT ARE HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD, WHICH HAVE BEEN CATALOGED. THERE'S ALSO, AS PEOPLE ALLUDED TO EARLIER, A SMALL WETLAND ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NO PROTECTION OR EAGLE INVOLVEMENT FOR THAT WETLAND. THERE'S NO CONCERN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION OR PROTECTING WILDLIFE HABITAT IN THIS PLAN. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO TAKE MORE FORCE IN LAND AND DESTROY MORE LAND BEHIND THE CHURCH FOR THE SEWAGE AND DRAIN CONNECTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS PRESENTED BEFORE YOU TODAY, BE DENIED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP, WE HAVE CECILIA KRAMER, AND THAT IS THE LAST I HAVE FOR THIS ITEMS UNLESS THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO HAS NOT YET FILLED OUT A FORM. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CECILIA KRAMER, 4560 OAK-WOOD IN BEAUTIFUL FOREST HILLS, BUT I AM SPEAKING JUST AS A MATTER OF CLARIFICATION ON BEHALF OF FAITH LUTHERAN. FAITH LUTHERAN HAS ALREADY CONTACTED THE TOWNSHIP, AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTY ENTITIES, THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER, AND THE ROAD COMMISSION REGARDING THE WATER ISSUES ALONG THE FRONT OF DOBIE ROAD ON OUR PARCEL. THE ROAD COMMISSION DOES HAVE TO DEAL WITH DITCH ISSUES ALONG THERE. MR. SHAW HAS ALERTED YOU ALL TO THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE HAVING ALONG WITH WATER THAT'S COMING DOWN THE DRIVEWAY, ET CETERA, AND STAYING IN OUR SOUTHERN PORTION OF OUR PARCEL. THAT HAS GOT TO BE HANDLED. TOWNSHIP HAS A BIG CHUNK OF THIS ALSO BECAUSE IT IS YOUR PATHWAY. IT'S NOT OUR SIDEWALK. IT'S YOUR PATHWAY, [00:50:01] SO THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH THROUGH THE TOWNSHIP ALSO. WE'VE GOT TO GET ALL OF THESE ENTITIES TOGETHER, AND WE STAND READY TO ASSIST AND DO OUR PART HERE. ALSO, DURING THE BUY SELL AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY, THE CHURCH RECEIVED A ACCESS TO A 50 FOOT EASEMENT ON THE NOW FEDEWA PROPERTY FOR OUR DRIVEWAY ACCESS. THIS WILL BE AN INGRESS EGRESS EASEMENT. IT HAS BEEN CODIFIED. THEY WILL BE REPLACING OUR CURRENT DRIVEWAY, MOVING IT SOUTH ONTO THE EASEMENT PORTION, AND PUTTING IT IN, WE WILL, THE CHURCH WILL, AT THAT POINT, TAKE OVER MAINTENANCE OF THE DRIVEWAY AND HAVE INSURANCE, ET CETERA ON IT. THAT'S HOW WE'VE HANDLED THAT. MOVING ALONG TO THE STORM ISSUES, THE STORM EASEMENT GOES FROM THE FEDEWA'S BACK ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CURRENT CHURCH PROPERTY, AND ACTUALLY, THE WHOLE ORIGINAL 10 ACRES OF THE CHURCH IS IN THE SPRAS DRAIN DISTRICT. YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO TRY AND GO INTO ONE OF THE ADJOINING DRAIN DISTRICTS THAT WOULD BE TO THE DANIELS TO THE NORTH OR TO THE EAST ACROSS THE ROAD. THEN YOU HAVE TO GET INTO THE FOREST HILLS ON THE SOUTH, WHICH COMES ACROSS AS AN EASEMENT, EXCUSE ME, AS A DOWN THE SHAKER HEIGHTS BRANCH. TO STAY IN YOUR OWN DRAIN DISTRICT IS A GOOD THING. THAT TEN ACRES WILL REMAIN WOULD REMAIN IN THE SURPRISE RAIN DISTRICT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. >> THANK YOU. AGAIN, THAT IS ALL I HAVE ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS POINT, MR. SHORKEY, JUST REMIND ME WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS? >> CORRECT. 7:21. >> CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:20 AND ASK ALL COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHORKEY OR THE APPLICANT. ANYTHING THAT HAS COME TO YOU PLEASE. >> AS I BROUGHT UP BEFORE, ISSUES WITH DRAINAGE, AND I THINK YOU SAID THAT FEDEWA HAD THEIR OWN I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAD SOMEONE, INDEPENDENT PERSON? >> WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED CALCULATIONS ON THIS. NOW, THIS IS NOT A FORMAL SITE PLAN. THIS IS I WOULD NOT EXPECT THIS TO BE, LIKE FINAL ENGINEERING. I DON'T KNOW SO THESE AREN'T SEALED PLANS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THOSE NUMBERS CAME FROM. I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT ON THOSE WHO MADE THOSE CALCULATIONS. >> MY QUESTION IS, WILL THE TOWNSHIP OR COUNTY, WHOMEVER ON THE GOVERNMENT SIDE CONDUCT A DRAINAGE STUDY, FOR THIS. LIKE I SAID, PREVIOUSLY, EVERY TIME WE HAVE A COMPLEX GO UP, THAT'S ALWAYS AN ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO STANDING WATER. WE LEAVE THE FLOODING THAT HAPPENED JUST NOT TOO FAR FROM THIS BUILDING HERE ON OKEMOS ROAD. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO LAST YEAR. WILL WE HAVE AN ASSESSMENT, AND WILL WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE DRAINAGE, I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE DID SHARE CONCERNS ABOUT STANDING WATER IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THE BACKYARDS AND DRAINAGE GOING ON TO SENECA ROAD AND ALL OF THAT. >> IF THIS GOES THROUGH, THEIR NEXT STEP IS SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THAT IS WHERE THE FINAL ENGINEERING IS DONE. THOSE PLANS GET SUBMITTED TO THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION'S OFFICE. WHO HAS TO APPROVE ALL OF THIS BEFORE WE WILL ISSUE SITE PLAN APPROVAL, WHICH THEN WOULD LEAD TO WHICH MEANS IF THEY DON'T GIVE THEIR BLESSING, IF THEY DON'T GIVE THEIR APPROVAL, WE'RE NOT GIVING THIS APPROVAL AND THEY'RE NOT GETTING BUILDING PERMITS. THE DRAIN COMMISSION WILL LOOK AT THIS AREA. THEIR STANDARD IS GENERALLY IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO LEAVE THE SITE UNTIL IT GOES INTO A DESIGNATED AREA. THEY'RE DISCUSSING IT, BUT THE DRAIN COMMISSION IS NOT GOING TO TAKE A STANCE A GIVEN OPINION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER UNTIL THEY GET TO CYCLING. BUT YES, THEY WILL LOOK AT THIS. >> THEY'LL LOOK AT, STANDING WATER, ALL THOSE TYPE OF ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED, ALL THOSE. >> THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT, DO THESE MITIGATION MEASURES MEET THEIR REQUIREMENTS? [00:55:05] WHICH I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THE SPECIFICS OF, BUT IT'S THE SECOND MOST STRINGENT I'VE EVER WORKED WITH. THEY'RE GOING TO MIMIC NATURAL FLOW OFF. I MEAN, THEY'RE GOING TO MIMIC THEY CANNOT THEY WILL NOT MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE IF THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION DOES THEIR JOB CORRECTLY. >> FINALLY, WHEN THEY REACH, THEIR REPORT OR WHEN THEY CONDUCT A REPORT AND FINALIZE IT, WILL THAT COME BEFORE US, OR WILL IT GO AT THAT POINT TO THE BOARD? HOW DOES THAT PART WORK? >> SITE PLAN IS ADMINISTRATIVE, SO IT WILL COME TO PLANNING AND ENGINEERING STAFF. >> WHO BUT WILL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW WHAT THAT IS BEFORE, APPROVING OR NOT APPROVING? >> NO, YOU WILL NOT. >> WHERE WILL IT GO FROM THERE? >> THE SITE PLAN IS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. IT GOES TO STAFF. MICHIGAN PLANNING LAW USES THE WORD SHALL. IF A SITE PLAN MEETS REQUIREMENTS, THE TOWNSHIP SHALL APPROVE THE SITE PLAN. SITE PLANS HAVE NEVER GONE BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR BOARD. SITE PLAN IS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. IF IT MEETS REQUIREMENTS, IT SHALL BE APPROVED. NOW, ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IS THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONS OFFICE, AND FOR THAT MATTER, THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT HAS TO APPROVE EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE ON THIS PLAN. AFTER IT'S ENGINEERED AND THEY GET FINAL NUMBERS. WHEN I SAY ENGINEERED, LIKE SIGNED AND SEALED BY AN ACTUAL ENGINEER, I DON'T SEE THAT ON THIS. I WOULD NOT CONSIDER THIS IF THEY IF THEY SUBMIT THIS FOR SITE PLAN, I'M GOING TO KICK IT BACK TO THEM AND SAY, YOU'RE NOT DONE. IS THAT OKAY? THIS IS NOT THE TECHNICAL NATURE OF THAT. >> JUST FOR ME AND I GUESS FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL. LET'S SAY IF IT COMES BACK AND THEY'RE LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS IS GOING TO CREATE TOO MUCH CRAZINESS WITH THE DRAINAGE. IT'S NOT GOING TO DRAIN PROPERLY OR WHATEVER. THEN THE STAFF THEN SAY, TOWNSHIP WON'T DO IT? >> YEAH, WE WILL NOT APPROVE A SITE PLAN THAT DOES NOT HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE DRAIN COMMISSION AND OR THE ROAD DEPARTMENT. WE RECENTLY HAD A PRECUM MEETING, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, WE HAD A PRECUM MEETING FOR PHASE ONE OF HASLETT VILLAGE. THAT WAS TWO YEARS AFTER THE DRAIN COMMISSION INITIALLY SAID, WE DON'T APPROVE YOUR FIRST DESIGN. IT TOOK THEM TWO YEARS TO WORK WITH THE DRAIN COMMISSION OFFICE TO FIND A SOLUTION. WE DID NOT ISSUE APPROVAL UNTIL WE GOT THAT. WE WAITED, SO IF THIS DOESN'T MEET THEIR APPROVAL, WE WILL NOT APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AND THEY WILL NOT GET BUILDING PERMITS. >> THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT BECAUSE EVERYONE HERE, THAT'S MEAN BY STEP PROCESS. >> MR. MABEC. >> I GOT TWO COMMENTS. I THINK AT SOME POINT, SHOULD YOU GET AN INTERN AGAIN, AND BE NICE TO GET A PHYSIO OF THESE TYPES OF PROCESSES OF ALL THE STEPS BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS SUPER INTRIGUING TO ME JUST WITH THE BUREAUCRACY LIKE THE SEVERAL STEPS OF BUREAUCRACY. LIKE THAT'S I THINK AT LEAST IF NOTHING ELSE HELPFUL FOR ME. BUT GOING ON TO MY QUESTION, SO THERE IS A NOTE IN THE STAFF WRITE UP THAT TALKS ABOUT THE PROJECT IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ECONOMIC WELFARE. YOU GUYS HAVE AN EXPLANATION HERE, NOT EXPECTED. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY TIME WHERE A PROJECT HAS BEEN REJECTED UPON THAT STANDARD OR IF THERE'S ANY OTHER ANALYSIS THAT CAN BE RUN UNDERNEATH THAT STANDARD? LIKE, SAY IN MY HEAD, A CASE WENT TO THE DISTRICT AT THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT FOUND, THIS PROJECT WOULD HAVE BEEN OR SOMETHING. >> AM I AWARE OF THAT STANDARD SHOOTING DOWN AN SUP, IS YOUR QUESTION? >> ARE YOU AWARE OF THE STANDARD, AND THEN MAYBE, ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC FACTORS UNDER THAT STANDARD? >> THINKING HOW I WANT TO ANSWER THIS. >> THAT'S FINE. >> SUP STANDARDS HAVE TO COVER THE GAMUT OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS. THOSE INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT YOU FIND IN OUR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. A COMMERCIAL ENTITY THAT COMES IN AND SAYS, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS GOING TO IMPACT MY BUSINESS, THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY. [01:00:01] I AM GOING TO, VERY STRONGLY CAUTION YOU AGAINST USING ARGUMENTS OF HOMEOWNER PROPERTY VALUE. THIS IS NOT A NEW OPINION. THIS IS EVERYWHERE I'VE EVER BEEN. THIS IS NOT A LAND USE DECISION. WHILE I UNDERSTAND AS A FORMER REAL ESTATE AGENT, I SYMPATHIZE. I DO, THAT IS NOT ONE OF YOUR STANDARDS IN THIS CASE. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT IF THAT'S HELPFUL. BUT, WHEN I WAS READING THE ANALYSIS, AND THEN HEARING THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, JUST PUTTING TWO AND TWO TOGETHER HERE ON WHAT THE ECONOMIC IS AND IF IT'S WORTH DIVING IN MORE TOO, BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULD NOT BE REAL ESTATE VALUE BECAUSE REAL ESTATE VALUE FLUCTUATES HEAVILY, ESPECIALLY IN TIMES LIKE THIS WHEN WE'RE SEEING RECORD REAL ESTATE. I THINK IN OUR LAST MEETING, WE REPORTED THAT THE AVERAGE SALE PRICE IN MARDIAN TOWNSHIP IS SOMEWHERE NORTH OF 350, MOST FOR HUNDRED THOUSAND. IT'S THAT IS A BAROMETER. I DON'T THINK WORKS, BUT I WAS INTRIGUED ABOUT THAT COMMENT BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY IT'S A SQUISHY MEASUREMENT, BUT IT'S GOT TO HAVE BEEN SQUISHED AT SOME POINT TO FIND OUT WHAT IT MEANS. >> I DON'T THINK I'M SPEAKING OUT OF SCHOOL. THERE ARE SOME SUBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS IN OUR SUP REQUIREMENTS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. IT IS SORT OF AN UP TO INTERPRETATION, BUT I SAID WHAT I SAID. >> IT'S A TOUGH QUESTION, TOO, BUT I WAS INTRIGUED. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MCCOLL. >> I WAS WONDERING IF MR. SHORKEY, YOU COULD OPEN YOUR GOOGLE MAPS TAB AND WIRE US AROUND A LITTLE BIT. >>IN PARTICULAR, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? >> FIRST, THE HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER IN THE BACK LOOKS LIKE A QUITE A VEGETATED BUFFER. >> I WENT BACK HERE FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND SPENT HALF AN HOUR PULLING CHIGGERS OFF MY PANTS ON MY SHOES. THIS IS PRETTY THIS IS VERY VEGETATED. BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THIS THE RESIDENTS AREN'T WRONG. THIS IS LOWER THAN LIKE THERE'S A KIND OF A FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD OF RIDGE THAT GOES ALONG HERE. IT SLOPES THIS DIRECTION, AND THEN THIS SLOPES IN THIS DIRECTION. AND THEN IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE EVERYTHING KIND OF MEANDERS THIS WAY, AND THIS IS KIND OF WHERE THE 0.02 ACRE WETLAND SHOWS UP IN THE REPORT. >> IF YOU COULD RUN US A BIT NORTH. THERE WAS MENTIONED MADE DURING PUBLIC COMMENTS, A LITTLE BIT MORE. ONE MORE RIGHT THERE ON THE LEFT. YOU CAN SEE THE DETENTION FACILITY BUILT FOR THOSE TOWN HOMES UP IN THE LEFT OF YOUR ONE. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S GOT A LITTLE FOUR BAY THAT CATCHES THE WATER AS IT COMES OFF THE ROOFS IN THE PARKING LOT. DUMPS A LOT OF THE SEDIMENT AND THEN GOES INTO THE BIGGER POND, WHICH DOESN'T DRAIN UNTIL IT RISES TO THAT HIGHER DRAIN. IT HAS STANDING WATER IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, WHICH IS HOLDING THAT STORM SURGE. IF YOU ZOOM OUT A BUNCH MORE AND GO EAST ON GRAND RIVER TO WALDEN. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT OUR DRAIN COMMISSIONER HAS PEOPLE BUILD. THE FOUR BAYS COLLECT THE HEAVY SEDIMENT AND A LOT OF THE POLLUTION THAT'S GOING TO BE ON ROOFS AND ROADS, AND THEN THE MAIN DRAIN IN THIS CASE, DRAINING DIFFERENTLY BUT I THINK IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE DRAINAGE THAT THAT OFFICE HAS CAUSED TO BE BUILT HAS IMPROVED THE CONDITIONS ON THE SITES THAT WAS BUILT ON, HOLDING MORE WATER DURING A STORM SURGE AND THEN RELEASING IT SLOWLY TO AVOID FLOODING AND TREATING SOME OF THE POLLUTION AS WELL. >> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD ALWAYS JUST GIVE THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER THE GREEN LIGHT ON EVERYTHING THAT THEY WANT TO DO. I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM DO IT BETTER. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE SIDES OF THE DETENTION PONDS THAT THEY BUILD HAVE TREES IN THEM SO THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY TRANSPIRE SOME OF THE WATER AND STABILIZE THE SOILS, BUT THEN IT BECOMES HARD TO MOW. BUT I DO THINK THAT DRAIN COMMISSIONER IS CAUSING PEOPLE TO BUILD TO AN IMPROVEMENT STANDARD. >> YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. WONDERFUL. >> SORRY, ABOUT THE VEGETATION ON THE SITE. I'VE SEEN THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS FROM 1938, [01:05:02] AND THAT ENTIRE TEN ACRES WAS IN ROE CROP. THERE WEREN'T TREES EXCEPT ALONG THE EDGES. IT'S SAD TO SEE TREES CUT DOWN. I'M A TREE HUGGER. ENVIRONMENTAL TALE OF IT, BUT. WE SHOULD BE REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CONSERVE. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS? ARE WE READY FOR A STRAW POLL DIRECTION? >> TYPE ONE COMMENTS. >> SURE. >> I'M ALWAYS LIKE A DELAYED THINKER. >> OH, THAT'S OKAY. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE ALL THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE RAISE. I EMPATHIZE WITH THE CONCERNS. I THINK IN MANY RESPECTS THEY'RE VALID. AS THE FIT WAS MENTIONED, WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME AT THIS POINT. I GUESS FROM MY POSITION, LIKE THERE WAS SOMETHING DONE AROUND OUR HOUSE, AND IT DOESN'T WORK EFFECTIVELY, AND IT NEEDS TO BE DRAINED BETTER. I THINK THOSE ISSUES EXIST IN OUR TOWNSHIP BECAUSE OF WHERE WE LIVE AND THE DRAIN OFFICE EVEN HAS THE OKEMOS DRAIN PROJECT THAT THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON IN ORDER TO REMEDIATE MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ALONG GRAND RIVER AND OKEMOS AROUND THAT AREA. I RESPECT THAT PEOPLE WHO BUY PROPERTY IN THE TOWNSHIP ALSO WANT TO USE THE LAND FOR WHAT WE ARE PERMITTED TO USE THINGS FOR. WE ALL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO HAVE COMPROMISES BETWEEN THE POSITIONS THAT WE TAKE. I THINK THAT IN SOME WAYS, THE THING THAT WE'RE SEEING AT THE MOMENT IS SOME COMPROMISE. WE HAVE THE RETENTION PONDS, WE'RE IN THE BACK, AND NOW THEY'RE IN THE FRONT AND THE SIDE, AND THE FOREST IS MOSTLY GOING TO REMAIN AS A BARRIER BETWEEN THE TWO PLACES. THEN WE'RE NOT ALSO GETTING PRETTY INTENSIVE MULTIFAMILY UNITS WHICH ARE TO THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST. WE'RE GETTING TWO STORIES ABOVE GROUND CONDOS. I THINK SOME OF THOSE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO THE AT LEAST INITIAL CONCEPT ARE PROBABLY GOING TO INCREASE THE PRICE AND WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, WHERE WE ALL OWN PROPERTY HERE, AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE LAND WITHIN THE PERMIT STRUCTURE. BUT I THINK THAT THESE ARE REASONABLE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE AT THE MOMENT, SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS. >> THANK YOU. >> THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SAY. >> I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL'S EDUCATING US ALL ON THE DRAINAGE PONDS. I ALSO APPRECIATE THE INHERENT EDUCATION TOO THAT CAME ALONG WITH THAT, ANOTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING PROCESS. WE'RE APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BUT WE ARE NOT THE DRAIN COMMISSION, LIKE WE APPROVE THE SUP, BUT THEN THERE ARE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS AND AGENCIES WHO ARE MUCH MORE CAPABLE THAN WE ARE TO BE SURE THAT THINGS ARE GOING TO BE BUILT APPROPRIATELY AND WITH THE PROPER INFRASTRUCTURE. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT I GUESS, BIT OF EDUCATING COMES THROUGH WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ROOM TO THIS IS KIND OF JUST A GENERAL COMMENT. THIS IS JUST A QUICK SIDE NOTE. I HAVE A VERY BIG LOVE OF THE WEST IN THIS COUNTRY, PARTICULARLY UTAH. I'M ALWAYS LOOKING AT REAL ESTATE IN UTAH, ALL THE TIME, SOUTHERN UTAH. I AM SEEING NEW DEVELOPMENTS ALL THE TIME, AND I KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT HERE. SOUTHERN UTAH IS DIFFERENT. I GET THAT. BUT I SEE DEVELOPMENTS HAPPENING IN OTHER PARTS OF THIS COUNTRY WITH SMALLER, MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR YOUR AVERAGE AMERICAN. JUST AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION, [01:10:03] IT CONTINUES TO CONCERN ME THAT WE ARE PUTTING IN DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE JUST NOT ATTAINABLE FOR A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE ARE NOT. A $2,500 A MONTH RENT IS NOT ATTAINABLE FOR A HASLETT PUBLIC SCHOOLS TEACHER. IT ISN'T. THERE ARE OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT ARE DOING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN A WAY THAT IS PROFITABLE FOR THEM AS WELL, AND THERE HAS GOT TO BE A WAY FOR US TO BRING THAT HERE. THERE HAS TO BE IF IT'S HAPPENING IN OTHER COMMUNITIES. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. >> THANK YOU. GO AHEAD COMMISSION ROBACK. >> THANK YOU. I'LL JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT SAY, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHEN PETO FIRST APPEARED IN FRONT OF THIS COMMISSION. I NOTED THAT AT THE TIME, MY WIFE AND ONE OF THE PETO ENTITIES, NOT THE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY HAD A CONTRACT. AT THIS TIME THAT CONTRACT HAS ENDED. IT HAS NOT EXISTED FOR TWO YEARS. THE BOARD AT THE TIME VOTED THAT I COULD PARTICIPATE IN THE VOTE. AND LATER WE GOT A LEGAL OPINION CONFIRMING THAT WHAT WE DID WAS CORRECT AND I COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE VOTE AND I ABSTAINED AT THAT TIME. JUST NOTED FOR THE RECORD THAT THAT HAPPENED THEN, I DO INTEND TO VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, BUT I THOUGHT FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO JUST RECORD THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION AT ONE POINT, BUT THAT QUESTION NO LONGER EXISTS. >> THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT CLEAR. ANOTHER COMMENT. >> I JUST WANTED TO SECOND WHAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER SAID ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY. >> THANK YOU. I GUESS WITH COMMENTS THAT I WILL DO A STRAW POLL AND I CAN DO IT INDIVIDUALLY, OR I CAN JUST SAY ANYONE WHO IS INCLINED TO REQUEST A MOTION IN SUPPORT OF THIS THIS PROPOSAL, PLEASE SAY I. WOULD YOU PREFER TO DO ONE BY ONE? THIS IS A STRAW POLL. THIS IS NOT BINDING ON US, NOT BINDING ON YOU. LET'S SEE THIS AGAIN. IT'LL BE I BELIEVE AT OUR NEXT MEETING UNLESS. >> UNLESS SOMEBODY SAYS, HEY, GO RESEARCH THIS AND THEN BRING IT BACK FOR MORE DISCUSSION, BUT I'M NOT HEARING. >> I THINK OFTENTIMES WE DO A ROLL CALL JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT BINDING. >> WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. >> I WOULD VOTE FOR APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROOKS. >> APPROVE. >> COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. >> SUPPORT. >> COMMISSIONER SNYDER. >> SUPPORT. >> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. >> SUPPORT. >> COMMISSIONER FULLER? >> DENIED. >> I AM INCLINED TO SUPPORT. I THINK THAT GIVES YOU YOUR STRAP HOLE DIRECTION, AND WE WILL, OF COURSE, THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING. >> IT WILL COME BACK ON OCTOBER 13TH. >> I THINK IT IS. >> THERE WILL BE A RESOLUTION IN THERE FOR YOUR REVIEW. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE ARE AT OUR NEXT SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 25021, ST. MARTHA PARISH. >> AT TIMES. WE LET FOLKS KNOW THAT IF THEY'RE DONE WITH. THANK YOU. >> THIS ITEM. YOU ARE WELCOME TO STAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO STAY AND WE WILL NOT BE OFFENDED IF YOU DECIDE THAT IT'S TIME TO GO HOME NOW. >> CHAIR SHER. >> CAN WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS? >> YES, WE CAN. APOLOGIES FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE HERE FOR ST. MARTHA, BUT YOU MAY APPRECIATE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AS WELL. I JUST A MINUTE, WE WILL RECONVENE AT 7:45. [01:22:07] >> IS 751, AND WE ARE GOING TO [01:22:12] RECONVENE WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 25021, ST. MARTHA PARISH. [7.B. SUP #25021 – St. Martha Parish] GO AHEAD, MR. SHORKEY, IF YOU WOULD START US OFF. >> SURE. >> SPECIAL USE PERMIT 25021, ST. MARTHA PARISH, TO CONSTRUCT AN 11,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING AT 1,100 EAST NEAR GRAND RIVER AVENUE AND OKEMOS. THIS IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING SUP, AND THERE'S A SERIES OF SUPS GOING BACK QUITE A LONG WAYS. ON PAGE 2 HERE, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A HISTORY. THE ORIGINAL SUP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ST. MARTHA PARISH WAS APPROVED IN 1988. THEN THERE WERE A SERIES OF OTHER SUPS. AT SOME POINT, THE 25,000 SQUARE FOOT SUP REQUIREMENT CAME ONLINE. THEIR NEXT SUBSEQUENT SUP BROUGHT THEM IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT, AND THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT SUP. HONESTLY, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS. OBVIOUSLY, IT MEETS THE EXISTING CHARACTER BECAUSE IT IS A BUILDING. IT MATCHES THE EXISTING BUILDING. I DID SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THE MEETING. THE ONLY REAL CONCERN WE HAD ON HERE WAS WHETHER IT WOULD TRIGGER A TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT OR NOT. IF THEY'RE INCREASING THE CAPACITY, IT WOULD BE, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY CLEAR ON THEIR PLAN. THEY'RE NOT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. THEY'RE JUST ADDING SPACE. SO I DID CONFIRM, THEY'RE NOT PLANNING ON ENLARGING THEIR ENROLLMENT, THIS IS TO SATISFY EXISTING NEEDS. SO WE'RE NOT REQUIRING A TRAFFIC STUDY OF ANY KIND AT THIS POINT FOR THIS. IT IS ERRONEOUSLY STATED IN THE REPORT HERE. INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT IS NOT THE REVIEWING AGENCY ON THIS. M DOT IS THE REVIEWING AGENCY ON THIS. WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR SITE PLAN, BECAUSE THIS IS GRAND RIVER AVENUE, THAT'S A STATE ROAD. THEY'LL SUBMIT THIS TO M DOT, AND THEY'LL HAVE TO GET THEIR APPROVAL AS WELL. ALSO, BECAUSE THEY GO THROUGH SITE PLAN, THEY'RE PUTTING UP. IT'S 11,000 TOTAL SQUARE FEET IN A TWO STORY STRUCTURE. IT'S 5,500 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS PAVEMENT OR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE BEING PLACED ON EXISTING PLAYGROUND AND GRASS AREA. YES, THE DRAIN COMMISSION OFFICE WILL GET INVOLVED IN THIS WELL TOO. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT TO SAY ON THIS. I THINK THERE IS A RENDERING IN HERE. HERE'S THE PLAN. [01:25:04] HERE'S THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING, THE EXISTING BUILDING. THIS IS LIKE THE NORTHWEST CORNER HERE, AND IT'LL BE DESIGNED TO MATCH THEIR FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION. THIS IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION. HERE'S YOUR WEST ELEVATION. IT'S A TWO STORY STRUCTURE, MADE TO FIT IN WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING CHURCH. >> THANK YOU. >> I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. OTHERWISE, THE APPLICANT IS WELL REPRESENTED. >> ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHORKEY? I GUESS WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, THEN IF THERE'S SOMEBODY HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. >> WHOEVER. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M WOODY ISAACS. I'M WITH VITUS DESIGN GROUP. I'M A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. WE PREPARED THE SITE PLAN. WE'RE PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL TEAM FOR THE PROJECT. AS WAS MENTIONED, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THE CHURCH REPRESENTATIVES HERE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM DIRECTLY. I THINK IT WAS A GREAT OVERVIEW THAT BRIAN GAVE. THE ONLY OTHER ITEM I'LL MENTION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE RELEVANT FOR YOU ALL IS THAT THIS POSITIONING OF THE NEW ADDITION IS GOING TO BE COMPLETELY HIDDEN FROM GRAND RIVER, FROM ANY ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL AREAS. BASICALLY IS JUST TO CREATE THE SPACE FOR THE PROGRAMMING FOR THE SCHOOL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MIGHT HAVE. >> THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, MR. MCCALL. >> THIS DRAWING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AT THE MOMENT. AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE SECOND FLOOR IS 114 FEET 8"? >> WELL, THE ARCHITECTS USE 100 AS THE BASE ELEVATION. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] IT'S NOT 114 FEET TALL. [LAUGHTER] >> WERE YOU GOING TO APPROVE THAT? [OVERLAPPING] >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, WE'LL INVITE YOU BACK UP. AND THEN I HAD YOU AS A PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN AS THE APPLICANT. I HAVE ONE PERSON, FATHER RYAN RILEY. >> I'M THE APPLICANT. >> ALL RIGHT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> NO. UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO SHARE ABOUT THIS. I DON'T HAVE ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS, SO I WILL OPEN AND CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING WITH THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS APPLICATION? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. SHORKEY. >> GO AHEAD. >> AM I CORRECT? IS THIS OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY? [BACKGROUND] >> THAT'S OFF SERVICE BOUNDARY? LET'S SEE. THAT IS HERE, SO YES, IT IS. HOWEVER, THEY ARE SERVED. THERE'S A HISTORY TO THIS. I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THIS. THEY ARE ON UTILITY. I WOULD SUGGEST LEAVE IT AT THAT AND TRUST ME. [LAUGHTER] ONE OF THOSE SUPS IN THAT HISTORY WAS INVOLVE SOME LITIGATION, AND THEY HAVE A DEDICATED LINE. >> AS BEFORE. >> JUST AS AN ASIDE. >> IT'S OKAY. YOUR DESK. [LAUGHTER]. >> WHENEVER I ASK A QUESTION AND YOU SAY, YOU DON'T WANT ME TO GO INTO IT. [LAUGHTER] >> I AM NOT PREPARED TO DISCUSS PAST THIS. >> YOU IMMEDIATELY MAKE ME WANT TO GO INTO IT. >> BUT IT IS SERVED VIA A DEDICATED LINE, SO THAT THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THE EXPANSION. >> IS THERE ANY I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE AT LEAST IN MY TENURE, [01:30:05] IN WHICH I FEEL REALLY FORTUNATE TO BE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EXPERIENCED SUP OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY THAT I'M AWARE OF. UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN HOW THOSE ARE STRUCTURED? >> THERE'S NOT A DIFFERENCE IN THE REQUIREMENTS. IF THIS WERE AN SUP THAT WAS DEPENDENT ON SEWER AND WATER GETTING TO THEM, AND IT WAS OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, THAT WOULD BE A HUGE RED FLAG. BUT IN THIS CASE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS TECHNICALLY OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, THEY DO HAVE SERVICE. THAT SERVICE IS ACCESSIBLE TO THEM AND ONLY THEM. >> I'M NOT ASKING THIS QUESTION IN RELATION TO THIS SUP THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> SURE. >> IT'S A GENERAL QUESTION. AN SUP FOR A PROJECT OF OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET AND NOT WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, THEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE SERVICE LINES AT SOME LEVEL? >> LIKELY IT WOULD REQUIRE SERVICE LINES IF IT WAS A SINGLE BUILDING. I DON'T KNOW HOW LIKELY THAT IS, BUT BEAR IN MIND THAT MOST OF THE ZONING IS RURAL RESIDENTIAL. THE OTHER THING THOUGH, I GUESS IT'S CONCEIVABLE IF YOU WERE ABLE TO ASSEMBLE A LARGE ENOUGH PIECE, REMEMBER, 25,000 SQUARE FEET IS THE TOTAL SIZE OF THE PROJECT, NOT JUST A SINGLE BUILDING, SO IF YOU WANTED TO PROPOSE A SUBDIVISION THAT TOTALED OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET, IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED THAT THAT REQUIRES THIS SUP IF THEY COULD SHOW THAT THOSE PROPERTIES PERKED AND DIDN'T HAVE TO ASSESS, GET ON OUR SYSTEM BECAUSE IT WAS OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, THEN OKAY. BUT IF THEY CAME IN AND SAID, NO, WE NEED SEWER AND WATER AND THERE WERE OUTSIDE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, THEN AT THE VERY LEAST, WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. IF YOU REMEMBER, THAT'S THE INTENT TO PLAN. CHANGING THE PLAN, ALL THE REVIEWS THAT COME WITH JUST TO CHANGE THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. WHICH IS ULTIMATELY A TOWNSHIP BOARD ACTION, IF YOU AND THEM WERE WILLING TO DO SUCH A THING. >> THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> WELL, YEAH. JUST AGAIN, GENERAL COMMENT. WE DID ADDRESS SOME IRREGULARITIES IN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY IN OUR LAST GO AROUND, AND I DON'T RECALL THAT ONE BEING ONE, BUT I WASN'T AROUND FOR THE PRIOR PARTS, SO IT'S MORE A CURIOSITY THAN A CONCERN. >> FOR NOW OR ANOTHER DAY OR? >> I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE DIRECTOR SCHMIDT COME IN HERE AND EXPLAIN THE WHOLE THING IN GREAT DETAIL. >> PROBABLY PREDATES HIM, TOO. [LAUGHTER] IF YOU WANT TO, PUT HIM THROUGH THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS GERMANE TO THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW. DO EITHER OF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO HAVE THIS ANSWERED? >> NO. >> NO. >> ALL RIGHT. I'M SOLD. WE'LL TALK MORE, MAYBE IN ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT ON OUR AGENDA. WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION AROUND. >> ABOUT HOW THE USB CAME IN TO? >> ANOMALIES, YES, IN URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. BUT FOR THIS ONE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL? I WILL DO A STAFF POLL THEN IF WE'RE READY TO DO THE STAFF POLL. COMMISSION ROBACK? >> I SUPPORT. >> MR. BROOKS? >> SUPPORT. >> MR. MCCURTIS? >> SUPPORT. >> MR. SNYDER, SUPPORT. MR. MCCONNELL? >> SUPPORT. >> MR. POLLER. >> SUPPORT. >> AND I SUPPORT. SO THAT GIVES YOU DIRECTION FOR OUR NEXT CONVERSATION ON THIS TOPIC. >> SIMILAR STORY. NEXT MEETING OCTOBER 13, I WILL HAVE A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE IN FRONT OF THEM. UNLESS SOMETHING GOES TERRIBLY SIDEWAYS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, THEY'LL VOTE ON THAT. THAT WILL THEN GET FORWARDED TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. WE'LL HAVE TO FORMALLY APPROVE. AFTER WHICH, YOU'LL APPLY FOR SITE PLAN AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONTACT ME FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. [01:35:01] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TO OUR MEETING. >> THANK YOU. >> WE ARE NOW ON ITEM 8A, UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WE HAVE NONE. ITEM 9, OTHER BUSINESS, WE HAVE NONE. ITEM 10, REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, [10.A. Township Board update] 10A TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE. >> AT THEIR LAST MEETING, THE TOWNSHIP BOARD DID APPROVE THE HEWLETT ROD ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE TOWNSHIP BOARD DID APPROVE THE UPDATE TO THE PARKING LANDSCAPE STANDARDS. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER BROOKS? >> NOT A QUESTION. >> LIAISON REPORT? [10.B. Liaison reports] >> YEAH. >> OH, PLEASE, GO AHEAD. >> I WAS ABLE TO ATTEND THE SECOND BRAIN FIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT. WELL, FIRST OFF, THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOW HAS SOME LEVEL OF FUNDS THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY USE THAT FOR DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES. ONE OF THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WAS WORKING TO MAP OUT THE BROWNFIELD ZONES IN RADIAN TOWNSHIP. DIRECTOR CLARK DID SOME RESEARCH ON THAT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WE'VE FOUND OUT THAT THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, I DO NOT MEAN TO MISREPRESENT THIS. THIS IS MY MEMORY HERE. HOWEVER, BUT THE STATE OF MICHIGAN HAS A DIFFERENT PHASES OF BROWNFIELD RESEARCH THAT THEY DO, WHERE THEY'LL HELP IDENTIFY SPOTS. THE FIRST PART OF THAT IS FREE AT THE MOMENT, IN WHICH YOU CAN IDENTIFY POTENTIAL BROWNFIELD ZONES, BROWNFIELD AREAS. BUT YOU HAVE TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF AREA THAT YOU DO THAT EXPLORATION IN. IF WE DID THE WHOLE TOWNSHIP, THAT WOULD BE RELATIVELY LARGE. IF WE DID A SMALLER PEKKA, LIKE HASLETT VILLAGE AREA, THAT WOULD BE MORE FEASIBLE. ONE OF THE IDEAS BEHIND DOING THIS IS I ASKED ABOUT THIS, BUT I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE MASTER PLAN AND HOW OUR GOALS ARE TO DEVELOP IN PEKAS, BUT ALSO IN TO REMEDIATE DIFFERENT AREAS. COULD WE USE THE BROWNFIELD FUNDS TO TRY AND STRATEGICALLY TARGET DIFFERENT AREAS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE? I JUST WANTED TO REPORT BACK THAT I THINK I HAD TO LEAVE A LITTLE BIT EARLY, BUT I THINK THEY MAY HAVE SETTLED ON THE HASLETT VILLAGE AREA. MR. SHORKEY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT. BUT IF THEY SETTLED ON THERE? >> NO. >> NO. [LAUGHTER] >> I AM NOT STAFF TO THE BROWNFIELD AUTHORITY, SO NO. I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> BUT THIS WAS A CONVERSATION, LIKE AN INITIAL CONVERSATION TO TALK ABOUT THIS. THE OTHER WAS JUST TO THINK OUT LOUD WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, LIKE, ARE THERE STRATEGIC AREAS THAT WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THINKING ABOUT BROWNFIELD FUNDS FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE? I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT INFORMATION BACK. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE LIAISON REPORTS OR QUESTIONS FOR MR. BROOKS? >> NO OTHER REPORTS? THANK YOU. PROJECT UPDATES, I SAW YOU HAD A LIST IN THERE. [11. PROJECT UPDATES] >> THERE'S THERE'S A LIST IN THERE. >> THERE'S A HIGHLIGHTED TEXT, OUR UPDATES. THE ROD ESTATES, WAITING FOR SITE PLAN, HASLETT VILLAGE. WE'VE HAD THE PRE APPLICATION MEETING FOR PHASE 1. PLAYMAKERS, THEY PURCHASED THE BUILDING AT 5707 SCHOOL STREETS, ACTUALLY, THREE PROPERTIES OVER THERE, AND THEY HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN, JUST USING THAT FOR PERSONAL STORAGE. WHEN I SAY STORAGE BUILDING, IT'S NOT LIKE PEOPLE CAN GO AND RENT IT. IT'S JUST THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF SHOES THEY SELL [LAUGHTER] >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT UPDATES? WE ARE AT PUBLIC REMARKS. [12. PUBLIC REMARKS] IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE PUBLIC REMARKS AT THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. HAND ME YOUR FORM AND I'LL GET IT TO MR. SHORKEY. ACTUALLY, YOU CAN JUST COME TO THE TABLE, GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, GIVE THE [OVERLAPPING]. YOU'RE ALL GOOD. [01:40:03] THANK YOU. YOU CAN START. >> GREEN LIGHT. >> HI. MY NAME IS DEBORAH MAJOR. I LIVE AT 4570 SENECA DRIVE, AND I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOME MISINFORMATION THAT I THINK WAS PRESENTED. THE FEDERAL PLAN THAT WE SAW TONIGHT IS 403 STORY BUILDINGS, AND THIS IS NOT CONSISTENT. AGAIN, I'M REPEATING MYSELF, BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS PIECE WAS MISSED. IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH, WHICH ARE JUST TWO STORY BUILDINGS, AND OF COURSE, THE HOUSES TO THE WEST WHICH ARE TWO STORY. THREE STORY BUILDINGS WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT. ALSO, THE THREE STORY BUILDINGS WERE FIRST PROPOSED BY MR. FIDOA. WHEN IT WAS DENIED, MR. FIDOA SAID HE, ON JANUARY 13TH, 2025, THAT HE WOULD REVISE IT TO TWO STORY BUILDINGS. IN FACT, HE PROMISED THAT TWO STORIES BEING THE GARAGE AND ONE LEVEL. NOW WE HAVE THE GARAGE, A LEVEL AND A LEVEL, MAKING IT THREE STORIES. HERE WE ARE AGAIN, AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THREE STORY BUILDINGS. YOUR STRAW VOTE INDICATES THAT HE WAS ASKED TO MAKE THESE CHANGES. HE SAID HE WOULD MAKE THE CHANGES, AND HE PROMISED HE WOULD MAKE THE CHANGES. HE DIDN'T, AND YET YOU SUPPORTED IT ANYWAY BY YOUR STRAVO. THAT'S A BIT CONCERNING TO ME. ALSO, AS FAR AS AFFORDABILITY GOES, YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT TEACHERS A LOT. I AM A TEACHER. I'VE BEEN A TEACHER FOR 28 YEARS. IF I WERE A SINGLE MOM, RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NO WAY ON MY TEACHER'S SALARY OF 28 YEARS THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD A TWO BEDROOM, $2,500 A MONTH RENT FOR AN APARTMENT WITH NO AMENITIES. THEN I THINK, WHAT IS THE PRICE POINT OF A THREE BEDROOM OR A FOUR BEDROOM AND WOULD THOSE PEOPLE, PERHAPS JUST BUY A HOUSE? I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW THAT MY DAUGHTER AND MY SON IN LAW ARE BOTH ENGINEERS, AND THEY WERE RENTING A TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT IN DAYTON, ILLINOIS, AND THEIR APARTMENT WAS 1,850 A MONTH AND THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS EXPENSIVE. I JUST WONDER, OKLAHOMA IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY LIVE, AND YET THAT $700,650 MORE A MONTH THAN THEY WERE PAYING. I GUESS THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO SAY NO TO THIS SUP. I THINK IT WOULD BE ENLIGHTENING TO HEAR ABOUT THE REASONING FOR OUR ONE DISSENT COMMISSIONER. I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HEARD ALL OF THE PEOPLE, NOT JUST THE PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT YES AND APPROVED THIS, BUT ALSO WHAT THE OTHER THOUGHTS FOR DISAPPROVING IT WOULD BE. I;LL JUST ASKED THAT YOU CONSIDER ALL OF THE FACTORS. IF YOU ASK SOMEBODY TO MAKE A CHANGE AND THEY DON'T MAKE THE CHANGE, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU CAN ACCEPT THAT THEY BROUGHT YOU BACK THE SAME PLAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT? MR. SHORKEY HERE. >> SURE. THANK YOU. DAVID FIDOA, 278 HASLETT ROAD. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS TO CLARIFY. WE DO HAVE TWO STORY BUILDINGS. THE REASON WE WENT TO A THREE STORY BUILDING IN THE FRONT RIGHT NEXT TO W. ROAD IS BECAUSE WE NEEDED A THINNER FOOTPRINT TO THEN PULL THE DETENTION POND UP TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. IF WE DID THE TWO STORY FOOTPRINT, WE'D HAVE TO PUSH THE DETENTION POND BACK INTO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. THERE WAS A STRATEGIC REASON WHY WE WERE LOOKING TO DO THAT. THERE'S NO INTENTION OF DECEPTION. WE WANT TO BE CLEAR AS DAY, AND THAT'S THE REASON WE DID IT. ALSO, FOR AFFORDABILITY, WE'VE DONE RESEARCH ON OTHER UNITS IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS, HASLETT, OKEMOS, AND DOE. THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT, ALL UNITS ALWAYS RENT FOR CHEAPER THAN THE REST OF THE MARKET. ONE OF THE REASONS WE DO THAT IS BECAUSE OUR TENANTS STAY WITH US LONGER, AND THAT HELPS US LONG TERM AS A PROPERTY OWNER. WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE RENTED SOME OF OUR UNITS IN HASLETT AND OKEMOS THAT MOVED IN AS A BRAND NEW TENANT IN A BRAND NEW BUILDING AND HAVE STAYED FOR EIGHT PLUS YEARS. WE TRY TO KEEP OUR RENT REASONABLE COMPARED TO WHAT IS IN THE MARKETPLACE, AND WE'RE EVEN COMPARING OUR RENT OF A BRAND NEW BUILDING AGAINST OLDER BUILDINGS. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE DO LOOK AT AFFORDABILITY, AND EVEN THOUGH 2,500 DOES SEEM LIKE A LOT, IF YOU COMPARE IT TO WHAT ELSE IS IN THE MARKETPLACE, [01:45:01] WE ARE WHAT WE'D CONSIDER REASONABLE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? THANK YOU. >> 7030 COLMAN ROW, EAST LANSING. I JUST LOST MY NOTE. THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THE SITE PLAN. THE REAR CORNER SAID IT WAS NINE FEET OFF SO THAT THE ENTIRE SITE WAS MOVED DOWN. WE SPOKE TO THE SURVEY AREA IN QUESTION AND GOT OUR SURVEYOR AND THEIR SURVEYOR TO TALK. THEY DETERMINED THAT CURRENT SITE PLAN IS CORRECT. THE LOCATIONS ARE CORRECT. ALSO, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE GRADING PLAN, BUT IF IT DID, IT WOULD SHOW THAT A LOT OF THE WATER IS GUIDED TOWARD THOSE DETENTION PONDS AND NOT JUST TIP BACKWARDS. THE SITE CURRENTLY, CAN'T REALLY USE THE CURRENT TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE BECAUSE WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO ENGINEER IT TO TIP THE SITE IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS TO MOVE THE WATER TOWARDS THE DETENTION. WE'VE WORKED HARD. WE THINK THIS IS A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT FOR THIS MULTIFAMILY PARCEL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK? WE PAUSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND WE ARE NOW AT ITEM 13 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS IF YOU DO LIKE TO SPEAK. [13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS] SEEING NONE [OVERLAPPING] >> I WAS WAITING. I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS I WANT TO SAY. DURING MY COMMENTS AT THE, I'M GOING TO MISREMEMBER WHAT THE SUPO IS COMMENT ON THE FIDOA SITE. I SAID TWO STORIES WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT, BUT HERE HEARING THAT THERE WERE TWO AND THREE STORY UNITS, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD, BUT I WAS MISTAKEN IN ONLY SAYING TWO. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO COMMENT ON. ONE IS THAT THE AFFORDABILITY PIECE, I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT AFFORDABILITY. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RESPONSIBILITY, THOUGH, TO THINK ABOUT THE LAND USE, AT LEAST AS I UNDERSTAND IT. IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CARE ABOUT WITH AFFORDABILITY, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE IN THAT AND TRY AND THINK THROUGH HOW DO WE SHAPE OUR LAND USE POLICIES IN THE TOWNSHIP IN ORDER TO IMPACT AFFORDABILITY. THAT'S DIFFICULT TO DO IN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT HEARING. I ALSO THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SUPS LIKE THIS, BECAUSE IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT THINGS THAT WE STIPULATE MAY MAKE THINGS LESS AFFORDABLE BECAUSE IT INCREASE THE COST OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE TRADE OFFS IN THOSE SPACES AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET AROUND THOSE GIVEN JUST THAT EVERYBODY HAS CERTAIN THINGS THAT THEY WANT. THEN I ALSO HAVE A THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE REALLY NICE IF WHEN THINGS ARE GETTING REVISITED LIKE THIS, OVER TIME, THAT ANY CHANGES THAT ARE HAPPENING THAT THOSE ARE PRESENTED ON AND TOLD AS A STORY TO US SO THAT WE COULD REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED AND ALSO SO THAT WHOEVER IS REQUESTING SOMETHING LIKE THIS TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT MITIGATION STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN ORDER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. BECAUSE PEOPLE CARE, I THINK, THIS IS WHAT I CARE ABOUT ANYWAYS IS, AS SOMEBODY ON THIS COMMISSION, IS THAT I CARE THAT THE DECISIONS ARE DIFFICULT SOMETIMES, BUT I THINK IF I WERE HERE, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHY SOMEBODY IS VOTING THE WAY THAT THEY ARE BECAUSE THAT'S MORE TRANSPARENT. EVEN IF IT'S DIFFICULT TO MAYBE SAY THOSE THINGS OUT LOUD OR UNCOMFORTABLE, I THINK IT'S FAIR. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS ABOUT THE SUP HEARING THAT WE HAD EARLIER. [01:50:03] >> THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. THEN YOU, TO HAVE COMMISSION CARTISY [INAUDIBLE]. >> FOR PIGGYBACKING ON WHAT COMMISSIONER BROOKS WAS TALKING ABOUT. FOR TRANSPARENCY, THE REASON WHY I VOTED THE WAY THAT I DID FOR THE FIDOA SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAS BECAUSE WE HAD TO LOOK AT, I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF. YOU WERE CHARGED WITH LOOKING AT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US AND WHAT THE LAW SAYS. WE CAN'T VOTE ON AFFORDABILITY, AND ALL THE OTHER CRITERIA THAT IS BASED ON, THE CRITERIA WAS MET. BECAUSE THE CRITERIA WAS MET AND WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER DRAINAGE AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS BECAUSE WE'RE JUST ONE OUT OF OTHER GROUPS THAT HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE IT'S A PROCESS, THEN AT LEAST WHAT WE WERE CHARGED WITH DOING AND WHAT WAS PUT BEFORE US, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I HAD TO VOTE OR THAT I VOTED THE WAY THAT I DID. IN DOING THAT, EXPRESSED SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE OF THE MAKEUP OF OUR TOWNSHIP AND THE PEOPLE THAT, OUR COMMUNITY LEADERS, OUR COMMUNITY TEACHERS AND FIREFIGHTERS, AND POLICE OFFICERS, AND ALL OF THOSE PROFESSIONS AND HOW HARD IT WOULD BE TO MEET THAT TYPE OF A MONTHLY RENT, IF YOU WILL. BUT TO BE FULL TRANSPARENT, THAT'S THE REASON WHY I VOTED THE WAY THAT I DID BECAUSE BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS PUT BEFORE US AND WHAT WAS CHARGED, WHAT WE WERE CHARGED FOR DOING, AND ALL THE CRITERIA WAS MET. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. >> I WANT TO QUIBBLE WITH THE SENIOR PLANNER. I WANT TO DO. IF I HEARD RIGHT DURING THE DISC PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN IMPLICATION THAT THE SITE ON DOBIE ROAD DOESN'T MEET ACCESSIBILITY, MICRO-MOBILITY, WALKING AND BIKING. IT'S A HALF A MILE FROM THE INTERSECTION OF DOBIE AND GRAND RIVER. A HALF A MILE TO QD, A LITTLE BIT FARTHER TO TOM'S. IT'S ONE OF THE MOST WALKABLE SPOTS WE'VE GOT IN A TOWNSHIP. IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO WALK TO MEYER FROM THERE, YOU CAN. I SEE PEOPLE DOING IT ALL DAY LONG. I WANTED TO TO MAKE THAT POINT. >> THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, I WAS CONFUSED BY YOUR POINT. >> I THOUGHT I HEARD IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSAL THIS EVENING THAT THE SITE MIGHT NOT BE CONSIDERED WALKABLE. IT REALLY IS. IT'S ALREADY BEING USED. THAT SIDEWALK ALONG DOBIE ROAD IS USED A LOT BY WALKERS, BY BIKERS BY ALL THINGS. IN THE SPIRIT OF EXPLAINING WHY I SUPPORTED THE APPLICATION, IS I THINK IT DOES FULFILL MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A WALKABLE INFILL SHOULD LOOK LIKE. THE QUESTION OF COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING AREA IS ONE THAT TRIPS US UP ALL THE TIME, BECAUSE AS LONG AS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY WITHIN A CERTAIN ZONE, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE COMPATIBLE, BUT ONCE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S IN A DIFFERENT ZONING CATEGORY, THEN IT WOULD BE NONSENSICAL FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONE NEXT DOOR. IT SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH ITS ZONE. THE APPLES AND ORANGES TO THE HEIGHTS OF THE APARTMENTS, I THINK IS RELEVANT. GOING FROM TWO STORIES TO THREE STORIES IS NEW FOR THAT AREA, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT COMPATIBILITY ISSUE, MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE. IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY, I THINK WE DO HAVE MECHANISMS TO DO THAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN PEOPLE COME AND ASK FOR VARIANCES. IF THEY WERE ASKING FOR 15 STORIES HERE, THERE'D BE A WHOLE LOT OF CONDITIONS THAT WERE STUCK ON IT. IT PROBABLY WOULD PASS, BUT IF THEY WERE SEEKING MORE DENSITY THAN OUR ORDINANCE ALLOWS, WE WOULD THEN HAVE LEVERAGE TO SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, WE WANT SOME OF THAT TO BE MORE AFFORDABLE. WE CAN PROBABLY IMPROVE OUR ORDINANCE TO HAVE MORE OF THOSE LEVERS. [01:55:05] >> SORRY, BOX'S OVER. >> THANK YOU. >> THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> LT'S MOVE TO ADJOURN. >> THANK YOU. MOVED AND SECONDED, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYEE. >> YOU POSE. >> SNYDER SECOND. >> YES. SNYDER SECOND. WE'RE ADJOURNED AT 8:24. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.