[00:00:22]
I'M BAT AND CLEAN UP HERE. [BACKGROUND]
>> HOLD TIGHT FOR LIKE 30 SECONDS.
>> SURE. WE GOT ONE MORE, THEN WE'RE GOOD HERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IS IN HIS SEAT.
>> THIS IS [INAUDIBLE]. THEY'RE SEPARATED.
>> IF YOU NEED MY HELP. LET ME KNOW.
>> MY WIFE KEEPS TRYING TO TAKE MY WORKING HOME CHAIR AWAY.
IT'S A BIG VALUE [OVERLAPPING] IT'S A BIG AND TALL CHAIR. I SELL TO MY AUNT FIDELLE.
IT'S LIKE IN MY HEAD, AND DEEP IT IS [INAUDIBLE]
>> MR. SCHMIDT, AM I GOOD TO GO, OR YOU WANT ME TO HOLD ON? KNOWING THAT WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA,
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
I AM GOING TO CALL THE OCTOBER 13, 2025, MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT AND HAVE NOT YET SIGNED UP, THERE ARE FORMS THAT YOU CAN FILL OUT AND GIVE THEM TO ONE OF THE STAFF MEMBERS HERE.
WE'LL HAVE TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW MR. SHARKEY SAID THIS FOR SEVERAL OF YOU, BUT THERE'LL BE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE MEETING.
I'LL EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE AS WE GET TO THOSE.
WE'LL START WITH THE ROLL CALL.
COMMISSIONER FOWLER LET US KNOW THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT.
THANK YOU. NOW WE GET TO THE FIRST POINT IN OUR AGENDA ON PUBLIC REMARKS.
[3. PUBLIC REMARKS ]
WE HAVE TONIGHT A PUBLIC HEARING ON ONE PARTICULAR TOPIC, AND THEN WE HAVE THE PUBLIC REMARKS ARE FOR ANY TOPICS ON THE AGENDA.IF YOU ARE SPEAKING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE MAKE THAT CLEAR ON YOUR FORM, AND WE ASK THAT YOU CAN HOLD YOUR COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU'RE SPEAKING ON ANYTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA, THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ABOUT IT.
WE ASK THAT YOU FILL OUT A FORM AND LET US KNOW.
THIS ONE. I'M GOING TO START PUBLIC REMARKS WITH JOHN LEONE, AND IF I MISPRONOUNCE YOUR NAME, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME.
YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
>> YOU GAVE SEPARATE SPEAKING FORMS. PLEASE SPEAK FOR AN INDIVIDUAL.
>> YOU DON'T WANT TO GO FIRST.
YOU'D LIKE SOMEBODY TO GO BEFORE YOU?
>> YES. IF I GO TALK ABOUT [INAUDIBLE]
>> I CAN DO THAT. BUT WE WANT TO KEEP MOVING. YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I WILL DO DEBORAH MAJOR FIRST, FOLLOWED BY JOEL MAJOR.
YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. THERE'LL BE A LIGHT THAT'LL COUNT IT DOWN FOR YOU.
PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND THEN GO AHEAD.
I RESIDE AT 4570, SENECA DRIVE FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS.
I'M HERE TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT 25020.
DURING THE JANUARY 13, 2025, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN WHICH I WAS PRESENT, MR. FEDEWA, THE BUILDER, MADE COMMENTS AT THE END OF THE MEETING AFTER RESIDENTS NOTED THAT THE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS HE WAS PROPOSING WERE NOT APPROPRIATE.
HE SAID, YOU HAVE MY WORD THAT THESE WILL BE NO MORE THAN TWO STORIES.
DURING THE SEPTEMBER 22 MEETING OF THIS PLANNING COMMISSION, MR. FEDEWA PRESENTED TO YOU TWO AND THREE-STORY STRUCTURES IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE RETENTION PONDS AND LOT SIZE, HE SAID.
APPARENTLY, HIS WORD MEANT NOTHING.
[00:05:02]
THIS IS AN EXCUSE, IN MY OPINION, FOR HIM TO BUILD SOMETHING RESEMBLING HIS ORIGINAL PLAN, AND IT WAS NOT EVEN QUESTIONED BY ANY COMMISSIONER.THERE SEEMS TO BE NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THIS BUILDER.
WHAT HE ACTUALLY BUILDS MAY BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HE PRESENTS. THEN WHAT? THIS IS THE TIME FOR REVIEWING THIS BOARD'S PAST DECISIONS, ANSWERING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY TAX-PAYING RESIDENTS, AND DISCUSSIONS.
YOU ARE HERE TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE ENTIRE TOWNSHIP, NOT JUST THE BUILDER.
PLEASE FIND ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE CITIZENS BEFORE YOU MAKE A REVIEWING TONIGHT.
PLEASE DISCUSS WITH ALL THE COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT.
THERE WAS ONE DISSENTING VOTE AT THE STRAW VOTE ON SEPTEMBER 22, AND I'M MORE THAN DISHEARTENED TO FIND THAT HE IS NOT HERE, AND BECAUSE ON THE SEPTEMBER 22 VOTE, WHEN HE DISSENTED, NO ONE ASKED HIM TO ELABORATE, AND THAT WAS VERY DISTURBING.
I FEEL LIKE HE HAD SOMETHING TO SAY.
HE WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT VOTED NO, AND YET NOBODY ASKED HIM ONE QUESTION.
LIKE, TELL ME MORE ABOUT THAT.
IT MIGHT BE ENLIGHTENING TO HEAR WHAT HE HAD TO SAY, AND NOW HE'S NOT HERE FOR THIS VOTE.
PLEASE KEEP OUR TOWNSHIP GOALS IN THE FOREFRONT OF YOUR MIND.
I REVIEWED THEM TONIGHT ON YOUR WEBSITE.
JUST TO NAME TWO, PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS OF WHICH I AM A PART, AND NUMBER 2, WORK TOWARDS INCREASING THE AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING FOR BOTH NEW AND EXISTING RESIDENTS.
IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THIS, THE TOWNSHIP THAT WE KNOW AND LOVE WILL BE UNRECOGNIZABLE DUE TO UNAFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS, TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON DOBIE ROAD, THAT WILL SPILL OUT TO ALL THE ARTERIES, AND THREE-STORY DWELLINGS ALONG DOBIE ROAD.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO FIND OUT ALL OF THE FACTS AGAIN BEFORE YOU CONSIDER VOTING. THANK YOU.
NEXT UP IS JOEL MAJOR, FOLLOWED BY DAVID CLARK.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS JOEL MAJOR.
I RESIDE AT 4570 SENECA DRIVE IN OKEMOS.
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT 25020, FEDEWA HOLDINGS, DOBIE ROAD.
THIS IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S LAST OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE ZONING, REZONING, AND SITE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY.
IN YOUR LAST MEETING, THIS PLANNING COMMISSION ASKED STAFF WHAT HAPPENS NEXT, AND THE RESPONSE WAS, IT'S PRETTY MUCH ADMINISTRATIVE FROM HERE.
WHAT IS BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TO APPROVE? AS WAS ISSUED IN THE LAST MEETING, THE PLAN HAS CHANGED YET AGAIN FROM PROMISES MADE DURING REZONING.
THE DEVELOPER HAS MOVED RECYCLING BINS, ADDED PARKING, INCREASED THE SIZE OF THE HOUSING TO THREE STORIES, CREATED DETENTION PONDS, AND UNPROVEN DRAINAGE REMEDIES IN CONFLICT WITH EARLIER STATEMENTS, ALL TO ACCOMMODATE THE LOT SIZE.
THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN REZONED TWICE, REZONING HAS BEEN REJECTED TWICE, AND THEN ONLY A ZONE FOR LOWER DENSITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPER AND THE PROPERTY.
NOW YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN CONTAINING A SEPARATE DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS NOT PART OF THE REZONING OR SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
AS WE WERE ALL INFORMED IN THE LAST MEETING, THAT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY FOR THE SELLER WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL BUY-SELL AGREEMENT.
IS THAT WHAT THIS COMMISSION IS HERE TO APPROVE A PORTION OF A PRIVATE SALE, OR IS IT TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE ALL THE NON-CONFORMANCES, EASEMENTS, AND ACCOMMODATIONS TO A PIECE OF LAND OWNED BY A DEVELOPER? IF YOU APPROVE THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WHAT ELSE WILL CHANGE AFTER YOUR APPROVAL? WHAT OTHER EASEMENTS, STANDOFF, PROPERTY LINE, DRAINAGE WILL CHANGE UNDER THE GUISE OF APPROVAL? WHO HOLDS THE DEVELOPER OF ANY PROPERTY ACCOUNTABLE? IF YOU VOTE TO APPROVE, THEN THE ANSWER TO WHO HOLDS THE DEVELOPER ACCOUNTABLE APPEARS TO BE PRETTY ADMINISTRATIVE.
HOWEVER, IF YOU SEEK ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND CLARITY TO YOUR PAST ZONING DECISIONS, OR IF YOU EVEN HAVE SOME DOUBT REGARDING ALL THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THIS PROPERTY BY AND FOR THE DEVELOPER, VOTE TO NOT SUPPORT, SUP 25020, AND HOLD THE DEVELOPER ACCOUNTABLE TO THIS PLANNING COMMISSION'S EXPECTATIONS.
THIS IS YOUR LAST OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE DAVID CLARK, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTINA CLARK.
>> HELLO. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK TONIGHT, DAVE CLARK, 4538 SENECA DRIVE, AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT 25020 SUBMITTED
[00:10:01]
BY FEDEWA HOLDINGS NOT BE APPROVED UNTIL THE ISSUES STATED BELOW ARE ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED.I MENTIONED A COUPLE OF THESE AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT AGAIN THAT THE PACKET THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER FOR YOU BY THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER AND STAFF HAS INCORRECT AND MISLEADING INFORMATION, WHILE NOT PRESENTING ALL THE FACTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR YOU TO RENDER A DECISION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
IT SAYS IN THE PACKET TO YOU 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 VICINITY, AND THAT SUCH A USE WILL NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SAME AREA.
WHILE REFERENCING THE 23 MASTER PLAN, NOWHERE IN THE COMMENTS FROM THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER AND STAFF, ANALYSIS TO YOU IS REFERRING TO THE FIRST GOAL OF THE 23 MASTER PLAN, AGAIN, WHICH IS PRESERVING THE CHARACTER OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST.
EVEN TOWNSHIP TREASURER, OR I SHOULD SAY, PAST TREASURER, PHIL DUCHAN, MENTIONED AT A TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETING THAT THE MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS WOULD BE A STARK CONTRAST TO THE RESIDENTS TO THE WEST.
SECOND POINT IS THE PROJECT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ECONOMIC WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR THE COMMUNITY THAT WAS STATED IN YOUR PACKET. THAT IS FALSE.
AT PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETINGS, I MENTIONED THAT THE PROPOSED SITE WOULD RESULT IN LOWER PROPERTY VALUES ALONG SENECA.
THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT THE ECONOMIC WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING HOMES AND COMMUNITY, BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW THE LOWERING OF OUR PROPERTY VALUES WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING AREA.
AS EVIDENCED BY THE HOME CURRENTLY FOR SALE ON SENECA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHERE MULTIPLE POTENTIAL BUYERS ARE NOT MAKING OFFERS BECAUSE OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
REALTOR COMMENT AGAIN WAS TO KEEP LOWERING THE ASKING PRICE, SO THAT DOES HAVE A NEGATIVE ECONOMIC EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
AGAIN, MY CONCERN GOES BACK TO THE WATER ISSUES.
COMMENTS FROM YOUR OWN TOWNSHIP ENGINEERING THE PACKET, ENGINEER FROM THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP SAYS THE WESTERN HALF OF THE SITE WILL BE FILLED, WHICH WILL POTENTIALLY IMPEDE BACKYARD RUNOFF FROM ADJACENT HOMES, AND POTENTIAL PONDING AND POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL FLOW INTO THE NEIGHBORS' BACKYARDS.
WHAT HE'S SAYING IS OUR WATER WON'T FLOW OFF OUR PROPERTY, BUT THE WATER FROM THIS PROPOSED SITE WILL FLOW ONTO OUR PROPERTY.
A COMMENT FROM YOUR TOWNSHIP ENGINEER REGARDING SOIL EROSION, WHICH IS CONFIRMING OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE SITE PLAN, THAT SOIL AND WATER ARE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES.
I KNOW COMMENTS IN THE PAST REFERENCING THAT PEOPLE IN THE TOWNSHIP ALSO WANT TO USE THE LAND-
>> I'M SORRY, SIR. YOUR TIME IS UP.
>> YEAH. THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] CHRISTINA CLARK, AND THEN LAST WILL BE JOHN LEONE.
>> CHRISTINA CLARK, SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF SUP 25020.
SINCE 2019, MR. FEDEWA HAS BEEN TRYING TO DEVELOP THE FAITH LUTHERAN PARCEL OF LAND.
HE AND A CHURCH LIAISON GOT THE TOWNSHIP TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MASTER PLAN IN 2023, UNBEKNOWNST TO ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.
THIS MASTER PLAN UPDATE WAS IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE MICHIGAN PLANNING ENABLING ACT AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF BOTH THE MICHIGAN AND US CONSTITUTIONS.
SPECIFICALLY, NOTICE PROCEDURES APPLIED TO AFFECTED PROPERTIES WAS UNEQUAL, DEPRIVING LAND OWNERS OF A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE.
ALL ZONING DECISIONS ARISING FROM THE 2023 MASTER PLAN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PROCEDURALLY INVALID.
WHY WAS IT UNEQUAL? THE TOWNSHIP PROVIDED INDIVIDUALIZED NOTICE TO LANDOWNERS AFFECTED BY CHANGES IN THE URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY.
NO INDIVIDUAL NOTICE WAS PROVIDED TO LAND OWNERS AFFECTED BY CHANGES TO THE PLUM INVOLVING THE FEDEWA/FAITH LUTHERAN PROPERTY.
BOTH CHANGES WERE PART OF THE SAME MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND CONSIDERED DURING THE SAME PUBLIC PROCESS.
ALTHOUGH THE MICHIGAN PLANNING ENABLING ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE INDIVIDUALIZED NOTICE FOR MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS.
ONCE THE TOWNSHIP CHOSE TO PROVIDE SUCH NOTICE FOR ONE TYPE OF AMENDMENT, IT WAS OBLIGATED TO APPLY THAT PROCEDURE FAIRLY AND CONSISTENTLY.
CASE LAW CLEARLY SUPPORTS THIS PRINCIPLE.
TOWNSHIP MEETING RECORDS SHOW THAT INPUT FROM PROPERTY OWNERS SURROUNDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGES WAS ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED, WHICH REFLECTED AN INTENTIONAL EXCLUSION AND A DELIBERATE CHOICE TO LIMIT PARTICIPATION IN ORDER TO FACILITATE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE SEVERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY CONCERNS WITH SELECTIVE NOTIFICATION.
[00:15:04]
THE DISCRETIONARY OUTREACH BY MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION TRIGGERED AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE NOTICE FAIRLY, EQUITABLY, AND CONSISTENTLY, WHICH IT DID NOT.FAILURE TO NOTIFY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS REGARDING [INAUDIBLE] AMENDMENTS RAISES DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CONCERNS UNDER MICHIGAN AND US LAW.
PROVIDING NOTICE TO ONE SET OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT NOT ANOTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED GROUP, IS ARBITRARY, INEQUITABLE, AND CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION.
I URGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TAKE ACTION TO CORRECT THESE DEFICIENCIES, DENY THE SUP, AND HAVE THE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS REVIEWED BY TOWNSHIP LEGAL COUNSEL FOR COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
APART FROM PROCEDURAL CONCERNS, THIS SUP SHOULD BE DENIED DUE TO THE TANGIBLE RISKS TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FLOODING AND WATER RUNOFF, NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. THANK YOU.
>> YES, I'M JOHN LEONE AT 4544 DOBIE ROAD, AND I'M OPPOSING SUP 25020 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
THE MAIN REASON IS IF THIS IS APPROVED AND I EMPLOY YOU, IT TRIGGERS A VERY SHORT DEADLINE FOR FILING A LAWSUIT, SOME PAGES OF WHICH, SO WE CAN BE UPFRONT ABOUT WHAT WILL BE HAPPENING, HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO YOU THIS EVENING.
THERE'S A QUICK HISTORY STARTING ON PAGE 3, SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE HIGHLIGHTS ARE.
BUT THE QUICK HIGHLIGHTS ARE IN 2019, I THINK YOU ALL KNOW THIS, THIS SAME REZONING WAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED DOWN BY BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THE BOARD.
THEN, RECENTLY AS SUMMER '24 WAS VOTED DOWN AGAIN BY THE COMMISSION, AND THE 411VOTE, THE LAST ONE BEING AN ADMITTED CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY MR. ROMBACK, WHICH APPARENTLY WAS RESOLVED BY HIS JUST PROCLAMATION THAT THERE'S NO MORE CONFLICT.
THAT'S THE FIRST I'VE EVER HEARD OF THE PERSON IN THE CONFLICT PROCLAIMING VERBALLY THAT THERE'S NO MORE CONFLICT.
THE NUMBER 1 ISSUE FOR ME, AND THAT WILL BE LAID OUT IN THE COMPLAINT, WHICH AGAIN IS BEING FINISHED OFF WITH HELP WITH A LARGER FIRM TO MAKE SURE IT'S ALL DONE RIGHT, IS TRAFFIC.
IN 2019, IT'S TURNED DOWN UNANIMOUSLY, 2024, IT'S TURNED DOWN SO SOMETHING HAPPENED AFTER THAT BECAUSE IN 2025, THIS BOARD SEEMS TO IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN REPEATEDLY BROUGHT BEFORE YOU AND JUST IS PUSHING THIS THING THROUGH.
FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVEN NEW HOMES, THE TRAFFIC OF WHICH HAS NOT HIT THE MULTIPLE CORNER THERE OF GRAND RIVER, DOBIE, AND MARSH.
IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THIS BOARD BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S INCOMPETENCE AT ALL.
IF THERE IS A PLAN THAT CAME IN WITH SOME NEW LEADERSHIP THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUSH TRAFFIC SO OUTRAGEOUSLY THAT WILL FORCE WIDENING OF DOBIE ROAD AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, THAT IS A VERY SAD STRATEGY IF THAT, IN FACT, IS AFOOT BECAUSE THAT MEANS ABSOLUTE, MATHEMATICALLY, INESCAPABLY, THERE'S MORE ACCIDENTS, INJURIES, AND EVEN DEATHS, IF THAT IS THE STRATEGY.
[NOISE] OTHERWISE, IT DOES SEEM INCOMPETENT TO IGNORE THE OVERWHELMING TRAFFIC THAT WILL HIT.
AS FAR AS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT JUST, AGAIN, HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED.
ALSO, I'LL NOTE THAT THE ENTIRE PUBLIC, I DIDN'T GET ANY WARNINGS HERE.
AM I AT THE END OF MY THREE MINUTES? NO. GREAT. THE ENTIRE PUBLIC, EXCEPT FOR THOSE WHO ARE FINANCIALLY GAINED, HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO THIS WITH PETITIONS.
YOU'VE SEEN HOW THE LETTERS, THERE'S JUST PAGES AND PAGES.
THE ONLY PEOPLE FOR IT ARE THE PEOPLE THAT SOLD THE LAND, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE A CHURCH, AND THE DEVELOPER.
IT'S JUST ASTOUNDING THIS FLIP THAT HAPPENED IN 2025.
THIS COMPLAINT IS THAT 22 PAGES NOW BECAUSE THERE'S A LONG HISTORY, AS YOU KNOW.
THIS IS BEING OFFERED AS I IMPLORE YOU BECAUSE THE DEADLINE WILL COME VERY SOON, AND THERE'LL BE NO ESCAPING.
PLEASE, LET'S ALL AVOID THE LITIGATION AND THE DELAYS AND EVERYTHING THAT WILL COME WITH IF THIS HAS TO BE FILED.
I EMPLOY YOU TO PLEASE VOTE THIS DOWN AND CONSIDER REVERSING THE REZONING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I DO NOT HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS GIVEN A FORM TO SPEAK DURING THIS TIME OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING THAT WILL BE COMING LATER.
>> WE STILL HAVE TO APPROVE THE MEETING.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK NOW OR MAY I?
[00:20:01]
>> YES, DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> IF I MAY, MADAM CHAIR, AND I KNOW IT'S HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR THE DIRECTOR TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME, BUT I JUST WANT TO, FOR THE RECORD, ADDRESS THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTION THAT'S BEEN NEFARIOUSLY RAISED MULTIPLE TIMES.
WE DID TAKE THAT TO OUR ATTORNEY, AS I SHARED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
I BELIEVE I SHARED AT A MEETING, AND THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEYS HAVE REVIEWED EVERYTHING AND DETERMINED THAT NOTHING UNTOWARD HAD HAPPENED.
COMMISSIONER ROMBACK, ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION, BROUGHT IT UP, BUT THERE WAS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED.
THAT ISSUE WAS REVIEWED, HAS BEEN RESOLVED, AND WE HAVE A LEGAL OPINION TO THAT NATURE.
>> THANK YOU. JUST TO FURTHER ADD TO THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER ROMBACK MENTIONED IT IN OUR LAST DISCUSSION BECAUSE THE EMPLOYMENT THAT LED TO THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT, THAT WASN'T A CONFLICT, IS NOW NO LONGER IN PLACE.
WE'RE EVEN FURTHER BEYOND THAT, SO THANK YOU FOR HELPING CLARIFY THAT.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE DON'T TYPICALLY RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENT DIRECTLY DURING THE MEETING, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THAT SO THAT COMMISSIONER ROMBACK'S.
>> THE PUBLIC HAD NO NOTICE OF THAT.
>> WE DON'T ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION.
>> I'M SORRY, WE DON'T ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE DON'T KNOW THAT, SO IT SHOULD BE KNOWN THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE NO IDEA. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER, SIR, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THROUGH ALL OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE NEED TO HEAR.
[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
NEXT ON OUR AGENDA, IF THERE IS NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING, IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA OF THE OCTOBER 13TH MEETING WITH ONE PROPOSED CHANGE TO SWAP ITEMS 7 AND 8 SO THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS BEFORE A LENGTHY PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> THANK YOU. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL AND SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE ON APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
THE AGENDA IS APPROVED WITH THAT SWITCH OF ITEMS 7 AND 8.
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
NOW WE ARE TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22ND MEETING.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SNYDER.
ANY COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES?
>> THEY'RE GETTING BRIEFER, BUT THEY'RE STILL RIGHT ON.
NO, IT'S HARD FOR STEP. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22ND, PLEASE SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? NOW WE ARE DOWN TO COMMUNICATIONS.
[6. COMMUNICATIONS]
I KNOW WE HAVE A NOTICE OF THE WILLIAMSON TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN.>> WITH A LINK. IS THERE ANYTHING WE SHOULD KNOW? I SAW THAT THEIR DEADLINE IS NOVEMBER, SO WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING BEFORE THEN.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO JUST ASK OUR FOLKS TO LOOK AND IF WE HAVE CONCERNS, BRING IT TO THE NEXT MEETING?
>> TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS, YOU CAN EMAIL ME.
WE CAN BRING IT UP AS A DISCUSSION ITEM AT YOUR NEXT MEETING.
IF YOU WANT TO COMPILE THINGS TOGETHER INTO A SINGLE MEMO, THEN WE CAN DEAL WITH IT.
AS WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, WE'VE WRITTEN THE MEMO TOGETHER WITH COMMENTS, AND THEN THE SECRETARY ACTUALLY SIGNS THAT AND SENDS IT TO THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> THANK YOU. YOU ALL HAVE YOUR HOMEWORK.
THANK YOU. THEN WE ARE DOWN TO COMMUNICATIONS.
I KNOW THERE WAS A LARGE GROUP OF COMMUNICATIONS IN THE PACKET, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME MORE SINCE THEN THAT WILL GO IN OUR NEXT MEETING MINUTES FOR THIS.
>> YES. I'LL PUT THOSE IN THE MINUTES.
I YOU HOPE GOT A CHANCE TO READ THOSE.
NOW WE ARE AT THE NEW ITEM 7A, UNFINISHED BUSINESS, SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 25020 FOR FEDEWA AND DOBIE ROAD.
I DID HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
YOU MAY GET TO THIS, BUT I DIDN'T SEE A DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE PACKET.
>> IT WASN'T SHOWING UP ON MINE.
>> I'M SORRY. I TOTALLY SKIPPED BY THAT. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF PITS THERE.
>> WELL, I'M ON 251, AND SOMEHOW IT DID NOT SHOW UP.
THANK YOU SO MUCH IN THIS REGARD. THANK YOU.
>> IF YOU NEED ME TO PULL IT UP, LET ME KNOW.
>> IT'S A BIG PACKET. SPECIAL USE NUMBER 25020,
[8.A. SUP #25020 - Fedewa (Dobie Road)]
FEDEWA HOLDINGS CONSTRUCT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET AT 4601 DOBIE ROAD.THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS TWO WEEKS AGO.
[00:25:01]
I SAW THE APPLICANT COME IN, SO HE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.I CAN ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
I WILL REMIND YOU THAT YOU ASKED FOR A RESOLUTION, THAT IS NOT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SUP.
THAT IS A RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUP.
EVERYTHING'S GETTING FORWARDED TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS SUP, BEING AT OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET, THE BOARD HAS THE FINAL APPROVAL OR DENIAL AUTHORITY.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANYONE OR WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE THE RESOLUTION?
>> MR. SHARKEY, I HAVE A QUESTION.
FOR THIS PROCESS, WE DON'T TYPICALLY SEE A FULL SITE PLAN FOR AN SUP, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THEY HAVEN'T DONE THE FULL ENGINEERING YET ON THE SITE.
THEY'VE GIVEN SOME PRELIMINARY NUMBERS THAT THEY'VE COME UP WITH.
IT WAS CAME UP AT THE PUBLIC HEARING A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, BUT THAT IS CORRECT.
>> WOULD YOU SAY THAT WHAT THEY HAVE SUBMITTED IS MORE WORK ON THE FRONT END THAN IT'S TYPICAL?
>> WELL, NO. AN SUP IS SUPPOSED TO COME WITH SOME IDEA.
YOU GOT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
I WILL SAY THIS, BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED UP FRONT, ANYTHING THAT DEVIATES ON A SUBMITTED SITE PLAN, IF THEY START SHOWING EXTRA UNITS, IF THEY START TEARING DOWN THE NATURAL AREA, ANYTHING ON THAT PLAN THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CONCEPT THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED TO YOU, THAT WILL TRIGGER AN AMENDMENT AND WE'LL KICK IT BACK.
>> JUST A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.
MY UNDERSTANDING THOUGH IS THAT THE SETBACK BETWEEN THE HOMES TO THE WEST AND WHERE THE BUILDING START HAS BEEN EXPANDED.
>> BEYOND WHAT WE TYPICALLY REQUIRE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE REZONING.
>> THEN I THINK I'M REMEMBERING THIS CORRECTLY, BUT THE PART OF WHAT THE PLAN IS PROPOSING POTENTIALLY WILL SHIFT WATER AWAY IN SOME WAYS.
>> GRADING ISN'T SHOWN AT THIS POINT.
THEY HAVEN'T GOT TO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE PUTTING TWO LARGE DETENTION AREAS ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY TOWARD DOBIE ROAD.
AGAIN, THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION WILL REVIEW THIS DURING SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
BY THEIR CALCULATIONS, THEY'RE DESIGNED TO HOLD 24,000 CUBIC FEET OF WATER IN A 19,000 CUBIC FEET, 100-YEAR STORM.
I'M JUST GOING ON OFF TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> THAT IS HOW THEY'RE DESIGNING IT, YES.
>> GO AHEAD, COMMISSION BROOKS.
>> YES. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THOSE DETENTION POOLS OR WASTEWATER AREAS BECAUSE I REMEMBER ABOUT THE LAST TIME.
ONE OF THE RESIDENTS BROUGHT UP, AND EVEN LAST TIME, TOO, ABOUT ALL THE WATER COMING TO THE BACKYARD.
THAT SEEMS TO BE A RECURRING ISSUE WHERE RESIDENTS BRING THAT PART UP.
WHAT'S NEW, I GUESS IT'S NEW BECAUSE IT'S IN THE PACKET, BUT THE TOWNSHIP'S ENGINEER TALKED ABOUT WATER GOING BACK.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS INTERPRETED LIKE THAT.
THE PLAN SHOWS THAT AS BEING A NATURAL, UNTOUCHED AREA.
IF YOU GO BACK THERE RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT FILLED.
ANY ATTEMPT TO FILL THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A MAJOR CHANGE AND WOULD COME BACK HERE.
I'VE BEEN BACK IN THOSE WOODS, I PICKED THE BIRDS OFF MY SHOES.
IT'S NOT FILLED, IT'S NOT PLANNED TO BE FILLED.
>> I BRING IT UP BECAUSE I WANTED THAT CLARIFICATION SO EVERYONE WON'T HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING, BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT IT WAS A TOWNSHIP ENGINEER. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT WOULD CHANGE THE DRAINAGE OF THE ENTIRE AREA AND THE DRAIN COMMISSION'S OFFICE WOULD COMMENT.
>> JUST FOR CLARITY, IT'S BEEN SAID A LOT HERE, BUT THE DRAIN COMMISSION'S REVIEW INCLUDES ASSURANCE THAT ANY RUNOFF FROM THAT PROPERTY IS RETAINED ON THE PROPERTY AND WOULD NOT.
ISN'T THAT PART OF WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR DRAIN COMMISSIONER APPROVAL?
>> GENERALLY, YES. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT YES.
[00:30:03]
IF YOU RECALL, IF THOSE DETENTION AREAS WERE TO FILL TO A CERTAIN POINT, THERE IS AN OUTLET THAT GOES TO A DRAIN TO THE NORTHWEST.THERE'S AN EASEMENT RECORDED ON THE FAITH LUTHERAN PROPERTY FOR THAT TO OCCUR.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SUP NUMBER 25020 TO CONSTRUCT A MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OF OVER 25,000 SQUARE FEET AT 4601 DOBIE ROAD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS FOUND IN THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO STATE THOSE?
>> THE PROPOSED MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THE TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THE PROPOSED MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA FOUND IN SECTION 86126 IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
[INAUDIBLE] TO SLEEP, TURNS ON ITS SIDE.
THE PROPOSED MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA FOUND IN SECTION 86658 IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
FINALLY, THE PROPOSED MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THE CONDITIONS OF REZONING NUMBER 25001.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE RESOLUTION?
>> WE HAD A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION IN OUR PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS ABOUT COMPATIBILITY AND WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES, WHICH IS ONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER.
I'VE BEEN MAKING THE COMMENT THAT THAT'S A REALLY TOUGH CHALLENGE WHEN HERE AT THE EDGE OF HIS OWN.
IF I'M TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S TOTALLY OUT OF THE CHARACTER IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS OWN, IT'S GOING TO BE OBVIOUS, BUT WHEN I'M ON THE EDGE OF HIS OWN, IT'S LESS OBVIOUS.
I TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK AT THE CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 17:46 CHIEF OKUMA CIRCLE, WHICH GOES IN AND TURNS RIGHT.
THOSE ARE TOWNHOMES WITH TWO STORIES OVER GARAGES.
THOSE ARE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS.
AND WHEN I TURN AROUND AND LOOK ACROSS DOBIE ROAD AT THE ARROWTREE APARTMENTS, SOME OF THEM ARE SPLIT LEVEL, SO 2.5 STORIES.
SO COMPARING WHAT MIGHT BE BUILT ON THE SITE TO A SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE, IT'S TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE.
LOOKING UP THE ROAD OR ACROSS THE ROAD, IT DOESN'T LOOK INCOMPATIBLE.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT AS THE LENS THAT I'M SEEING THAT COMPATIBILITY ISSUE THROUGH.
>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COMMENT NOW? I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.
THIS IS A ROLL CALL VOTE. COMMISSIONER ROMBACK.
>> THE CHAIR VOTERS, YES. LET'S MOVE THIS TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD PROCESS THAT WILL BE PUBLICLY NOTICED IN THE SAME WAY THAT OUR MEETINGS HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY NOTICED.
NOT TWO PEOPLE, BUT IT'LL BE IN THEIR BOARD PACKETS.
>> IT'LL BE IN THE BOARD PACKET.
I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THE SPECIFIC ON HOW THE BOARD HANDLES THEIR APPLICATIONS. I DON'T STUFF THE BOARD.
>> SORRY. I DON'T WANT TO STATE SOMETHING THAT'S INCORRECT.
THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS ITEM 7B,
[8.B. SUP #25021-St Martha Parish]
SUP NUMBER 25021 FOR ST. MARTHA PARISH.>> TO CONSTRUCT AN 11,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH AT 1,100 GRAND AT GRAND RIVER AVENUE, THAT IS ST. MARTHA PARISH.
YOU BY YOUR STRAW POLL, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU FAVORED THIS SUP AS WELL. SAME DEAL.
THIS WILL GO TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
SO YOU ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS BECAUSE IT IS A 25,000 SQUARE FOOT SUP.
OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION.
>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS, OR WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MOVE THE RESOLUTION?
>> I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVING SPECIAL USE PERMIT 25021, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING AT 1,100 GRAND RIVER AVENUE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS FOUND IN THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
THE PROPOSAL CLASSROOM BUILDING WITH THE TOWNSHIP MASTER PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THE PROPOSED CLASSROOM BUILDING CONFORMS TO THE REVIEW CRITERIA FOUND IN SECTION 86-126 IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS IN THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE.
>> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?
>> THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 25021.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, OR ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? I WILL CALL FOR THE VOTE THEN. COMMISSIONER ROB?
[00:35:01]
>> I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER SNYDER?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE ARE AT OUR PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPLICATION NUMBER 25022,
[7.A. APP #25022 - Continental Properties/Eyde Central Park Drive proposal ]
CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES CENTRAL PARK DRIVE PROPOSAL.WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
WE ARE GOING TO BE STRICT ABOUT OUR THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT.
I'LL GIVE A NAME, AND THEN I'LL SAY WHO'S ON DECK.
DO PRESENTATION FIRST, OR DO WE DO PUBLIC COMMENT? WE USUALLY START WITH YOU.
I'M SORRY. LET ME JUST BACK UP FIRST.
>> TRY TO KICK YOU OFF ON THE RIGHT FOOT.
THERE'S A GENERAL RULE. IT START WITH THE WORST FIRST.
THAT'S ME, AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP WILL PROVIDE THEIR POSITION.
THEN YOU OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
I MENTIONED THREE MINUTES EACH FOR THE PUBLIC.
STAFF, JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, AS EVERYONE'S AWARE, AS WE PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING, THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION.
THIS IS NOT A TRADITIONAL REZONING REQUEST, TRADITIONAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST.
IS THE REQUEST TO AN AMEND AN EXISTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT TOWNSHIPS PARTY TO? ORIGINAL LAWSUIT WAS FILED IN 1989.
THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS IN 1992.
THERE WAS A STIPULATED ORDER 1996 CHANGING SOMETHING.
THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT A STIP IN 01 AND A JUDGMENT AMENDMENT IN 02.
IN 03, IN DECEMBER, THE IDS APPROACHED THE TOWNSHIP TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THE PORTION OF PROPERTY, ESSENTIALLY, LOCATED RIGHT HERE IN THIS WEIRD CRESCENT SHAPE ADJACENT TO WHAT IS NOW CENTRAL PARK STATE.
CENTRAL PARK ESTATES DIDN'T EXIST AT THE TIME AND WASN'T ACTUALLY AUTHORIZED YET.
AS PART OF THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE BOARD REQUIRED THAT CENTRAL PARK ESTATES BE START CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO THE AGREEMENT BEING PUT INTO PLACE.
THAT AGREEMENT AT THE TIME, ELIMINATED THE OFFICE ZONING THAT WAS RIGHT HERE, AND I WILL SHOW YOU ON A MAP.
SO THIS PO THAT YOU SEE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN WAS ELIMINATED.
THAT WAS CHANGED TO RD, WHICH IS MULTI-FAMILY UP TO EIGHT UNIT CITY ACRE, AND THE CS ZONING THAT YOU SEE DEAD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN STILL EXISTS.
THAT'S THE CURRENT STATE OF THINGS.
THE MIDDLE PORTION ADJACENT TO CENTRAL PARK STATE, THE ZONED OFFICE, THE FRONT PORTION, ALONG CENTRAL PARK DRIVE IS ZONED COMMUNITY SERVICE.
WE'VE ACTUALLY REPEALED THAT, BUT THERE'S A FURTHER STIPULATED ORDER IN THE LAWSUIT THAT SAYS WE CAN'T ACTUALLY GET RID OF IT YET.
WE HAVE A COPY OF IT IN OUR OFFICE THAT WE MAINTAIN SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT'S THE LAST PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED THAT WAY.
WHAT IS ON FRIDAY THIS EVENING IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THAT AWFUL APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE ZONING PERMITTED ON THE SITE.
RIGHT NOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, RD ZONING, CS UP HERE.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE ENTIRE AREA WOULD BE REZONED TO THE NEXT HIGHEST DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH WOULD BE RC.
I'M GOING TO CIRCLE BACK NOW TO MY ORIGINAL COMMENT ABOUT THIS IS A CONDITIONAL REZONING, BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS THEY HAVE PROPOSED TO LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE TO NO MORE THAN 10 DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE.
AS YOU WOULD DO IN A CONDITIONAL REZONING, THERE ARE ALSO SEVERAL OTHER CONDITIONS IN THE CURRENT SET OF PLANS.
NOTABLY, THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENT.
UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING, UNDER ANY MULTIFAMILY ZONING, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD BUILDINGS WITHIN 50' OF THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE PROPOSING AN INCREASED SETBACK FOR FURTHER BUFFERING TO LEAVE A NATURAL SPACE.
NORMALLY, THIS IS THE PART WHERE I WOULD TELL YOU THAT YOU REALLY CAN'T ASK ANYTHING OR CHANGE ANYTHING AS PART OF A CONDITIONAL REZONING, BUT I WILL REITERATE THIS IS THE ONLY TIME YOU'LL HEAR THIS FROM ME.
NOW IS THE TIME IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS TO GIVE THEM TO THE BOARD.
WHAT WE WILL DO IS THERE WILL BE A GREAT AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION.
I'M SURE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS.
WHAT I'M ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO DO THIS EVENING,
[00:40:02]
IS TO GET ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS OUT FOR US, AND STAFF WILL TAKE THEM DOWN AND RESPOND IN WRITING AT THE NEXT MEETING.WE WOULD PREFER TO DO IT THAT WAY, THAT WAY WE HAVE THE MOST CORRECT INFORMATION FOR YOU, GIVEN THE HEIGHTENED STATE OF LITIGATION SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY.
JUST TO REITERATE, THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING IS ABOUT A LAND USE CHANGE FOR THREE PARCELS, THE AREA NORTH OF BELVEDERE, SOUTH OF TIMES SQUARE, THE AREA BETWEEN BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS, AND THIS AREA TO THE SOUTH OF COLUMBUS.
THEY WOULD CHANGE FROM THE CURRENT DESIGNATION OF RD AND CS TO RC, THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE LIMITED TO NO MORE THAN 312 DWELLING UNITS.
THE BUILDINGS BETWEEN BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS WOULD BE LIMITED TO TWO STORIES.
THE FULL-TIME ACCESS POINTS WOULD ONLY BE ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE IN TIMES SQUARE TO LIMIT TRAFFIC POTENTIALLY GETTING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'D BE A MINIMUM OF 100' SETBACK FROM CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, WHEREAS ONLY 45 OR 50' IS REQUIRED DEPENDING ON THE ZONING DISTRICT, AND THERE WILL BE A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AS A RESULT OF THAT MODIFICATION OF THE OPEN SPACE THAT WAS SET ASIDE, SINCE OBVIOUSLY THE WETLANDS HAVE CHANGED OVER THE YEARS.
AN ALLOWANCE TO ALLOW 20 ADDITIONAL FEET IN OUR MAXIMUM BUILDING LENGTH.
THEY ARE PROPOSING BUILDING ARTICULATION, SO IT'S NOT A STRAIGHT LINE, BUT IT WOULD HAVE 220 FOOT LONG BUILDINGS.
AN IDEA THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY TOSSED AROUND INTERNALLY, THE IDEA OF BANKING WETLAND SETBACK AREA.
THAT CERTAIN AREAS WHERE GRADING NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THE SETBACK, SET ASIDE OTHER AREAS WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE TOUCHED, ESSENTIALLY, WITH A NO NET LOSS OF BUFFER ON THE SITE, AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE REQUEST YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF THIS EVENING.
I WOULD BE ALL MULTIFAMILY WOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL LEFT.
I WILL BRIEFLY GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC BECAUSE NO ONE NEEDS TO HEAR FROM ME ANYMORE.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS NOT A GREAT TOOL IN THIS CASE.
IT'S ONE OF THE FEW CASES I WILL TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE SINCE THE 04 AMENDMENT, AT LEAST, BUT EVEN PRIOR TO THAT, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED FOR ANYTHING ON THIS SITE.
IT ESSENTIALLY REFERS BACK TO THE CONSENT JUDGMENT.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP CALLS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SITE ALL THE WAY BACK TO CENTRAL PARK OF STATES.
THAT IS NOT A GREAT TOOL HERE, JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE, TYPICALLY, PLANNERS TEND TO SHY AWAY FROM CHANGING THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.
WE WOULD NEVER RECOMMEND THAT.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE EXISTING ZONING.
I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC, BECAUSE I'M SURE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT TRAFFIC.
THE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT THAT'S REQUIRED COMPARES, AND THE CASE WITH THIS PROJECT OR THE DO ROAD PROJECT, DOES NOT COMPARE THE EXISTING TO THE PROPOSED.
IT COMPARES THE ZONING CURRENTLY IN PLACE, AND WHAT COULD BE BUILT UNDER THAT WITH THE ZONING REQUESTED AND WHAT COULD BE BUILT UNDER THAT.
THIS CASE, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT COULD BE BUILT UNDER THE PROPOSED IS 312 DWELLING UNITS.
UNDER THE EXISTING, THE ESTIMATED ESTIMATION IS 99 DWELLING UNITS AND 118,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL.
I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE HIGH ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, BUT WE HAVEN'T LAID IT OUT.
IT'S TRYING TO PROVIDE A WORST CASE SCENARIO.
EVEN IF YOU CUT THAT IN HALF, THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC UNDER THE THEORETICAL CURRENT ZONING IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN UNDER THE PROPOSED ZONING BECAUSE COMMERCIAL ZONING DRIVES FAR MORE TRAFFIC THAN MOST OTHER USES.
FROM A TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE, THIS WOULD CERTAINLY REDUCE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
BASED ON THE STUDY, ALL OF THE INTERSECTION STUDY WILL STILL OPERATE AS A LEVEL SEA OR ABOVE.
CENTRAL PARK DRIVE IS A COLLECTOR ROAD INTENDED TO BRING TRAFFIC FROM THE SURROUNDING AREAS ONTO IT TO GET YOU OUT TO MARSH AND GRAND RIVER AVENUE. THAT'S WHY IT WAS BUILT.
AGAIN, MODELING, THEY DID MODEL BOTH TWO POINTS OF ACCESS AND FOUR POINTS OF ACCESS.
FOR PURPOSES OF SHOWING THAT, ALSO, WE ASSUME THE ROAD DEPARTMENT WAS GOING TO REQUEST IT.
THAT WAS SOMETHING WE RECOMMENDED AS WELL.
TWO POINTS OF ACCESS WILL NOT CHANGE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE IN A TANGIBLE WAY.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT IS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE HERE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PUT CURB CUTS ON FULL TIME CURB CUTS ONTO BELVEDERE OR COLUMBUS.
UTILITIES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SITE.
I WILL LAST POINT OUT, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION AND IN YOUR PACKET THIS EVENING FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
WE DID MEET WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND HAD A CONVERSATION WITH
[00:45:02]
THEM IS THE CASE WITH NEARLY EVERY PROJECT, THEY ARE HAPPY TO SEE ANY NEW STUDENT THAT COMES TO OKEMOS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND THEY ARE PLANNING ON HAVING THEM IF THIS PROJECT COMES TO FRUITION.THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT SUBMIT ANY COMMENTS, NOR WOULD WE EXPECT THEM TO? THEY DON'T TEND TO GET INVOLVED IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, AND WE DON'T TEND TO GET INVOLVED IN THEIR DISCUSSIONS, BUT THEY ARE EXCITED TO SEE ANY NEW STUDENTS COME TO THE BEST SCHOOLS IN THE STATE.
AS I MENTIONED, WE WOULD HOPE THAT EVERYONE GETS THEIR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS OUT NOW SO THE STAFF CAN THEN RESPOND TO THEM AT THE NEXT MEETING.
BUT HOPEFULLY, WE CAN FOCUS ON THE LAND USE QUESTION BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE BOARD HAS ASKED THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO WEIGH IN ON HERE, THE PROPOSED LAND USE FOR THE SITE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR THAT.
WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> CAN WE START OUR LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU? NOW AS A REMINDER, THOUGH, THEY'VE ASKED US TO AGGREGATE THE QUESTIONS AND GIVE THEM SOME TIME TO ANSWER, SO YOU MAY NOT GET A RESPONSE FROM STAFF TONIGHT, BUT YOU CAN START PUTTING THEM FORWARD IF YOU'D LIKE TO.
COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS AND THEN COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.
>> I THINK IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION, BUT WE TALKED ABOUT, I BELIEVE THE SAME DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS SOME COLES, RIGHT?
>> THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE DRIVE UP AND TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS OWNING THAT ACCESS ACCESS OR SOMETHING TO THAT TO THAT NATURE.
MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO WORK OUT? BECAUSE I SEE A BIG CONFLICT BREWING IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
>> STAFF IS VERY CONFIDENT IN SAYING I CAN RESPOND TO THAT BECAUSE WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT ONE EXTENSIVELY.
WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT IN SAYING THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY, AND THAT IS NOW VERY MUCH GOING TO BE AN ISSUE WITH THEIR TITLE AND BETWEEN THE LAWYERS AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES LAWYERS.
>> QUICK CLARIFICATION ON THE TIMELINE.
THE LATEST DATE I HEARD IN THAT TIMELINE WAS 2019.
IS IT THE CASE THAT NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN SINCE COVID ON THIS JUDGMENT AGREEMENT.
>> I AM NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
>> THANK YOU. SCHMIDT, I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION TOO SINCE YOU SAID THE LAND USE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT.
COULD YOU JUST DEFINE WHAT THAT IS?
>> LAND USE IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY PROPOSED TO BE THE ACTUAL FUTURE USE OF THE LAND.
IN THIS CASE, HOW THAT GENERALLY LAYS OUT.
WE COULD BE MORE SPECIFIC HERE BECAUSE THIS IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
IF WE ARE GOING FORWARD AND SAYING, IN THEORY, WE WOULD ALLOW RD, BUT IT HAS TO HAVE 130 FEET OF SETBACK FOR THE NEIGHBOR.
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE TO HAVE WHEN THE PLANT COMMISSION MAKES THAT RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.
>> MR. SCHMIDT, JUST MAYBE NOT LAYING HIS QUESTION ADMITTINGLY, BUT I'M MORBIDLY CURIOUS.
DO THE PARTIES SIMULATE THAT THE 1992 ORDER FINDING THAT SOMETHING WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS THAT CONSIDERED STILL IN PLACE, OR HAS THAT BEEN MITIGATED BY SUBSEQUENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS?
>> THE COURT HAS RETAINED JURISDICTION, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS DO TAKE PRECEDENT IN THIS CASE.
THE PARTIES AGREEING THAT WHATEVER SETTLEMENT GOES IN PLACE.
REGARDLESS OF THAT 1992 ORDER GOVERNS?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT TO SHARE WITH US.
PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND THE ADDRESS. THANK YOU.
>> EXCUSE ME. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M HERE WITH CONTINENTAL 975 FUND LLC TO PRESENT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT REQUEST.
ALSO WITH ME IS A COLLEAGUE, ERIC HAN, AND THEN OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER, AS WELL AS REPRESENTATION FROM THE OWNERSHIP GROUP, MARK KLAUS IS HERE WITH HD LAND HOLDINGS.
EXCUSE ME. LLC. I'M GOING TO START JUST BRIEFLY WITH AN INTRODUCTION TO CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES.
CONTINENTAL IS A PRIVATELY HELD DEVELOPER,
[00:50:01]
OWNER AND OPERATOR OF MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITIES.WE HAVE DEVELOPED OVER 125 COMMUNITIES WITHIN 19 STATES, AND WE HAVE A HIGH TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS, PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED TEAM.
ALL DISCIPLINES ARE IN HOUSE, MOST NOTABLY, OUR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TEAM.
WE ARE NOT DEVELOPERS WHO DEVELOP TO SELL, WE DEVELOP TO BECOME A PART OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE DEVELOP IN, AND THAT IS WHY WE RETAIN OUR PROPERTIES LONG TERM AS A PART OF OUR PORTFOLIO STRATEGY.
TO TOUCH ON THAT, WE DO CONSIDER OURSELVES A LITTLE BIT OF A LOCAL DEVELOPER IN TERMS OF A MICHIGAN PRESENCE.
WE HAVE OVER 1,700 UNITS THAT ARE EITHER OPERATIONAL OR IN DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE STATE.
THIS PROPOSAL WITH AUTHENTICS OKEMS, THAT WOULD BE THE RESULT OF THE POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT WOULD REALLY BRIDGE THE GAP IN OUR PORTFOLIO BETWEEN DETROIT, GRAND RAPIDS AND KALAMAZOO.
AGAIN, WE HAVE NEVER SOLD A PROPERTY IN MICHIGAN, AND WE WANT TO BECOME A PART OF THE COMMUNITY THAT IS THRIVING HERE IN RADIAN TOWNSHIP.
BEFORE I GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL, I'LL START WITH JUST THE LAND USE REQUEST.
TIM GAVE A GOOD INTRO, BUT TO JUST GROUND US, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF COLES AND SOUTH OF THE WALMART THAT EXISTS IN THE TOWNSHIP.
THE PARCEL IS BISECTED BY BELVEDERE AVE AND COLUMBUS AV TO CREATE ESSENTIALLY THREE SMALLER PARCELS THAT TOTAL 30.68 ACRES.THE PARCEL IS OWNED, AS I MENTIONED, BY ID LAND HOLDINGS, LLC.
WHO IS A HOLDING COMPANY THAT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO EITHER DEVELOP OR SELL THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO.
AS WE KNOW, THE PARCEL IS CURRENTLY GOVERNED BY THE 2004 SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT OR CONSENT JUDGMENT THAT IDENTIFIES THE SITE FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES UP TO EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
TO TOUCH A LITTLE BIT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA ZONING AND LAND USE.
YOU'LL SEE HERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED IN RED.
YOU'LL NOTICE TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST, ARE EXISTING COMMERCIAL ZONINGS, INCLUDING THE CS ZONE THAT EXISTS TODAY ON PORTIONS OF THE SITE.
THEN TO THE EAST AND SOUTH ARE VARYING RESIDENTIAL USES AT VARYING INTENSITIES.
YOU HAVE SINGLE FAMILY WITH THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.
YOU HAVE MULTIFAMILY WITH THE CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS, YOU HAVE SENIOR LIVING WITH THE WILLOWS AT OAKMS, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED GRAND RESERVE JUST SOUTH OF THE SENIOR LIVING FACILITY.
I THINK IT'S WORTH MENTIONING THAT THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER BUILT ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK UNTIL YOU GET ALL THE WAY DOWN TO CENTRAL PARK AND GRAND RIVER.
WE REALLY SEE THIS SITE AS OPPORTUNITY FOR A TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USE HERE, GIVEN THE EXISTING ZONINGS AND THE EXISTING LAND USES THAT SURROUND THE SITE.
THIS GRAPHIC HERE IS JUST TO BETTER ARTICULATE WHAT THE BUY RIGHT USES ARE TODAY BY THE 2004 SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT.
THE AREAS IN BLUE ARE CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL CS.
THOSE CS OR THAT CS ZONE CURRENTLY HAS BY R USES, AGAIN, SIMILAR TO WHAT EXISTS OUT THERE TODAY.
WALMART, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS A CS ZONE.
BUT ALSO, BY R LAND USES INCLUDE TAVERNS, NIGHTCLUBS, RETAIL GENERALLY, BANKS, OFFICES, DANCER, MUSIC STUDIOS, BUILDING SUPPLY STORES, VARIOUS THINGS THAT ARE ALL COVERED UNDER THAT COMMUNITY SERVICE ZONE.
THE AREA IN GREEN, 12.38 ACRES ROUGHLY OR 40% OF THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED AT RD FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UP TO EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE BUILDINGS AS TALL AS 35 FEET IN HEIGHT AND SETBACKS AT APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET FROM THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES LOT LINE.
WITH THAT SAID, I AM HERE TODAY TO REQUEST FEEDBACK ON THE SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD REMOVE THAT COMMERCIAL CS ZONING AND ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY USES ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE TO SUE CONTINENTAL'S DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 10.5 UNITS PER ACRE,
[00:55:02]
BUT WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT EXACT CALCULATION METHODOLOGY WITH SOME OF THE WETLANDS THAT EXIST OUT THERE.SWITCHING GEARS HERE INTO OUR ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, I'LL START WITH A LITTLE BIT OF NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH THAT WE'VE CONDUCTED.
CONTINENTAL DID HOST A VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON AUGUST 20TH AT THE CATTLE OGAMS PUBLIC LIBRARY.
WE INVITED ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN CENTRAL PARK ESTATES TO THE EAST, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET.
WE DID TAKE A LOT OF GREAT FEEDBACK FROM THAT MEETING AND HAVE INCORPORATED SOME OF THAT IN OUR PROPOSAL THAT'S BEING PRESENTED TODAY.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT WE HAVE MODIFIED OUR ACCESS AND INCREASED OUR BUFFER FROM THE EAST PROPERTY LINE, THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES PROPERTY LINE SINCE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.
THAT BRINGS ME TO OUR LAND USE PROPOSAL.
WE ARE PROPOSING OBVIOUSLY A MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITY AT 312 UNITS, WHICH AGAIN, DEPENDING ON YOUR CALCULATION METHODOLOGY IS GOING TO FALL BETWEEN 10.2 AND 10.5 UNITS PER ACRE.
THIS PLAN DELIBERATELY TAKES FEEDBACK FROM PREVIOUS WORK ON THE PROPERTY AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THE BOARD AND CITES ALL OF THE TWO STORY BUILDINGS ON THAT CENTER PARCEL.
THERE ARE 72 STORY BUILDINGS ON THE CENTER PARCEL, REFLECTING 168 UNITS APPROXIMATELY, AND THE THREE STORY BUILDINGS ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL.
WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT 144 UNITS.
ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE, AS I'VE EXPRESSED, INCREASED OUR SETBACK FROM THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES LOT LINE.
WE HAVE ABOUT 95% WETLAND PRESERVATION ON THE SITE.
WE ALSO HAVE ALL OF THE STANDARD AMENITIES OF A MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITY.
YOU'VE GOT YOUR COMMUNITY CLUBHOUSE, A POOL AND POOL DECK, VEHICULAR PARKING, AND ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, COURTYARDS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
TO GET INTO SOME OF OUR RATIONALE FOR THIS REQUEST, WE DO SEE THIS AS MASTER PLAN COMPLIANT.
STARTING WITH GOAL ONE OF THE MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS TO STRENGTHEN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS BY PREVENTING INCOMPATIBLE USES.
THE CS ZONING DESIGNATION ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE DOES FEEL INCONGRUENT WITH THE VARYING HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT EXIST ON THE EAST SIDE.
USING THIS AS A APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FROM THAT INTENSE COMMERCIAL WITH COLES, FURNITURE STORE, AND PETSMART, ALL OF THAT COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT TO THE WEST.
HERE WITH A MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI FAMILY AS YOU HEAD EAST INTO THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, IT FEELS LIKE A SUITABLE AND REASONABLE TRANSITION.
SECOND, THIS SITE IS WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP'S URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.
AS TIM MENTIONED, ALL INFRASTRUCTURE IS IN PLACE TO SUPPORT THE USE, AND IT HAS BEEN SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT SINCE THE 2004 SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT DID POSITION IT FOR DEVELOPMENT MANY YEARS AGO.
IT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP THE SITE WITH THESE NEW LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
SECOND, OR IN ADDITION TO, WE WOULD COMPLY WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S WETLAND PRESERVATION PLAN, AND SO WE WOULD HAVE NO NET LOSS BY MITIGATING ANY OF OUR IMPACTS WITH THE TOWNSHIP AND WITH THE STATE.
AS TO MENTION, THE CS ZONING IS OBSOLETE, SO THERE IS A NEED TO PROVIDE NEW ZONING OR LAND USE GUIDANCE ON THE PROPERTY.
I KNOW I KEEP REITERATING THIS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THIS TRANSITIONAL LAND USE ONE MORE TIME.
WHILE THE AERIAL IS NOT SHOWING THE GRAND RESERVE, WHICH IS OCCUPIED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT AND STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, THIS IS REALLY AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL HOUSING ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK.
TO DISCUSS THE BUFFERS AND SETBACKS, YOU'LL SEE HERE IN THE EXHIBIT PROVIDED.
IN THIS IN THIS EXHIBIT, NORTH IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN.
THE BLUE LINE HERE WOULD REPRESENT THE CODE REQUIRED 45 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK.
KNOWING THE SENSITIVITY OF THE PROPOSAL WE BROUGHT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING OUR BUILDING SETBACK AT A 90 FOOT MINIMUM,
[01:00:03]
WHICH WOULD BE TWICE THE CODE REQUIREMENT, AND TWICE WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT TODAY.WITH THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED, WE HAVE INCREASED THAT SETBACK.
WE NOW HAVE A 100 FOOT MINIMUM SETBACK THAT IS 2.2 TIMES THE CODE REQUIREMENT, AND THAT IS JUST TO A PORTION OF THAT BUILDING FIVE THERE.
YOU'LL SEE AREAS OF BUILDING 4 AND BUILDING 6 THAT ARE 135 FEET OR GREATER FROM THAT LOT LINE, WHICH IS THREE TIMES THE CODE REQUIREMENT.
WHEN AGAIN, THAT BLUE LINE IS INDICATIVE OF WHAT COULD BE BUILT UP TO 35 FEET TODAY.
WHILE 35 FEET IS THE MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT, OUR TWO STORY BUILDINGS HERE ARE VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH WITH THE HEIGHTS OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
BY THE TOWNSHIPS DEFINITION, THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS RIGHT AROUND, I BELIEVE 27 FEET.
AGAIN, IT DOES NOT SEEK TO MAX OUT THE ALLOWANCES AND IS ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL BUFFER HERE.
THESE SECTION VIEWS TRY TO ILLUSTRATE THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER WITH THE TOP SECTION SHOWING WHAT THAT BY RIGHT USE WOULD LOOK LIKE AND THE BOTTOM SECTION SHOWING, THE 100 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK.
IT INCREASED PRESERVED LANDSCAPE VEGETATION, AND JUST A SIGNIFICANT MORE AMOUNT OF DISTANCE FROM THE ACTUAL HOME TO OUR PROPOSED BUILDING.
NEXT, TO BRIEFLY TALK ON ACCESS.
TIM PROVIDED SOME FEEDBACK HERE TOO, AS WELL.
I JUST WANT TO GO OVER WHAT WE BROUGHT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING BACK IN AUGUST, WHICH WAS TO ACCESS THE NORTHERN PARCEL, WE WILL FULL MOVEMENT FROM TIMES SQUARE AND FROM BELVEDERE.
TO ACCESS THE SOUTHERN OR THE MIDDLE PARCEL.WE WERE PROPOSING FULL MOVEMENT FROM CENTRAL PARK AND FROM COLUMBUS.
WHILE CENTRAL PARK AND COLUMBUS ARE PUBLIC ROADWAYS THAT ARE UNDER THE COUNTY'S JURISDICTION, AND THEY ARE NOT PRIVATE ROADS TO SERVE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.
WE DID TAKE THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE MEETING, AND HAVE PROPOSED TO RESTRICT THOSE ACCESS POINTS ON COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE TO BE EMERGENCY ONLY IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE ANY TRAFFIC FROM BOTH COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE.
THIS DIRECTS ALL TRAFFIC TO OUR COMMUNITY TO BOTH TIMES SQUARE AND CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.
WE DID STUDY BOTH ALTERNATIVES WITH OUR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY.
THAT WOULD BE ALL FOUR INTERSECTIONS BEING FULL MOVEMENT, AND THEN THE SECOND OPTION WITH RESTRICTED ACCESS AT BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS.
WHAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY FOUND IS THAT IN BOTH SCENARIOS, ALL INTERSECTIONS AND ALL MOVEMENTS CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE.
THE LONG STORY SHORT, IS THAT THE REPORT FINDINGS, WHICH IS AVAILABLE TO ALL OF YOU, IS THAT CONTINENTAL'S PROPOSAL WILL RESULT IN LESS TRAFFIC THAN THE EXISTING CONSENT JUDGMENT WOULD ALLOW.
WHILE WE ARE REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN MULTI FAMILY ALLOWANCE, THE TOTAL INTENSITY OF THE SITE IS FAR LESS THAN WHAT THE EXISTING AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR.
>> MOVING INTO WETLANDS, WE HIRED A CONSULTANT, MARKS WETLANDS TO CONDUCT A WETLAND DELINEATION.
THEY DID THAT ON SITE DURING THE GROWING SEASON.
THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE TOWNSHIPS WETLAND CONSULTANT FOR VERIFICATION.
WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT THERE ARE 5.94 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ON SITE.
WE ARE PROPOSING AN IMPACT OF 0.29 ACRES OR IN OTHER WORDS, PRESERVING 95.2% OF THE EXISTING WETLAND FEATURES.
WE ARE LIMITING ALL OF OUR IMPACTS TO STRATEGIC AREAS AND TO NON JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE WILL COMPLY WITH THE TOWNSHIPS WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN, MOST LIKELY BY CREATING WETLANDS ON SITE AT A 1.5 OR 2-1 RATIO, AS WELL AS ANY STATE OF MICHIGAN OR EAGLE REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRE PAYMENT INTO A FUND.
SWITCHING GEARS A LITTLE BIT INTO OUR RESIDENT DEMOGRAPHICS.
OUR AUTHENTICS PRODUCT REALLY IS A MARKET RATE PRODUCT.
WE WILL OCCASIONALLY CALL IT THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
IT'S VERY ATTRACTIVE TO YOUNG PROFESSIONALS,
[01:05:02]
RECENT GRADUATES, SCHOOL TEACHERS, POLICE OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS, AND THEN EMPTY NESORS.IN MICHIGAN TODAY, WE HAVE A PORTFOLIO OF SIX OPERATIONAL COMMUNITIES.
WE SEE AN AVERAGE OF 1.8 UNIT OR PEOPLE PER UNIT IN OUR COMMUNITIES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT HERE.
OUR DEMOGRAPHIC BREAKUP OF OUR MICHIGAN PORTFOLIO IS ALSO SHOWN HERE.
YOU'LL SEE THE LARGEST DEMOGRAPHIC IS THOSE YOUNG PROFESSIONALS OR RECENT COLLEGE GRADS, FROM 18-34, WITH THE SECOND LARGEST BUCKET BEING, 35-64.
YOU GET MIDDLE AGED PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO RENT, YOU GET EMPTY NESTERS, YOU HAVE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE, MOSTLY ENCOMPASSING THAT 18-64 RANGE.
THEN FROM AN AFFORDABILITY PERSPECTIVE, THERE IS AN AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT TO OUR PRODUCT.
WHILE, WE HAVE HIGH QUALITY DEMOGRAPHICS WITH OUR AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF OUR AUTHENTIC PORTFOLIO IN MICHIGAN BEING ABOUT 97,800.
WE HAVE PROJECTED RENTS THAT ARE WELL UNDER THE 100% AMI RENT THRESHOLD.
WHILE MOST OF OUR RENTS FOR OUR STUDIOS, TWO, THREE BEDROOMS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THAT 100% AMI THRESHOLD, THEY AREN'T QUITE HITTING THAT 80% AMI, BUT THEY'RE NEARING THAT THRESHOLD AS WELL.
COMMUNITY WIDE, OUR AVERAGE RENT IS ABOUT 16-78, WHICH AGAIN, IS LESS THAN 100% AMI IN THE AREA, MAKING THIS A ATTAINABLE OPTION FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWNSHIP.
WITH ALL OF THAT SAID, I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THESE PROPOSAL BENEFITS THAT I'VE COVERED.
WE REALLY SEE THIS AS A NEW HIGH QUALITY ATTAINABLE HOUSING CHOICE.
IT WILL CREATE JOBS, BOTH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT.
IT WILL INCREASE THE TAX REVENUE AND WILL CONTRIBUTE OUR RESIDENTS HAVE A HIGH SPENDING POWER THAT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE TOWNSHIP.
WE BELIEVE THIS IS A COMPATIBLE CHARACTER TO THE EXISTING USES AND IS LESS INTENSE THAN THE BUY RIGHT USES THAT EXIST TODAY ON THE SITE.
IT ALSO REDIRECTS COMMERCIAL TO MORE APPROPRIATE AREAS IN THE TOWNSHIP.
MASTER PLAN IDENTIFIES NUMEROUS AREAS WITHIN THE TOWNSHIP THAT THEY'RE SEEKING MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL THAT WOULD HELP REDIRECT THOSE USERS TO, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE VACANCIES AT THE MERIDIAN MALL AND IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
IT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE GIVEN THE HIGH QUALITY FEATURES THAT EXIST ON THE SITE AND THE PRESERVATION OF THOSE FEATURES.
WE ARE A LOCAL OWNER AND OPERATOR WITH A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN MICHIGAN THAT WE BELIEVE WILL PROVIDE BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY.
IN SUMMARY, AGAIN, REALLY SEE OUR REQUEST TO AMEND THE SETTLEMENT TO ALLOW FOR MULTI-FAMILY TO BE AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION THAT IS MASTER PLAN COMPLIANT, SENSITIVE TO THE EXISTING USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT EXISTS OUT THERE TODAY HAS ENHANCED BUFFERS AND SETBACKS, DOES NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPACTS, IS ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS, HAS AN AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT, WILL CREATE JOBS AND WILL INCREASE THE TOWNSHIPS TAX REVENUE ON THE SITE, RESULTING IN A INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.
WITH THAT SAID, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME OR LATER.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM THE LANDOWNER IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MARK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS MR. ZED RIGHT NOW? ANYONE ELSE THAT [OVERLAPPING] COMMISSIONER ROMBACK.
>> I'M HOPING COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL WILL TOUCH ON TRAFFIC STUDIES BECAUSE I KNOW HE UNDERSTANDS BETTER THAN I DO.
MR. MAZZETTI, QUICK QUESTION, DID YOU REVIEW THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY SUBMITTED AHEAD OF THIS MEETING?
>> COUPLE OF COMMENTS AROUND YOUR EPIC RATING AND YOUR BETTER BUSINESS BR RATING IN THERE.
>> I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANYTHING ON THE EPIC RATING, AND I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, BUT I CAN SPEAK TO THE BETTER BUSINESS, YOUR RATING, IF YOU'D LIKE.
I GUESS, LET ME START BY SAYING THE BBB IS NOT AN INDUSTRY STANDARD WHEN IT COMES TO RANKING OF MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPERS.
AS I MENTIONED, WE'VE DEVELOPED, 45,000 UNITS IN 125 COMMUNITIES ACROSS 19 STATES.
[01:10:03]
THAT DOESN'T REALLY GIVE A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF WHO WE ARE.WE LOOK TO RATINGS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL.
THE BBB IS NOT REGULATED IN ANY WAY AND THERE'S NO OVERSIGHT, AND YOU HAVE TO PAY AN ANNUAL FEE TO BE ACCREDITED.
WE DON'T PAY THE BBB TO BECOME ACCREDITED.
BECAUSE OF THAT, WE ARE SOMETIMES UNAWARE WHEN THERE ARE UNRESOLVED COMMENTS WITH THE BBB.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE BBB ESTABLISHES A RATING A GRADE BASED ON YOUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO OR RESOLVE A COMMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF RECEIVING IT.
BECAUSE WE DON'T GET THEM DIRECTLY OFTEN, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY EXIST, WHICH SOMETIMES RESULTS IN A FLUCTUATING GRADE.
THIS WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, SO WE ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO THE BBB.
THEY SENT US, I BELIEVE IT WAS SEVEN COMMENTS, BUT I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT THAT WERE UNRESOLVED.
AGAIN, NORMALLY, WE GO TO THE COMMUNITY LEVEL TO GET WITH OUR IN HOUSE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TEAM.
THEY DON'T MAKE IT TO THE BBB.
BUT WE WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE THOSE COMMENTS.
IF YOU WERE TO LOOK NOW TODAY, DESPITE NOT BEING ACCREDITED BY THE BBB, CONTINENTAL DOES HAVE AN A RATING THAT WAS A RESULT OF US RESPONDING TO ANY OUTSTANDING COMMENTS THAT WERE OUT THERE.
>> THANK YOU. ONE NOTE FOR YOU TOO.
WE'LL APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING AND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THE ANSWERS, BUT WE'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU THE SAME COURTESY AS STAFF.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IS BETTER ADDRESSED IN A FOLLOW UP WITH STAFF, QUESTIONS THAT YOU NEED TO COME BACK TO.
PLEASE ANSWER AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TODAY.
I THINK IT'S HELPFUL, BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO COME BACK TO US, PLEASE DO THAT.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
>> JUST TO FLOW, IT MAY BE AN EPQ RATING, EPI, CAPITAL Q METRIC RATING.
>> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT ONE,.
>> BUT I WILL DO THAT. IF I CAN ALSO ADD, WE DO RELY ON GOOGLE REVIEWS, YELP REVIEWS.
IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT ANY OF OUR COMMUNITIES HERE IN MICHIGAN, YOU WOULD PROBABLY FIND A DIFFERENT RESULT.
IF YOU WERE TO CHECK OUT AUTHENTICS QUINCY STREET OR AUTHENTICS KALAMAZOO OR OTHER PROPERTIES, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, WE DON'T USE THE BBB AS AN INDUSTRY BENCHMARK, AND I THINK VERY FEW PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY DO.
>> I CAN TELL YOU WHERE I WORK. YOU RESPOND TO BETTER BUSINESS BEAU COMPLAINTS WITHOUT BEING A MEMBER.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE DID NOW THAT I GUESS THEY JUST SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS OR WEREN'T SEEN BY US IN SOME WAY.
>> I'M NOT SURE. APPARENTLY, I'M SUPPOSED TO ASK ABOUT TRAFFIC.
DID YOU SEE YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS HERE?
>> I BELIEVE, YES. JULIE IS HERE.
>> GREAT. IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY EASY BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MOST OF THE STUDY.
I'M SORRY. DID YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF?
>> I CAN. I'M JULIE CARROLL ESA MANA BRINK.
I'M THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING GROUP MANAGER.
>> THANK YOU. IS IT THE CASE THAT THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT YOU'VE DONE SO FAR IS SOLELY ADDRESSING MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC?
>> WE DID A VEHICLE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, YES.
WE DID NOT DO A MULTI MODAL TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS.
FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, YOU ANTICIPATE MOST OF THE VEHICLE THE TRIPS GENERATED BY THE SITE WILL BE VEHICLE TRIPS.
>> I'VE SPOKEN IN THE PAST ABOUT THIS PROJECT AS FITTING MY UNDERSTANDING OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
FOR THAT TO ACTUALLY BE THE CASE, FROM A WALKABILITY STANDPOINT, WE'D HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HOW IF SOMEONE WANTED TO PATRONIZE COALS FROM THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT AND THEY WEREN'T GOING TO USE A MOTOR VEHICLE, HOW THEY WOULD SAFELY GET THERE.
I'M WONDERING, WHAT, IF ANY, CONSIDERATION YOU'VE SO FAR GIVEN OR MIGHT GIVE TO HOW FOLKS MIGHT SAFELY GET TO THE BUSINESSES WE HOPE THEY GET TO BOTH TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH.
IF I WERE IN THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT AND WANTED TO TAKE MY FAMILY TO THE TAI PRINCESS RESTAURANT, I WOULD HOPE I WOULDN'T HAVE TO GET IN MY CAR TO DO THAT, AND THAT ME AND MY FAMILY COULD GET THERE SAFELY, WHETHER IT WAS MY FOOT, ON BICYCLES, ON ELECTRIC SCOOTERS, ON WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
>> SURE. I THINK THAT'S A VERY VALID POINT.
WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS EXPLICITLY REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS EVALUATION, BUT I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT TO PROVIDE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS
[01:15:05]
FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.>> THANK YOU. I HOPE THAT'LL BE PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ROAD DEPARTMENT.
THEY HAVE AND THE STATE HAS BEEN INSTALLING MORE AND MORE PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND APPLICATIONS. THEY DON'T WORK EVERYWHERE.
THEY DON'T ALWAYS WORK PERFECTLY, BUT WE ALSO HAVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACTIVATED WARNING LIGHTS THAT HELP PEDESTRIANS FIND A BREAK IN THE TRAFFIC.
THE MORE THAT WE CAN ENSURE THAT A PROJECT LIKE THIS ACTUALLY PROVIDES SAFE NON MOTORIZED ACCESS TO AMENITIES, THE MORE ATTRACTIVE IT BECOMES.
>> SURE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH GEM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ROADS THIS ENTIRE TIME.
CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PROVIDE SOME POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONFIRM WITH THEM IF THEY WOULD AGREE TO IT.
>> THANKS. COMMISSIONER ROMBACK, DID THAT SATISFY YOUR TRAFFIC QUESTION OR [LAUGHTER]
>> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW I WANT TO PHRASE IT BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE COMPARISON POINT IN THE DOCUMENTS IS ZONING AS COMPARED TO WHAT IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
BUT RATHER THAN COMPARING THAT.
IT JUST FEELS LIKE A THE COMPARISON DOESN'T SEEM SPOT ON BECAUSE IT'S A ZONING THAT DOESN'T EXIST, EXCEPT FOR THIS AREA.
IT'S WHAT IS THE HARM? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THERE'S AND THIS IS WRITTEN THERE'S TWO SETS OF TRAFFIC STUDIES.
THERE'S ONE THAT IF THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TRIPS MORE TRIPS GENERATED, THERE'S A STEP UP.
>> WHAT WE PERFORMED HERE WAS A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, WHICH EVALUATED THE IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AT BOTH THE SITE DRIVEWAYS AND OFF SITE INTERSECTION.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT TRAFFIC.
>> THERE'S THE TWO VERSUS THE FOUR POINTS OF ACCESS THAT'S TALKED ABOUT, WHICH ONE IS BETTER?
>> FROM A TRAFFIC IMPACT STANDPOINT, THE LEVEL OF SERVICE REALLY WASN'T ANY DIFFERENT, WHETHER IT WAS FOUR POINTS OF ACCESS OR TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
THAT'S REALLY JUST BECAUSE THE ADJACENT ROADWAY CAN ACCOMMODATE THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES GENERATED BY THIS.
WE REALLY DIDN'T SEE MEASURABLE CHANGE IN OPERATIONS BETWEEN THE FOUR OR THE TWO.
>> HAVE YOU EVER PUT SOMETHING IN LIKE THIS WHERE YOU ONLY HAD THE TWO, BUT THEN THERE WAS A RESTRICTED ACCESS POINT AND YOUR RESIDENTS COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT?
>> WELL, USUALLY THE RESIDENTS DON'T COME BACK TO ME TO COMPLAIN [LAUGHTER] THAT'S ACCESS.
>> THAT'S A FAIR POINT. BUT I'M SAYING, LIKE, SO YOU'VE GOT THIS ACCESS POINT THAT'S CLOSED.
THEN WHAT IF I LIFT THERE, I'D BE LIKE, I ACTUALLY DON'T WANT TO GO ON TO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE BECAUSE THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC, I'D RATHER GO TO THE MAIN ROAD AND THEN TURN ON TO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, RATHER THAN OUT OF THE NEIGHBOR ROAD.
>> WE CAN UTILIZE DIFFERENT MEANS AND METHODS FOR ACHIEVING EMERGENCY ONLY, IT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO NECESSARILY LOOK LIKE AN ACCESS POINT THAT A RESIDENT WOULD SEE AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT IF THAT WERE TO MAKE SENSE.
YOU CAN DO THINGS LIKE HAVE A MOUNTABLE CURB WITH A CERTAIN PAVER THAT AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE COULD UTILIZE AS SECONDARY ACCESS THAT A RESIDENT WOULDN'T CONFUSE AS A POTENTIAL ACCESS.
BUT IN GENERAL, I THINK OUR RESIDENTS ARE LIKE ANY PERSON ADAPTABLE, AND SO WHEN THEY MOVE IN, IF THAT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE ACCESS POINT, I DON'T THINK THEY WILL EVER EXPECT THAT IT BECOMES ONE.
DID WE DID WE MODEL THIS? IF WE DID, I'M SORRY.
THIS DESIGN WITHOUT ANY ACCESS POINT ON CENTRAL PARK?
>> NO. WE WE HAD ASSUMED THAT SO THE ONES A CIRCLE IN BLUE UP THERE, THOSE WERE ASSUMED IN BOTH SCENARIOS.
THOSE WERE TWO THE ONES THAT WE CONSIDERED WITH AND WITHOUT WERE THE ONES THAT ARE IN RED.
>> I GUESS IN MY MIND, IF I'M THINKING ABOUT CURB CUTS AND THE CENTRAL PARK ROAD IS THE THE COLLECTOR STREET, DON'T WOULDN'T WE WANT TO IN THEORY LIMIT CURVE CUTS TO THAT?
>> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
I'M GOING TO JUMP IN FOR A SECOND THAT THIS WAS CHANGED BECAUSE RESIDENTS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
[01:20:02]
EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT INCREASED TRAFFIC ON BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS THAT GO INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR POTENTIALLY LIMITING TRAFFIC ON THOSE STREETS.>> FROM A LIFE SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, WE UNDERSTAND FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE NEED TWO POINTS OF ACCESS TO BOTH PARCELS.
IN ALL SCENARIOS, THERE ARE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
WE RESTRICTED THE ONES ON BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS BECAUSE OF NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK THAT THEY WERE NOT WANTING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC ON THE PUBLIC ROADS THAT SERVE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.
WE HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED REMOVING THE ACCESS FROM CENTRAL PARK.
WE BELIEVE THE VOLUMES CAN HANDLE THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.
WE'VE MET WITH THE ROADWAY DEPARTMENT WHO DID NOT HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH THE ACCESS POINT AS PROPOSED.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, AND THIS IS GETTING A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF LAND USE.
BUT I SEE THAT YOU HAVE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SWIMMING POOL IN ONE SECTION.
IS IT YOUR PLAN THAT THESE TWO SECTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AS ONE LARGER PROPERTY AND THAT RESIDENTS OF THE NORTHERN AREA ARE GOING TO ALSO USE AMENITIES THERE IN THE SOUTHERN AREA? IF SO, I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL'S QUESTION ABOUT WALKABILITY BETWEEN THE TWO AND HOW PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO TRAVERSE BY FOOT OR OTHERWISE, IF THEY'RE NOT.
>> YES. THE INTENT IS FOR ALL RESIDENTS TO HAVE ACCESS TO ALL COMMUNITY AMENITIES REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEIR BUILDING IS.
WE ARE PROPOSING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SIDEWALK.
I KNOW IT'S HARD TO SEE HERE, BUT WE'RE PROPOSING IT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COLUMBUS AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BELVEDERE.
THAT WILL HELP GET RESIDENTS FROM THE NORTH TO THE MIDDLE PARCEL BY UTILIZING THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK NETWORK THAT EXISTS IN ADDITION TO THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
>> DO YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT THAT MAKES FOR MORE QUESTIONS, EITHER FOR STAFF OR FOR THE DEVELOPER, IF YOU'D LIKE TO? BUT YOU CAN ASK THEM NOW IF YOU WANT.
>> THANKS. IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR UNITS PER ACRE? CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE, PLEASE?
>> I THINK IT WAS 1.8 UNITS PER ACRE.
>> NO, 10 POINT. THERE WAS SOME SLIDE WHERE YOU COMPARED.
ANYWAYS, MY QUESTION IS, IS THE UNITS PER ACRE THAT YOU'RE SHOWING US, IT'S WHERE YOU COMPARED IT TO YOUR OTHER PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.
>> HERE YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR AVERAGE RESIDENCE PER UNIT.
I WAS CURIOUS IN COMPARING THAT TO THIS COMPLEX.
ARE YOU COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES HERE? IS THIS OTHER UNITS THAT ARE TWO BEDROOM AND YOU'RE COMPARING THOSE AGAINST AUTHENTIC, THAT'S ALSO TWO BEDROOM OR ARE THESE FOUR BEDROOMS AND THREE BEDROOMS AND ALL MIXED UP?
>> ALL OF OUR PROPERTIES HAVE A MIX BETWEEN STUDIO AND THREE BEDROOMS. THIS WAS THE AVERAGE.
WITHIN OUR MICHIGAN PORTFOLIO OF SIX COMMUNITIES, WE HAVE AN AVERAGE OF 1.8 RESIDENTS PER UNIT.
WE COMPARED THAT AGAINST OUR NATIONWIDE PORTFOLIO AS WELL, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR IN NUMBER.
WE BELIEVE THAT TO BE A GOOD ESTIMATE FOR THIS PROPOSAL.
IT IS AN AVERAGE BASED ON ALL THE UNITS.
WE HAVE A MAKEUP IN THIS PROPOSAL OF 8% OF THE UNITS BEING STUDIOS, THAT WOULD BE 27 UNITS, 33% OF THE UNITS BEING ONE BEDROOMS, WHICH WOULD BE 102 UNITS, 50% OF THE UNITS BEING TWO BEDROOMS,
[01:25:01]
IT WOULD BE 156 UNITS, AND THEN 8% OF THE UNITS BEING THREE BEDROOMS, SO 27 UNITS.WE BELIEVE WITH THAT UNIT MIX, THE 1.8 COMPARISON WOULD STILL STAND HERE.
>> THE PARKING, IS THAT DETERMINED BASED ON THAT 1.8 NUMBER OR IS THE PARKING BASED ON THE PROPOSED PARKING?
>> THE PROPOSED PARKING IS BASED ON MERIDIAN TOWNSHIPS ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES A CERTAIN NUMBER OF STALLS PER BEDROOM.
A STUDIO HAS A REQUIREMENT VERSUS A THREE BEDROOM THAT HAS A DIFFERENT PARKING REQUIREMENT.
WE HIT THE CODE REQUIRED PARKING BASED ON OUR UNIT MIX.
>> ARE YOU GOING ABOVE THAT REQUIREMENT AT ALL OR ARE YOU STAYING AT THAT MINIMUM?
>> THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR OUR PROPOSAL TODAY ABOUT 1.82 STALLS PER UNIT, WHICH IS ABOUT I, THINK IT'S 569 STALLS.
WE ARE RIGHT AT THAT BECAUSE WE DO BELIEVE THAT IS ACTUALLY MORE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED BASED ON AGAIN, OUR PORTFOLIO DATA.
OUR PORTFOLIO, WE TYPICALLY SEE A NEED FOR 1.75 STALLS PER UNIT WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENT HERE BEING ABOUT 1.82, WE'RE HITTING THE CODE, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING ABOVE IT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION IN THIS PICTURE, AND IT MAY JUST BE A FUNCTION OF NOT HAVING UPDATED THIS MAP.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME STUFF UP AT THE NORTHEAST SIDE NEAR BELVEDERE, LIKE SOUTH OF BELVEDERE THAT ISN'T IN SOME OF THE OTHER DRAWINGS.
>> THE CONFIGURATION WHERE IT'S A BUILDING NUMBER 2 THAT JUST LOOKS DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER DRAWINGS.
THIS IS A VERY OLD PLAN. I'M SORRY.
>> LET ME NOT STICK ON THAT ONE. THANK YOU.
>> I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER ROCKS, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
YOU SHOWED US YOUR SQUARE FOOT.
MY QUESTION IS, WHAT'S YOUR COST PER SQUARE FOOT RENTAL UNIT RATE?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.
ERIC, YOU MIGHT HAVE IT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE THAT NOW.
>> BECAUSE YOU'RE SHOWING US BASICALLY THE RENTAL COST, HOW MUCH DOES THIS COST PER MONTH.
BUT THAT CAN BE BASED ON LOTS OF DIFFERENT FACTORS.
I'M ASKING, IS YOUR COST PER SQUARE FOOT ACTUALLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT RATE?
>> SURE. I'LL GO BACK TO THAT THAT SLIDE.
GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ERIC HANS.
ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE RENTAL RATE?
>> I MAY HAVE USED THE WRONG WORD.
IT'S THE AVERAGE AUTHENTIC RENT.
YOU'VE GOT 1,472 FOR THE STUDIO.
I'M ASKING THE AMI RENT, IS THAT BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET IN THE APARTMENT?
>> THE AFFORDABILITY METRIC IS BASED ON INCOME, AND THAT'S DESIGNATED BY THE STATISTICAL AREA.
THAT'S 30% OF 100% OF AREA MEETING INCOME DIVIDED BY 12.
>> BUT FOR A STUDIO APARTMENT THAT IS THE SAME SIZE AS YOUR STUDIO APARTMENTS THAT YOU'RE RENTING?
>> THERE'S NO SIZE CATEGORIZATION FOR THE ATTAINABILITY.
BUT WE CAN PROVIDE THE PER SQUARE FOOT RENTS.
THERE'S A WIDE RANGE DEPENDING ON THE SIZE.
THE STUDIO SIZE IS ROUGHLY 500 SQUARE FEET, SO THEY'RE IN ROUGHLY $2 RANGE, $1.90.
>> I INCLUDED THE SQUARE FOOTAGES HERE ON THIS SLIDE OF OUR UNITS.
YOU'LL SEE THE RANGE FOR THE STUDIOS THROUGH THE THREE BEDROOMS, AND WE CAN PROVIDE THAT RENT ON THE PER SQUARE FOOT, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, OR YOU CAN DO THE QUICK DIVISION HERE.
>> THANK YOU. ROUGHLY FOR THE STUDIO RATES IN TODAY'S TERMS,
[01:30:03]
NOT FUTURE TERMS WHEN WE TREND RENT FOR INCREASES, UP TO THE TIME WHEN WE WOULD OPEN DOWN THE ROAD.THE STUDIO RENTS RANGED FROM $2.09-$2.22 PER FOOT.
>> CAN I PIGGYBACK ON COMMISSIONER BROOKS' QUESTIONS ON THE SLIDE, PLEASE? I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY IN TALKING ABOUT THIS SLIDE AND AFFORDABILITY, THERE WAS MENTION OF THE MISSING MIDDLE AND I'M CURIOUS AS TO THE CONFLATING OF THE MISSING MIDDLE WITH A RENT THAT IS AT 100% AMI RATHER THAN 80% AMI.
IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
>> SURE. THE STANDARD AFFORDABILITY THRESHOLDS ARE TYPICALLY AT 60% AMI, 80% AMI, 100, 120, AND THAT GIVES YOU YOUR INDICATION OF WHERE YOUR RENT IS AT IN RELATION TO THE INCOMES OF THE AREA.
WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS THAT WHILE WE ARE BELOW 100% AMI, WE'RE NOT QUITE AT THE 80% AMI RENT RATE.
I DIDN'T TRY TO CREATE AN AVERAGE SINCE IT ISN'T A STANDARD THAT IS USED.
BUT IF YOU WERE TO TRY TO DO THAT, YOU WOULD SEE THAT SOME OF OUR UNITS ARE AT 81, 83, 90% AMI, WHICH WOULD BE THEORETICALLY MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE OR ATTAINABLE THAN OTHER MARKET RATE APARTMENTS THAT MIGHT EXIST.
>> IF YOUR UNITS ARE GOING TO AVERAGE ABOUT 1.8 PEOPLE PER UNIT, THEN I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS ACCURATE THAT THESE RENTAL PRICES COULD BE UNDER 80% AMI.
PERHAPS IF YOU ARE AVERAGING FOR FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE PER UNIT AT THESE PRICES, THEN MAYBE THEY WOULD BE AT 80% AMI OR LESS.
BUT AT 1.8, THAT MATH DOESN'T COMPUTE.
>> WHAT WE'RE USING FOR THE AFFORDABILITY IS THE INGHAM COUNTY PUBLISHED RATES.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THEY SET THE TOP OF MARKET RESTRICTIONS OR AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS.
IT'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD, BUT THEY ALSO DESIGNATE BY CLASS OF UNITS, SO THAT'S EFFICIENCY THROUGH A THREE BEDROOM.
FOR INSTANCE, WHAT WE'RE REFERENCING THERE, AND THIS IS THE PUBLISHED RATE FROM APRIL 1ST OF THIS YEAR.
THE 100% OF AMI TOP OF RENT IS 1,765.
WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, AND THAT INCLUDES UTILITIES.
YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE UTILITY ALLOWANCE AND DEDUCT THAT.
WE'RE SHOWING THAT BASED ON THE TYPES OF UTILITIES WE WOULD PROVIDE THAT ARE TENANT PAID.
WE'RE DEDUCTING THAT RANGE FOR THIS AFFORDABILITY CHECK MORE OR LESS.
BUT WE CAN PROVIDE YOU THE PUBLISHED SCHEDULES IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
>> SURE. WHAT UTILITIES ARE INCLUDED?
>> THE TENANT PAYS FOR ALL UTILITIES.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THE NUMBER, 1,765? COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT, I APOLOGIZE.
>> THE AFFORDABILITY THRESHOLDS INCLUDE ALL UTILITIES.
EVERY GEOGRAPHY USUALLY INCLUDES AN ANNUAL ALLOWANCE SCHEDULE FOR THE SAME UTILITIES, AND WE CAN PROVIDE THAT AS WELL.
ROUGHLY, SORRY, I'M LOOKING FOR MY SPREADSHEET ON THIS.
IT DEPENDS ON IF YOU HEAT WITH GAS OR ELECTRIC, THERE'S DIFFERENT UTILITY ALLOWANCES.
WE USE THAT IN ORDER TO INCOME QUALIFY IF WE WERE TO RESTRICT, WHICH WE DON'T PLAN TO.
WE SEE THIS IS THE MARKET RATE FOR THIS PART OF THE METRO, AS COMPARED TO HIGHER URBAN RATES, IF IT'S A HIGH RISE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT TO HELP EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE HERE, AN EFFICIENCY UNIT, THE UTILITY ALLOWANCE, AS OF THIS YEAR'S SCHEDULE FOR GAS HEAT AS WE PROVIDE, WE PROVIDE ELECTRIC APPLIANCES AND SO ON, YOU CAN PICK AND CHOOSE.
A STUDIO UTILITY ALLOWANCE IS $160, ONE BEDROOM IS 178, TWO BEDROOM WOULD BE 243, BASED ON WHAT WE PROVIDE, THREE BEDROOM WOULD BE 328.
WE'RE DEDUCTING THAT FROM THE MAXIMUM TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL RENTAL RATE BECAUSE WE EXPECT OUR TENANTS TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN UTILITIES.
>> ARE WE READY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME, BUT WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME, TOO.
LET'S DO FIVE-MINUTE BREAK, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL HEAR FROM EVERYBODY WHO'S HERE TO SPEAK.
[01:35:03]
MAKE SURE THEY ALL GET A CHANCE TO TALK. THANK YOU.I'M GETTING ALL STRAIGHT. WE READY TO RECONVENE? I'M GOING TO CALL US BACK TO ORDER AT 8:09.
NOW I GET TO SAY THE FUN PART ABOUT OUR THREE MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENTS.
[12. PUBLIC REMARKS ]
I WILL HOPEFULLY NOT MINGLE ANYBODY'S NAME TOO MUCH.SOME OF THIS WRITING IS A LITTLE HARD TO READ.
IF I DON'T PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME CORRECTLY, PLEASE HELP US FOR THE RECORD WHEN YOU COME TO THE TABLE OR COME TO THE PODIUM.
YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
THERE WILL BE A TIMER THAT WILL BEEP WHEN 30 SECONDS LEFT, HOPEFULLY.
IT WILL HOPEFULLY BE, BUT WATCH THE LIGHTS.
>> AS I SAID BEFORE, IT IS THE BOARD'S PRACTICE NOT TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS, SO WE WILL BE LISTENING AND TAKING NOTES AND HEARING YOU.
BUT WE WON'T BE ANSWERING QUESTIONS NOW.
YOUR COMMENTS, THOUGH, AND THE LETTERS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED MAY GENERATE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT WE'LL HAVE FOR STAFF.
WE'LL BE TALKING A LITTLE BIT MORE AFTER THIS.
FIRST UP, I HAVE PREM [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN FOLLOWED BY PAULETT GRACE.
>> HI, GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.
I LIVE IN CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, 1532 BALDER AVENUE.
I'M GLAD THAT WE ARE ALREADY DISCUSSING ABOUT THE TRAFFIC ISSUES THERE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ROADS AROUND THAT AREA, SO MOST OF THE ROADS ARE CURRY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, THERE ARE FIVE ROADS THAT ARE HITTING THAT ROAD.
AS OF NOW, WITH THE CURRENT POPULATION ITSELF, THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN AND OUT, AND THERE ARE REGULAR ACCIDENTS THAT HAPPEN ON THE TIMES SQUARE AND CENTRAL PARK BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF BLIND SPOTS.
ALSO THE BELVIDERE AVENUE AND THE COLUMBUS DRIVE, IS ALSO CURRY, AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME BLIND SPOTS THERE.
I'M WORRIED ABOUT HAVING THESE APARTMENTS BUILT HERE.
THE SLIDE SAY IS THAT THERE ARE ONLY 562 PEOPLE LIVING THERE, BUT I DOUBT BECAUSE IF YOU INCLUDE CHILDREN AND PETS AND ALL THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN THAT, I GUESS.
HAVING SO MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT SMALLER AREA, MY OPINION IS, IT'S GOING TO CONGEST THE AREA, AND IT MIGHT CHOKE THE PEOPLE THERE.
ALSO, WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY THAT NORTH AND SOUTH, THE BELVIDERE AVENUE IS TRYING TO SPLIT THAT NORTH AND SOUTH.
IF THE PEOPLE HAVE TO CROSS THE ROADS, THEY MIGHT JUST CROSS THE ROADS ON THE OPEN LANDS THERE.
THAT MIGHT ALSO CREATE A TRAFFIC ISSUE THERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THESE POINTS MAINLY ABOUT THE TRAFFIC.
ALREADY, WE ARE SEEING A LOT OF ACCIDENTS THERE, SO I'D LIKE TO CONSIDER MY POINTS, AND MY REQUEST IS ALREADY WE HAVE THE ZONING AS COMMERCIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL.
THE RESIDENTIAL, IF WE CAN EXPAND THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES TO COVER THAT EXTRA RESIDENTIAL AREA, TO HAVE THE SINGLE HOMES BUILT THERE, THAT WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT IS PAULETT GRACE, FOLLOWED BY [INAUDIBLE].
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M PAULETT GRACE FROM 4824 NASSAU STREET IN CENTRAL PARK STATE.
UP TIL NOW, THOSE OF US IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN DIRECTING A LOT OF OUR CONCERNS, VERY EXTENSIVE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE GATHERED ABOUT WHAT WE BELIEVE ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, AND WE HAVE BEEN FUNNELING THAT TO THE BOARD.
WE'RE HERE TO ALSO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE EXPRESS OUR OPPOSITION.
I EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE DEVELOPMENT, AND OUR COLLECTIVE VOICE HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR AND CONSISTENT WHEN WE'VE SENT MESSAGES TO THE BOARD THAT WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ON OUR COMMUNITY'S CHARACTER AND SAFETY IN THE FUTURE HAS BEEN ALREADY DISCUSSED TO SOME GREAT EXTENT HERE, THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY, THE INCREASED DENSITY.
[01:40:02]
LET'S BE CLEAR. WHAT THE MAIN CONCERN IS, IS THAT THE DEVELOPER IS ASKING TO INCREASE DENSITY THAT CURRENTLY STANDS AT 8-10.2.THAT IS WHERE THE CONCERN IS COMING AND ALL THE CONGESTION, ALL THE TRAFFIC, STUFFING 300 APARTMENTS INTO THIS SMALL AREA AND ALL THE IMPACT THAT THAT WILL HAVE, THAT IS WHAT THE CONCERN IS.
IT'S THE DENSITY LEVEL, AND THAT WAS LITIGATED YEARS AGO.
WE SEE NO REASON WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO CHANGE WHAT WAS ALREADY LITIGATED IN THE COURTS AND STANDS TODAY.
WHY INCREASE THE DENSITY WHEN IT WAS NOT ASKED FOR OR CONSIDERED IN THE PAST.
OUR TOWNSHIP IS KNOWN FOR ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE, AND THE SCALE AND THE DESIGN OF THE CPE WILL DIMINISH PROPERTY VALUES IN THE OVERALL APPEAL OF THE AREA.
IT WILL BE SIMPLY TOO CONGESTED.
YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO FIND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BUY THE HOMES IN CPE, ALTHOUGH YOU'LL PROBABLY FIND A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO FIND THE INEXPENSIVE APARTMENTS THAT WILL BE FRONTING US.
WE HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ALIGNS WITH THE STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.
THESE ARE NOT HIGH END APARTMENTS.
THEY ARE AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS, AND THEY WILL BRING IN MANY PEOPLE THAT WILL IMPACT THE SECURITY AND SAFETY OF THE AREA, NOT ONLY FROM THE TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE, BUT FROM THE PEOPLE, PEDESTRIANS WALKING THE STREETS AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
BELIEVE ME, AS A RESIDENT THERE TODAY, WE ALREADY CONSTANTLY SEE NEAR MISS TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND LOTS OF STUFF GOING ON EVEN FROM THE INCREASE FROM THE OKEMOS RESERVE THAT HAS JUST COME ON BOARD, AND WE'RE SEEING ALREADY SO MUCH IMPACT FROM THAT TRAFFIC.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S YOUR MINUTES.
>> THANKS. SORRY, OUR 30 MINUTE WARNING IS NOT WORKING, SO YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO WATCH THE LIGHTS.
NEXT UP IS JAY SHI FOLLOWED BY HANG HANNA YUEN.
>> GOOD EVENING, JAY SHI, 1572 [INAUDIBLE] LANE.
I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED THE CENTRAL PARK DRIVE PROJECT, PARTICULARLY OPPOSED TO THE REZONING REQUEST.
FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO PUT YOURSELF IN OUR SHOES.
JUST IMAGINE YOU'RE THE RESIDENTS OF CPE.
YOUR KIDS ARE JUST LIKE RUNNING AROUND IN A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT BECAUSE OF ALL THE PROPOSED CHANGE REZONING, AND ALSO THIS PROJECT, YOUR QUALITY LIFE IS NO LONGER THERE, AND YOUR KIDS ARE NO SAFE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WANTED TO BEGIN BY HIGHLIGHTING THE IRRESPONSIBLE ACTIONS THAT OCCURRED JUST LAST WEEK.
I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY HAVE ALREADY AWARE OF THIS.
THE DEVELOPERS AND THE LANDLORD BEGAN CLEANING THE LAND AND CONDUCTING SOIL SAMPLING WITHOUT OFFICIAL APPROVAL.
THIS SHOWS A DISREGARD FOR THE TOWNSHIP RULES POLICIES AND THE PROPER APPROVAL PROCESS.
ALL THESE ACTIONS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE, DISRESPECTFUL AND A CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF GREED.
THEY ARE PRIORITIZING THEIR INTERESTS OVER THE COMMUNITY, WHILE UNDERMINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWNSHIP BOARD PROCESSES.
ALTHOUGH ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN, I MUST ASK, DOES THIS BEHAVIOR SUGGEST THAT THOSE PROCESSES ARE MERELY FORMALITIES, AND PUBLIC VOICES NO LONGER MATTER.
THIS IS HOW I FEEL AS A RESIDENT.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER ISSUES REGARDING THE REZONING.
HOW CAN DEVELOPER ASSUME CHANGING THE COMMERCIAL USE TO THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS IS MORE BENEFICIAL FOR THE CPE RESIDENTS.
I DISAGREE. OF COURSE, THE TRAFFIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS, ALL THOSE STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE PERSONS AND PARTIES HIRED BY THE DEVELOPER.
ARE THEY REALLY RELIABLE AND VALID? I'M NOT SURE.
MY AREA OF EXPERTISE IS SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND PROJECTS LIKE THIS REALLY PRODUCE THE AESTHETIC POLLUTION AND ALSO DOESN'T CARE THE LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.
THIS PROJECT IS IN COMPARABLE WITH THE CHARACTER AND SAFETY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT PRIORITIZE THE DEVELOPER'S INTERESTS OVER FAMILIES, CHILDREN, AND THE WELL BEING OF THE RESIDENTS.
[01:45:02]
DEVELOPMENT SHOULDN'T TAKE PLACE AT THE COST OF THE CURRENT RESIDENTS AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND SAFETY.LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO DOBE R PROJECT.
I URGE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND THE TOWNSHIP TO DENY THIS PROJECT PROPOSAL, PARTICULARLY THE REZONING REQUEST, ASCP. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT STEP IS HANG HANNA YUEN FOLLOWED BY [INAUDIBLE]
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS HANNA YUEN.
I'M LIVING IN 4855 NORTH STREET.
MY HOUSE, IF YOU LOOK INTO THE MAP, YOU CAN SEE THAT, THE BUILDING WILL BE JUST BEHIND.
IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE JUST BEHIND MY HOUSE, SO YOU KNOW HOW CONCERNED I AM WHEN I COME HERE.
WHEN I TALK TO YOU, THE FIRST ONE I THINK IS THE OVERALL IMAGE OF THE TOWN ITSELF AND ALSO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BECAUSE IF YOU GO INTO THIS AREA, WHEN WE FIRST COME HERE, WE HEARD ABOUT OKEMOS.
IT'S ALWAYS THE DREAM TOWN OR CITY.
WE CAN CORRESPOND CITY COMPARED TO OTHER LOCATIONS LIKE HARLEY'S OR WILLIAMSTON, PEOPLE ALWAYS SAY HIGHLY ABOUT OKEMOS AND WE'RE VERY PROUD TO CHOOSE THE HOUSE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT THEN IF YOU'LL BUILD A LOT OF HIGH DENSITY BUILDINGS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BASICALLY, YOU'LL DAMAGE THE OVERALL QUALITY, HIGH QUALITY, AND PEACEFUL IMAGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN THE LONG RUN, IT'S GOING TO HURT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY ITSELF AND ALSO THE IMAGE OF OUR CITY OR OUR TOWN.
THAT IS THE FOURTH POINT I WANT TO RAISE HERE, AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT ONE BECAUSE EVERY TOWN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, REALLY LOOK UP TO OKEMOS AND LOOK INTO HOW PEACEFUL, HOW BEAUTIFUL OUR TOWN IS.
THEN THE SECOND POINT I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE HERE IS SECURITY.
BEFORE I MOVED INTO OKEMOS AREA, I WAS LIVING IN CENTRAL PARK STATE FOR ABOUT 2.5 YEARS.
YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT EVERY MONTH, WE HAVE TO HEAR THE FIRE ALARM.
BECAUSE THERE'S VERY NOISY AND ALSO BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN THE APARTMENT, THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE PROBLEM.
EVERY MONTH, SEVERAL TIMES WE HAVE TO GO OUT.
EVEN DURING THE NIGHTTIME, MANY TIME AT THE TIME MY DAUGHTER WAS VERY SMALL IN THE BATHROOM, THEY HAVE TO FINISH EVERYTHING VERY QUICK AND GO OUT OF THE HOUSE.
NOW, IMAGINE THAT YOU HAVE A SEVERAL BUILDINGS BEHIND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEN FOR SURE IN THE FUTURE, YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A LOTS OF NOISES AND ALSO FIRE ALARMS. THAT IS ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT, IN ADDITION TO THE TRAFFIC AND ALSO THE DENSITY OF THE BUILDING.
THE LAST ONE I THINK WE SHOULD RAISE ABOUT HERE IS THAT THE CHANGING OF THE ZONE.
WHO KNOWS THAT WHETHER YOU HAVE MORE BUILDINGS AND YOU HAVE MORE A PARCHMENT WILL BE BETTER COMPARED TO THE EXISTING ZONE THAT RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL? BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK INTO THAT AREA, YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT IS AN OPEN SPACE, REALLY BEAUTIFUL.
IF YOU LOOK IN ROUTE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU CAN SEE THAT OTHER AREAS, LOTS OF A PARCHMENT, OR LOTS OF HOUSES, BUT THAT AREA IS REALLY MUCH OPEN.
IT'S VERY MUCH THE AREA WHERE LOTS OF PEOPLE GOING THERE [OVERLAPPING] BUT NOW IF YOU HAVE A DENSITY HOUSES, IT WILL DISAPPEAR VERY SOON.
>> THOSE ARE THREE IMPORTANT POINTS.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT STEP IS NARA [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN FOLLOWED BY DOUG HARTMAN.
>> WELL, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO TALK TODAY.
MY NAME IS NARA [INAUDIBLE] AND I LIVE IN 1529 BELVIDERE AVENUE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING NEW TO ADD.
IT'S THINGS THAT MY FRIENDS HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.
OBVIOUSLY, I'M OPPOSED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT I WANT TO UNDERSCORE A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THE TRAFFIC IN OUR DEVELOPER FRONT SAID, THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE LESS THAN WHAT THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC COULD BE, BUT IT STILL WOULD BE AT LEAST 2000 MORE TRAFFIC IN TERMS OF PER DAY, AND THAT IS A LOT FOR CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.
HOWEVER YOU DIRECT THE TRAFFIC FROM THOSE APARTMENTS, THEY'RE ALL COMING INTO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.
ALREADY IT'S STARTING TO BECOME VERY DENSE, AND YOU'RE ADDING 2000 MORE TRAFFICS TO THAT DENSE AREA.
THANK YOU AGAIN. I WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE TRAFFIC ISSUE, AND I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXPERT IN OUR MEETS.
I HOPE THAT YOU ALL LISTEN TO HER IN TERMS OF THINKING ABOUT HOW YOU MAKE YOUR DECISIONS.
[01:50:05]
>> THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS DOUG HARTMAN, FOLLOWED BY RU PENDER VERDI.
>> HI. I'M DOUG HARTMAN FROM 4818 NASSAU STREET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY WIFE AND FAMILY LIVE THERE.
I LIKE TO RAISE QUESTIONS IN TWO AREAS.
THE FIRST IS ABOUT QUALITY OF THE MANAGEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION.
WHILE WE CAN'T OBSERVE THE OPERATION PROCEDURES AND THE QUALITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION, THERE ARE PROXIES AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
EARLIER, THE QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU AND THE EPIQ.
THOSE ARE WIDELY AVAILABLE DATA, AS WELL AS GOOGLE AND YELP.
WHILE IT'S EASY TO GO IN AND FIX THOSE BY SIMPLY RESPONDING WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD.
THE MORE SUBSTANTIVE AND IMPORTANT PART IS WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THOSE COMPLAINTS AND THOSE ISSUES.
I THINK THOSE SPEAK AS PROXIES TO THE QUALITY OF THE OPERATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION TO BE DONE.
STATEMENTS ABOUT UNFIXED APPLIANCES, CHEAP CONSTRUCTION, NEIGHBORS LIVING THERE FOR YEARS, HEARING THEIR NEIGHBORS SNEEZE AND COUGH NEXT DOOR.
UNKEPT LANDSCAPING, ARE THESE THE MANAGERS WE WANT, THE CONSTRUCTION WE WANT IN THIS SITUATION? MY SECOND COMMENT HAS TO DO WITH THE MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE.
I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER HOW THIS FITS IN WITH OTHER PARTS OF MASTER PLANS FOR THE COMMUNITIES.
IF YOU LOOK FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE 2024 PATHWAY MASTER PLAN, THERE'S A PROPOSED PATHWAY TO PASS THROUGH THIS AREA HEADING EAST OVER TO VANADA.
IT'S NOT REPRESENTED IN THE PLAN, AND IT HASN'T BEEN PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
I ASK YOU TO PLEASE CONSIDER WHETHER THIS FITS WITH OTHER PARTS OF MASTER PLANS THAT ARE IN THE WORKS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT STEP IS RU PENDER VERDI, FOLLOWED BY SARA KOVACH.
>> HI, MY NAME IS MR. PENDER DIA.
I'M A RESIDENT OF CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.
I LIVE AT 1551 MAIDEN LANE OKEMOS.
TODAY HERE, I HAVE THREE MAIN CONCERNS.
OF COURSE, EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT TRAFFIC, AND THE NUMBER 1 PROBLEM I HAVE IS EVERY LEFT TURN ON CENTRAL PARK IS A NIGHTMARE.
I KNOW THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS DONE, BUT WHEN WE GET HOME AND IF YOU HAD TO TAKE ANY OF THESE LEFT TURNS, IT IS DONE AT LEAST 10-15 MINUTES WAITING IN LINE TO TURN A LEFT.
ONCOMING TRAFFIC NEVER STOPS, AND DON'T EVEN CARE WHO'S TURNING LEFT OF COURSE.
BUT AGAIN, I'VE SEEN MANY MISSES IN ACCIDENTS TOO.
NUMBER 2, WHY DO WE NEED APARTMENTS HERE? IF YOU LOOK AT ANY APARTMENT.COM, RIGHT NOW, STANDARDS STATS THERE ARE 400 AVAILABLE APARTMENTS IN OKEMOS ALONE IN FOUR MILE RADIUS, AND WHY 300 MORE.
WHY CAN'T A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR MORE HOMES TO BUY AND BUILD THEIR FAMILIES HERE? WHY NOT MORE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HERE? NUMBER 3, WHEN WE BOUGHT THE LAND IN CENTRAL PARK IS SAID, BUILDING THE HOME, WE ASKED IDS THAT, WHAT IS YOUR FUTURE USE FOR THE FRONT ACREAGE THAT WE HAVE? THEY SAID, IT'S CS, AND CUSTOM THAT IS VERY HAPPY FOR US BECAUSE THERE'S NOT MUCH COMING IN, BUT NOW IT'S CHANGED TO A RESIDENTIAL OR HIGH DENSITY.
IS THIS LIKE A BAIT AND SWITCH NOW.
ARE WE PLAYED AS A PONDS TO FULFILL THOSE LOTS THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT IN HOMES? WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS DEVELOPMENT.
ALL WE NEED HERE IS MORE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO SPREAD OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT STEP IS SARA KOVACH, FOLLOWED BY EDDIE DUE.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS SARA KOVACH.
I LIVE AT 4849 NASSAU WAY, AND I'VE TRIED TO REFLECT UPON AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, WHAT IS WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW, AND I THINK WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT TRAFFIC, WHICH I ALSO AGREE WITH THAT, AND I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE IN GETTING IT INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC STUDY DONE RATHER THAN ONE COMPLETED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER.
BUT MY EVEN GREATER CONCERN IS THE IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE WETLANDS THAT EXIST THERE AND SPECIFICALLY THE DRAINAGE, MAKING SURE THAT, IF ANYTHING,
[01:55:02]
SHOULD BE BUILT THERE, THAT IT CAN STILL ACCOMMODATE EVERYTHING AND STILL I GUESS, ACCEPT ALL OF THAT.WILL THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER COME IN? WILL THEY HAVE A PLAN? I KNOW WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW OUR HOUSE DRAINS, IT'S STRAIGHT OUT TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AM I GOING TO HAVE A BASEMENT BACKUP FLOOD AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, WHICH I'VE NEVER HAD IN THE TIME THAT I'VE OWNED MY HOUSE IN 15 YEARS.
I REALLY HOPE THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
I JUST HOPE THAT AS YOU CONSIDER ALL OF THESE THINGS, THAT YOU'LL REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS AND NOT JUST IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT ALWAYS IN OUR BEST INTERESTS.
>> NEXT STEP IS EDDIE DUE FOLLOWED BY HENRY QUARK.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS EDDIE DUE.
I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE ZONING ISSUE WHY THE HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT SHOULD NOT BE PLACED DIRECTLY NEXT TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, IT BASICALLY WANT TO PUT THE 14 UNIT PER ACRE APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT BESIDE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT GOES AGAINST ONE OF THE KEY PRINCIPLES OF GOOD URBAN PLANNING, COMPATIBILITY.
ZONING SHOULD PROVIDE A SMOOTH TRANSITION BETWEEN LAND USERS.
NOT A RAPID SHIFT THAT BRINGS PARKING LOT, TALL BUILDINGS, AND TRAFFIC RIGHT NEXT TO A QUIET, VERY PEACEFUL RESIDENTIAL AREA.
BEFORE OKEMOS, I WAS LIVING WIXOM, WHICH IS A SMALL CITY, BUT WELL PLANNED NEAR NOVI.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP HERE, I MARK THE GREEN ONE AS THE SINGLE FAMILY WITH AROUND A QUARTER ACRES OF LAND, AND THE ORANGE ONE AS THE HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT, WHICH IS AROUND 10 UNIT PER ACRE, WHICH IS ALSO NOT 14 YET.
IF YOU SEE THIS, THEY'RE NOT CLOSE TO EACH OTHER, AND THEY ARE ZONING PROPERTY.
THE APARTMENT SHOULD BE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, NOT SOMEWHERE THAT ALL THE SINGLE FAMILY OCCUPIES.
ALSO LOOKING FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT, I CAN GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE, WHICH IS SALINE, A TOWN RIGHT NEXT TO ANN ARBOR, THE HOME OF UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.
YOU CAN SEE THE ORANGE ZONE AND THE GREEN ZONE ARE NOT CLOSE TO EACH OTHER.
THERE ARE NO ROADS SHARED BY THEM.
THERE'S NO ROAD SHARED BY THE HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT AND LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
I BELIEVE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP SHOULD FOLLOW THE SAME PRINCIPLE.
APPROVING THIS REZONING WILL CREATE A LONG TERM ISSUE WITH TRAFFIC, NOISE, PRIVACY, AND SET A PRECEDENT FOR THE POOR LAND USE TRANSITION.
TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT BE LIKE ONE DAY THING.
YOU SHOULD HAVE A LONGER VISION AND KEEP THE TOWNSHIP SUSTAINABLE.
KEEP THE CURRENT CS ZONING OR LIMITING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO EIGHT UNIT PER ACRE WOULD MAINTAIN THE BALANCE.
I ALSO HAVE A SMALL SUGGESTION FOR THE CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES.
LOOKING FOR SOMEWHERE THAT IS ALREADY PLANNED AS A HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT, NOT FOR CHANGING THE ZONING OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE BOARD TO REJECT THE REZONING REQUEST AND PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF MERIDIAN ZONING MAP AND COMMUNITY CHARACTERS. THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING]
NEXT STEP IS HENRY QUARK, AND IF I PRONOUNCE THAT WRONG, I'M SORRY, AND THEN FOLLOWED BY DIANA CAVALIERE.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS HENRY QUARK.
I LIVE AT 1578 MAIDEN LANE, FORMER ZBA MEMBER, AS WELL AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMBER IN THIS TOWNSHIP.
MY FAMILY HAS LIVED HERE FOR OVER 27 YEARS SINCE I WAS A KID, AND WE OWN BUSINESSES HERE, BOTH THE ASIA MART AND HENRY'S PLACE, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE WE LIVE.
I'M HERE TONIGHT TO GIVE OPPOSITION FOR THIS PROJECT, FOR MANY REASONS, BUT A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS HAVE SPOKEN TO THOSE.
BUT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAS TRULY BEEN A SPECIAL PLACE TO LIVE.
[02:00:02]
I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR GROWTH.I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ADDING 300 UNITS IN AN AREA THAT, YOU HAVE LUXURY HOMES IN AREA, SO IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY URBAN SENSE, ANY PLANNING SENSE.
THAT'S GOING TO BRING, THEY SAY 500-800 PEOPLE IN THE AREA, AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT'S JUST AN APPROXIMATE HOW MANY PEOPLE IT'S GOING TO COME IN.
BUT THAT'S 3-4 TIMES MORE DENSE THAN WHAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS AS FAR AS PEOPLE.
THAT'S GOING TO CREATE THAT MANY MORE TRAFFIC CONGESTIONS, THAT MANY MORE NOISE POLLUTIONS IN THE AREA.
ESPECIALLY WHERE ALL THE NATURAL HABITANTS, THE DEERS, THE RABBITS, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO? ALSO, THE DRAINAGE, THAT'S THE MAIN ISSUE.
YOU GET A HIGH DENSITY UNIT THERE.
WHERE IS ALL THE WATER GOING TO FLOW? I MEAN, MY BASINS FLOODED A COUPLE OF TIMES BECAUSE WE'RE ON A LOWER GRADE OF ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THAT'S AN ISSUE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY NEIGHBORS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE ISSUES OF FLOODING, BUT WE ARE IN A LOW PLAIN AREA, IN THIS AREA.
LET'S SEE IN THE BEST DECADE, OKEMOS IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAS GROWN 10%.
THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH RATE FOR A TOWN OF SIZE, AND I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO DECREASE; OUR RATE OF GROWTH IN THIS TOWNSHIP, OR ELSE, WE'LL REALLY HAVE NO QUALITY OF LIFE FOR EVERYBODY BECAUSE IT'S BECOME SO POPULATED IN THIS AREA.
I'VE DRIVEN DOWN BELVIDERE, COLUMBUS, NEWMAN, MULTIPLE TIMES, JUST GO HOME FROM WORK BECAUSE YOU COULD HARDLY TURN LEFT.
I MEAN, YOU'VE ALREADY CREATED A ROAD DIET THAT'S CREATED SLOWER PACE FOR TURNING.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT IS DIANA CAVALIERE, FOLLOWED BY TAREK SASSY.
I LIVE AT 1508 BELVIDERE AVENUE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE WALKABILITY.
I AM TYPICALLY WALKING CENTRAL PARK DRIVE WITH MY DOGS, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT TRAFFIC IS ALREADY VERY CHALLENGING, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU GET TO THE AREA WHERE YOU'RE GOING TOWARDS CULVER’S AND THERE'S A HIDDEN DRIVEWAY FROM ANOTHER APARTMENT COMPLEX.
PEOPLE ARE ALREADY WHIPPING OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY.
ALSO, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO CROSS FROM THAT TIGHT PRINCESS AREA, IT'S VERY CHALLENGING.
I THINK THAT CRAMMING POTENTIALLY 600 PEOPLE INTO THAT SMALL AREA IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO POTENTIALLY, INCREASES IN CRIME.
THE MORE PEOPLE YOU HAVE CONCENTRATED IN AN AREA, THE MORE THOSE THINGS TYPICALLY OCCUR.
I'M CURIOUS AS TO, I KNOW IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT SOME APARTMENT BUILDINGS ARE NOT EVEN FILLED AT THIS POINT, AND THERE'S PLENTY AVAILABLE IN THE AREA.
I'M WONDERING WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN POTENTIALLY THESE UNITS DON'T GET RENTED, AREN'T FULL.
ARE THEY GOING TO DROP THOSE RENTAL RATES, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO POTENTIALLY, AGAIN, LESS DESIRABLE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY.
I HAVE A DAUGHTER THAT GOES TO OKEMOS HIGH SCHOOL, AND I KNOW THAT THEY'RE ALREADY CHALLENGED AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF KIDS IN THE CLASSROOMS AND THE REDUCTION IN TEACHERS.
YES, YOU MAY GET MORE TAX DOLLARS, BUT THEN YOU'RE ALSO ADDING MORE CHILDREN TO THE MIX, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT.
I FEEL LIKE THAT MAKES THE TAXPAYER'S CHILDREN SUFFER.
WE WANT OUR SCHOOLS TO BE STRONG, AND WE WANT A LOWER NUMBER OF STUDENTS TO TEACHERS.
WE ALREADY HAVE A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN THE OKEMOS PRESERVE, AND WE HAVE NOT FELT THE FULL IMPACT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT IS NOT YET FULL AS FAR AS TRAFFIC.
I'VE ALREADY SEEN THE BUS STOPPING THERE TO PICK UP CHILDREN.
I'M SURE THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT DRIVING THAT STRETCH OF ROAD FROM MARSH TO GRAND RIVER, I'M SURE YOU PROBABLY TRAVELED THAT.
RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS ALONG MARE.
A LOT OF PEOPLE AVOID MARSH BECAUSE THEY CAN
[02:05:02]
TAKE CENTRAL PARK AND AVOID ALL OF THE LIGHTS.YOU'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A LIGHT IN PROBABLY AT NEWMAN.
BUT THAT STRETCH OF ROAD CANNOT ACCOMMODATE.
YOU WENT FROM FOUR LANES, TO TWO LANES.
IT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE THAT MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT AREA.
THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER.
IT WOULD BE VERY FRUSTRATING TO TRAVEL THAT STRETCH OF ROAD.
THEN I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE GREEN SPACE.
AGAIN, I LIKE TO WALK THAT STRETCH. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT STEP IS TAREK SASSY, FOLLOWED BY NINA SASSY, AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE IF I'VE MISPRONOUNCED YOUR NAME, PLEASE CORRECT ME.
>> NOT A PROBLEM. IT'S BEEN MISPRONOUNCED WAY WORSE.
>> I HAVE ONE LIKE [OVERLAPPING] THAT TOO. NOBODY GETS MINE, RIGHT. I GET IT. [LAUGHTER]
>> ANYONE DISCUSSED TRAFFIC YET BECAUSE I'M NOT REALLY SURE.
>> GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FIRST IF YOU DON'T MIND.
>> TAREK SASSY, 4825 NASSAU STREET.
I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE ARE NOT AGAINST ACCESS, AND WE'RE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS A BIT MISGUIDED IN A WAY, BECAUSE WHY NOT DEVELOP SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE CORNER OF GRAND RIVER AND MARSH, WHERE ALL CHICAGO'S JUST SAND DORMANT.
NOTHING IS THERE. THE [INAUDIBLE] STORE NEXT DOOR, NOTHING.
WITH THAT SET, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
WHAT I WILL ATTEST TO, THOUGH, IS MY EXPERTISE AS AN INTELLIGENCE ANALYST AND MY LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND.
WHENEVER YOU DO GET THIS HIGH OF CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE IN A SPECIFIC AREA THAT CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA, LIKE DIANE MENTIONED, YOU ARE GOING TO NOTICE AN UPTICK IN DRUNK DRIVING, TRAFFIC CRASHES, BREAKING AND ENTRY, RETAIL THEFT, JUST TO NAME A FEW.
SECONDLY, MY OTHER EXPERTISE AND INCIDENT RESPONSE AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
WE'LL BOXTON AND ON THREE SIDES BY TRAIN TRACKS, AND HOW THE ROADS ARE AS THEY ARE NOW.
THE ONLY THING KEEPING US SAFE, KNOCK ON WOOD IS THIS LUCK.
IN CASE OF A CATASTROPHIC EVENT, IF YOU ADD THAT LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES, JUST TO NAME A FEW.
WITH THAT SAID, THAT'S MY TIME.
I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS. THANK YOU. TAKE CARE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, WE HAVE NINA SASSY FOLLOWED BY VINCE TOMONY.
>> GOOD EVENING. IT'S NINA SASSY.
>> NO WORRIES. WE'RE THE FAMILY THAT HAS THE NAMES THAT ARE HEARD [LAUGHTER] PRONOUNS.
>> LIKE I SAID, I GET IT. [LAUGHTER].
I JUST WANT TO START BY TELLING OUR STORY.
I KNOW I HAVE 3 MINUTES, BUT WE MOVED HERE IN 2020 FROM EAST LANSING.
BEFORE YOU KNOW WHAT, WE HAD ALL OF THESE APARTMENT COMPLEXES, BASICALLY SURROUNDING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE MOVED HERE BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT FOR A FAMILY.
THEY HAVE A PRESERVE. WE CAN WALK. WE FELT SAFE.
WHEN WE LIVED IN EAST LANSING AS MUCH AS THEY WERE MARKETED AS FOR YOUNG PROFESSIONALS, IT'S COLLEGE STUDENTS.
WE HAVE MSU RIGHT UP THE STREET, AND SO YOU HAVE MULTIPLE FOLKS THAT ARE MOVING TOGETHER IN ONE UNIT.
OR THEY HAVE SPECIALS, BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THEIR OCCUPANCY RATES UP.
IT'S NOT EVEN SO MUCH THE COLLEGE STUDENTS.
IT'S THE WEEKEND WHEN THEIR FRIENDS COME IN TOWN.
IT'S GAME NIGHT. WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT WE HAD BREAK-INS IN OUR VEHICLES.
WE HAD, I THINK THERE WAS A GUNSHOT IN A PARKING LOT, NOT TOO FAR AWAY.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT OCCUR BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE CONCENTRATED TOGETHER.
NOW, I'M NOT SAYING ALL RENTAL UNITS, THERE'S GOING TO BE NEFARIOUS ACTIVITY.
BUT AGAIN, I THINK WE NEED TO BE CLEAR IN WHAT WE DO AND HOW WE PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMUNITY.
WHEN WE MOVED HERE, AGAIN, WE LOOKED AT THE COMPOSITION.
WE LOOKED AT, WHO OUR NEIGHBORS WERE, WE GOT WE GOT TO KNOW OUR NEIGHBORS.
WE LOOKED AT, AGAIN, HOW WE CAN BECOME PART OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE LAST YEAR, WE'RE SEEING ALL OF THAT BEING BROKEN DOWN.
I'M SEEING ALL OF THESE RENTAL UNITS.
AGAIN, THOSE COULD HAVE BEEN CONDOS.
WE'RE HAVING RENTAL UNITS COME UP, MEANING, WE'RE HAVING TRANSIENT PEOPLE COME IN THAT ARE NOT INTENDING TO BE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY.
NOW I WENT FROM WALKING AND RIDING MY BIKE WITH MY KID TO WE'RE WALKING DOWN THE STREET AND I'M HAVING PEOPLE APPROACH ME AND SAY, MAYBE NOT THE KINDEST THINGS.
AGAIN, I THINK THAT THERE'S A TIME AND A SPACE, AND I THINK RIGHT NOW, JUST HEARING WHAT THE DEVELOPER SAID ABOUT THEIR INTENTION AND THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY, I DON'T THINK THAT'S CLEAR.
I THINK I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS AFTER THEIR PRESENTATION.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL DID AS WELL.
IF ANYTHING, AT THE VERY MOST, APPROVING THIS RIGHT AWAY ISN'T A SMART MOVE.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TAKE SOME TIME AND HAVE INDEPENDENT STUDIES FOR TRAFFIC.
WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE INTEGRITY OF THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, DRAINAGE.
[02:10:03]
THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ASSESSED, AND WE CAN LEAVE IT UP TO A DEVELOPER WHO BY THE WAY, HAS LIKE A ONE POINT RATING ON GOOGLE TO GIVE US THAT INFORMATION.I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION.
I KNOW THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE SHARED ALL OF THAT, AND I'M GRATEFUL.
AGAIN, THIS SHOWS HOW OKEMOS IS A COMMUNITY, AND I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS ALLOW US TO PRESERVE THAT.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT STEP IS VINCE TENONING, FOLLOWED BY PAVINE REPARTEE.
>> I LIVE IN CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, TOO.
>> CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME, SIR [INAUDIBLE]?
>> MY HANDWRITING IS NOT AS GOOD AS MY NAME, I THINK.
I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DEVELOPER IN THE ASSURANCES THAT WE GOT IN COMMUNICATIONS TO US.
THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS AT ODDS WITH THE NUMBERS.
IT SAYS THAT THE IMPACT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR THE TRAFFIC, BUT IT'S AT ODDS WITH THE NUMBERS.
WITH A NET INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 2000 OUTBOUND TRIPS GENERATED BY THE 312 UNIT COMPLEX, CENTRAL PARK DRIVE SIMPLY CAN'T ABSORB SUCH AN INCREASE.
BY AN ESTIMATED 600 ON SITE VEHICLES MAKING MULTIPLE DAILY TRIPS.
THE COMPLEX IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT AROUND A 90 DEGREE CURVE WITH LIMITED ADVANCED VISIBILITY ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, WHICH IS ALREADY CONGESTED, 35 MILE/HOUR NARROW ROAD.
DRIVING IS ALREADY TREACHEROUS.
MY OWN FAMILY WAS IN AN AUTO ACCIDENT AT THE BEND IN THAT ROAD WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE COLLIDING INTO OURS.
THAT WAS BEFORE THE NEW INFLUX OF TRAFFIC FROM THE VERY LARGE GRAND RESERVE CONDO COMPLEX JUST SOUTH OF US.
IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS BIG APARTMENT COMPLEX IN THE WORST POSSIBLE LOCATION.
WE ALSO HAVE A MULTITUDE OF TRAFFIC FROM THE MALL AND THE VAST NUMBER OF BUSINESSES LOCATED IN THIS VICINITY GENERATING TRAFFIC.
IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES THIS PLAN, IT WILL BE JEOPARDIZING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE, NOT ONLY OF THE RESIDENTS OF CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, BUT OF ALL OF OKEMOS AND THE MULTITUDE OF SHOPPERS WHO VISIT FROM ELSEWHERE TO PASS THROUGH CENTRAL PARK ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE DAILY.
ALSO, THERE'S NO WAY FOR PEDESTRIANS TO SAFELY CROSS CENTRAL PARK DRIVE ALREADY, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE MUCH WORSE AFTER THIS DEVELOPMENT COMES IN.
THE DEVELOPER CLAIMS THAT LESS THAN 7% OF THE WET LANDS WILL BE IMPACTED.
BUT THE SITE MAP SHOWS SOME OF THE 11 SPRAWLING APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND PARKING LOTS SITTING UPON WETLANDS, WHICH WILL BE REPLACED WITH GEOMETRICALLY SHAPED UNNATURAL DETENTION POOLS, WHICH ARE A POOR SUBSTITUTE FOR THE NATURAL HABITAT, WHICH WILL BE DESTROYED IN THE BUILDING PROCESS, ALONG WITH MUCH OF THE WILDLIFE IN IT.
AS A FORMER LEGISLATIVE AIDE FOR THE CHAIR OF THE MICHIGAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, I HAVE SOME EXPERTISE IN THIS MATTER.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD REPORTS OF FLOODING OF NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS BASEMENTS IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP WHEN SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS HAVE BEEN BUILT NEXT DOOR.
I EVEN CALLED DINHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION, TALK TO THEM ABOUT IT, AND THEY REPORTED THE SAME THING TO ME.
IT'S ALSO INCORRECT TO CLAIM THAT WILDLIFE WILL NOT BE DISTURBED WHEN WILDLIFE AND ITS HABITAT WILL BE REPLACED, BURIED UNDER BY 312 APARTMENTS AND BY THEIR PARKING LOTS.
THE PROPOSAL IS VERY INCOMPATIBLE TO THE EXISTING USES, PLACING THOSE APARTMENTS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SINGLE FAMILY LUXURY HOMES WITHIN A STONE'S THROW OF $600,000 HOUSES.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT STEP IS PAVINE REPARTEE, FOLLOWED BY WAYNE HUTCHISON.
>> HI, GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.
I LIVE IN 1565 BELO 11 AVENUE, OKEMOS.
BEFORE ME, A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS SPOKE ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT AND SO I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT IS OUR REQUEST WE WANT TO LEAVE OUR GREENER LIFE BECAUSE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A PRETTY WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH EXIST BETWEEN THE TREES.
SO WE WANT TO STAY LIKE THAT, AND PLEASE CONSIDER ALL OUR REQUESTS WHAT EVERYBODY TOLD ABOUT.
IF I AND OTHER BUILDERS, THEY WANT TO DO, THEY CAN EXTEND FEW MORE, SIMILARLY, OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME RESTRAINTS SO THAT THEY WON'T LOSE THEIR PROPERTY.
BUT I WANT TO OPPOSE THIS MULTI APARTMENTS BECAUSE OF SO MANY REASONS, WHICH WE ALL OUR NEIGHBOR EXPRESSED.
MY SINCERE REQUEST TO ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS.
PLEASE THINK ABOUT IT, AND PLEASE DO THE JUSTICE TO ALL THE PEOPLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT STEP IS WAYNE HUTCHISON, FOLLOWED BY BEND.
[02:15:03]
>> HI, EVERYBODY. WAYNE HUTCHISON, I LIVE AT 4831 NASSAU STREET, AND MY FAMILY'S LIVED IN THE CENTRAL PARK NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MORE THAN 11 YEARS.
WE MOVED HERE BECAUSE OF THE BALANCE THIS AREA OFFERS, CLOSE TO TOWN, YET STILL SURROUNDED BY TREES, WILDLIFE, AND QUIET STREETS DESIGNED FOR MODERATE, MULTI RESIDENTIAL USE.
I'M ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR THE AUTHENTIC OKEMOS DEVELOPMENT BEHIND NASSAU.
WHILE THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED FOR MULTI RESIDENTIAL USE, THE PROPOSAL PUSHES THAT ZONING TO ITS OUTER LIMITS AND STRAINS THE INFRASTRUCTURE ENVIRONMENT AND CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY.
MY NEIGHBORS HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE PIECES, SO I WON'T CONTINUE TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER ABOUT THOSE PIECES THAN I AGREE WITH THEM.
ADDING MORE THAN 312 APARTMENT UNITS WILL GENERATE HUNDREDS OF ADDITIONAL VEHICLE TRIPS EVERY DAY, COMPOUNDING CONGESTION, INCREASING NOISE, AND MAKING IT HARDER FOR PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS AND SCHOOL BUSES TO TRAVEL SAFELY.
THESE ROADS WERE NOT BUILT TO ABSORB THAT KIND OF AN INFLUX OF GROWTH, AND THERE ARE NO PLANS TO EXPAND OR IMPROVE THEM OR HAVE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC LIGHTS FOR THOSE RESOURCES.
EQUALLY CONCERNING IS THE LOSS OF NATURAL HABITAT AND THE FRAGMENTATION OF THE WETLAND SYSTEM THAT RUNS THROUGH THIS SITE.
EVERY DAY WE SEE FOXES, POSSUMS, RACCOONS, WILD TURKEYS, RABBITS, DEER, AND A WIDE VARIETY OF BIRDS THAT DEPEND ON THESE WOODS AND WETLANDS, A CONTINUOUS CORRIDOR.
ONCE THOSE GREEN BUFFERS ARE GONE, PAVED OVER OR WALLED IN BY DENSE HOUSING, THE HABITAT DISAPPEARS, AND WITH IT, THE ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS THAT PROTECT ALL OF US.
WET LANDS ABSORB STORMWATER, FILTER RUNOFF AND PREVENT FLOODING.
WHEN THEY ARE HEMMED IN BY CONCRETE AND PARKING LOTS, THEIR PROTECTION FAILS, INCREASING FLOODING RISKS NEARBY HOMES.
MERIDIAN TOWNSHIPS MASTER PLAN EMPHASIZES ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, BALANCED GROWTH, NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY.
THIS PROPOSAL SACRIFICES THOSE PRINCIPLES IN FAVOR OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AND SHORT TERM PROFIT.
ONCE THE TREE LINE AND WETLAND BUFFER ARE GONE, THEY CANNOT BE REPLACED.
FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE TO UPHOLD THE INTENT OF THE EXISTING RC ZONING, MODERATE, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT, AND TO REJECT AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD EXCEED THOSE LIMITS.
OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, ENVIRONMENT, AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER ALL DEPEND ON IT.
FINALLY, CALLING THIS DEVELOPMENT A TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USE IS MISLEADING.
A TRUE TRANSITIONAL ZONE SHOULD CREATE A GENTLE STEP DOWN BETWEEN HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL AREAS AND ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGH LOWER DENSITY HOUSING, PRESERVED GREEN BUFFERS AND COMPATIBLE SCALE.
THIS PROPOSAL DOES THE OPPOSITE.
IT MAXIMIZES DENSITY, REMOVES MUCH OF THE NATURAL BUFFER, AND INTRODUCES APARTMENT LEVEL TRAFFIC AND LIGHTING IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO HOMES.
MERIDIAN'S OWN MASTER PLAN DEFINES TRADITIONAL HOUSING AS LOW INTENSITY, MULTI FAMILY OR ATTACHED UNITS SUCH AS TOWN HOMES OR DUPLEXES, NOT LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES WITH HUNDREDS OF RESIDENTS.
APPROVING THIS PROJECT UNDER THE LABEL OF TRANSITIONAL WOULD IGNORE THE INTENT OF BOTH THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE COMMUNITY PLAN.
FINALLY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR PROTECTING THE BALANCE THAT MAKES THIS PART OF OKEMOS, A SPECIAL PLACE TO LIVE.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT STEP IS BERNARD FOLLOWED BY SUPERTE RAYA MADI.
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS BENO.
I'M FROM 1611 COLUMBUS AVENUE.
I'M HERE TALKING ABOUT THE DAMAGE WHICH IS ALREADY DONE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTH OF THE COLUMBUS AVENUE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE WETLAND.
THAT'S WHAT I GOT FROM THE MICHIGAN WEBSITE.
MY CONCERN REGARDING RECENT CLEARING ACTIVITIES WHICH HAPPENED IN THE CENTER PARK STATE, THE SOUTH OF COLUMBUS AVENUE ADJACENT TO THE HOMEOWNER'S PROPERTY WHERE I LIVE.
IT STARTED EXACTLY FROM THE BORDER OF MY HOUSE PROPERTY.
IT APPEARED THAT WORK STARTED THAT INVOLVED THE DISTURBANCE AND REMOVAL OF WETLAND AREAS.
I PERSONALLY CALLED TOWNSHIP TO MAKE THEM AWARE, AND I SAW THE URGENCY SO THAT THEY CAN COME AND CHECK WHETHER THIS IS AUTHORIZED OR NOT.
THE TOWNSHIP OFFICER CAME AND THEY STOPPED THE WORK.
IN THE MEANTIME, A CHUNK OF WETLAND AREAS WAS ALREADY CLEANED UP, AND IT REMAINS AS IS TILL TODAY.
GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY AND LEGAL PROTECTIONS OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE WETLAND, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE TOWNSHIP REVIEW THE UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITY TO DETERMINE FUTURE ACTIONS.
IN ADDITION, I URGE THE TOWNSHIP TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ENSURE THE RESTORATION OF THE IMPACTED WETLAND.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS THE LAST SHEET I HAVE.
IF ANYBODY ELSE PLANS TO SPEAK AND HAS NOT GIVEN A SHEET, PLEASE TURN IT IN RIGHT AWAY.
BUT THIS IS SUPER BY AMACI. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS SUPER [INAUDIBLE].
I LIVE IN 1612 COLUMBUS AVENUE, THE FIRST HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS YOU WALKING THROUGH THE COLUMBUS AVENUE.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANY PLANS TO COME TODAY BECAUSE I'VE DECIDED TO MOVE ON.
[02:20:02]
I'M LOOKING FOR A NEW HOUSE ALREADY.BUT I STARTED THE UPROAR AS MOST OF YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS WHEN THIS WAS PROPOSED AND PLANNED.
I CAME HERE 14 YEARS AGO, BUT THE FIRST HOUSE, THE MODEL HOUSE ON COLUMBUS AVENUE, BUT I DIDN'T BUY TO FACE WITHIN 45 FEET OR 100 FEET.
WHATEVER THAT IS THE BACK OF A RENTAL UNIT.
BUT I CAME HERE TO SUPPORT MY COMMUNITY AND THE SANCTUARY, WE CALL IT CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.
AT THIS POINT, I'VE DISCUSSED. WHEN WHOEVER DECIDED TO COME CLOSE TO MY PROPERTY, RIGHT BY MY PROPERTY LINE, WHERE BENAT HOUSE IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME AND CAUGHT THE TALL GRASS, THAT WAS ENOUGH FOR ME, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW.
HOME PRICING FOR THESE LUXURY HOMES ARE FROM $500,000-$750,000 AS OF NOW, AND THEN BRING THESE 312 RENTAL UNITS RIGHT BY THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S RIGHT.
HUNDRED AND THIRTY UNITS IN OKEMOS PRESERVE HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT RIGHT ON THAT NARROW CORRIDOR BETWEEN MARS AND GRAND RIVER, THAT HAS ALREADY ADDED TO THE TROPHIC.
AS I COME OUT OF MY CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, I FIND IT HARD TO MAKE A TURN AND THEN ADD 312 UNITS BETWEEN THAT NARROW CORRIDOR. TELL ME HOW IT'S RIGHT.
IF THE CONTINENTAL WANTS TO BUILD AMAZING PROPERTY AND UPLIFT OUR COMMUNITY, THEY CAN GO AHEAD BY THE VACANT LOT BETWEEN HAMILTON AND OKEMOS.
THAT HAS BEEN VACANT FOR 15 YEARS.
I'VE BEEN HERE, AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BUILT. THEY CAN DO THAT THERE.
THE WAY WE BUILD COMMUNITIES IS IF ID HAS ENOUGH MONEY, THEY CAN DONATE THIS LAND AND MAKE IT INTO A NICE CONSERVATORY PRESERVE.
I CAN DONATEEL TO PUT A STATUE THERE FOR ID IF THAT HELPS. THANK YOU.
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
JUST REMIND ME MR. SHARKEY, THIS IS WHERE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:56.
IF ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, AND JUST A REMINDER THAT WE ARE NOT EXPECTING STAFF TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS NECESSARILY TODAY.
PROBABLY NOT. WE'LL BE GIVING THEM QUESTIONS TO LIST AND BRING BACK TO US AT A FUTURE MEETING.
[13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS (Part 1 of 2)]
WITH THAT SAID? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.>> SURE. I HEARD DIRECTOR SCHMIDT DIRECT PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'VE SEEN IN OUR WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT THAT SOME ACTIVITIES SEEM TO HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN ON SOME OF THESE PARCELS AND SUGGESTION THAT COMPLAINT ABOUT THOSE ACTIVITIES RESULTED IN SOME TOWNSHIP CAUSING A CESSATION OF THOSE ACTIVITIES.
>> YEAH. I CAN ACTUALLY SPEAK TO THIS PRETTY CLEARLY.
IT'S TWO SEPARATE ISSUES, ACTUALLY.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, CONTINENTAL DID HAVE PERMISSION TO BE ON SITE TO DO LIMITED ACTIVITIES FOR SOIL BORINGS.
THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH ANY PROJECT ANYWHERE IN THE TOWNSHIP.
WHAT ALSO HAPPENED, UNFORTUNATELY, ON THE SAME DAY WAS SOME CLEARING WAS DONE BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OF AREAS ALONG THE EDGE OF THE ROAD, AND THEY CERTAINLY WENT FURTHER THAN I THINK ANYONE ANTICIPATED.
WE DID ISSUE A STOP WORK AND ISSUED A TICKET FOR A VIOLATION OF LAND CLEARING ORDINANCE.
AT THIS TIME, WE DO NOT BELIEVE, IN FACT, WE'RE FAIRLY CERTAIN GIVEN THAT WE HAVE A RECENT DELINEATION THAT THERE WERE NO WETLANDS IMPACTED, BUT WE WILL BE FOLLOWING UP ON THAT ISSUE POST DECISION ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE WE HAVE ADDRESSED IT ACCORDINGLY, AND IT'S IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS NOW TO BE ADDRESSED FURTHER ONCE WE HAVE AN ANSWER AS TO WHERE THIS IS GOING. THANK YOU.
>> YOU GIVE THE TIMELINE [INAUDIBLE].
>> NO, I'M SORRY. THIS IS FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS ONLY TO TALK TO DIRECTOR SCHMIDT.
>> JUST GENERALLY OR ON THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, DIRECTOR SCHMIDT, ABOUT THE 30 ACRES.
IS THIS ALL CONSIDERED ONE PARCEL, OR IS IT SEPARATE PARCELS?
>> IT'S THREE SEPARATE PARCELS BECAUSE IT'S BISECTED BY ROAD.
AS A GENERAL RULE, YOU CAN'T HAVE A PARCEL JUMP A ROAD.
>> THE UNIT PER ACRE REQUIREMENT, DOES THAT GO ACROSS THE WHOLE 30 ACRES,
[02:25:05]
OR WOULD THAT BE DIFFERENT BASED ON THE ROAD SEPARATION?THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE DO AND ANY OTHER PROJECT THAT HAS MULTIPLE PROPERTIES BEING CONGLOMERATED INTO ONE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL.
>> THE TOP PORTION, THOUGH WOULDN'T BE LET'S SAY 20 UNITS PER ACRE VERSUS THE BOTTOM ONE OR THE MIDDLE ONE, WHICH WOULD BE LET'S SAY EIGHT.
THAT WOULDN'T FACTOR INTO A CALCULATION LIKE THIS?
>> NO. THAT'S HOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THAT'S SIMILAR TO KNOB HILL.
I THINK THE EXISTING CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS IS SPLIT INTO TWO OR THREE PARCELS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
>> GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ROMBACK.
>> MR. SCHMIDT, I WANT TO JUST BE REALLY SHARP ON THE EDICT FROM THE BOARD BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS KICKED THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RESOLUTION OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BASICALLY.
>> YES. THE BOARD HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION, COMMENTS REVIEW ON THE LAND USE QUESTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.
>> I GUESS I'VE BEEN PARSING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS, AND I MAY HAVE LOST IT.
THE SPECIFIC LAND USE QUESTION IS THE SPECIFIC REZONING TO THE RESIDENTIAL FROM THIS CS, CORRECT?
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ADDRESSING THE SPECIFIC QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS PARSING THROUGH STAFF DOCUMENTS.
>> GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS MAT.
HERE AT THE TIMES SQUARE AT MADISON AVENUE CORNER.
ALSO, IF YOU GO ALONG MADISON AVENUE.
>> WE HAVE A DELINEATION. WE'LL PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT TO YOUR NEXT MEETING.
THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT AREAS.
>> BECAUSE I'M WONDERING, WELL, MAYBE NOT.
BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF DISTURBANCE OF THOSE AREAS IF APARTMENTS ARE BUILT.
>> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET YOU GUYS A COPY OF ALL THE WELLING DETAILS WE HAVE AS WELL.
> THAT WILL BE PART OF WHAT YOU BRING. I HAVE A QUESTION FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT COMMISSIONER BROOKS ASKED, THAT IT APPEARED IN THE PROPOSAL THAT WE SAW, THAT THE HIGHER DENSITY TALLER BUILDINGS WERE GOING TO BE CONCENTRATED MORE IN THAT AREA.
THAT'S THE NORTH SIDE OF THE NORTH PARCEL WITH THE LOWER DENSITY.
>> IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND CONDITIONS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER WOULD ONE OF THOSE THINGS, COULD WE SAY THAT WE WANT.
I KNOW THE OVERALL PROPERTY DENSITY IS ONE THING OR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OR SOMETHING, BUT COULD WE SAY THAT WE WOULD LIKE THIS PARCEL TO BE THIS AND THIS PARCEL TO BE THAT, OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE AN AVERAGE ACROSS THE WHOLE? I DON'T WANT TO PUT A CONDITION THAT WE CAN'T IMPOSE OR THAT THEY COULDN'T IMPOSE.
>> I THINK CERTAINLY, IF THE REQUEST IS TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, WHERE YOU WANT TO FOCUS THE TALLER BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH AND THE SHORTER BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH.
THAT'S CERTAINLY A REASONABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.
>> IT APPEARS THAT THAT'S ALREADY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUT IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT MIGHT PUT THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY MEMBERS AT EASE, THAT WHAT'S NOT ENCROACHING, BUT WHAT IS IN THE APPROACH TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A LITTLE BIT LESS DENSE THAT MEAN?
>> IT'LL CERTAINLY TIGHTEN IT UP.
>> IT GETS SOME OF THAT TRANSITION, PERHAPS.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING, I GUESS.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ASK YOU TO SHARE OPTIONS ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT WORD SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF THAT'S THE DESIRE OF OTHERS.
>> I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> I GUESS I WOULD APPRECIATE STAFF'S SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW WE MIGHT CRAFT CONDITIONS RELATED TO WALKABILITY.
IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY FOR US SINCE WE DON'T OWN THE ROADS OR CONTROL THE ROADS.
WE DEFER TO THE COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT.
[02:30:02]
USE OUR ABILITY TO SHAPE THESE KINDS OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WAYS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM SHAPED.I'M NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION IS TO GET PEOPLE FROM ONE SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE OTHER SAFELY.
THERE ARE MARKED CROSSWALKS, SO THERE ARE FACILITIES, AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THOSE FACILITIES PROBABLY MEET WHATEVER MINIMUM GUIDELINES EXIST FOR [INAUDIBLE] CROSSINGS AT SUCH PLACES.
I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS AS A PLANNING COMMISSION TO ENCOURAGE OR REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT EXPLORE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES IN COLLABORATION WITH THE ROAD DEPARTMENT AND THAT THEY BRING TO US SOMETHING THAT AN APPROPRIATE STANDARD THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BUILD TO AND HOW THEY WOULD INTEND TO BUILD TO THAT STANDARD, WHETHER IT'S A STATE OR A FEDERAL OR SOME OTHER GUIDELINE THAT WOULD SHOW US WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
I'M NOT EXPECTING AN ANSWER TO THAT TONIGHT, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT NEXT TIME WE GET THIS.
>> I JUST HAVE A QUICK LOGISTICS QUESTION SINCE THIS IS SO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE USUALLY SEE.
>> THE NEXT MEETING, WHAT WILL BE THE PROCESS AND HOW WILL WE BE INVOLVED MOVING FORWARD? TONIGHT, IS IT MOSTLY DISCUSSION, OR WILL WE HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCUSS.
I'M TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF THAT.
>> CERTAINLY, OUR HOPE, AS WITH ANY PROJECT, IS THAT WE GET AS MUCH FEEDBACK TONIGHT, SO WE CAN FOLLOW UP AND PUT YOU GUYS IN A POSITION WHERE YOU CAN REFER IT BACK TO THE BOARD IF YOU'D LIKE.
IF ADDITIONAL ITEMS COME UP AT THE NEXT MEETING BASED ON OUR RESPONSES, OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHERE THEY WANT TO BE.
ULTIMATELY, AS LONG AS WE ARE ADEQUATELY ANALYZING AND ADVANCING THINGS IN A TIMELY FASHION, I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANY OUTWARD TIME FRAME ON THINGS.
BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S NORMAL PROCESS IS, GET ALL OUR DISCUSSION OUT, MAKE A DECISION.
TO THE EXTENT THAT WE FOLLOW OUR NORMAL PROCESS AS MUCH AS WE CAN, IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD IDEA TO RAISE QUESTIONS NOW.
WOULD WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK YOU ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AT SOME POINT BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT MEETING? WE DON'T WANT TO BOX YOU INTO THINGS, BUT IF WE THINK OF SOMETHING WHEN WE GO HOME.
>> ABSOLUTELY. YOU'RE ALWAYS ALLOWED TO EMAIL ME.
>> GOT IT. I THINK JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK WE ARE PLANNING ON STRAW HALL VOTING AND VOTING ON ANYTHING AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND HEAR THE ANSWERS TO OUR QUESTIONS, HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION AT OUR NEXT MEETING, AND THEN TAKE IT FROM THERE.
BUT NOT AT A POINT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS FOREVER.
WE WANT TO GET TO A POINT OF GIVING THE BOARD OUR COLLECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LETTING THEM MAKE THE DECISION.
I'M SORRY, THEN COMMISSIONER ROMBACK, I SAW YOU TOO.
BUT GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CURTIS.
>> I'M GOING TO BE AS CANDID AS I CAN.
IN TERMS OF I KNOW WHAT WE'RE, I GUESS, TASKED WITH DOING, TASKED TO DO.
BUT HOW DOES IT FIT WITH OUR LAND USE, AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE.
BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THIS GROUP OF HOMES AT CENTRAL PARK STATES.
THERE'S A PROPOSAL TO PUT THESE APARTMENTS RIGHT IN FRONT.
THERE IS A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN CENTRAL PARK OR POTENTIALLY COULD CREATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.
I WANT TO DO MY DUE DILIGENCE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE LOOK AT THIS IN A VERY SURGICAL MANNER.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE ALMOST HAVE TO PREDICT THE FUTURE, BUT RELY ON NUMBERS TO DO THAT.
BUT I KNOW WE CAME UP WITH THIS LAND USE. WHAT DO YOU CALL IT?
>> YES. I JUST WANT TO SEE HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE?
>> RELATE TO THE JUDGMENT THAT I THINK AFFECTS WHAT'S IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE.
>> BECAUSE A LOT OF THINGS, AND I'LL SAY THIS LAST THING, I'LL BE QUIET.
BUT A LOT OF THESE LIKE THIS NATURAL LAND.
PART OF THE LAND USE MAP, WE SAW A LOT OF LAND PRESERVATION.
[02:35:03]
DOES THAT FALL? I UNDERSTAND THIS IS OWNED BY AN OWNER. I GET ALL OF THAT.BUT JUST HOW DOES THAT ALL MIX IN TOGETHER? BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING A BLUEPRINT THAT WE ESTABLISHED.
>> IF I COULD PIGGYBACK ON THAT TOO, I'M STARING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP RIGHT NOW, AND I ALWAYS FEEL A LITTLE BIT PUZZLED BY IT BECAUSE SOME OF THE CATEGORIES.
I KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LINE RIGHT UP WITH THE ZONING CODE, BUT WHAT IS TRANSITIONAL? I KNOW WHAT TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL IS, BUT IF SOMEONE COULD MAYBE EXPLAIN FROM THE TOWNSHIP PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT TOO.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD FIT IN WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
>> I THINK MY ORIGINAL QUESTION ACTUALLY WAS THE QUESTION COMMISSIONER SNYDER ASKED ON JUST THE TIME FRAME OF IT, BECAUSE THIS DOES SEEM REALLY UNIQUE IN ALL ASPECTS.
THAT GOES TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION ABOUT IF THE 92 ORDER IS STILL CONSIDERED THE FULL FORCE AND FACTOR OF THE SETTLEMENT, BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, IS THIS AN ARM'S LENGTH AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE DEVELOPER AND THE OWNERS? BECAUSE THERE COULD BE STIPULATIONS THAT THE SIDES DON'T LIKE, THERE COULD BE SOME THAT MAKE SENSE.
IF THIS IS THE ONE TIME, YOU WANT TO GET IT RIGHT.
I THINK TAKING TIME WILL BE QUITE APPROPRIATE THERE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
THE IMPACTS ARE HARD TO MEASURE IN ONE MEETING OR EVEN TWO, OR HOWEVER MANY IT'S GOING TO BE.
>> I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION ON THE 30 ACRES OR THE 30 ACRES AND THE UNITS PER ACRE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE RESIDENTS AND EVERYBODY ELSE COMING OUT HERE TO SPEAK.
I ALWAYS APPRECIATE IT AND TRY AND LISTEN TO EVERYONE.
THE THING THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS THERE'S ALREADY MULTIPLE ROADS HERE IN THIS WHOLE DEVELOPMENT.
IF WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TREAT THE UNITS PER ACRE ACROSS THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT, THE SOUTHERN ONE IS NOT GETTING ANY, IS A SEPARATE THING.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE A PARK OFF TO ITSELF.
I'M WONDERING WHAT THE UNITS PER ACRE ALLOWABLE ARE WITHIN.
IF WE TREATED EACH OF THESE PARTIALS SEPARATELY, WHAT WOULD THAT DO TO THESE BUILDING SIZES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE WITHIN THE ZONE REQUEST THAT'S BEING MADE IS ONE QUESTION.
THEN ALSO, THAT HAS PROBABLY PARKING IMPLICATIONS.
BECAUSE THE 569 THAT WE'RE IN THAT DOCUMENT, IF THAT'S FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT, THEN THE MIDDLE PARCEL, NOBODY'S GOING TO PARK IN THE MIDDLE PARCEL.
TO GO UP TO THE ONE ON THE TOP, WHICH IS GOING TO HAVE MORE PARKING DEMANDS THOUGH, BECAUSE THERE'S MORE DENSE HOUSING UP THERE.
IT SEEMS THAT THE PARKING ALSO IS A POTENTIAL ISSUE BECAUSE THEN IT CREATES MORE RUNOFF OF AND THE PEOPLE'S POINTS ABOUT WATER AND EROSION.
THE THIRD, I'D APPRECIATE ANY PERCEPTION IN THOSE TWO TOPICS.
>> THE THIRD ITEM IS RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS, I WENT TO A LISTENING SESSION WITH THE TOWNSHIP, JUST TO LISTEN TO OTHER COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE LOCALLY, AND I LEARNED MORE THINGS THERE.
ONE WAS THAT IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT LOCAL ROADS, LIKE COUNTY ROADS, IT'S A GOOD THING TO GO TALK TO THE ROAD COMMISSION AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT DICTATES LOTS OF THESE THINGS.
BUT ANYWAYS, RELATED TO THAT TOPIC.
[02:40:03]
THE CENTRAL PARK DRIVE IS RIGHT HERE.THIS IS WHERE THESE THREE PARCELS SIT.
I'M WONDERING IF THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURES THAT WE CAN RECOMMEND.
I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD HERE. IT'S JUST AN IDEA.
BUT IS A TRAFFIC CIRCLE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BOTH SLOW TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO ALLOW FOR THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC? WE HAVE ONE RIGHT THERE OFF OF MARSH IN THE VILLAGE OF OKEMOS, WHICH I DON'T EVER GET STOPPED AT, AND IT'S A FAIRLY MOVABLE PLACE.
I ALSO THINK THAT WOULD HELP WITH THE WALKABILITY ASPECT, AND THERE COULD BE BIKE COMPATIBILITY THAT WAS BUILT INTO THIS.
>> THE OTHER COMMENT RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC IS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS EXACTLY, BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT THINKING TOWARDS THE FUTURE, THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY.
IT'S VERY POSSIBLE THAT A LARGER DEVELOPMENT COULD GO IN TO THE WEST OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE RIGHT IN THAT SPOT AND COULD INCREASE THE TRAFFIC ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.
THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS THAT COULD PROBABLY HAPPEN IN THIS SPACE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE NOT TO HAVE THE ACCESS POINTS ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE? BECAUSE THEN THAT LEADS TO MORE PEOPLE GOING IN AND OFF THAT ROAD.
IF THERE WERE TRAFFIC CIRCLES ON COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE, THEN YOU WOULDN'T WANT TWO ENTRY POINTS IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT WAS ADDED IN BETWEEN THOSE.
THESE ARE JUST EXPLETIVE IDEAS IN TERMS OF HOW DO WE USE THIS LAND IN A WAY THAT CAN SERVE EVERYONE INVOLVED IN SOME CAPACITY? THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT I HAVE AT THE MOMENT.
>> I HAVE ONE MORE, ACTUALLY. I'M SORRY.
IN THE DOCUMENT, I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT PAGE IT WAS, THERE WAS A MENTION OF 24,300 SQUARE FEET.
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT PAGE IS ON.
BUT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BECAUSE I THINK THE APPLICANT DIDN'T WANT TO TRIGGER A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
BUT THEN I THOUGHT THAT THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOT FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT WAS FAR ABOVE OUR 25,000 SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT.
IT SEEMS ODD TO ME THAT WE WOULD SHOW 10 UNITS PER ACRE FOR THE 30, BUT THEN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS NOT TRIGGERED FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S UNDER THAT VALUE IN CERTAIN PLACES.
>> OUR SUP REQUIREMENT IS FOR SOME BUILDING WERE OVER 25,000, SO WE'LL EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BETTER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME PUTTING THIS TOGETHER AND ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
>> SORRY, HISTORICALLY, WHEN WAS MAYBE THE LAST TIME ROUGHLY 30 ACRES WAS REZONED? IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF ACRES OF LAND.
I DON'T KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M TRYING. I CAN'T COME UP WITH IT.
>> WE'LL COME UP WITH SOME COMPARISONS FOR YOU.
>> I HAVE QUESTIONS. I JUST CAN'T ARTICULATE THEM [LAUGHTER] LET'S GET LATE.
>> I GUESS, THE THING THAT WE ALWAYS STRUGGLE WITH, AND I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED IS THAT IT IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY A PRIVATE DEVELOPER AS LAND IS, AND IT'S ZONED FOR A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, AND WE'RE BEING ASKED TO REZONE IT TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A LITTLE BIT HIGHER DENSITY.
BUT I THINK ABOUT YOU TALK ABOUT USE BY RIGHT AND THE THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE THERE.
IT'S HARD FOR ME, IT'S HARD FOR EVERYBODY WHEN YOU SEE BEAUTIFUL UNDEVELOPED LAND TO SAY, I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE ANIMALS LIVING HERE.
[02:45:03]
BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT THE DEVELOPER COULD DO PROVIDED THEY FOLLOWED WET LAND LAWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT WITHOUT ANY APPROVAL FROM ANYONE IN CERTAIN AREAS.I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO THINK ABOUT IS, IS THIS THE RIGHT THING HERE? IF THIS IS GOING TO BE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, I MEAN, BECAUSE INITIALLY, EVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S THERE WASN'T THERE, IT WAS UNDEVELOPED AND WE HAD, NOT WE, BUT THE TOWNSHIP HAD TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE BUILT.
I'M SURE THERE WERE PEOPLE AT THE TIME WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOSS OF THE TREES AND THE ENVIRONMENT THEN, TOO.
IN A COMMUNITY LIKE OURS WHERE WE STILL DO HAVE A LOT OF NICE AREAS, THAT'S ALWAYS A STRUGGLE WHEN YOU SEE INFILL START TO COME IN.
BUT I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT AND REMIND OURSELVES IS, WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING? WHAT IS GOING TO HELP PRESERVE THE BENEFITS THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORS? ALSO ALLOW THE PERSON THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY TO USE IT IN THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO THAT BALANCES THOSE TWO NEEDS.
THAT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT I GUESS I'M ASKING, HELP US IF THERE ARE OTHER PLACES IN THE TOWNSHIP WHERE YOU'VE SEEN NEIGHBORHOODS ADJACENT TO THINGS THAT DO HAVE LIKE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND THERE'S SUCCESSFUL TRANSITIONS OR THERE'S PLACES WHERE THIS HAS BEEN DONE WELL, BECAUSE WHAT I'D HATE TO DO IS SAY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AND THEN HAVE SOMETHING COME IN THAT'S EVEN CONSIDERED LESS CONGRUOUS, BUT IT IS LEGAL.
I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO THINK OF WAYS IF THIS GOES FORWARD TO BUILD IN CONDITIONS THAT HELP PEOPLE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT AND PRESERVE THE QUALITY OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THERE, BUT ALSO ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DO WHAT THEY'RE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO ON THEIR PROPERTY.
>> ANYWAY, ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH US THAT HELPS US SEE OPTIONS OR GOOD EXAMPLES OF WHERE THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN OTHER PLACES WHERE THERE ARE SIMILAR? I KNOW THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO DO THAT.
BUT WHAT COULD BE IF IT WAS DEVELOPED AS IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED? WHAT THE OTHER OPTIONS MIGHT BE MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
I REALLY LIKE WHAT COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL SAID ABOUT OPTIONS FOR CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT MAINTAIN BOTH SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS AND DRIVERS IN CARS OR PEOPLE IN OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION IN WHAT IS ALREADY A BUSY AREA, ANYTHING PATHWAYS OR THINGS THAT WE MIGHT BE ALLOWED TO SUGGEST OR CONSIDER OR THAT IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER THEY MIGHT BE WILLING TO LOOK AT ALSO BE HELPFUL. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.
>> THANKS. I HAVE A SMALL NUMBER OF POINTS.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE REALLY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AS MUCH AS OUR COMMENTS FOR US AS A COMMISSION AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
>> CAN I ASK ONE LAST QUESTION? I APOLOGIZE.
>> MIXED USED MUPDS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT FITS INTO THIS CONVERSATION?
>> IT DOES NOT. JUST FROM THE PURE TECHNICAL ASPECT OF THE FACT THAT THE CS ZONING ESSENTIALLY PREDATES THE MODERN MUPD ORDINANCE, THAT WOULD BE COMPLICATED AT BEST.
>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS BEFORE COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL SHARE HIS THOUGHTS, CONSIDERATIONS? GO AHEAD.
>> THE FIRST ONE IS TO ECHO SOME THOUGHTS FROM COMMISSIONER BROOKS ABOUT I REALLY APPRECIATE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, AND FOLKS SPENDING AN EVENING OF THEIR TIME TO COME OUT AND LET US KNOW WHAT THEY'RE THINKING.
MEETINGS LIKE THIS FOR ME DEMONSTRATE THE PRINCIPLE OF WHAT IN MY FIELD IS CALLED PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE, CIVIC ENGAGEMENT.
THAT'S ALWAYS WONDERFUL TO SEE AS LONG AS IT'S CIVIL.
NOT AS MUCH DURING THE ORAL PUBLIC COMMENTS THIS EVENING, BUT IN SOME OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS WE SAW.
I WAS DISAPPOINTED TO SEE SOME VULGARITY, WHICH I BELIEVE HAS NO PLACE IN THIS CONVERSATION.
I SAW INSINUATION OF CORRUPTION, WHICH AGAIN, I THINK IS A BIG SWORD TO WIELD, AND I HOPE PEOPLE DO IT VERY CAREFULLY.
MOREOVER, I CONTINUE TO HEAR A SENTIMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY
[02:50:04]
ABOUT THE FOLKS WHO RENT AND THE FOLKS WHO OWN.WHEN I HEAR TERMS LIKE TRANSIENT POPULATION THAT FEELS PEJORATIVE TO ME, WHEN I HEAR ABOUT LESS DESIRABLE PEOPLE, IT VERY MUCH CONCERNS ME, WHEN I HEAR ABOUT NEFARIOUS ACTIVITIES AND CRIME RATES, IT MAKES ME WONDER IF THE DATA BEHIND THAT, OR IS THAT A FEAR THAT COMES FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE? I HOPE WE CAN ALL BE CIVIL AND CONSTRUCTIVE AND OPEN MINDED IN OUR CONSIDERATIONS.
FROM THE OVERALL ABSTRACT LAND USE QUESTION, IN MY MIND, IF THERE WERE NOT A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THERE AND SOMEONE WAS SAYING, I HAVE A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AND I'D LIKE TO PUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS TO TRY TO SAVE THAT MALL OVER THERE, I THINK IT WOULD BE A NO BRAINER FOR US.
I THINK WE'D SAY, HECK, YES, WE NEED MORE CUSTOMERS FOR THESE BUSINESSES.
WE WANT THE MALL OR WHATEVER IT TURNS INTO TO SURVIVE.
IT GETS COMPLICATED BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY OF THE SITE.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAND USE QUESTION IS, DOES THIS FIT WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN TERMS OF A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL? THAT'S WHY TO ME IT FEELS LIKE THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
LASTLY, ON THE ISSUE OF CHANGING THE CURRENT CHARACTER OF THE LAND.
I TOOK A FEW MOMENTS EARLIER TODAY TO LOOK BACK AT SOME HISTORICAL AREAL PHOTOGRAPHY THAT I'VE GOTTEN FROM THE ARCHIVE AT MSU, AND IN 1938, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, I'LL BELABOR IT, NINE TENTHS OF THIS PROPERTY WAS BEING ROW CROPPED AND THERE WASN'T A TREE TO BE FOUND.
UP ABOVE BELVEDERE, THAT LITTLE WETLAND WAS FORESTED AT THAT POINT, I BELIEVE IT IS PROBABLY THE DEEPEST AND MOST DIFFICULT TO FARM WETLAND, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE ON THAT PROPERTY WAS UNDER ROW CROPS, AND ALL THE DEER THAT LIVED THERE CAME AFTER THE LAND WAS ABANDONED FROM AGRICULTURE IN ANTICIPATION OF DEVELOPMENT.
IT CERTAINLY IS PROVIDING HABITAT. WE'VE HEARD THAT EVIDENCE.
THERE'S POSSIBLE [INAUDIBLE] LAST WEEK, IT WAS THE FIRST TIME ONE OF MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS HAD THE PLEASURE OF MICHIGAN DRIVING AND REDUCING THE DEER POPULATION BY ONE.
IN THAT INSTANCE, WE WERE FORTUNATE THAT THE CAR WENT OVER THE ANIMAL AND THE ANIMAL NOT THROUGH THE CAR.
I WANT TO PUT IN PERSPECTIVE HOW WE SEE A CERTAIN PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IF I BUY MY HOUSE AND I'VE GOT A VACANT FIELD BEHIND IT, THAT'S GREAT.
BUT I GOT TO KNOW IF SOMEBODY OWNS THAT AND HAS THE RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT AND WHAT IS IT THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE THOUGHTS OR CONSIDERATIONS?
OBVIOUSLY, AS I MENTIONED, IF ANYBODY THINKS OF SOMETHING AS THEY'RE LYING AWAKE TONIGHT, THINKING ABOUT PLANNING. PLEASE EMAIL ME.
WE WILL FOLLOW UP EVERY NIGHT.
[LAUGHTER] I'M CURRENTLY READING ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] SO IT'S VERY UNPLANNING.
VERY MISUNDERSTOOD WOMAN. VERY TRULY.
BUT PLEASE, EMAIL ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, STAFF CAN FOLLOW UP IN WRITING.
I'VE GOT THREE PAGES WORTH OF STUFF, AND WE'LL CIRCLE BACK AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO CAME TONIGHT.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR INPUT.
WE'LL BE HERE IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
THAT GETS US TO ITEM 9, OTHER BUSINESS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY.
[10.A. Township Board update]
ITEM 10A IS TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE IF YOU HAVE ONE.>> I CAN SAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, I THINK IN MY ENTIRE TIME AT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, I DIDN'T HAVE TO GO TO THE LAST BOARD MEETING.
THEY ADOPTED THE BUDGET, AND WE HAVE A NEW TREASURER COMING ON BOARD LATER THIS WEEK.
I WAS NOT THERE TO SEE EITHER OF THOSE THINGS.
WE WILL GET YOU DETAILS ON THE NEW TREASURE AND THE BUDGET SHOULD BE POSTED BY NOW.
THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT IS THERE'S STILL A LOT OF UNKNOWNS GIVEN THAT THE STAGE JUST HIT US WITH ABOUT A 7% CUT, AND WE STILL DO NOT HAVE HEALTHCARE NUMBERS.
IT'S NOT PRETTY ANYWHERE THIS YEAR THE HEALTHCARE SIDE.
[02:55:04]
>> NO. THANK YOU. THAT'S GREAT NEWS.
LIAISON REPORTS, DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS OR COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER? PROJECT UPDATES.
WE HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS AT THIS POINT, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
SEEING NONE, WE HAVE TWO COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.
[13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS (Part 2 of 2)]
>> GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER WALES.
>> THANK YOU, DR. SCHMIDT FOR CLARIFYING THE RECORD ON MY NON CONFLICT.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE CLEAN RECORDS.
FOR THAT, I PUT ON THE RECORD THAT I THANK DR. SCHMIDT FOR CLEARING IT UP FOR ME AND COUNSEL.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> COMMISSIONER BROOKS, IS THERE A SECOND.
>> EVERYBODY SECONDED. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE IT TO COMMISSIONER BROOKS.
BUT EVERYONE, REALLY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 9:30 PM. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
>> THANK YOU [INAUDIBLE]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.