[00:04:26]
OH MY GOSH REALLY? NO, NO. I JUST.
THAT'S GREAT. IT'S NICE. YOU SAID IT WAS COOL.
[00:05:06]
OH, OKAY. THAT'S HOW I GET THERE I WAS GOING TO SAY IF IT WAS IN SWITZERLAND, DID HE BRING MY COMPUTER NOPE DUSTY, THIS WAS NECESSARY OH, AT ALL TIMES OF DAY YEAH THIS WAS LIKE THIS WAS LIKE, 40 YEARS AGOSO SHE'S SHE'S OLDER SHE HAS HER PHD LIKE SHE'S HAD A VERY RICH LIFE YEAH, YEAH. AND SHE JOINED THE PEACE CORPS I'VE USED IT TO MY ADVANTAGE HUSBAND, THEY GOT MARRIED AFTER KNOWING EACH OTHER, AND IT WORKED.THEY WENT TOGETHER I'M REALLY GOOD AT WRITING MY STORY I'LL NEVER FORGET WHERE SHE WAS SO IF YOU CAN'T IMAGINE AND CAME TO THE END OF A ROSE AND WAS LIKE THINGS THEY TRY TO HIDE BEHIND EXEMPTIONS AND THEN I DEMANDED MY. EVERY TIME SHE TELLS THIS IS HENRY OVER HERE HE WANTS TO SPEAK AT THE END OF THE MEETING THE SECOND ONE OKAY.
IF I GET AN EMERGENCY CALL FROM MY BOSS, I MAY NEED TO STEP OUT FOR A FEW MINUTES NOPE THAT'S OKAY WE'RE JUST [LAUGHTER] ARE WE GOOD TO GO? I THINK YOU ARE THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. READY TO GO?
[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
2025 MEETING OF THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.AND WE WILL START WITH ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER.
LET'S START OVER HERE. COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. COMMISSIONER BROOKS. COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS.
HERE. COMMISSIONER SNYDER. HERE. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. HERE.
AND WE DID GET NOTIFICATION THAT COMMISSIONER FOWLER HAS STEPPED DOWN.
SO WE HAVE A VACANCY ON THE COMMISSION. CONGRATULATIONS TO HIM ON HIS NEW JOB [LAUGHTER].
THAT'S CORRECT. THE VACANCY. OKAY AND NOW WE ARE AT PUBLIC REMARKS.
[3. PUBLIC REMARKS]
THIS IS THE PORTION IN OUR MEETING OR ONE OF THE TWO PLACES IN OUR MEETING WHERE WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PEOPLE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE.I HAVE FORMS FROM A NUMBER OF PEOPLE FOR THIS ONE.
I HAVE ONE FOR THE LAST PUBLIC COMMENT ALREADY.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU MAY DO SO. IF YOU HAVE NOT FILLED OUT A FORM, PLEASE DO SO.
YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. IT IS THE CUSTOM OF THE BOARD NOT TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENT WHILE YOU'RE PUBLIC COMMENTING, BUT WE DO LISTEN TO YOU AND APPRECIATE IT, AND YOUR QUESTIONS MAY RESULT IN QUESTIONS THAT WE ASK OF THE APPLICANT OR OF STAFF AS A RESULT.
YOU'LL HAVE A LIGHT THE TIMER WILL COUNT DOWN. DID I MISS ANYTHING, MR. SHORKEY? [LAUGHTER] NO IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR.
THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY. YES. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.
THANK YOU YEAH. COME UP DURING THE DURING THE AGENDA ITEM.
SO YOU CAN SPEAK TO ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA, ANY ITEM BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND I WILL READ THE NAME OF THE PERSON. IF I MANGLE YOUR NAME, I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE.
I WILL PLEASE CORRECT ME. AND I'LL TELL WHO'S TALKING AND WHO IS ON DECK.
AND WHEN YOU COME UP, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
SO FIRST ON THE AGENDA OR FIRST SIGN UP IS PAULETTE GRACE.
AND THEN ON DECK I HAVE I THINK IT'S JADE SHI.
GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS PAULETTE GRACE AND I LIVE AT 4824 NASSAU STREET.
AND I'M A RESIDENT OF CPE, AND I OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT.
MY QUESTION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANSWERED AS A RESIDENT, BEFORE YOU PROCEED WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT, WOULD BE TO UNDERSTAND THE REASON THE TOWNSHIP WOULD WANT TO APPROVE CHANGING THE ZONING AGREEMENT TO INCREASE THE DENSITY WHEN THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A LITIGATION TO DECIDE THAT.
WHAT WHAT DOES THE TOWNSHIP SEE AS THE POSITIVE IMPACT IN INCREASING THE DENSITY ONCE AGAIN, AFTER THERE'S ALREADY BEEN EXTENSIVE LITIGATION?
[00:10:03]
WHAT IS THE CURRENT CAPACITY OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, AND HOW WILL IT HANDLE AN INCREASE FROM 312 NEW UNITS? WHAT DOES THE DRAIN COMMISSION OR DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT SAY ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ON THE AREA? HOW WILL THE DRAINAGE DESIGN PREVENT EROSION IN THE NEARBY AREA? IT'S A VERY BIG CONCERN FOR THOSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO'VE ALREADY HAD SOME PROBLEMS. WILL ANY UPGRADES TO THE EXISTING STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE BE REQUIRED OR ARE THEY PLANNED? AND AGAIN, I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO PROVIDE WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS THANK YOU.THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT I HAVE JADE SHI FOLLOWED BY KASON LYNN.
GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. 1572 MAIDEN LANE. I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE AUTHENTIC OKEMOS PROJECT. AND ALSO, I'M A NEIGHBOR LIVING IN THE CPE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AT THE SAME TIME BEFORE I LEFT MY HOME FOR THIS MEETING, I DIDN'T FIND ANY MEETING MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING, SO I'M NOT SURE LIKE WHEN THE MEETING MINUTES OF LAST MEETING WILL BE AVAILABLE ONLINE.
AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF OUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE MEETING MINUTES.
SO THOSE ARE THE THREE IMPORTANT PILLARS, WHICH INCLUDE THE ECONOMIC IMPACT.
AND ALSO THE SECOND ONE IS THE SOCIAL IMPACT, AND THE THIRD ONE IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
SO I WOULD ASK HOW WOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION BALANCE THE THREE CATEGORIES OF THE IMPACTS INVOLVING THE MASTER PLAN WHEN DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING THIS PROPOSED PROJECT? SO THAT'S THE SECOND QUESTION. AND THE THIRD QUESTION IS WE USED TO HAVE FOUR LINKS ON THE OF THE CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, BUT NOW WE ONLY HAVE TWO LINKS, BUT WE ARE INCREASING THE DENSITY.
AND THE OTHER ONE IS I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO WHAT ARE THE PROJECTED NET COSTS OR BENEFITS TO THE TOWNSHIP OVER THE 10 YEARS, 20 YEARS AND 30 YEARS FROM THIS PROJECT? AT THE SAME TIME, HOW WELL THE PROJECT. OKAY, I'LL STOP HERE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KASON LYNN. AND NEXT UP WILL BE MARK KLAUS.
OKAY I LIVE IN 1600 MAIDEN LANE. ALSO IN THE IN THE CPE.
SO I'M HERE TO OFFSET THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AT THE AUTHENTIC OKEMOS.
SO MY QUESTION IS MAINLY IN TWO PARTS. ONE IS WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURES? AND YOU KNOW, BASICALLY ASSURANCE FOR THE QUALITY AND THE IMPACT FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF THE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
AND THE SECOND ONE WILL BE MORE ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
MY NEIGHBORS ALSO ALREADY MENTIONED THE TRAFFIC, THE DRAINAGE.
SO WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR THE TOWNSHIP AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION, CONGESTION IS NOT A PROBLEM. THE DRAINAGE IN THE, IN THE BASEMENT FLOODING IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR OUR NEIGHBORS.
AND IF YOU GUYS HAVE A PLAN ALREADY, WHO IS GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE INFRASTRUCTURES? IS THAT GOING TO BE THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE TOWNSHIP? THAT'S MY QUESTIONS THANKS. THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS MARK KLAUS, FOLLOWED BY EDDIE DO.
GOOD EVENING MY NAME IS MARK KLAUS. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF EYDE DEVELOPMENT AND EYDE LAND HOLDINGS, THE CURRENT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. I ATTENDED YOUR MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO.
[00:15:02]
SOME OF THE ITEMS TO YOU AND TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.I'M OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE BEEN WITH THE COMPANY WHEN THE LITIGATION COMMENCED ON THIS PROPERTY IN 1989, OR, EXCUSE ME, 1989. ACTUALLY, I'VE BEEN WITH THE COMPANY 40 YEARS NEXT WEEK.
THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS HAS A LONG HISTORY, OBVIOUSLY.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND THAT THE, DECISION MADE BY THE COURT IN 1992 BASED ON THAT 1989 CASE, WAS THE FACT THAT THE ZONING THAT THE TOWNSHIP AND THE REFUSAL TO REZONE THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE TOWNSHIP TO COME UP WITH A SETTLEMENT AND AN AGREEMENT THAT WOULD WORK FOR BOTH PARTIES.
WE HAVE WE'VE WORKED ON A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CHANGED THAT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY IS THE EYDE LAND HOLDINGS.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY A DISCUSSION NOW OF IF THAT PROPERTY WILL BE DEVELOPED.
IT IS HOW THAT PROPERTY WILL BE DEVELOPED. THE CURRENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN OURSELVES AND THE TOWNSHIP IS THAT IT WILL BE ZONED COMMERCIAL ALONG THE FRONT AND MULTI-FAMILY ALONG THE MIDDLE, BETWEEN THE BEHIND THE COMMERCIAL AND ADJACENT TO CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT ZONING IS IN PLACE.
IT CAN BE DONE. IT DOESN'T NEED ANY OTHER APPROVALS OTHER THAN THOSE OF THE NORMAL REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN AND THROUGH THE OTHER AGENCIES LIKE THE DRAIN COMMISSION, THE ROAD COMMISSION, ROAD DEPARTMENT.
IT REDUCES THE TRAFFIC, AS THE STAFF REPORT SAID, I THINK BY 76%.
THEY'RE OFFERING TO MAKE THAT AT LEAST 100FT.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE UNDER THE CURRENT AGREEMENT.
AND I THINK THOSE ARE POINTS THAT YOU NEED TO RECOGNIZE.
WE'LL RECOGNIZE AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME [LAUGHTER].
THANK YOU [LAUGHTER]. THANK YOU. I'LL BE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS THE REST OF THE DAY GOES ON.
APPRECIATE THAT THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS EDDIE DO, FOLLOWED BY RUPINDER GOOD EVENING. PLANNING COMMISSION AND DIRECTOR SCHMITT.
MY NAME IS EDDIE DO, AND I LIVE IN CENTRAL PARK.
SO I MOVED TO HERE OKEMOS FOR, LIKE, ONE YEAR.
SO FOR THE. BUT MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 2013. SO IN THE PAST TEN YEARS.
THERE ARE TWO BASEMENT LEAKS IN MY IN MY BASEMENT, SO WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AREA IS SUPER WET AND HAVE A POTENTIAL FLOODING ISSUE. SO PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.
AND I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. SO FIRST OF ALL, IS THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER AWARE OF THIS PROJECT AND HAVE THEM FORMALLY REVEAL THE PLAN? IF NOT, HOW CAN THIS PROPOSAL MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THEIR INPUT? SECOND, WHO WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY IF THERE IS INCREASING FLOODING IN THAT AREA, INCLUDING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND GEORGETOWN NEIGHBORHOOD? SO IF IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER PERMISSION, ARE YOU GUYS ARE YOU GUYS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ISSUE? IF THAT PLEASE KEEP THAT IN THE MEETING MINUTES.
AND FINALLY, I WANT TO ASK, WHY HASN'T THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER HAVE, LIKE, FORMAL LISTENING SESSION WITH US? YOU GUYS ARE THE VOICE OF US. YOU SHOULD BE REPRESENTING US.
AND YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENS AND HEAR WHAT WE THOUGHT AND WHAT WE PROPOSE.
AND WE CAN DISCUSS AND HAVE SOME RESULTS. WE DESERVE TRANSPARENCY, FAIRNESS AND PROTECTION OF OUR HOMES AND ENVIRONMENT BEFORE ANY PROJECT MOVE FORWARD.
[00:20:04]
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND LISTENING. THANK YOU [APPLAUSE].ASK PEOPLE NOT TO REACT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
FOLLOWED BY IT LOOKS LIKE RS I'M GOING TO NEED A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION WHEN YOU COME UP.
GOOD EVENING BOARD MY NAME IS RUPINDER RAI. I'M FROM 1551 MAIDEN LANE, OKEMOS.
I KNOW IT IS PROPOSED ON 30 ACRES, BUT WHICH IS LIKE ALMOST FIVE.
BUT UNLIKE THIS 312 THAT ARE BEING BUILT IN THAT AREA AND WHICH IS MAKING THEM AT LEAST LIKE 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, THAT IS WAY MORE THAN WHAT WAS EVEN PROPOSED TO BEGIN WITH IN THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHICH IS EIGHT PER ACRE.
I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THESE NUMBERS, IN FACT AND ALSO OBVIOUSLY IT COMES WITH AS A PARKING PARKING PLANNING, THE PARKING SPOTS AND HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS ARE REALLY AVAILABLE FOR THOSE TWO NORTH AND SOUTH PARCELS OR MIDDLE PARCELS.
SO PLEASE, PLEASE CONSIDER THESE FACTORS FROM OUR SIDE TOO.
AND WHY IS THAT APPROPRIATE FOR INCREASING THE DENSITY OF THE HOUSES? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OUR RS FOLLOWED BY ANBARASU OPOSSUM.
HELLO, EVERYONE THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US.
I WOULD AGREE WITH ALL THE POINTS WHICH OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE MADE INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING IN THE BASEMENTS AND ALSO MINUTES OF MEETINGS, WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE A GOOD USE OF THEM IF THEY CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE ON TIME, AND ALSO WRITTEN RESPONSES FOR ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE RAISED.
IN THAT PETITION, THERE IS ONE LINE WHICH IS WORTH MENTIONING.
THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION, AND EVERYONE HAS BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THIS CAN LEAD TO INJURIES AND DEATHS BECAUSE OF HEAVY TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA.
SO THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. AND IF IT'S IGNORED, THAT'S A RED FLAG.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION A FEW OTHER THINGS.
ZONING SO I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO MR. CLAUS'S ASSERTION THAT THE ZONING IS GOOD AND THERE IS NO NEED TO ASK FOR ANYTHING, BUT THEN COMMERCIAL, SERVICES ZONING SHOULD STAY LIKE THAT.
WE WE WOULD PREFER IT TO BE LIKE THAT, NOT TO BE CHANGED.
SO WHATEVER CAN BE BUILT WITH THE ZONING AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, IT'S FINE WITH US.
AS RUPINDER MENTIONED THAT THE MOST OF IT IS WETLAND.
EVEN YOU MAY SAY THAT IT'S 30 ACRES. IT'S NOT 30 ACRES.
JUST LOOK AT HOW MUCH ACREAGE IS AVAILABLE FOR ACTUALLY BUILDING THE UNITS.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER PROBLEM. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT.
YEAH HOW WILL THE TOWNSHIP MITIGATE THE RISK OF INCREASED TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION AND POTENTIAL SAFETY HAZARDS? AND IF THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION WORSENS, WHAT RECOURSE WILL RESIDENTS HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? WHAT STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE FOR THIS KIND OF INCREASED DENSITY AND.
EVERYTHING ELSE WHICH HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE I STARTED SPEAKING.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
AND PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO WHY THIS IS. THIS MAY NOT BE SAFE FOR THE RESIDENTS, AND BASEMENT FLOODING IS, OF COURSE, AT THE TOP OF MY MIND BECAUSE MY HOUSE IS AT A LEVEL WHERE THE FLOODING IS POSSIBLE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS ANBARASU OPOSSUM, FOLLOWED BY VINCENT TAMANIKA.
[00:25:10]
RESIDENT OF CENTRAL PARK ESTATES SUBDIVISION.I LIVE AT 1538 BELVIDERE AVENUE ARE HERE TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL OF ZONING CHANGES.
I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. YOU KNOW, THE ONE IS WHAT? THE SPECIFIC PUBLIC BENEFITS JUSTIFIES THE REZONING.
IS THERE ANY DOCUMENT DOCUMENTED SHORTAGE OF HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IN THIS AREA? THE NEXT ONE IS WHAT DATA SUPPORTS THE CLAIM THAT THE INCREASED DENSITY IS NEEDED HERE, AS OPPOSED TO AREAS WITH STRONGER INFRASTRUCTURE AND BETTER TRANSIT ACCESS.
THE NEXT ONE IS DID THE DEVELOPER PROVIDE ANY SCHOOL CAPACITY PROJECTIONS TO ACCESS THE IMPACT ON THE LOCAL EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES? THE LAST QUESTION IS HAS THE DEVELOPER SUBMITTED A CLEAR PUBLIC BENEFIT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FOR THIS ZONING CHANGES? I URGE THE BOARD TO REJECT THIS ZONING CHANGE.
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU WE HAVE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES. UNDERSTAND THAT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAS APPROVED APARTMENT COMPLEXES NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES I'M SORRY SIR. WHAT'S THAT? YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS? VINCENT TAMANIKA, 4877 NASSAU.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE CPE I UNDERSTAND THAT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAS APPROVED APARTMENT COMPLEXES NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE PAST, BUT EACH NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ITS OWN UNIQUE ASPECTS.
CENTRAL PARK ESTATES IS, IN EFFECT, A LARGE CUL DE SAC WITH NO BACK DOOR OUT.
WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ENTER AND DRIVE IN THROUGH CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.
IT'S A NARROW ROAD WITH AN INFLUX OF APPROXIMATELY 1000 2000 ADDITIONAL TRIPS IN AND OUT OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, WITH AUTHENTIC OKEMOS OPENING UP AND WITH MORE UNITS FILLING UP AT GRAND RESERVE CONDO COMPLEX, WE ANTICIPATE TRAFFIC BACKUPS GETTING IN AND OUT OF COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE AVENUES.
OUR ONLY WAYS IN AND OUT. IF A FIRE BREAKS OUT, WE COULD BE STUCK IN THIS TRAP, ESPECIALLY IF FIERY DEBRIS IS BLOCKING A FEW ACCESS ROADS OR FEW ACCESS ROADS. AUTHENTIC RESIDENTS WILL GET OUT, BUT CPE RESIDENTS LESS LIKELY TO.
THE FIREFIGHTER TO POPULATION RATIO IS LESS THAN 1 TO 1000 RESIDENTS.
WITH AUTHENTIC CPE AND GRAND RESERVE, THE RATIO WILL BE SPREAD OUT EVEN THINNER.
HOW WILL MERIDIAN ADDRESS THIS INCREASED POPULATION TO KEEP US SAFE? WILL THE DEVELOPERS BE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE TO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS WIDENING OF ROADS OR MITIGATING SAFETY HAZARDS AT CROSS STREETS, AS WELL AS SEWER, STORMWATER AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE.
WOULD THAT BE PASSED UPON PASSED ALONG TO THE UNSUSPECTING TAXPAYERS? WHAT ARE THE PLANS TO IMPROVE? ROAD WITH TWO LANES IS NOT ENOUGH NOW FOR PEDESTRIANS TO CROSS SAFELY.
YOU'RE RISKING YOUR LIFE TO CROSS CENTRAL PARK DRIVE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.
AND HOW WILL INCREASE DENSITY AFFECT EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIMES? SCHOOL BUS ROUTES POSSESS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. HOW WILL YOU ASSURE US THAT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS IN GENERAL, AND DRAINAGE STANDARDS WHEN TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WORSEN, AS THEY INEVITABLY WILL.
VERY QUICKLY, ONCE THIS GOES IN, WHAT RECOURSE WILL RESIDENTS HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? IN EFFECT, YOU ARE OUR REPRESENTATIVES. WHAT? WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING FOR US? DISASTER OR SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY LIVE WITH? AND BY LIVE, I MEAN SURVIVE. WHAT PUBLIC BENEFIT JUSTIFIES INCREASED DENSITY? THIS INCREASED DENSITY REQUEST, THERE'S CERTAINLY NO BENEFIT FOR CURRENT RESIDENTS. THANK YOU THANK YOU. NEXT IS MILTON SCALES. I DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER FORMS, SO IF YOU ARE HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING THIS PUBLIC COMMENT TIME, PLEASE FILL OUT A FORM.
HELLO, MY NAME IS MILTON SCALES. I LIVE IN OLD ENGLISH ESTATES IN HASLETT 1534 DOWNING STREET.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
I NEED TO REMIND YOU, I DON'T NEED TO REMIND YOU OF YOUR CHARGE, BUT I WANT TO BRING IT FORWARD.
[00:30:03]
THE MOST IMPORTANT PART ABOUT THE CHARGE THAT WAS PUT TO YOU BY THE TOWNSHIP BOARD IS TO FULLY ANALYZE THE PROPOSAL.I LOOKED AT THE AGENDA AND I SAW NEW INFORMATION POST PUBLIC HEARING.
I SAW A LARGE AMOUNT OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ABOUT WETLANDS.
I SAW A QUESTION BY STAFF THAT WAS A QUESTION BY YOU.
THAT WAS A GREAT QUESTION THAT WAS ANSWERED BY STAFF.
BUT THERE IS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE PURSUED.
THE QUESTION WAS, ARE THERE ANY HISTORICAL REZONINGS OF SIMILAR SIZE CROSSING STREETS? YOU ALL ASKED THAT QUESTION. THAT WAS A FABULOUS QUESTION.
STAFF ANSWERED BY PROVIDING ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR EXAMPLES.
BUT THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS DID YOU DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND CHECK THESE FOUR INDIVIDUAL SCENARIOS TO SEE IF YOU'RE MISSING SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS THESE PEOPLE HERE RIGHT NOW? IF YOU DIDN'T, I WOULD ASK YOU NOT TO TAKE A VOTE TODAY UNTIL YOU LOOK AT THIS.
YOU MIGHT GET A SURPRISE IN THOSE FOUR ISSUES BEFORE YOU.
LASTLY, I SEE THAT YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.
YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND A RESOLUTION TO DENY.
I SAY THAT YOU HAVE A THIRD OPTION. YOUR THIRD OPTION IS YOU CAN LET THIS RIDE SO THAT YOU CAN DO MORE INVESTIGATION INTO THIS, SO THAT YOU CAN ANSWER MORE OF THE QUESTIONS OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ASKING TONIGHT AND THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS THAT THEY NEVER DID GET ANY ANSWERS TO, AND BE MORE PREPARED TO MAKE A DECISION AT ANOTHER MEETING.
THANK YOU. AND THOSE ARE ALL THE FORMS THAT I HAVE FOR THIS PORTION OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, THE OCTOBER 27TH MEETING AS PRESENTED THANK YOU. SECOND. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS.THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? AGENDA IS APPROVED. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 13TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
WHICH WERE IN OUR MEETING PACKET. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WONDERING, THEY DON'T GET POSTED UNTIL THEY'RE APPROVED AS APPROVED MINUTES, BUT THEY ARE FOUND IN THE MEETING PACKET FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING. THAT'S ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE TOWNSHIP. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BROOKS, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. ANY DISCUSSION? I HAD A COUPLE LITTLE THINGS, IF I COULD THE LAST FULL PARAGRAPH BEGINS VICE CHAIR SNYDER ASKED ABOUT AND LATER IN THE LAST TWO SENTENCES. WELL, THE LAST BIG SENTENCE.
COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL SAID THAT FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, IF THERE WAS NO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD NEARBY, THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE A NO BRAINER. AND IT IS A SORT OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT HE WANTS TO SEE.
AND I WORRIED THAT PHRASING OF NO BRAINER IS POTENTIALLY PEJORATIVE.
AND I MEANT FOR ME, IT WOULDN'T TAKE ME MUCH THOUGHT TO.
I'M SORRY THAT WAS FOOLHARDY. IF I HAD TO, IT WOULD BE A MUCH BIGGER NUMBER.
THAT'S THE SENTIMENT I WAS TRYING TO CONVEY. THE TREES BUT I JUST WANTED THE MINUTES TO REFLECT THAT PROPERLY MR. MCCONNELL, DID YOU WANT THAT? YOUR FIRST COMMENT DID YOU WAS IS THERE.
JUST A NO BRAINER FOR ME, FOR HIM. FOR HIM? THANK YOU ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE MINUTES OR ANY CORRECTIONS?
[00:35:06]
OKAY COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU, MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS SLIGHTLY AMENDED OKAY AND NOW WE ARE ON TO COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAD A NUMBER IN OUR PACKET.[6. COMMUNICATIONS]
HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANYTHING ELSE OR? NO ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATIONS THAT I'M AWARE OF THE PACKET FOR CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES AND CENTRAL PARK DRIVE COMMUNICATIONS, AND WE HAVE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS.[8.A. APP #25022 – Continental Properties/Eyde Central Park Drive proposal]
SO WE ARE ON TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. 25002 CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES EYDE CENTRAL PARK DRIVE PROPOSAL.GO AHEAD DIRECTOR SCHMITT. IT IS GOING TO YELL AT ME ABOUT THAT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND SO WE HAVE BROUGHT BACK TO YOU THIS EVENING THE REQUEST FROM CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES TO AMEND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT COVERING THE VACANT PROPERTIES ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS, AND IN BETWEEN BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS.
AND JUST TO REITERATE, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS APPROXIMATELY 30.65 ACRES.
CURRENT DESIGNATIONS. IN THE ZONING MAP OR RD, WHICH IS MULTIPLE FAMILY, UP TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH BUTTS UP AGAINST CENTRAL PARK ESTATES AND CS ALONG THE FRONT AND ALONG THE NORTHERN PART ADJACENT TO MEYER OR WALMART EXCUSE ME.
THE REQUEST IS TO MODIFY BOTH OF THOSE TO RC MULTIPLE FAMILY, UP TO 14 UNITS PER ACRE.
BUT AS I'VE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, AD NAUSEAM THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS BEING TREATED SIMILARLY TO A CONDITIONAL REZONING REQUEST, RIGHT? SO THEY HAVE OFFERED UP A SERIES OF CONDITIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, NOTABLY LIMITING IT TO 312 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY ABOUT TEN UNITS TO THE ACRE, DEPENDING DEPENDING ON HOW YOU CALCULATE IT.
CLOSER TO THE RD THAN THE RC. NO MORE THAN TWO STORY BUILDINGS BETWEEN BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS, TO LIMIT THE IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND PROVIDING A MINIMUM OF 150FT OF SETBACK FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND LIMITING THE FULL TIME ACCESS POINTS ONTO CENTRAL PARK AND TIMES SQUARE DRIVES ONLY TO PUSH THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ONTO THE COLLECTOR ROAD RATHER THAN ONTO THE SIDE STREETS, FURTHER BACKING UP TRAFFIC INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE BUILDING ARTICULATION TO SERVE IN PLACE OF THE 200 FOOT BUILDING.
MAXIMUM LENGTH THAT WE HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE, WHICH COMPLETE ASIDE, IS SOMETHING THE STAFF HAS BEEN RESEARCHING AS TO WHY WE HAVE THIS AND WHAT CAN WE DO TO CHANGE IT, BECAUSE THIS COMES UP PRETTY REGULARLY.
ALLOWING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO SERVE AS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SITE AND ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE WETLAND SETBACK WHILE, WHILE SETTING A ADDITIONAL SETBACK ASIDE IN OTHER AREAS.
SO ESSENTIALLY GOING TO A NO NET LOSS OF BUFFER UNDER OUR CODE BECAUSE AS YOU'LL RECALL, THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ACTUALLY ARE CAME INTO PLAY AFTER THE LAWSUIT WAS SETTLED. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WASN'T PART OF THE ORIGINAL ANTICIPATION.
YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE TAB IS THAT THE PROJECT STILL IS. THIS IS EXTRAORDINARILY EARLY IN THE PROCESS. IF THIS WAS A TRADITIONAL PROJECT, WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT THIS AS THE REZONING.
SO IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH SPECIAL AND YOU STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH SITE PLAN. SO ALL THOSE DETAILS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH REGARD TO DRAINAGE, WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ROAD DESIGN, WITH REGARD TO THE SEWER, THE RISE, RUN ON THE SEWER LINE, ALL THAT STUFF WILL GET WORKED OUT AT THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AS IT DOES WITH EVERY PROJECT, WITH EVERY PROJECT, ONCE WE GET TO SITE PLAN REVIEW, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE GETS INVOLVED, THE COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT GETS INVOLVED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY TEND NOT TO REVIEW CONCEPT PLANS VERY IN DEPTH.
THEIR COMMENTS BACK ARE GENERALLY HERE ARE OUR STANDARDS PLEASE MEET THEM.
WHICH YOU KNOW, IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE TIME PERIOD.
SO ALL OF THOSE ISSUES WILL BE ADDRESSED IF WE GET TO SITE PLAN REVIEW ON THE PROJECT.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO A GREAT LEVEL OF DETAIL WITH RESPECT TO MY RESPONSES.
[00:40:04]
YOU KNOW, THE ONE THING THAT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT FROM MY REPORT AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SEND ME A TRAINING. I COME BACK WITH A NEW AND FUN WAYS TO MAKE YOU TALK ON THE RECORD.BUT REGARDLESS OF THE ACTION THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKES TONIGHT AND TO FORMER COMMISSIONER SCALES'S POINT YOU KNOW, YOU DO HAVE THE OPTION IF YOU DO HAVE ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS, PLEASE RAISE THOSE AND WE WILL COME BACK WITH, WITH ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK. BUT AS YOU ARE, IF YOU CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ONE OF THE TWO RECOMMENDED OPTIONS PLEASE WE DO, WE WOULD VERY MUCH ASK YOU THAT YOU EXPLICITLY STATE YOUR REASONS ON THE RECORD AFTER MAKING THE MOTION, SO THAT IS PART OF THE RECORD THAT GOES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THAT GOES TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.
NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, ACCEPTANCE OF THE STAFF RESOLUTION.
AND WITH THAT, I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING AND HAS SOME FOLLOW UP ITEMS AS WELL.
AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. WHY DON'T WE START WITH QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR SCHMITT BASED ON ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE PACKET OR ANYTHING THAT CAME TO YOU BETWEEN THE LAST MEETING AND NOW IF FOLKS HAVE QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ROMBACK.
THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SCHMITT. FOLLOWING UP, THANK YOU FOR THE WRITE UP IN HERE.
IT WAS VERY HELPFUL. AND I SPENT A LOT OF TIME READING THE SPECIFIC CHARGE FROM THE BOARD.
SPECIFIC CHARGE COMES DOWN TO IN PERTINENT PART.
CORRECT. ALL RIGHT SO THAT COULD MEAN REALLY CANDIDLY, ANY CLASSIFICATION IS AVAILABLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIMITED US TO RC, RD, RDD ANY OF THESE. HUNDRED PERCENT, ABSOLUTELY.
SO MORE OR LESS THE MENU IS AVAILABLE. CERTAINLY ALL I WOULD SAY IS THAT AGAIN, AS I JUST MENTIONED, THAT ANY RECOMMENDATION THAT'S MADE THAT THE REASONS FOR SAID RECOMMENDATION ARE DIRECTLY ESPOUSED ON THE RECORD.
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU PLEASE GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. YEAH THANKS SO MUCH FOR PUTTING IN SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE ON NON-MOTORIZED CONNECTIONS.
IS THERE ANY CHANCE WE COULD LOOK AT THOSE? THOSE THREE SUGGESTIONS? ABSOLUTELY. THE TWO SPECIFIC ONES AND THEN THE MORE GENERAL. YEAH SO CERTAINLY THE FIRST ONE IS RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN SHOWS. A WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE PLAN? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? THE PLAN AND MAP BY THE WAY.
JUST A REMINDER OF ALL THE AVENUES AND, YOU KNOW, FOLKS FOLLOWING ALONG AT HOME HERE SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE JUST A SECOND. AND THAT IS SENSITIVE SO THIS PIECE IS RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN ACTUALLY CALLS FOR AN OFF-ROAD PATH RUNNING ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF BELVEDERE, SOMEWHERE BEHIND THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES PROPERTIES, OVER TO POWELL AND THEN FURTHER AFIELD.
AND THAT'S AFTER TALKING TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THE RECOMMENDATION AT THIS POINT WOULD BE TO SIMPLY MAKE THIS AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE PATHWAY, WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE EXPECT TO SEE ON AN OFF-ROAD PATHWAY. THE SECOND ONE RELATIVELY ALSO RELATIVELY EASY.
THERE'S IF YOU LOOK, THERE'S ALREADY A IT'S ACTUALLY COVERED RIGHT HERE.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT AN AERIAL PHOTO, THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION COMING OUT OF WALMART, RIGHT, RIGHT ABOUT HERE. AND SO IT'D BE A VERY EASY CONNECTION TO BE MADE RIGHT THERE TO CONNECT THIS PROJECT INTO THE WALMART PARKING LOT, PROVIDE BETTER ACCESS BETWEEN THE PROJECTS.
OBVIOUSLY THEN, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE DOESN'T HAVE TO GET IN THEIR CAR AND GO ON TO TIMES SQUARE FOR, YOU KNOW, 400 YARDS, BASICALLY. AND THE LAST ONE REALLY IS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO LEAVE A WINDOW OPEN FOR THE ROAD DEPARTMENT TO CHIME IN HERE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE CERTAIN PLACES, OBVIOUSLY, THAT I THINK WE COULD ALL AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, A HAWK SIGNAL SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE ON THE OTHER PARTS OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE CLOSER TO THE BUILDING WE'RE IN HERE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE A LOT MORE CONVERSATION WITH THE ROAD DEPARTMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S FEASIBLE IN THIS LOCATION.
AND SO YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
[00:45:03]
BUT THOSE ARE THE CONVERSATIONS WE NEED TO HAVE WITH THE ROAD DEPARTMENT IF THIS PROJECT DOES GET LEGS. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME SOME BROADER LANGUAGE TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THOSE DISCUSSIONS IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU.THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR EXCUSE ME WE TALKED ABOUT TRAFFIC. EXCUSE ME TRAFFIC SIGNALS OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
I MEAN, I KNOW THIS IS MY QUESTION IS VERY SPECIFIC.
LIKE THEY HAVE THESE SIGNALS NOW WHERE YOU PUSH THE BUTTON AND HAVE THE FLASHING.
AND BECAUSE CENTRAL PARK HAS SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF IT'S FREQUENTLY USED BY I MEAN, WILL THAT BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF SAFETY? LIKE I SAID, I KNOW IT'S REALLY SPECIFIC, BUT JUST A THOUGHT.
YEAH, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SORRY. I USE THE SORT OF TECHNICAL TER.
THAT'S THE HAWK SIGNAL. OH, OKAY. ALSO KNOWN AS AN R A RAPID FLASHING BEACON, RFB.
SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE WE WOULD START WITH OUR CONVERSATIONS, BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN RELATIVELY, RELATIVELY SUCCESSFUL IN THE TOWNSHIP. WE'RE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS IN OTHER PLACES IN THE TOWNSHIP TO TRY AND IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, AND THAT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN EAST LANSING.
AND SO THAT IS PROBABLY WHERE WE'LL START WITH THE COUNTY.
OKAY THANK YOU. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER ROMBACK.
DIRECTOR SCHMITT IS THERE. I'M GOING TO PREFACE THIS ONE SECOND.
THIS MIGHT BE A RELATIVELY UNFAIR QUESTION BECAUSE I ASK YOU TO THINK ON YOUR FEET. IS THERE A SIMILAR APARTMENT COMPLEX WE COULD LOOK AT THAT HAS BEEN REZONED IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE IN IN THE RELATIVE NEAR TERM? LIKE I'M THINKING CLEARLY THE ALDI CONSTRUCTION IS RELATIVELY NEW.
WELL, THAT'S A TOUGH QUESTION. I'M NOT HERE TO BE EASY.
NO, I RESPECT THAT NIGHT. I ACKNOWLEDGE YOU ASKED FOR THESE QUESTIONS LAST WEEK, AND. THAT'S OKAY. OR LAST TIME WE MET, AND I DID NOT COME UP WITH THAT ONE. SO I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE COMPARISON QUESTION IS DIFFICULT IN GENERAL BECAUSE THIS PROJECT WAS BUILT INSIDE OUT. YEAH YOU ALSO DON'T BUILD THE SINGLE FAMILY TO HAVE IT'S ITS ONLY ACCESS POINTS COME OUT THROUGH THE MULTI-FAMILY.
PART OF THE REASON THAT WAS DONE AT THE TIME WAS BECAUSE THE TOWNSHIP WAS REALLY PUSHING THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY IDEA, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PUT ADDITIONAL CURB CUTS ONTO POWELL ROAD BECAUSE IT WOULD NATURALLY LEND ITSELF TO MORE DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT? AND THAT LINE THAT WAS SORT OF THE LINE IN THE SAND.
AND SO THE CONVERSATION WAS, OKAY, LET'S PUSH ALL THE TRAFFIC FROM THIS ENTIRE 200 ACRES OUT TO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, AND THAT'S. NO DOUBT THAT IT IS A UNIQUE SITUATION THAT THE MULTI-FAMILY IS COMING AFTER THE SINGLE FAMILY.
I THINK THAT'S THE BIGGER ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IT WAS ZONED PREVIOUSLY.
NOW, AGAIN, THE ZONING OF THE IN THE CURRENT ZONING IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S AVAILABLE ANYMORE.
IT'S GRANDFATHERED IN UNDER AN OLD STANDARD RIGHT? CORRECT IF A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS ZONED WAS REZONED FOR, SAY, THE ALDI APARTMENT COMPLEX, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE.
AND THAT WENT TO RC. THEN THERE'S SOME CONSISTENCY IN HOW THE TOWNSHIP IS OPERATING.
BUT IF IT WAS YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO MAKE SOME SORT OF HISTORICAL COMPARISON.
YEAH. TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY BECAUSE THAT COULD BE IMPORTANT FOR THE RECORD.
SO I MEAN, I WILL SAY THE ALDI PROJECT, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WAS DONE AS A MIXED-USE PLAN.
IN FACT, I JUST PULLED UP THE MAP. IT IS YOU KNOW, THE MUPUD WAS THE FOR, FOR A WHILE THERE, THE SORT OF PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE TO GET TO MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
AND SO WHAT YOU FIND IN A LOT SEVERAL MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS FROM THE LAST CALL IT 20 YEARS IS THEY'RE ACTUALLY ZONED COMMERCIAL AS THE UNDERLYING ZONING. AND THEY GOT IN AS PART OF A BROADER MIXED USE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT.
SO DEVELOPING A HISTORIC COMPARISON IS A CHALLENGE.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD POINT OUT EVEN THE HANNAH PLAZA AREA THE HANNAH LOTS IS ACTUALLY ZONED OFFICE.
NOT THE LOSS. THE LOTS ZONED COMMERCIAL. THE ONE AT THE BACK IS ACTUALLY ZONED OFFICE YEAH, I'M BLANKING ON THE NAME. I THINK OF THEM IN TERMS OF THEIR UTILITY BILLS, NOT THEIR NAMES.
[00:50:02]
ABSOLUTELY. AND SO DO YOU PULL IN THOSE COMPARISONS OR DO YOU INTENTIONALLY LEAVE THEM OUT? AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH POSING THE QUESTION.GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER BROOKS I THINK IT'S SUPER HELPFUL. CAN YOU OR ANY OF THEM SURPRISING TO YOU OR LIKE DIFFICULT TO ANSWER IN ANY WAY? THE QUESTIONS? YEAH OR IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE WORTHWHILE SHARING FROM A HIGH LEVEL ABOUT ANY OF THE QUESTIONS? I MEAN. I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT THE ACCIDENT DATA IS VERY EASY TO PULL.
WE ONLY PULLED THE LAST FIVE YEARS. SO IF THERE'S SOME DESIRE TO GET DEEPER INTO THAT, WE CAN.
TALKING TO THE POLICE CHIEF, HE DID NOT INDICATE THERE WAS ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THIS LEVEL OF ACCIDENT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN IT'S ON A CURVE. YOU HAVE PEOPLE SLIDE OFFS. YOU HAVE PEOPLE NOT LOOKING THE RIGHT DIRECTION WHEN THEY PULL OUT OF MSU KIND OF THING.
WHICH, YOU KNOW, IT AT THAT POINT, RIGHT. YOU'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, ADDING THE CURB CUTS IN THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACE POSSIBLE, WHICH ALSO LEADS TO, OKAY, LET'S AT LEAST HAVE ONE OF THEM ON TIMES SQUARE SO THAT YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO PUT TWO CURB CUTS, OR YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO PUT ALL OF THE TRAFFIC OUT TOWARDS CENTRAL PARK IMMEDIATELY.
RIGHT? YOU'RE PUSHING PART OF IT OFF OF TO THE OTHER COLLECTOR, COMMERCIAL COLLECTOR STREET.
RIGHT? YOU KNOW, I WENT BACK TO EVEN LIKE THE 1972 PLAN, I BELIEVE AND IT WAS PARTIALLY MULTI-FAMILY, PARTIALLY COMMERCIAL. RIGHT? AND IT'S ALWAYS SORT OF BEEN IN THAT BALLPARK SOMEWHERE OF 5 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE COMMERCIAL OVER A PORTION OF IT. RIGHT? AND SO ONCE THE LAWSUIT HIT, REALLY FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, THERE WAS NO WE LEFT IT ALONE.
RIGHT? BY AND LARGE, IT WAS. WE DON'T MAKE MAJOR CHANGES TO THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO POTENTIALLY UPSET THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR HAVE THE JUDGE SAY WE'RE TRYING TO BACKDOOR SOMETHING IN. RIGHT? WE YOU KIND OF KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS AND LET IT RIDE UNTIL THE DEVELOPMENT IS DONE, RIGHT? AND THEN WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS DONE, OKAY, LET'S ALIGN THE FUTURE LAND THE LAND USE MAP WITH THE USE ON THE GROUND AND MOVE ON.
BUT I WOULD NOT MAKE THAT THE ONLY REASON I WAS MAKING A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS PROJECT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IT'S AGAIN, THE PROJECT WAS BUILT BACKWARDS.
I MEAN, IT'S GENERALLY LAID OUT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE TWO SITES CAN STAND ON THEIR OWN.
AND THE ZONING OFTEN CROSSES STREETS IN OUR MAP IN GENERAL.
IS THERE? YEAH, I'VE SPENT A BUNCH OF TIME THINKING ABOUT THAT AROUND.
SO YOU HAVE SINGLE USE OR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING UNITS AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE APARTMENT BUILDINGS OR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND. THERE MUST I MEAN, THERE MUST BE THERE'S OTHER PLACES WHERE THIS HAPPENS.
AND IT SEEMS ODD AT THE MOMENT. BUT IT STILL HAPPENS IN OTHER PLACES RIGHT? IT WAS A LIST I'M JUST. I'M JUST SAYING THIS OUT LOUD. YEAH.
THAT THERE ARE OTHER PLACES WHERE THIS HAPPENS, BUT ON THE TRAFFIC SO ON THAT NOTE.
BUT THEN I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DATA THAT WE PROVIDED.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS SUPER HELPFUL.
AND SO THANKS THANKS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR PROVIDING THE ACCIDENT INFORMATION SINCE 2020.
SO THERE'S 19 CRASHES AND THIS THESE HAPPEN AT THE FIVE NEARBY INTERSECTIONS.
BUT FIVE OF THOSE WERE SINGLE CAR ACCIDENTS, MULTIPLE INVOLVED ICE.
[00:55:04]
AND SO THERE'S REALLY 14 CRASHES THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS REGARDING THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS THAT ARE GOING ON.FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S ONLY ONE CRASH THAT'S HAPPENED AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY AGAINST A DEER, WHICH TO THE POINT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IS THAT THE MORE NATURE THAT WE HAVE NEARBY, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE DEER AND THEREFORE THERE COULD BE MORE DEER CROSSINGS.
I WANTED TO ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SO I REREAD OUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT CODE THIS WEEKEND, WHICH IS A FUN READ IN CASE ANYONE IS CURIOUS ABOUT OUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORDINANCE.
IT'S IT'S REAL RIVETING STUFF. SO I THINK I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS.
SO WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THIS CASE, RIGHT? SO THIS IS A SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT, BUT I WAS JUST THINKING THROUGH THAT AS A LOGICAL FRAMEWORK.
SO THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT REQUIRES LIKE BUILDINGS CAN GO UP TO A HEIGHT OF 35FT.
AND THAT, IT WAS AT 25FT? SO THE BASE LEVEL FOR HEIGHT IN THE RC, NO RD ZONING DISTRICT IS 25FT. AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE REQUEST IS TO GET TO THAT 3RD STORY NORTH OF BELVIDERE.
RIGHT. AND SO WE DON'T. SO IT'S 25FT ENOUGH. THEIR CURRENT PLANS APPEAR TO MEET OUR CODE REQUIREMENTS.
SOMEBODY ELSE CAN JUMP IN IF THEY HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, I'M THINKING. GO AHEAD KLAUS SPEAK EARLIER ABOUT HOW THE REQUEST WILL ACTUALLY REDUCE THE I GUESS THE NUMBER OF UNITS OR WHATEVER. IT'S ACTUALLY DECREASING UNITS BUT REDUCE TRIPS? YEAH. SO DO WE HAVE OR DO WE NEED TO WAIT FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY? SO THEY PROVIDED US WITH TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT.
YEAH I MEAN, IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IF YOU LOOK AT SORT OF THE THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE CS VERSUS THE THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE RC. I MEAN, THAT'S IT'S REALLY IT IS A FAIRLY FACTUAL STATEMENT TO SAY THAT RC IS LESS INTENSE THAN CS. JUST BY AND LARGE, COMMERCIAL IS ALWAYS GOING TO DRIVE MORE TRAFFIC, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, YOUR HOUSE, INDIVIDUAL UNIT, YOU KNOW, ONLY A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON ANY GIVEN DAY ARE GOING TO GO THERE, RIGHT? 3 OR 4, DEPENDING HOW MANY KIDS YOU HAVE.
MAYBE THE AMAZON DRIVER A COUPLE TIMES. IF YOU'RE MY HOUSE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OBVIOUSLY TURNS OVER A LOT MORE PEOPLE.
SO I DON'T I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT SORT OF ADDRESSES THE CONCERN ABOUT INCREASED, POTENTIALLY INCREASED AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC I MEAN, NATURALLY, TRAFFIC IS GOING TO INCREASE FROM ANY DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? CAN'T IT'S DIFFICULT TO MAKE A COMPARISON TO THE ZERO CASE, BECAUSE THAT THEN BECOMES THE CUDGEL TO TURN ANYTHING DOWN BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST YOU'RE ADDING TRAFFIC PERIOD. AND THAT WOULD NOT STAND UP VERY EFFECTIVELY IN THE LONG RUN.
AND SO YOU COMPARE SORT OF THE POTENTIAL VERSUS THE POTENTIAL.
THAT'S SORT OF HOW YOU DO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. AND IN THIS CASE, YES, I STAFF IS PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE IN OUR ANALYSIS IS THAT THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE DENSITY OF TRAFFIC. THANK YOU
[01:00:07]
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT HOW WILL THE ZONING WORK, GIVEN THAT THIS IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IF OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY CHANGES HANDS, HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO WHAT I EXPECT TO HAPPEN AND AGAIN, THIS IS ALL SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEYS GETTING THEIR HANDS ON IT ON BOTH SIDES.THIS IS THE NEW TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
AND THE TERMS AS OUTLINED IN THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT ARE NO LONGER IN PLAY.
THESE RUN WITH THE LAND, RIGHT? IF IF CONTINENTAL DISAPPEARS, IF EYDE DISAPPEARS THIS PROPERTY IS STILL SUBJECT TO THOSE STANDARDS. NOW, THERE'S SEVERAL LEGAL ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE THAT COULD BE MADE ABOUT.
WHETHER THAT'S FULLY TRUE IF THE CORPORATIONS NO LONGER EXIST.
THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE, I WAS NOT ABLE TO BE AT THE MEETING WHERE WE CONCEPTUALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS, NOT OUR LAST MEETING, BUT THE ONE BEFORE THAT. YES, MA'AM. AND I KNOW YOU PROVIDED THE BOARD AND I DID REVIEW THE MEETING AND WATCHED [LAUGHTER] IT, BUT JUST FOR MY EDIFICATION, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS YOU TALKED ABOUT THERE WAS HOW A SIMILAR PROCESS OF AMENDING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS UNDERTAKEN IN ORDER TO BUILD THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S THERE NOW FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.
IN 2004 WE ACTUALLY AMENDED THE AGREEMENT WITH A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE.
BECAUSE IT WAS ORIGINALLY OFFICE WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY RD AND SO TO GET TO PUSH FORWARD ON THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES PROJECT THEY CHANGED THE DESIGNATION THE OFFICE DESIGNATION TO RD BUT CAPPED AT THE TIME THE CS.
THINKING RIGHT STACKING LAND USES AS IT GOES BACK FROM CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.
SO YES, THAT WAS. AND TO BE CLEAR, WE THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN DURING THIS REVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENT IS THE SAME ONE THAT OCCURRED IN 2004, AND SO WE'VE TRIED TO FOLLOW THAT RELATIVELY CLOSELY.
GIVEN THAT THERE'S NOW A NEIGHBORHOOD THERE AS OPPOSED TO BEFORE WHEN IT WAS A FIELD.
OKAY THOUGHTS? I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. COMMISSIONER BROOKS.
DIRECTOR SCHMITT IF THEY WERE, IF THE IF WE WERE TO BUILD UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, SO WOULD THEY THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF THE OF THE SETTLEMENT, WOULD THERE BE A REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT? I DO NOT KNOW THAT ANSWER. I WOULD HAVE TO SIT DOWN WITH OUR ATTORNEYS AND DISCUSS THAT.
MY GUT REACTION IS, YES, BUT CERTAINLY THE PORTION OF THIS LAWSUIT THAT INVOLVED WALMART EXPLICITLY APPROVES THE WALMART PLANS. AND SO I WOULD NEED TO GO BACK AND REREAD THINGS IN SOME DETAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT, TO FULLY GET THAT AND PROBABLY TALK TO OUR ATTORNEYS OKAY. I'M ASKING BECAUSE ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS BEING MADE IS THAT BY US AMENDING THE SETTLEMENT IS THAT IT WOULD CREATE A REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC FLOW OR TRAFFIC, BASICALLY. AND THIS IS LIKE A REDUCTION IN DENSITY.
BUT THEN. AM I MISS REMEMBERING? WAS THERE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE OR MAYBE NOT A REDUCTION? WAS THERE A NOTE IN HERE ABOUT GETTING RID OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENT? SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED AS PART OF THIS AGREEMENT, SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT, IF IT GOES FORWARD, IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT REQUIREMENT STAYS IN PLAY.
[01:05:01]
AND THIS IS THAT IS ME HEDGING A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT, BECAUSE PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, AS YOU RIGHTFULLY POINTED OUT, IS PARTIALLY BASED AROUND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.RIGHT? BECAUSE WE BECAUSE THE BOARD CHARGED YOU WITH DISCUSSING THE LAND USE AND POTENTIAL CHANGES, YOU'RE GETTING INTO A LOT OF THE SAME THINGS.
SO SO THERE IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD APPROPRIATELY GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AGAIN, OR WHETHER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BECOMES THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SITE.
SO THAT IS A TBD AT THIS POINT. SO THEN GIVEN.
SO LET'S SAY IN THEORY, WE GAVE UP THE SPECIAL USE, NOT GIVE UP.
WE AMENDED THIS SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
BY DOING THIS WHOLE PROCESS RIGHT NOW, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE AREN'T DOING NOW THAT WE WOULD DO DURING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT? NO AND THAT'S A THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
YOU KNOW, PART OF THE BENEFIT IN FOLLOWING THE 2004 PROCESS IS WE'RE ESSENTIALLY DOING THE SAME THING WE WOULD DO UNDER A SPECIAL USE OR REZONING AND DOING PUBLIC HEARINGS, DOING OUTREACH. AND THEN HAVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.
AND THAT I THINK IS THE BENEFIT OF HANDLING IT IN THIS WAY, AS OPPOSED TO DOING A TRADITIONAL CONDITIONAL REZONING OR DOING IT UNDER A TRADITIONAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BECAUSE IN THOSE CASES, YOU PRETTY CLEARLY HAVE TO BE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO A SPECIFIC REASONING AS TO WHY THAT CONDITION IS BEING PUT IN PLACE IN THIS CASE, RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD.
AND, YOU KNOW, THROW THE DART AGAINST THE WALL AND SEE WHERE IT LANDS.
OKAY SO ONE OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, THOUGH, IS THAT THE 25,000 SQUARE FOOT OF SPACE ACROSS AN AREA. SO THEN.
I'M SORRY I KEEP LOSING MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT THERE'S A LOT IN THIS DOCUMENT.
I UNDERSTAND I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT REMOVING THE OR SOMETHING ABOUT THE 25,000FT² RELATED TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PAUSE AT THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING SORRY ABOUT THAT.
BUT THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWERS ABOUT THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THAT.
ABSOLUTELY. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. WHAT CPE CURRENTLY ZONED? RD? SORRY, I WAS GOING TO PULL IT UP HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF.
YEAH. AND WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE DWELLINGS PER ACRE ON AN RA? FOUR AND A HALF, FOUR POINT. I THINK IT'S UP TO FIVE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, BASICALLY SO 4.35. THANK YOU.
SIMILARLY, I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR RDD.
I CAN'T, I'M TRYING TO FIND IT, BUT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME.
RDD IS FIVE. OKAY OUR CC IS OUR HIGHEST AT 34. THIS IS ONE THING THAT I DON'T THINK WE REALLY TALKED ABOUT A LOT.
THEY'RE COUNTING THAT THIRD PIECE OF PROPERTY AS PART OF THE OVERALL PIECE.
SO ALTHOUGH THE DENSITY OVERALL IS WHAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE FULL SCOPE OF THE PROPERTY, THE ONE PIECE WITH ALL THE WETLAND ISN'T REALLY. SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY BECOMING DENSER THAN IT WOULD.
AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT RIGHT? LIKE BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING THE BUILDINGS, IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT THIRD EMPTY PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE COUNTING THOSE ACRES WITHOUT THE BUILD. I MEAN, I THINK THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT WOULD BE IF I'M THE DEVELOPER, I PUT A COUPLE BUILDINGS ON THE VACANT LOT PROPERTY, THEN. YEAH. YOU KNOW, THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WE GAVE YOU THE BREAKDOWN OF OF WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL DENSITIES WERE.
YEAH. IT'S TOP OF PAGE 47. OKAY. YOU KNOW, NORTHERN PROPERTY IS JUST UNDER 11.
OKAY HELP. I THINK IN SOME CASES WE'VE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED DEVELOPERS TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEN YOU DON'T LOSE SOME OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING IS VALUABLE,
[01:10:05]
WHICH IS THAT UNDISTURBED NATURAL SPACE. AND SO IF YOU'VE GOT THIS AGREEMENT, HAVING THAT THERE DOES PRESERVE SOME OF THE NATURE THAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING IS SO IMPORTANT TO THEM. SO AND IT WOULD MAKE IT NOT DEVELOPABLE BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THIS AGREEMENT YOU'D HAVE TO REZONE IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, THEY'D BE HELD TO NOT PUTTING ANYTHING THERE IF THEY'D AGREED TO THIS AND NOTHING ELSE CHANGED.SO TO ME, THAT COULD BE SEEN AS A POSITIVE ALSO.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD. ABSOLUTELY.
OKAY THANK YOU. IS IT POSSIBLE TO KIND OF GOING ALONG WITH THAT PAGE 47 IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DIFFERENT PARCELS, THE ACREAGE IN THE PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, IS IT POSSIBLE? I KNOW IT'S GOT TO BE IN THE PACKET SOMEWHERE [LAUGHTER] TO VISUALLY SEE THOSE THREE PARCELS ON THE SCREEN.
YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. I CAN ACTUALLY GIVE YOU AN EASIER WAY TO SHOW.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE IT WITH THEIR PLANS THOUGH [LAUGHTER]. THAT IS I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS. I THOUGHT I SAW SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT THIS ONE'S SMALLER OKAY. THE PARCEL LINES JUST HAPPEN TO DIRECTLY CORRELATE WITH THE ROADS, SO THIS IS PARCEL ONE. THIS PARCEL TWO, AND THIS MOUSE IS REALLY SENSITIVE [LAUGHTER].
THIS THIS IS PARCEL THREE. IT KIND OF GOES AROUND THIS POND.
AND THEN THAT'S THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE RIGHT THERE. OKAY THANK YOU. YEP.
SO 1, 2, 3 BOTTOM TO TOP. DOES WALMART HAVE TO AGREE TO THE THAT THE AREA RIGHT NEXT TO THEM BEING REZONED CS TOO OR FROM? THEY DO NOT.
OKAY BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO AGREE. OKAY. THAT NORTHERN PARCEL IS RD CORRECT? THE NORTHERN PARCEL IS SPLIT CURRENTLY. SORT OF THE BACK PORTION OF IT HERE IS RD AND THE MAJORITY OF IT'S CS.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? ANYTHING? MAYBE ONE PICAYUNE LANGUAGE, THE SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED AND STAFF PROVIDED LANGUAGE FOR, AND THAT'S GREAT.
IN ONE OF THEM, THERE WAS AN OR. AND I GUESS.
YEAH SO STAFF'S THE ACTUAL. THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE IN THE MOTION RIGHT NOW IS NO BUILDINGS OTHER THAN TWO STORIES SHALL BE PERMITTED SOUTH OF BELVIDERE AVENUE. WE DID PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE IF THERE'S SOME DESIRE TO GET FAR MORE SPECIFIC. ALTERNATIVELY, YOU COULD CHANGE THAT TO SOMETHING ELSE.
YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE PUBLIC INPUT WAS INDICATING SOME CHANGES TO THAT.
SO WE WENT WITH THE SIMPLER VERSION TO START.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ORDINANCE.
I THINK IT SAYS THAT THERE'S NO MORE THAN TWO UNRELATED PERSONS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
SO THAT IS THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THAT IS ACTUALLY OUR CURRENT RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY STANDARD IN SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.
IN THE MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS, IT'S ACTUALLY THREE UNRELATED PERSONS CAN LIVE TOGETHER.
YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OH, REALLY? I THOUGHT I READ THAT IN THE RC.
MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY UNDER UNDER APPENDIX A FOR THE RC IS A FAMILY OF THREE UNRELATED.
ONCE YOU GET TO RDD, IT'S A FAMILY OR THREE UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS.
SUBJECT TO A WHOLE LOT OF COMPLICATIONS. IF YOU GET INTO DUPLEXES, WHICH YOU'D HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
OKAY SO THEN THE PERMITTED USE OF THE THIS RC ZONING THOUGH, IS THREE UNRELATED PERSONS.
[01:15:01]
A FAMILY OR THREE UNRELATED PERSONS CAN LIVE TOGETHER IN AN INDIVIDUAL UNIT IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT, OKAY, SUBJECT TO BUILDING CODE AND FIRE CODE AND ALL THAT STUFF.BUT BY THE ZONING CODE, THAT IS THE ALLOWANCE.
LET'S MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.
THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL.
SO OKAY. I WOULD GLADLY DEFER TO THEM AT THIS POINT.
THANK YOU. AND THAT'S BEFORE BRETT ADDRESSES THE ITEMS THAT WERE SUPPLIED TO YOU, A COUPLE OF POINTS CAME UP DURING YOUR CONVERSATION WITH TIM THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT FROM THE HISTORIC PERSON, IF YOU WILL, HERE.
THE IF YOU LOOK AT THE STIPULATED ORDER THAT WAS DONE IN 2004, IN PARAGRAPH 11.
IT DISCUSSES THE TOWNSHIP'S DESIRE TO HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF CENTRAL PARK ESTATES DONE BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENING. I THINK TIM HAS MENTIONED A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS THAT IT WAS DONE IN REVERSE.
BUT THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE TOWNSHIP I THINK THEY HAD A CONCERN.
I'M GOING BACK OVER 20 YEARS NOW IN MEMORY. BUT THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT IF WE HAD THE COMMERCIAL AND THEN THE RD ZONING THAT SOMETHING WOULD HAPPEN AND WE WOULD WANT IT TO BE MORE DENSE THAN THE RA THAT AS IT WAS DEVELOPED, THE SUBDIVISION HAD BEEN APPROVED, BUT IT HAD NOT BEEN BUILT.
SO THAT WAS DONE, AND IT WAS DONE IN REVERSE.
SO THAT DID OCCUR. AND WE ARE NOW OBVIOUSLY WORKING THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF OF WHAT HAPPENED.
THE OTHER PART THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT IS THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE TYPICAL REZONING, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW WE'RE KIND OF GOING THROUGH THAT SAME PROCESS, HAVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. AND I BELIEVE THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, DO WE NEED TO DO THE ZONING THAT WAS REQUESTED OR CAN WE DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT? AND TIM'S ANSWER WAS, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
AND I AGREE, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT AT ALL, BUT IT'S DIFFERENT THAN WITH A REZONING BECAUSE IF SOMEONE CAME IN AND ASKED FOR COMMERCIAL AND YOU SAID NO, I THINK IT SHOULD BE REZONED TO OFFICE OR TO A LOWER STEP OF COMMERCIAL AS YOU NOW HAVE IT.
OURS IS ZONED CS, WHICH WAS EVERYTHING YOU COULD MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION IN THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, THEN COULD REZONE THE PROPERTY TO SOMETHING LESS THAN THE APPLICANT REQUESTED.
THIS IS DIFFERENT. IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE THE TOWNSHIP AND OURSELVES, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, AGREE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, SO IT MAY GO BACK WITH A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION.
AND IF IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION THAT WORKS FOR BOTH PARTIES, FOR THE TOWNSHIP AND FOR THE LANDOWNER, IT WON'T CHANGE. WE'LL END UP KEEPING THE SAME ZONE CURRENTLY.
I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR TO EVERYONE. I THINK BRETT HAS A LOT OF INFORMATION TO SHARE WITH YOU, AND I WON'T TAKE ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE I BEGIN. WELL, I'M BRETT MOZZETTI WITH CONTINENTAL 975 FUND LLC HERE ON BEHALF OF CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES, WHERE THE APPLICANT WORKING WITH EYDE LAND HOLDINGS TO POTENTIALLY DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY.
[01:20:06]
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RD AND RC ZONING CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR 35 FOOT BUILDINGS BY RIGHT.AND JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT CONTINENTAL'S PROPOSAL BY THE TOWNSHIP'S DEFINITION HAS BUILDINGS AT 27FT SO SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED, AND VERY SIMILAR TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY THAT EXISTS AT CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED AND DISCUSSED AT THE OCTOBER 13TH MEETING.
WE DID ALSO SEND A MEMO THAT I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL SEEN WITH SOME OF THE INFORMATION.
I'M GOING TO GO OVER. TO RECAP OUR REQUEST WE ARE SEEKING TO AMEND THE EXISTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2004 AND PRIOR TO ANY OF THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES HOMES BEING BUILT OR OCCUPIED.
AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE AREA IN BLUE, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 18.3 ACRES.
AND 60% OF THE SITE IS CURRENTLY ZONED CS. THAT ZONING BY RIGHT ALLOWS FOR TAVERNS, NIGHTCLUBS, RETAIL BANKS, OFFICES, DANCE AND MUSIC STUDIOS OR THEATERS, BUILDING SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT STORES, GROCERY STORES, AMONG OTHER USES. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE BUILT BY RIGHT TODAY WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC INPUT.
THE OTHER 40% OF THE SITE OR 12.38 ACRES IS ZONED RD, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MULTI-FAMILY AT EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, UP TO 35 FOOT BUILDINGS AND SETBACKS AT 45FT.
WITH THAT SAID, THE REQUEST THAT WE ARE MAKING IS TO REMOVE THE COMMERCIAL CS ZONING FROM THE SITE AS A PART OF THE SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT, AND ALLOW FOR MULTI-FAMILY USES ACROSS THE ENTIRE SITE AT APPROXIMATELY 10.2 TO 10.5 UNITS PER ACRE, DEPENDING ON HOW THAT'S CALCULATED AT THE TOWNSHIP LEVEL.
THEY ARE A WELL REGARDED TRAFFIC ENGINEER WHO OPERATES ALL OVER THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.
AND I POINT ALL OF THIS OUT BECAUSE ANY QUESTION OF THEIR INTEGRITY IS UNFOUNDED.
AND THEY MADE THEY DEVELOPED THEIR REPORT BASED ON DATA, NOT OPINIONS.
AND THEY'RE ALL UNDER THE ROADWAY DEPARTMENT JURISDICTION.
CENTRAL PARK DRIVE WAS ORIGINALLY STRIPED WITH A AS A FOUR-LANE SECTION.
IN 2020 THE COUNTY DECIDED TO BECAUSE TRAFFIC VOLUMES DID NOT WARRANT THE FOUR-LANE SECTION, MEANING THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH TRAFFIC ON CENTRAL PARK.
THEY REVISED THE STRIPING TO WHAT IT EXISTS AS TODAY, WHICH IS A THREE-LANE SECTION.
AND ACCORDING TO THE DATA AT THE DOT AT OUR PROPERTIES LOCATION, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 5545 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY. IT IS INDUSTRY STANDARD THAT THREE LANE ROADWAY SECTIONS CAN ACCOMMODATE 15,000 OR UP TO 20,000 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY. AND SO THE EXISTING CONDITION IS, YOU KNOW, I SUPPOSE IT'S UP TO
[01:25:07]
75% LESS THAN WHAT IT COULD ACCOMMODATE IN ITS CURRENT SITUATION.TO BRIEFLY RELATE THAT TO CONTINENTAL'S PROPOSAL, WHERE, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, WE'RE PROPOSING 312 UNITS PER THE TRAFFIC STUDY PROVIDED, THE PROPOSAL WILL GENERATE APPROXIMATELY 1997 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, FOR A TOTAL OF 7542. TO REITERATE, CAPACITY ON CENTRAL PARK IS 15,000 MINIMUM.
SO WE ARE LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT THE CAPACITY OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE HAS AND WAS DESIGNED FOR.
JUST TO HOLD ON THAT FOR A BRIEF SECOND, WE HAD F AND V LOOK AT A FEW DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES TO CONTINENTAL'S PROPOSAL FOR THIS PROPERTY. WE CALLED THEM IN OUR MEMO TO YOU CONSENT JUDGMENT ONE, TWO AND THREE.
AND WHAT THOSE SCENARIOS SHOWED IS DIFFERENT BY RIGHT SCENARIOS THAT COULD BE BUILT AND HOW THOSE SCENARIOS WOULD GENERATE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA AND ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE. THE FIRST ONE, CONSENT JUDGMENT ALTERNATIVE ONE WAS BASED ON.
WE LOOKED AT HOW RETAIL HAS DEVELOPED IN THE TOWNSHIP, GENERALLY BY LOOKING AT AERIALS, GRABBING A BUILDING FOOTPRINT IN THE ASSOCIATED PARKING AND PLANNING THAT ON THE SITE. SO THIS IS CONCEPT IN NATURE, BUT IT WAS ASSUMED THAT ACROSS THE 30 ACRES YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR 99 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS ON THE RD PORTION OF THE SITE AND 118,000FT² OF COMMERCIAL ON THE COMMERCIAL PORTIONS OF THE SITE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TABLE PROVIDED HERE, THAT TRIP GENERATION, BASED ON THOSE USES, BRINGS YOU UP TO A POTENTIAL OF 8393 TRIPS PER DAY ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.
THAT IS OVER 6000 MORE TRIPS THAN WHAT CONTINENTAL'S PROPOSAL WOULD PROVIDE.
CONSENT JUDGMENT ALTERNATIVE TWO TAKES A MORE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH.
SO THIS CUTS THAT COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN HALF.
THIS LOOKS AT THE POTENTIAL OF THOSE 99 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS IN THE RD ZONE DISTRICTS, ALONG WITH 59,000FT² OF POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL WITHIN THOSE COMMERCIAL AREAS.
WHAT THIS RESULTS IN, PER THE TRAFFIC STUDY, IS A TRIP GENERATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4535 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT OVER 2500 MORE THAN CONTINENTAL'S PROPOSAL.
AGAIN, CONTINENTAL'S PROPOSAL WOULD GENERATE ABOUT 1997 TRIPS PER DAY.
TO CONCLUDE THE OPTIONS FOR A VARIETY OF DATA POINTS, WE LOOKED AT WALMART SPECIFICALLY.
WALMART'S USE WOULD BE AN APPROVED USE IN THE CS ZONE DISTRICT AND IS ALSO CURRENTLY ZONED CS.
AND WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO OF WALMART.
MEANING HOW MUCH OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS BUILT ON THE SITE RELATIVE TO ITS ACREAGE OF THE SITE.
WALMART WAS BUILT AT 5958FT² PER ACRE OF LAND ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
IF WE APPLIED THAT RATIO TO THE DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE OF THE COMMERCIAL LAND HERE, AND WHEN I SAY DEVELOPABLE ACREAGE, I MEAN, WE SUBTRACTED THE WETLAND AREAS, WE SUBTRACTED ANY SORT OF ODD PORTIONS OF THE SITE THAT YOU JUST COULDN'T DEVELOP BECAUSE OF THE WETLANDS, AND FOUND THAT WE HAD ABOUT 12.76 DEVELOPABLE ACRES HERE.
WHEN YOU APPLY THAT RATIO YOU GET TO APPROXIMATELY 76,000FT² OF COMMERCIAL ACROSS THE SITE ALONGSIDE THOSE 99 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, WHICH WOULD GENERATE TRAFFIC UP TO 6620 VEHICLES PER DAY.
AGAIN, THAT IS THAT IS TRIPLE CONTINENTAL'S PROPOSAL.
AND YOU KNOW, ONE OF THOSE, BY RIGHT, USES BY THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT.
I MAKE THOSE THREE ASSESSMENTS JUST TO KIND OF REINFORCE THE FACT THAT WE SEE THIS AS A DOWN ZONE THAT WOULD BE LESS INTENSE THAN WHAT THE CURRENT USES ALLOW.
TO SUMMARIZE SOME OF THE OTHER KEY ITEMS FROM THE TRAFFIC REPORT.
[01:30:03]
ALL INTERSECTIONS AND ALL MOVEMENTS IN THIS AREA CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE.WITH OUR PROPOSED ADDITION OF VEHICLES TO THE AREA, CENTRAL PARK DRIVE HAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO COVER THE POTENTIAL TRIP GENERATION FROM OUR COMMUNITY AND CONTINENTAL'S PROPOSAL WILL RESULT IN SIGNIFICANTLY LESS TRAFFIC THAN WHAT THE EXISTING LAND USE WOULD WOULD POTENTIALLY GENERATE. MOVING INTO TALKING ON PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS BRIEFLY.
I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON THIS SINCE IT WAS COVERED HERE, BUT WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD THAT EIGHT FOOT CROSS COUNTY PATH TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF BELVEDERE TO FACILITATE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS FROM THE WEST SIDE OF NASSAU STREET TO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.
WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING A FIVE FOOT PUBLIC SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COLUMBUS.
AGAIN, THAT'S WEST OF NASSAU STREET. THERE'S AN EXISTING SIDEWALK STUB AT CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, AND THIS WOULD BRIDGE THAT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EXISTING SIDEWALK ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE AND THE EXISTING SIDEWALK TO THE EAST.
LOOKING AT SOME OF THE PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS HERE, BECAUSE THESE ROADS ARE UNDER COUNTY JURISDICTION, THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO COUNTY APPROVAL.
HOWEVER, WE ARE PROPOSING CROSSWALK PAINT AT KEY INTERSECTIONS.
SO HERE WE'RE SHOWING IT CROSSING COLUMBUS AND THEN ALSO CROSSING CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.
AT THIS CROSSING WE WOULD PROPOSE THE RIBS THAT WERE DISCUSSED.
WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING THAT CROSSWALK PAINT AT BELVEDERE AVE AND TIMES SQUARE DRIVE TO CONNECT ALL OF THOSE EXISTING PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY AND MAKE FOR SAFER CROSSINGS OF THESE AREAS. THIS HERE IS KIND OF THAT REVISED PLAN, THE FULL PLAN THAT TIM WAS ALSO SHOWING EARLIER.
AND I THINK BEFORE I CLOSE, THE ONLY THING THAT I WANT TO ADD, BASED ON SOME OF THE CONVERSATION TODAY, IS THAT THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE DRAIN COMMISSION.
WE WOULD HANDLE ALL STORMWATER ON SITE THROUGH THE PROPOSED STORMWATER PONDS AND, AND TYING THOSE INTO EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AS WE'RE ABLE BASED ON THE COUNTY'S REQUIREMENTS, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS, AND WE WOULD WORK THROUGH THAT PROCESS ONCE WE GET BEYOND THE POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT AMENDMENT, AND WE KNOW WHAT OUR PROCEDURE IS TO MOVE FORWARD.
HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE ITEMS, I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS THEM.
NOW TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS GO AHEAD PAGE SEVEN REFERENCES PROPOSED RENTS. YOU HAVE 100% AMI RENT AND THEN ALSO CONTINENTAL'S CURRENT AVERAGE RENT.
WHICH ONE IS THE PROPOSED RENT? SORRY, THAT'S CONTINENTAL'S CURRENT PROPOSED AVERAGE RENT.
THE REASON THE WORD CURRENT IS IN THERE IS BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE SLIGHT FLUCTUATIONS IN THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR, YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME OF LEASING. AND SO WHAT OUR PROPOSED AVERAGE RENT RIGHT NOW FOR THIS SPECIFIC COMMUNITY WOULD BE THE 1472 FOR THE STUDIO AND THEN DOWN TO MAKE THAT TOTAL AVERAGE OF.
I THINK I HAVE IT HERE. 1678. OKAY. THANK YOU.
I HAD SOME. SO PROPOSED AVERAGE RENT, MEANING THAT DEPENDING ON WHERE THE UNIT IS IN THE BUILDING, SAY A CORNER OR SAY A SECOND LEVEL, YOU MAY CHARGE MORE THAN THE AVERAGE.
AND IF IT'S OTHERS, YOU MAY CHARGE LESS? YEAH.
AND THERE MIGHT BE SOME SLIGHT DEVIATIONS IN SQUARE FOOTAGE.
I THINK A PART OF THAT TABLE, THERE IS A RANGE OF SQUARE FOOTAGES BASED ON YOUR UNIT TYPE.
AND SO THERE ARE SLIGHT FLUCTUATIONS BECAUSE OF THAT.
YEAH, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT SOME NUMBERS BECAUSE I THINK IN YOUR PRESENTATION TWO WEEKS AGO, YOU MENTIONED BEING POLICE OFFICER, FIREFIGHTER AND TEACHER FRIENDLY. YES.
[01:35:04]
I DID LOOK UP THE AVERAGE STARTING SALARY FOR EACH ONE AND THEN LOOKING AT THE 1512 FOR A ONE BEDROOM AVERAGE.STARTING TEACHER IN OAKLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS MAKES 46,147.
SO AT 1512 PER MONTH, THAT'S 18,144 A YEAR FOR RENT, ABOUT 39% OF THEIR INCOME.
SO I DON'T DOUBT THAT STATISTIC. HOWEVER, MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP HAS AN EXTREMELY HIGH AMI AND THIS PROPOSED COMMUNITY AND THESE PROPOSED RENTS ARE IN THOSE MORE AFFORDABLE THRESHOLDS BASED ON THE DEMOGRAPHICS HERE. TO ADDRESS THAT COMMENT SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE IN A ONE BEDROOM TWO INDIVIDUALS LIVING AND IT WOULD BE THAT AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME. SO THE OTHER PERSON'S WHETHER IT'S THEIR SPOUSE OR PARTNER, THEIR INCOME WOULD ALSO POTENTIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO THAT AFFORDABILITY ASPECT.
SURE. I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT LIKE I'M GOING TO TAKE A WILD STAB HERE.
BUT I DO GRANT YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY THAT COULD HELP WITH THE INCOME.
CAN I KEEP GOING, MADAM CHAIR? YOU SURE COULD.
ANOTHER ONE. SO YOU WENT THROUGH THESE COUNTERFACTUALS OF MORE OR LESS.
AND SIMILAR TO WHAT, MR. CLAWSON, THIS IS WHAT WE COULD DO BY RIGHT.
SO THEN WHAT IS THE CHOICE BEHIND DOING THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OR THE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT VERSUS WHAT YOU COULD DO, WHICH, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, GENERATES MORE TRAFFIC, PROBABLY THEORETICALLY GENERATES MORE REVENUE? WELL, CONTINENTAL IS A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER ONLY.
WE DO NOT DO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER.
AND SO WE DON'T EVER ENTERTAIN OTHER USES. THE REASON I WAS, I GUESS SHOWING THOSE NUMBERS IS BECAUSE OF THE A LOT OF THE FEEDBACK I HAVE HEARD IS DUE TO UNSAFE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE DATA SUGGESTS THAT THESE ROADWAYS CAN SUPPORT WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, AND THAT THE BY RIGHT USES COULD AND PROBABLY WOULD GENERATE MORE.
BUT CONTINENTAL AGAIN, IS ONLY A HOUSING DEVELOPER.
SO IF I WANT AN ANSWER TO THE WHY QUESTION THAT WOULD YOU WOULD POINT BACK TO ADD.
IT FELT MORE LIKE, WELL, THIS IS WHAT WE COULD DO IN CASE WE DON'T DO THIS.
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE ADMITTED, IF THE ADMISSION IS THERE'S LESS TRAFFIC THIS WAY, THEN WHY DO IT THIS WAY? SURE AND APOLOGIES IF THAT WAS THE WAY IT CAME OFF IT.
IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE THAT WAY, BUT IT WAS INTENDED TO SHOW DATA TO SUPPORT HOW A HOUSING COMMUNITY WOULD BE A LESS INTENSE USE IN TERMS OF WELL, USE IN GENERAL, POTENTIALLY OPERATING HOURS, POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, LIGHTING ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT GO INTO THE DEFINITION OF INTENSITY WITH THE USE.
AND I DO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE TO STAND THERE AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. THAT'S A DIFFICULT SPOT. AND YOU WROTE THIS AND I HAD ALL THE TIME TO LOOK IT OVER AND TRY TO LOOK THINGS OVER. BUT I'M TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND SOME OF JUST WHAT I'M READING HERE INTO WHAT YOU'VE PUT FORWARD TODAY.
SO AND NOW YOU MENTIONED, BECAUSE I KNOW I BROUGHT UP THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU LAST TIME, YOU'RE NOW AN A-PLUS. I CONFIRMED THAT IS TRUE.
DID CONTINENTAL ONLY UNDERTAKE RESPONDING TO THOSE AFTER THE COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED? SO, NO. WE HOSTED A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON AUGUST 20TH WITH A LOT OF THE INDIVIDUALS HERE.
AND SO IT WAS PROBABLY THE DAY OR TWO AFTER THAT MEETING WHERE WE LOOKED INTO THAT IMMEDIATELY.
OKAY. SO SOMETIME BETWEEN AUGUST 20TH AND THE DATE YOU FIRST APPEARED, HERE WAS THE TIME WHEN CONTINENTAL UNDERTOOK RESPONDING TO THOSE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU COMPLAINTS. YEAH. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. MAZZETTI? MR. KLAUS? I WAS HAPPY TO PICK A NIT. PLEASE. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.
THE NIT THAT I'M GOING TO PICK IS A VERY SMALL ONE.
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A FOUR LANE TO A THREE LANE CONVERSION OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.
[01:40:01]
I'VE. SOME NON-MOTORIZED ADVOCATES REFER TO THAT AS A FOUR LANE TO FIVE LANE CONVERSION, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALSO ADDING BIKE LANES NEXT TO THE CURB.IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE NOT FORMALLY MARKED, SO IT'S KIND OF A BIT OF AN OVERSTRETCH.
BUT I DID WANT TO GO BACK MAYBE HISTORICALLY A BIT, AND THINK ABOUT WHAT CENTRAL PARK DRIVE WAS WHEN IT WAS FOUR LANES, AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT CENTRAL PARK AND M-43 LOOKED LIKE BEFORE THEY RECONFIGURED THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THAT INTERSECTION.
FOLKS COMING SOUTH ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE WERE GETTING EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THAT ROAD WOULD BACK UP, AND THEY HAD THAT LITTLE TINY LEFT TURN SIGNAL TO GO EAST ON GRAND RIVER.
AND THE STATE MDOT REPLACED THE SIGNAL AT THAT INTERSECTION THAT PROVIDES A VARIABLE LEFT TURN ON THAT SOUTHBOUND MOVEMENT. YOUR TRAFFIC STUDY GETS AT THE INTERSECTIONS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT WITH IMPACTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT.
IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR IN THESE KINDS OF SITUATIONS WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE ON THOSE MORE ARTERIAL CONNECTIONS, NOT JUST WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED, BUT WITH WHAT COULD BE DONE OTHERWISE.
SO I'M KIND OF THINKING IN TERMS OF THE COUNTERFACTUAL THAT YOU'VE BUILT.
AND LASTLY, JUST A COMMENT. I'M CURIOUS IF YOU AGREE WITH IT, THAT GENERALLY ON ROADS VOLUME INCREASES DECREASES OF SPEED INCREASES TO SOME DEGREE THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS THAT OCCUR, BUT THOSE INCIDENTS TEND TO BE OF LOWER SEVERITY.
PARKING LOTS ARE FAMOUS FOR LOTS AND LOTS OF CRASHES, BUT THEY TEND TO BE FENDER BENDERS, WHEREAS FAST ROADS TEND TO BE LESS OFTEN BUT MORE SEVERE.
MAYBE THAT'S MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION. THAT SOUNDED LIKE A COMMENT TO ME. ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I DO HAVE QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER BROOKS.
AND YOUR THANK YOU FOR RESPONDING TO OUR QUESTIONS.
FIRST OFF WE APPRECIATE IT. AND I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE TIME THAT YOU ALL HAVE SPENT MEETING WITH RESIDENTS AND LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS AND TAKING THAT FEEDBACK AND INCORPORATING THAT INTO THIS.
SO IT SAYS 76,000FT I THINK WAS WHAT WAS MENTIONED FOR.
OR NO, MAYBE THIS ISN'T MENTIONED. YEAH. THE WE'RE SAYING HERE THAT AT THE 5958FT² PER ACRE, WHEN WE DID THE MULTIPLICATION OF THAT TIMES THE 12.76 BUILDABLE ACRES, WE GOT TO THAT 76,029FT² OF POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL USING THE WALMART FLOOR AREA RATIO. OKAY, SO WHAT WAS THE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPARISON BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE SEEN THE SQUARE, THE RAF NUMBER OR THOUGHT ABOUT THAT FULLY BEFORE.
SO THE WALMART WAS WHAT BUILDING SIZE. SO THE WAY THAT WE CALCULATED THAT AND AS IS I THINK, YOU KNOW, STANDARD WE LOOK AT THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT ON THE GROUND FOR THE PARCEL IT'S BUILT ON.
YEAH. AND SO FOR WALMART, THEY WERE BUILT AT 5958FT² PER ACRE ON THE PARCEL IT SITS ON.
RIGHT. BUT AND YOU'RE SAYING YOUR. THE THINGS THAT'S CONFUSING ME HERE IS THAT.
SO YOU YOU HAVE YOU'RE COMPARING TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS THOUGH.
SO YOU'VE GOT 6000 ROUGHLY SQUARE FOOT PER ACRE FOR THE WALMART.
YEP. AN AREA. AND THEN NOW WE'VE GOT 76,000FT².
SO WE JUST APPLIED THAT RATIO TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
[01:45:03]
COMMERCIAL AREA ON OUR SITE. AND IF WE WERE TO BUILD THAT, IT WOULD HAVE THE SAME FLOOR AREA RATIO AS THE WALMART PARCEL DOES TODAY.OH. DOES THE WALMART HAVE ANY SORT OF SPECIAL PERMIT OR LIKE THE WALMART MUST BE OVER? THAT SEEMS ODD TO ME. DOES ANYONE ELSE STRUGGLE WITH THIS COMPARISON? I THINK IT WAS JUST SHOWING. THIS IS I GUESS I USED IT, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING, AS YOU SAID, THEY'RE THEY'RE DOING HOUSING, BUT THEY'RE SAYING IF THIS DOESN'T GO FORWARD AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DECIDES TO DEVELOP IT AS THEY CAN BY RIGHT. THIS IS POTENTIALLY WHAT COULD GO THERE.
AND SO I WAS PROBABLY NOT FOCUSED SPECIFICALLY ON PROJECTS BECAUSE IT'S ALL CONCEPTUAL.
I THINK MAYBE WHAT COMMISSIONER BROOKS IS GETTING AT IS THAT IN THE RIGHT USES, WE'RE USING BUILDABLE ACRES, AND IT SOUNDED LIKE IN THE WALMART COUNTERFACTUAL, IT WAS SQUARE FOOT FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL.
SO IT KIND OF ASSUMES THAT THE ENTIRE PARCEL WAS BUILDABLE. I DON'T KNOW IF.
DO WE KNOW THAT? YES. RIGHT. WELL, ALSO, THOUGH, THE THE.
ISN'T THE DOESN'T THE AMENDED SETTLEMENT STATE SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE BY RIGHT SQUARE FOOT AREA IS? THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR MR. DIRECTOR SCHMITT.
POTENTIALLY. IT IS SIMPLY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SIMPLY HAS THE ZONING CS.
IT DOES NOT DICTATE THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE PER ACRE.
ONE, TWO AND THREE. AND I BELIEVE THE FIRST ONE HAD 118,000FT², WHICH USING THE ORDINANCE, IF IT WAS DEVELOPED FOR PARTICULAR USES, YOU COULD GET APPROXIMATELY 118,000FT².
THEY CUT THAT AND, YOU KNOW, WAY DOWN INTO 70 ACRES.
AND THEN ALTERNATIVE THREE WAS JUST SIMPLY TAKING A PROPERTY THAT WAS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED ON THE SUBJECT, OVERALL SUBJECT PARCEL THAT WAS PART OF THE LITIGATION PIECE AND SHOWS YOU THAT IT WAS 70, AVERAGING OUT AT 76,000FT². SO THEY'RE REALLY THEY'RE REALLY JUST DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES.
AND I THINK THE POINT WAS THAT I THINK STAFF HAD MENTIONED THAT PERHAPS THE HIGHER NUMBER WAS MIGHT BE OVERSTATING IT. AND I THINK THE INTENTION HERE IS NO MATTER WHAT NUMBER YOU USE, EVEN IF YOU USE A VERY LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, IT STILL PRODUCES MORE TRAFFIC. AND I THINK THAT WAS REALLY THE POINT THAT WAS TRYING TO BE MADE.
TO ANSWER YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION. THERE ARE NOT SQUARE FOOTAGES IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, IF I MAY.
GO AHEAD. YES. SO THE A LOT OF THE CONCERNS AROUND THIS AREA IS RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT.
AND SO ONE WAY OF MITIGATING THIS IS TO REDUCE THE PAVEMENT, RIGHT.
THE THINGS OF THIS SIZE. BUT THE QUESTION I HAVE IS DO YOU NEED, DO YOU NEED THIS AMOUNT OF PARKING? LIKE, BECAUSE YOU YOU IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S TOO MUCH PARKING IN THE NORTH.
THAT'S LIKE OVERFILL FROM THE MIDDLE SECTION, WHICH I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT SEEMS. LIKELY. AND SO I AM SORT OF LIKE THERE'S ALREADY A GIANT PARKING LOT IN THE WALMART TO THE NORTH, AND I DON'T WANT PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE TO HAVE TO PARK IN THE WALMART.
[01:50:02]
ON AVERAGE, OUR COMMUNITIES IN MICHIGAN AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THE SWEET SPOT IS KIND OF 1.75 UNIT OR STALLS PER UNIT.THAT'S BASED ON WHAT OUR, THE POPULATION OF OUR COMMUNITY ENDS UP BEING.
WE ARE PARKED EXACTLY AT CODE, WHICH IS 1.79 STALLS PER UNIT AT THIS POINT.
SO IF THERE WERE TO BE INTEREST IN REDUCING PARKING, WE WOULD LIKELY BE INTERESTED IN THAT DOWN TO THAT 1.75 STALLS PER UNIT. OKAY. WHAT WOULD I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOU TO DO THIS IN WRITING.
I'M JUST SPECULATING HERE. IF THERE WERE A LOWER PARKING REQUIREMENT, THEN WOULD THAT WHAT WOULD THAT SPACE BECOME? YOU KNOW, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DISTRIBUTION AND SEE WHICH BUILDINGS BASED ON UNITS DO WE THINK ARE UNDER PARKED OR OVER PARKED AND TRY TO DELIBERATELY MAKE SHIFTS BASED ON SERVICING THE ACTUAL RENTER? OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION, THIS IS MY LAST QUESTION FOR RIGHT NOW. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE PATHWAY BEING BUILT AND THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE POTENTIALLY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BELVEDERE. AND THIS COULD BE A QUESTION FOR MR. SHORKEY OR DIRECTOR SCHMITT. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO PUT THE PATH ON THE NORTH SIDE AS IS ORIGINALLY ATTENTION. IT ACTUALLY BE A RAISED PATH THROUGH THE WETLAND ON THE NORTH SIDE.
I WILL CHANNEL DEPUTY MANAGER OPSOMMER HERE AND SAY THAT WHERE WE CAN AVOID RAISED PATHWAYS, IT IS IN THE LONG TERM FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF THE PATHWAY MILLAGE TO DO SO.
AND I WOULD ALSO ENTERTAIN THOUGHTS ON SORT OF WHERE YOU SEE THIS GOING FROM HERE IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU ARE STILL THINKING ABOUT, STILL CONSIDERING WHERE YOU'D LIKE TO GO WITH THIS? WE DO HAVE PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS HERE.
I PERSONALLY DID NOT THINK WE WERE GOING TO GET TO THE POINT OF INTRODUCING A RESOLUTION TONIGHT BASED ON OUR LAST CONVERSATION, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SHUT OFF THAT OPPORTUNITY IF THAT'S WHERE OTHERS ARE GOING.
I'D LIKE TO KIND OF GET A SENSE OF WHERE THE BOARD IS WITH THIS.
IF YOU COULD I HAVE I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PHRASE IT BECAUSE I AM CERTAINLY NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS AREA.
BUT SO BASED ON MY OWN LIMITED RESEARCH, LESS THAN.
THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING AT THIS FROM. LESS THAN HALF OF HOUSEHOLDS IN HASLETT EARN.
ABOVE $80,000 A YEAR. THE ARMY IN THIS AREA, IN HASLETT IN PARTICULAR FOR A FOUR PERSON HOME. 80% OF ARMY IS $80,640 A YEAR.
SO I GUESS YOU KNOW, ALL THE RENT THAT I'M SEEING AND THE MENTIONS OF THE ARMY THAT YOU DISCUSSED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING WERE BASED ON 100% ARMY. AND IN SOME CASES, LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT RENTS, IT'S MORE LIKE 120% OF ARMY. MY QUESTION IS, WOULD AUTHENTICS BE WILLING TO LOOK AT SETTING ASIDE MAYBE ONE THIRD OF THESE UNITS TO BE PRICED? AT 30% OF THE 80% AMI IN THIS AREA. SO BECAUSE GENERALLY SPEAKING, YOUR HOUSING COSTS SHOULDN'T BE ABOVE, YOU KNOW, ONE THIRD OF YOUR INCOME, 33%. DOES THAT QUESTION MAKE SENSE? FIRST OF ALL, A LOT OF NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M MAKING SENSE TO YOU.
[01:55:01]
I HAVE KIND OF A HALF ANSWER, WHICH IS CONTINENTAL TYPICALLY WILL NOT RENT RESTRICT ITS UNITS UNLESS THERE IS SOME FORM OF INCENTIVE FROM SOMEBODY TO DO SO. SO TYPICALLY THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ON THE TABLE FOR US JUST BECAUSE WE, WE SET OUR RENTS BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS AND THE GAP WE'RE TRYING TO FILL.AT THAT POINT WE WOULD DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THAT FURTHER.
BUT TYPICALLY WITHOUT THAT WE DO NOT. I THINK MSHDA JUST PUT THROUGH A PROPOSAL IN OCTOBER REGARDING AM I AND JUST AND PROVIDING FUNDING FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPERS, NOT JUST LIKE GRANTS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPERS AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, ORGANIZATIONS. SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S.
AND THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING WE WERE CONSIDERING HERE.
NORMALLY YOU NEED THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY TO SPONSOR THAT.
AND THEN, OH, IT'S MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHAT IT'S CALLED.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TIFF OR NOT. I APOLOGIZE, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT FURTHER.
I DON'T, OF COURSE, KNOW THE DETAILS RIGHT NOW THOUGH.
YEAH, IT WAS MSHDA. YEAH. AND THAT'S. YEAH, THE MI MY NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM. OKAY. IT'S A BLEND OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING IN RESPONSE TO REGIONAL ACTION PLANS, STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT WITH A STATEWIDE HOUSING PLAN.
THE ARMY IS ACTUALLY KIND OF THE THRESHOLD KIND OF HIGH IN HERE.
SO IT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST GENERALLY. THANK YOU.
THANKS. LOOKING AT FOLKS TO GET A SENSE OF WHERE YOU THINK WE ARE WITH US RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS. SURE, SURE. I I'M VERY PLEASED WITH THE THOROUGH WORK OF THE OF STAFF AND THE APPLICANT AND RESPONDING TO THE CONCERNS WE RAISED LAST TIME.
AFTER A FEW YEARS OF NOT AS QUICKLY AS STAFF, BUT SOME OF THESE NEW PROPOSED CONDITIONS I THINK ARE WORTH MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE TIME TO DIGEST. AND MAKING SURE THAT FOLKS HAVE EASY ACCESS TO THE PACKETS.
LIKE I SAY, I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS, SO I KNOW HOW TO FIND THEM, BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY EVERYBODY'S EASIEST THING. SO I THINK I'D BE SLIGHTLY MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE COULD GIVE FOLKS TIME TO REVIEW SOME OF THIS NEW INFORMATION.
OKAY, I WOULD ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF HAVING ADDITIONAL TIME TO DIGEST.
AND I DIDN'T WALK IN HERE TONIGHT BELIEVING THAT I'D BE READY TO VOTE.
I WILL COMMEND MR. MAZZETTI ON TAKING OUR QUESTIONS.
I THINK YOUR PREPARATION HAS BEEN EXCELLENT HERE. YOUR MEMO HERE IS ON POINT.
THANKS, STAFF, FOR THE WORK. I MAY HAVE SOME MORE WORK FOR STAFF BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION TO FIND OUT WHEN WE DO REZONING SIMILAR TO THIS, OR WE HAVE IN THE LAST FIVE WHAT WHAT ZONING DO WE LAND AT? SO I UNDERSTAND I USED ALL THE EXAMPLE WHICH DIRECTOR SCHMITT POINTED OUT MAY NOT BE PERFECT, BUT IN THE EVENT WHAT ZONING HAVE WE LANDED ON IN LIKE THE LAST FIVE? AND BECAUSE I THINK CONSISTENCY IS IMPORTANT AND ALSO HEARING THAT CPE IS, IS R.D.
OTHER THOUGHTS? I HAD A COUPLE JUST, LIKE, DIRECT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE QUESTIONS. LET ME FIND THEM IN MY NOTES. SO IN ONE OF THE. I DON'T KNOW, YOU CAN.
[02:00:03]
DO WE WANT TO KEEP THIS FINE GENTLEMAN STANDING HERE WAITING FOR US WHILE WE TALK ABOUT THIS? IS THIS A QUESTION FOR HIM, OR ARE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A.YEAH. I THINK WE'LL CALL YOU BACK IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THINKING AND DISCUSSING. IS THIS A QUESTION FOR STAFF OR.
THIS IS JUST A THIS IS SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS.
NO. A COUPLE POINTS LIKE OTHER MEMBERS. PERFECT.
GO AHEAD. SO. LET'S SEE. SO I CAN'T FIND THE DOCUMENT ANYMORE.
AND THE. AND THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDATION. WHAT PAGE IS THAT ON? 40. IS IT 48? I THINK JUST GO ALL THE WAY BACK.
DANG, I WROTE THAT ONE DOWN. AND THEN MY LAPTOP DIED.
OH, NO. UNDER THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
OKAY. SORRY. SO THAT'S LIKE SIXTH ONE DOWN OR FIFTH? YEAH. SIXTH ONE DOWN. IT SAYS NO MORE THAN 312 DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE PERMITTED ACROSS THE THREE PARCELS.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO LIMIT THAT TO THE TWO PARCELS PERSONALLY.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO ADJUST THIS TO INCLUDE THE 1.75 BECAUSE THAT WOULD BENEFIT THEIR NEIGHBORS, REDUCE ALL SORTS OF USE OF ASPHALT OR WHATEVER IS GETTING USED IN THIS CASE.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS THE ONLY RECOMMENDATION.
I DID THE MATH THAT WOULD TAKE REDUCE IT BY ABOUT 12 SPACES ACROSS THE DEVELOPMENT.
IF IT WENT FROM WHAT WHAT THEY SAID TO WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING.
THAT MIGHT BE IDEAL AS WELL. BUT I'D WANT TO KNOW FROM STAFF.
WHAT? THAT. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T DO THIS TO OTHER PEOPLE. NO. THAT'S OKAY. KEEP GOING. NO. GO. PLEASE.
THIS CAN BE A CONVERSATION. JUMP IN. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF DOESN'T HAVE SORT OF OH, IF YOU DO THAT THEN YOU NEED TO GET THIS SORT OF SPECIAL USE WAIVER VARIANCE.
OKAY, GREAT. KEEP TALKING THEN. OKAY. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE MOMENT THAT I THINK MAKE SENSE FOR THE APPROVAL LANGUAGE IF WE WERE TO GO THAT DIRECTION.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M THERE, JUST. THIS IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
BUT DIRECTOR SCHMITT, I'M ALSO GLAD BECAUSE I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, SO I'M SORRY I KEEP THROWING QUESTIONS OUT THAT I'M LIKE, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE REFERENCE POINT WHERE I READ THIS. I THOUGHT I READ SOMETHING ABOUT IT WASN'T ON THE INTERNET, IT WAS IN OUR ORDINANCE. ALMOST LIKE A FUND THAT CAN BE ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE SERVICES ALMOST ON A DEVELOPMENT OR PARTIAL. SO WE HAVE OUR ORDINANCE PROVIDES FOR ESCROW IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IF WE BELIEVE THERE ARE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE TO PREVIOUSLY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE'S PROVISION THAT FOR ANY MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, YOU HAD TO SET ASIDE AN ADDITIONAL 25% OF LAND FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THE FUTURE. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO OUR ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW FOR ESCROW IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THIS PROJECT, WE WOULD PUT MONEY IN ESCROW, FIGURE OUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST, AND THEN WORK IT OUT. OKAY, I WOULD BE HESITANT TO PUT A SPECIFIC DOLLAR COST ON A PROJECT FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PROJECT.
OKAY. I MEAN, DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PROJECT.
OKAY. I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION. YEAH. NO. CERTAIN STATES DO IT DIFFERENTLY, RIGHT? IF I WAS IN OHIO, I'D BE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT IMPACT FEES RIGHT NOW.
MICHIGAN DOESN'T HAVE THAT PROVISION IN THE STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION.
IMPACT FEES. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YOU KNOW, SO WE WHEN I WAS IN THE WHEN I GREW UP IN OHIO, THE REALLY THE WAY WE PAID FOR THE ROAD AROUND THE MALL WAS THE MALL HAD TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE BASED ON THE TRAFFIC INPUTS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE.
[02:05:07]
AND IT WAS EVENTUALLY IT WAS FOUGHT ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND IT WAS EVENTUALLY UPHELD. AND SO AN IMPACT FEE IN STATES THAT ALLOW THEM ESSENTIALLY PAY IN FUND BASED ON A SPECIFIED SPECIFIED FORMULA TO IMPROVE PARKS OR ROADS OR STORMWATER, ETC. WE DO IT ON THE BACK END. WE DO IT THROUGH CITIES IN MICHIGAN.OKAY, WELL, THE IDEA THEN WAS JUST AN ESCROW THAT WOULD FUND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PATHWAY.
IF WE PUT THE PATHWAY THROUGH THAT AREA, THERE COULD BE AN ESCROW THAT WAS ATTACHED TO IT.
HAPPY TO TALK TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ON THAT. I'M GUESSING THEY'RE GOING TO TELL ME THAT ONCE IT BECOMES PART OF THE PATHWAY PLAN, IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER PATHWAY PAID FOR THROUGH THE PATHWAY MILLAGE. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WOULD BE THE SPACE TO BRING THIS UP, BUT, YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY THOUGHTS SINCE LAST WEEK WAS IN LOOKING AT THE PARCEL VIEWER AND THE DIFFERENT ZONING IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY, THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S RC. EVERYTHING IS RD, RA, RR, RDD.
ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT ONE OF THE PARCELS IS ALREADY ZONED RD.
THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. IT ALSO WOULD ALLEVIATE A LITTLE BIT OF THE DENSITY IMPACT.
THAT WOULD BRING THE TOTAL UNITS FROM 312 TO 245.
YOU KNOW, WHEN DOING THE MATH FOR JUST OVER 30 ACRES, I WOULD NOT NECESSARILY.
I JUST WANT TO BE UP FRONT. I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO YOU.
I JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO BE SURPRISED WHEN IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE UNIT COUNT THAT MUCH BECAUSE OF HOW IT'S CALCULATED UNDER THE CODE. SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS I CAN RUN THAT AND GET IT TO THE. YEAH, THAT'S CONFUSING. IT IS. HOW WOULD IT NOT CHANGE? I WERE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION TODAY. PART OF IT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY SORT OF ARTIFICIALLY UNDER THE CAP FOR SURE.
WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING? YES. SO THAT 312. RIGHT.
IT'S FOR TEN. RIGHT. IS CLOSER TO THE DH. AND SO THE QUESTION IS BASED ON BECAUSE THERE'S WETLANDS ON THE SITE, YOU GET A BONUS FOR WETLANDS AND THERE'S SOME MATH BEHIND IT.
SO WE'LL PROVIDE THAT TO YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING. THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER. GO AHEAD. SO MY BIGGEST CONCERN REALLY IS THAT IT LOOKS CLUNKY.
AND I'M DEFINITELY NOT PREPARED FOR THAT TONIGHT.
BUT THE ROAD LOOKS CLUNKY, ESPECIALLY YOU HAVE THE THAT CONNECTS TO THE PARKING LOT.
AND THE ACCESS POINTS. I MEAN, THE BIGGEST THING THAT CONCERNS ME IS PROBABLY TRAFFIC.
AND I GET IT WHERE, YOU KNOW, BY DEFAULT TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE LESS BECAUSE IT WON'T BE COMMERCIAL.
IF WE REZONE IT. BUT IT'S BECAUSE AND THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION AS WELL.
IT JUST SEEMS CLUNKY TO ME. THERE'S NOT. AND I KNOW EVERYTHING ISN'T IN BLACK AND WHITE IN LIFE, BUT IT IS A. IT'S LIKE AS CLEAR AS MUD FOR ME.
AND YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY WHEN WE GET, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE, YOU CAN, YOU CAN YOU HAVE A VISION AND YOU CAN SEE IT WITH THIS ONE. I WRESTLE WITH IT A LITTLE BIT. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AGAINST SPRAWL AND DEVELOPMENT AND ALL THAT. BUT YOU HAVE YOU GOT THE WALMART.
AND IT JUST DOESN'T. IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE A. SO RIGHT NOW OF COURSE, I'M NOT PREPARED TO VOTE.
YOU ASKED FOR THOUGHTS. YEAH, I APPRECIATE IT.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE FORCED. CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? YES. I MEAN, I TOTALLY GET THAT THIS IS CLUNKY AND THAT THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT PARTIES INVOLVED AND THERE'S A TON OF HISTORY IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, BUT I'M ALSO NOT BUT AND I ALSO THINK THAT WE TYPICALLY DON'T GET A CHANCE TO INSERT OURSELVES
[02:10:04]
THAT MUCH IN THIS PROCESS. AND SO THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF THINK REALLY DEEPLY AND CRITICALLY ABOUT THIS, TO SEE IF WE CAN COME TO A COMPROMISE THAT MEETS OUR COMMUNITY'S NEEDS AND RESIDENTS NEEDS, AND THE DEVELOPER AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY'S NEEDS.AND I JUST. I JUST WOULD SAY, LIKE, ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO ANSWER IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AS GOOD AS POSSIBLE TO THE BOARD.
YEAH, AND I AGREE WITH THAT. MY SO I MEAN, SO TRAFFIC WE HAVE RESIDENTS WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WITH AND I GET IT, WE CAN INSERT OURSELVES.
BUT THE WAY IT IS, YOU KNOW, DRAINAGE. WILL THERE BE A LOT OF RUNOFF AND BASEMENT FLOODING? I JUST DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT'S DETRIMENTAL IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO PLEASE EVERYONE, WHICH IS THE KEY WORD IS COMPROMISE HERE.
BUT THE WAY AS IT SITS HERE, THE WAY THAT IT LOOKS ON THE MONITOR AND THE PACKET.
THOSE THINGS ARE CONCERNS FOR ME. I MEAN, WE HAVE THE WETLANDS.
I'M LOOKING AT THAT. AND I SEE, YOU KNOW. BUT IS THAT ENOUGH TO CONTAIN THE WATER? I MEAN, DO WE YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST THINGS THAT I JUST NEED TO BE AWARE OF.
CAN I DON'T KNOW. I FEEL LIKE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY ALLEVIATES SOME STRESS FOR ME IN THIS ROLE IS THE KNOWING THAT, LIKE, I DON'T HAVE TO BE THE EXPERT AT THAT. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAIN COMMISSION.
YOU KNOW, THE VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES ARE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS.
AND THEN SITE PLAN REVIEW IS WHERE ALL OF THOSE THINGS, THOSE REGULATIONS, THE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT POTENTIAL FOR FLOODING, FLOODPLAINS, ALL OF THAT. THERE IS A STEP IN THE PROCESS FOR THAT VERY SPECIFICALLY.
SO, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, IT DOESN'T TAKE UP AS MUCH OF MY MENTAL ENERGY.
WE HAVE THE EXPERTS AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO WEIGH IN AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS, AGAIN, I'M NOT TOTALLY AGAINST IT. I'M NOT TOTALLY FOR IT EITHER.
AND AGAIN, BECAUSE IT'S JUST. I'M SORRY. NO, I WAS I WAS GONNA SAY MY MAGIC WORD IS JUST CLUNKY.
YOU KNOW, I PONDER THIS FROM SEVERAL PLACES BECAUSE THE CHARGE FROM THE BOARD IS, DOES IT NEED TO BE REZONED? WELL, I MEAN, YEAH, IT'S AN OUTDATED ZONING IF FOR NO OTHER REASON.
AND THAT'S WHERE I GET VERY WORRIED, BECAUSE WE ARE ESSENTIALLY WE'RE AN APPOINTED BOARD.
WE'RE UNELECTED. AND, YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT OUR ROLE TO IMPART OUR INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT ON THIS.
WE'RE TO ADJUDICATE THIS AS THE BOARD HAS DIRECTED.
AND I FEEL CAUGHT IN A BIT OF A QUAGMIRE THERE BECAUSE THE BOARD SAYS SHOULD IT BE REZONED? WELL, THAT'S A RELATIVELY SIMPLE QUESTION. BUT THEN IT BECOMES TO WHAT? AND I HEARD MR. KLAUS'S COMMENTS EARLIER ON. WELL, YOU COULD TELL US SOMETHING ELSE, BUT WE MIGHT GO TO THE BOARD AND ASK FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT IF THAT DOESN'T WORK. SO TRYING TO THINK THIS THROUGH LOGICALLY TO THE END OF WHAT IS THE BEST FOR MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP IN THE LONGER TERM? I'M NOT SURE I HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT TONIGHT, AND I'M NOT SURE THERE'S EVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH PROVISIONS, WHETHER IT COMES FROM, YOU KNOW, 30% FOR POLICE AND FIRE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES THAT WILL EVER MAKE IT COMFORTABLE.
I CAN TELL YOU ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL BE VERY, VERY INSISTENT UPON IS, I THINK, IN THE CONTINENTAL PROPOSAL THAT SOMEHOW IT MAINTAINS 96% OF THE WETLANDS. I THINK THAT'S A CRUCIAL PART OF IT.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT MY OTHER REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE, BUT JUST PUTTING OUT THAT, THAT THERE'S THIS, THIS BROAD CONCERN OF WHAT DOES THE OWNER GET TO DO? HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE RESIDENTS WITH WHOM THEY SHOULD VERY MUCH CARE ABOUT? AND THEN HOW DO WE EXECUTE OUR ROLE FROM THE BOARD WITHOUT OVERSTEPPING? SO THERE IS A VERY FINE NEEDLE TO THREAD HERE.
[02:15:01]
IS THAT WE'RE NOT READY TONIGHT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.I SORT OF REST EASY SOMETIMES WHEN I HEAR, OH, IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH SITE PLAN REVIEW AND THE DRAIN COMMISSIONER AND THE TRAFFIC PEOPLE HAVE TO ALL SIGN OFF ON IT SO THAT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE EXPERTISE IN THIS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WILL SAY WHETHER IT'S VIABLE OR NOT, AND THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO, AND THEN HEARING OTHERS JUST SHARE THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS ABOUT DENSITY AND YOU KNOW, BUT BUT IT DOES COME DOWN TO WHAT COMMISSIONER SAID.
IT'S ULTIMATELY SHOULD IT BE REZONED. AND THAT'S WHERE I GET TO KIND OF OUR JOB.
AND IN MY PERSONAL THINKING ON THIS, IT IT I THE PEOPLE THAT WE HEARD SPEAK TONIGHT AND AT OUR LAST MEETING WERE VERY, VERY COMPELLING AND PASSIONATE IN THEIR NEIGHBORS, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE THE QUALITY OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE. DECLINE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALLY LOOK AT THOSE VALUES AND THOSE CONCERNS, BUT I THINK THAT I HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THIS LAND DOESN'T GET DEVELOPED AT ALL.
AND BECAUSE THIS LAND HAS AN OWNER WHO HAS A PROPERTY INTEREST IN IT AND IT IS ZONED TO DO CERTAIN THINGS, OUR JOB ISN'T TO SAY SHOULD IT BE DEVELOPED OR SHOULDN'T IT? IT SHOULD IT BE DEVELOPED IN THE WAY THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, AND IF SO, TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO DO THAT, WHAT CONDITIONS DO WE THINK ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN THAT QUALITY AND THAT THE VIBRANCY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ADJACENT TO IT SO THAT WE DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT THOSE NEIGHBORS.
I LIKE THE TRAFFIC NOT COMING OUT ONTO THE STREETS THAT THE NEIGHBORS FEEL ARE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO IT SORT OF SEPARATES THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I SEE AS VERY POSITIVE.
I LIKE THE WILLINGNESS TO LOOK AT PIECES THAT WOULD HELP INCREASE THE WALKABILITY.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF I WAS TOLD I HAD TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT, I'D BE INCLINED TO SUPPORT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME COMPROMISES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT HAVE TRIED TO MITIGATE THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE SHARING AS CONCERNS, AND I DON'T THINK ANYTHING EXCEPT DON'T DEVELOP HERE OR PUT MORE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES HERE, THAT MAY NOT REALLY BE COMMERCIALLY VIABLE AND WOULD STILL REQUIRE A REZONING, I THINK BECAUSE THE FRONT PART OF THIS PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL, AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE IN THE MIDDLE PROBABLY WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RIGHT NEXT TO A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, EITHER OF THE TYPE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY.
RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, BUT AGAIN, I THINK WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME.
WHAT I THINK STAFF WOULD AND MR. SCHMIDT AND MR. SHORKEY, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO MAYBE TELL US IS, IS IT WHEN YOU SAY WE NEED MORE TIME, IS IT THAT YOU JUST NEED TO DIGEST WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, OR DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR THE DEVELOPERS SO THAT WE DON'T COME BACK BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING IN NOVEMBER, AND. THAT WAS THE FIRST THING I WAS GOING TO SAY. YEAH, YOU KNOW, IF WE DELAYED AND I THINK WE ONLY HAVE ONE IN DECEMBER ALSO.
AND, AND IF I WANT TO KEEP US MOVING, I WANT TO MAKE PROGRESS.
SO I'D LIKE US TO TRY TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS AND GET THE INFORMATION AND DO OUR RESEARCH OURSELVES SO THAT WE CAN GET TO A POINT OF OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AT OUR NEXT MEETING AND, AND MOVING FORWARD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
SO WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE FOR THE NEXT MEETING WITH REGARD TO OUR RESOLUTIONS THAT WOULD BE IN THE PACKET, LIKE ALREADY HAVING OUR CONDITIONS THERE, OR IF THEY ARE, IF WE WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING.
YEAH. YEAH. PRESUMABLY WE'RE GOING TO UPDATE.
WE'LL PROVIDE YOU WITH ANOTHER MEMO FOLLOWING UP ON I'VE GOT 2 OR 3 THINGS TO FOLLOW UP ON.
WE'LL UPDATE BOTH RESOLUTIONS PRO AND CON, BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED TONIGHT, AND ADDING A FEW THINGS WHERE WE CAN AND GO FROM THERE.
AND WE DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME BETWEEN THIS AND OUR NEXT MEETING.
SO I WOULD ASK AGAIN IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT COMES TO YOU OR YOU READ.
I HAVE TO ADMIT, WE GOT OUR PACKET WHEN WE GOT IT AND I HAVE HAD A REALLY BUSY WEEK AT WORK.
[02:20:02]
I HAVE NOT READ ALL OF THIS AS DEEPLY AS I WOULD LIKE TO, SO I'VE BEEN TO THE SITE, I'VE LOOKED AROUND, I'VE READ THE LAST PACKET, I'VE DONE A LOT, BUT I'VE NOT DONE AS MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO.SO SOME OF IT FOR ME, IS PROBABLY JUST DIGESTING WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN US A LITTLE BIT MORE, THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE HEARD TONIGHT AND AT OUR LAST MEETING, BUT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE. SOMETHING DAWNED ON ME AS WE WERE TALKING, BUT FEEL FREE. LIKE THERE WAS SOME COMMENTARY IN THE PACKET AROUND WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL A FALLBACK POSITION. I THINK IT WAS IT WAS RELATED TO SOME EMAILS FROM MR. TOMASINO. I THINK IT WAS LAST. I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSED SOME.
SO IT'S LIKE, WHAT DO YOU HOW MUCH DO YOU PLAY INTO THAT? HOW MUCH THOUGHT DO YOU PUT INTO THAT. BECAUSE WHAT IF THAT GOING TO COMMISSIONER SNYDER POINT IS AN RD LEVEL? LIKE THERE WAS SOME SOMETHING I CAN I CAN ASSURE YOU, IT'S NOT.
OKAY. BUT I, I'M NOT AWARE OF A FALLBACK POSITION.
I DON'T THINK ONE EXISTS. I THINK THAT'S AN EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM A RESIDENT.
OKAY, MAYBE I MISREAD IT. THAT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION. MADAM CHAIR? OKAY. YES, PLEASE.
AS A PART OF A FOLLOW UP, I GUESS I'M WONDERING IF CONTINENTAL DID WANT TO PROPOSE ANY CHANGES TO THE PLAN OR OUR PROPOSAL GENERALLY, COULD THOSE BE PROVIDED AHEAD OF THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT YOU WEREN'T SEEING THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE MEETING? WE'D APPRECIATE THAT. ACTUALLY, IT COULD BE PART OF OUR MEETING PACKET. WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SAY TO YOU, YEAH, THAT'S GREAT. THUMBS UP. THAT WILL BE DONE IN OUR PUBLIC MEETING, BUT IF THAT COULD BE PROVIDED IN ADVANCE, I WOULD THINK WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY.
I APOLOGIZE. I WAS AT A CONFERENCE LAST WEEK, SO YOU GAVE IT TO US AT OUR NORMAL TIME FRAME.
NOW, LIKE TWO THINGS THAT KIND OF CAME TO ME, I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSED THIS SOMEWHERE.
IS THERE PRIVACY FENCING SOMEWHERE? WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO THAT LEVEL AS MUCH.
OKAY. AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, I MEAN, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SURROUNDING THE DUMPSTER AND SURROUNDING.
SURE. I MEAN, BETWEEN THE PARCELS MOSTLY, AT THIS POINT, THE INTENTION IS TO LEAVE IT NATURAL.
OKAY. RIGHT. BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A HUGE EXPANSE.
AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION, I'M PRETTY SURE I DIDN'T HEAR THIS COME UP AT ALL.
BUT WE CAN ABSOLUTELY PUT A CONDITION IN ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THERE'S ACTUALLY ONE IN THE WALMART SETTLEMENT ABOUT THAT. OKAY. AND THE LAST THING I WANTED TO MENTION TO YOU IS, AS I WAS TRYING TO SORT THROUGH ALL OF THIS AND THANK YOU, CHAIR SHREWSBERRY, FOR JUST EVERYTHING YOU HAD TO SAY ABOUT KIND OF THE DIFFERENT THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE ARE ASKED TO KIND OF APPROACH THIS FROM SERVING A LOT OF DIFFERENT THE INTERESTS OF EVERYBODY WHO'S NEAR THIS OR OWNING THIS PROPERTY. SO ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS LOOKING AT IS LIKE, IF I WERE IF I WERE SOMEBODY WHO LIVED IN CPE, A LANDOWNER ADJACENT TO THESE PARCELS, LIKE IF I WERE DOING MY BEST DUE DILIGENCE WHEN I PURCHASED A HOME IN THERE.
RIGHT. LIKE IF I DID MY BEST DUE DILIGENCE TO IDENTIFY, LIKE WHAT POTENTIAL WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL WAYS THAT THIS LAND NEAR ME COULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED. I REALLY WOULD HAVE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THIS COULD BE COMING.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, IT'S ZONED ACCORDING TO THE JUDGMENT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT HAD TO BE. BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S CONFUSING.
THAT'S THAT'S A CHALLENGE AS SOMEBODY WHO PERHAPS DID THEIR DUE DILIGENCE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT WAY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO IDENTIFY LIKE THIS IS KIND OF A SPECIAL CASE AREA.
I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT WAS ZONED, YOU KNOW, THE COMMERCIAL SPACE.
AND THEN THERE WAS THE AGAIN, MY LAPTOP SHUT OFF, SO I APOLOGIZE, BUT IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, IT WAS COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL WITH THE DWELLING UNITS BEING 5 TO 14, I THINK IT WAS MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, BUT IN ANY CASE, THE SMALL SECTION OF OF THIS TOTAL PROPERTY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS RESIDENTIAL 5 TO 14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, ACCORDING TO. MR. I'M SO SORRY, BRET. I APOLOGIZE, ACCORDING TO MR.
[02:25:03]
MAZZETTI. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IT WOULD BE 99 UNITS THAT COULD FIT ON THAT CURRENT R.D.SO I THINK THAT FOR ME THAT'S A BIG FACTOR. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT.
WE'LL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN AT THE END OF THE MEETING.
SO YEAH. AND I WASN'T GOING TO BRING IT UP AT THIS POINT, BUT SINCE WE'VE STEPPED OUR FOOT IN THE DUMPSTERS, WHERE'S THE DUMPSTER ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER ME RIGHT NOW.
CURRENTLY, THERE IS NOT ONE LAID OUT ON THE SITE.
ALL RIGHT. ON THAT NOTE, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS ANYTHING? OTHERWISE, I THINK. DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE ENOUGH FROM US? ABSOLUTELY. AND THEN YOU'LL GET ANYTHING THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES TO YOU TO SHARE WITH US AND PUT IN THE PUBLIC PACKET.
AND THEN WOULD YOU MIND JUST FOR THE FOLKS WHO ARE HERE, REMINDING THEM WHERE THEY CAN FIND THE PACKET FOR THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK FOR THAT AND HAVE WHATEVER. YEP. ALL THE ALL THE PLANNING COMMISSION PACKETS ARE POSTED AT LEAST THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE MEETING ON THE TOWNSHIP'S WEBSITE. THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS YOU CAN GET THERE. YOU CAN UNDER A YOU CAN GO STRAIGHT TO AGENDAS, PACKETS AND MINUTES AND THEN PICK THE COMMISSION YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
AND JUST DRILL DOWN TO THAT PACKET. AND YES, WE WILL AS I SAID, WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO TRY AND GET IT PUBLISHED A LITTLE EARLY THIS TIME. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. EVERYBODY ELSE. GOOD.
AND JUST SO EVERYONE'S AWARE, THE NEXT MEETING THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE 17TH OF NOVEMBER.
BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY HAVING ONE MEETING. WE JUMP A WEEK TO SORT OF PUT IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MONTH.
I THINK WE'RE ALSO ACCOMMODATING VETERANS DAY.
AND, YEAH, THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT WE KIND OF GO TO THE MIDDLE.
YES. PERFECT. THANK YOU. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO NUMBER NINE OTHER BUSINESS.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY. AND THEN WE HAVE A TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.
[10.A. Township Board update]
TOWNSHIP. APOLOGIES, I THOUGHT I HAD A MINUTE.SORRY, I LOST. I LOST TRACK OF THE AGENDA THERE FOR A SECOND.
THE TOWNSHIP BOARD IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING TWO MAJOR ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AMONGST THEIR REGULAR WORK THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR SAINT MARTHA'S CHURCH AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON DERBY ROAD ADJACENT TO FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH. BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS WILL BE BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AT THEIR NEXT MEETING FOR POTENTIAL ACTION.
OUTSIDE OF THAT, THERE'S A LOT OF ELSE GOING ON.
BUT THOSE ARE THE TWO IMMEDIATE CONCERN ITEMS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY LIAISON REPORTS? OKAY. PROJECT UPDATES. I DIDN'T GET TO THE VERY END PAGE OF OUR RECORD.
[11. PROJECT UPDATES]
DO WE HAVE ANYTHING? PAGE OF THE PACKET IS AN UPDATED REPORT FOR YOUR REVIEW.ASHLEY FURNITURE SHOULD BE OPEN THIS WEEKEND.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WONDERING IT'S BEEN A IT'S BEEN A LONG PROJECT FOR REASONS THAT WE DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO, BUT WE'RE ALMOST THERE, SO THEY SHOULD BE OPEN HERE SHORTLY.
EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? OKAY. WE ARE AT OUR SECOND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REMARKS.
[12. PUBLIC REMARKS]
I HAVE ONE SHEET IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO.MR. [INAUDIBLE], YOU'D LIKE. OKAY. SO YES. YES, PLEASE.
SO I CAN WE KNOW WHO'S SPOKEN? I HAVE MR. [INAUDIBLE].
YOU WANTED TO GO VERY LAST. OKAY. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.
[INAUDIBLE], 1578 MAIDEN LANE. ALMOST A RESIDENT FOR ABOUT ALMOST 30 YEARS HERE.
AND I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THIS PROJECT IS VERY RUSHED, VERY NOT THOUGHT OUT.
[02:30:04]
TO SOUTH SIDE TO THE POOL HALL OR OFFICE, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO CUT THROUGH A STREET, OBVIOUSLY. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE A LOT OF TRAFFIC, POLLUTION, YOU KNOW, WALKING OR DRIVING, YOU KNOW, US LEAVING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, TRYING TO GET OUT SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A SAFETY CONCERN.AND, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT YOU GUYS TALK ABOUT YOU KNOW, DENSITY AND YOU TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC.
AND YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC.
BUT IN THE STUDY IT'S THE OPPOSITE. AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS ZONED CURRENTLY PART OF IT IS FOR RETAIL.
YOU KNOW, YOU GO YOU GO ALONG CENTRAL PARK IN A VERY WEST SIDE AND BOUTIQUE SHOP.
THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT VERY BUSY. SO AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, DECREASING TRAFFIC FOR EXTRA 312 UNITS.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. THAT'S COMMON SENSE. I MEAN, YOU HAVE IF YOU BUILD A TARGET HERE.
YEAH, IT MAKES SENSE. BUT YOU HAVE THREE PARCELS YOU'RE TRYING TO BUNDLE TOGETHER TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, 312 UNITS INSTEAD OF HAVING ONE BIG PARCEL TO BUILD, ONE CENTRIC, YOU KNOW, COMPOUND.
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. SO THAT'S THOSE ARE MY OPINIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS [INAUDIBLE], FOLLOWED BY [INAUDIBLE].
YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU, THE COMMISSION, FOR ASKING SUCH GREAT QUESTIONS.
THAT WAS REALLY. I FELT GREAT ABOUT YOU GUYS.
WE WE KNOW THAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES.
THAT'S GREAT. AWESOME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND ALSO, I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING.
I HAVE SPOKEN WITH A LOT OF OUR NEIGHBORS, AND WE DO KNOW THAT LAND WILL BE USED FOR SOMETHING.
WE ARE NOT AGAINST ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT. WE WE DON'T EXPECT TO BE IT TO BE VACANT FOR SURE.
WE KNOW THAT. WE JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE USED FOR RC BECAUSE THAT INCREASES THE DENSITY TOO MUCH.
AND COMMISSIONER SNYDER HAS HIT IT ON THE HEAD.
FOR THE SECOND THING I'M GOING TO SAY, WHICH IS NO MATTER HOW MUCH ANALYSIS WE DID, WE NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS WOULD BE A ZONE OR CONVERTED TO SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE USED FOR LIKE RESIDENTIAL RC. AND THE THIRD THING IS THAT I AM NOT VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS, BUT I THINK THAT CSAS, COMMERCIAL SERVICES AND THEN WHEN THEY ARE, WHEN IN GENERAL, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS AND WE SAY COMMERCIAL AND CSA. I THINK I MAY I'LL PROBABLY GO BACK AND CHECK AGAIN.
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WAS VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE TODAY AND I'M SO GLAD.
I MEAN, WHICHEVER DECISIONS YOU MAKE, THAT'S OKAY.
BUT AT LEAST YOU'RE LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES OR WITH HOW MANY OTHER SIDES THERE ARE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT IS [INAUDIBLE], FOLLOWED BY [INAUDIBLE].
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOUR GOOD QUESTIONS AND ALSO COMMENTS.
AND ALSO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS.
SO WE, OUR NEIGHBORS AND RESIDENTS IN THE CPE PROPERTY, WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND WE SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL ZONING PLAN. AND THAT'S THAT'S THE REASON WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES THERE, BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE WILL BE COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL USES IN THE FUTURE.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ENJOY. AND WE DON'T MIND ADDITIONAL, LIKE 1000 THOUSAND TRIPS PER DAY TO THE TRAFFIC BECAUSE WE KNOW AT LEAST WE HAVE SOMETHING IN GOOD. BUT NOW IF WE JUST STICK WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, THEN WE DON'T ENJOY ANYTHING BUT STILL SUFFERING FROM THE INCREASED TRAFFIC. SO THAT'S THE ONE THING.
[02:35:03]
REZONING REQUEST. SO THAT'S THE OTHER THING. SO I WOULD, I WOULD I WOULD THINK STICKING TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING PLAN IS A GOOD IDEA.AND THAT'S ALSO THE WAY TO BALANCE THE THREE PILLARS OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S THE SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AND ALSO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PART.
YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP IS [INAUDIBLE], FOLLOWED BY [INAUDIBLE].
GOOD EVENING [INAUDIBLE]. 1572 MAIDEN LANE. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL ALL YOU GUYS.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE AND ESPECIALLY MISS SNYDER.
WE ARE NOT OPPOSING FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT. WE WE OKAY IF WE KNOW THAT THE OWNER CAN BUILD SOMETHING THERE, AND WE ARE TOTALLY OKAY WITH THAT. AND WE ACTUALLY ARE LOOKING FOR A COMPROMISE PLAN BY NOT HAVING THIS ONE.
SO BUT WE NEVER HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK WITH YOU GUYS.
I, WE ONLY TALK TO YOU, BUT WE NEVER HEARD ANY ANSWER BACK.
SO I URGE YOU TO HAVE, LIKE, A LISTENING SESSION WITH US.
I KNOW YOU ARE VERY BUSY AND I KNOW YOU ARE VOLUNTEERS AT THIS POSITION, BUT I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF YOU MAKE UP LIKE AN HOUR TIME WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO KNOW WHAT OUR FEELING IS, AND WE CAN KNOW WHAT YOUR THOUGHT THOUGHT IS.
AND FOR THE COMMISSION FOR THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC ON CENTRAL PARK.
I THINK THEY ARE USING A MISLEADING DATA, I WOULD SAY, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THE TRAFFIC ON CENTRAL PARK AND ON, I MEAN, THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC ON CENTRAL PARK AND THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC ON GRAND RIVER, THERE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING.
SO THAT LARGE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC INCREASE IS DEFINITELY MISLEADING.
AND YOU NEED TO CONSIDER THAT. YEAH. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE], FOLLOWED BY [INAUDIBLE].
SO IT MUST MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD THAT PEOPLE STAYED AFTER YOUR MEETING TO TELL YOU THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. THANK YOU FOR NOT JUMPING THE GUN ON THIS.
WE COULD BUILD THIS INSTEAD OF THIS. WE KNOW THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE KNOW IF THERE WAS A MARKET FOR COMMERCIAL RIGHT THERE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT YEARS AGO.
THERE IS NO MARKET FOR COMMERCIAL RIGHT THERE.
I HEARD THE LIFT STATION MENTIONED. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LIFT STATION, THAT AFFECTS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE, AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET A WHOLE LOT MORE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM DISCUSSING WHAT 312 TOILET FLUSHES OR 312 SHOWERS ARE GOING TO DO TO THE WATER PRESSURE IN OUR COMMUNITY. I HEARD ALDI MENTIONED.
YES, I WAS THERE WITH ALDI. I MADE THEM PUT THAT TRAFFIC LIGHT UP THERE AT TIMES SQUARE SO YOU CAN HAVE AN IMPACT ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT AFFECT THE TRAFFIC, BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC THERE IS IMPORTANT. THERE IS A CONVERGENCE THAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS TOWNSHIP, AND IT'S PART OF THE BOARD, PART OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THINK ABOUT THAT. OKAY. YES, ROAD DIETS HAVE LESS ACCIDENTS, BUT THEY HAVE MORE CONGESTION AND APARTMENTS WITH MORE CARS. 312 APARTMENTS. THAT BRINGS 450 CARS RIGHT THERE SOUTH, RIGHT BY THE WILLOW.
THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION THAT'S BRINGING IN MORE PEOPLE SOUTH OF GRAND RIVER ON DOBIE.
THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION THAT'S BRINGING IN MORE PEOPLE.
WE ARE ADDING A LOT OF CARS AND WE ARE TIGHTENING OUR ROADS.
THERE WILL BE CONGESTION THROUGHOUT THIS TOWNSHIP.
WE HAVE A POOR NORTH AND SOUTH STRUCTURE DRIVING IN THIS TOWNSHIP.
PLEASE BE COGNIZANT OF THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO. THANK YOU.
[02:40:02]
THANK YOU. LAST IS [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU, BOARD.WE GOT INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE'RE STILL PROUD TO SAY IT'S A GEM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TOWN, THE WAY IT'S CONSTRUCTED THE VARIOUS THERE. AND WE GOT INTO THE FACT THAT LOOKING AT AND DUE DILIGENCE, WHAT MR. TURNER SAID, THAT WHAT'S GOING TO COME UP FRONT ON THE, ON THE CENTRAL PARK, BUT WE NEVER EXPECTED IT TO BE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, AND ESPECIALLY TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL LONG TERM VISION OF THE TOWN ITSELF OR THE AREA ITSELF.
WE CERTAINLY THINK THAT DOES THAT DOES NOT FIT IN THAT LITTLE COMMUNITY OR IN THAT AREA.
SO WE URGE YOU TO DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE. DUE DILIGENCE.
AND, AND YOU'RE YOU'RE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.
YOU'RE PUTTING THE RIGHT THOUGHTS IN THE RIGHT PLACE. AND PLEASE, PLEASE KEEP IT AS IT IS, IF POSSIBLE, TO PROMOTE MORE OF A SINGLE FAMILY OR LOW DENSITY.
HOUSING, BASICALLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS CONCLUDES ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT FORMS THAT I HAVE.
ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONER REPORTS REMARKS? OKAY.
[13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS]
WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY GETS TO BE HEARD. GO AHEAD. GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
SURE. THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK IS FOR THIS IS MORE THAT FOR THE DEVELOPER TO INCLUDE IN THE PACKET IS HOW WILL THE NORTHERN PARCEL ACCESS BENEFITS IN THE SOUTHERN PARCEL? AND THE REASON I WANT TO ASK THIS, BECAUSE I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND IT'S NOT ONLY ABOUT THE RESIDENTS THAT CURRENTLY LIVE THERE, IT'S ALSO ABOUT FUTURE RESIDENTS WHO COULD LIVE THERE AND THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE, AND THE BUSINESSES AND THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PROPERTY.
IT'S ALL OF THESE THINGS TOGETHER. AND SO IF THERE'S ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE THIS WHOLE THING IS IN ONE LOCATION TO THE SOUTH, IT DOES SEEM UNLIKELY THAT PEOPLE WOULD.
ARE THEY GOING TO DRIVE DOWN THERE? I'M JUST NOT CLEAR ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN THIS PARCEL.
THEN THE QUESTION FOR STAFF IS. THE BOARD MAKES THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT? JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. EVERYONE, THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION.
BUT THAT'S IT. THANKS. I JUST WANTED TO PUT THIS OUT THERE BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH IMPASSIONED SPEAKING ABOUT, LIKE, HOW THINGS HAPPEN. AND I JUST WANT TO PUT IT OUT THERE THAT ALL THE PROCESSES THAT WE FOLLOW ARE ACCORDING TO MICHIGAN LAW, LIKE WE DO THINGS THE WAY THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.
GRANTING, YOU KNOW, MEETINGS WITH ONE GROUP OF RESIDENTS ISN'T FAIR TO OTHER GROUPS OF RESIDENTS.
I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO JUST READ UP ON MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, THE MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, THE MICHIGAN TOWNSHIP ASSOCIATION, ANY OF THOSE PLACES COULD GIVE YOU A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF KIND OF HOW THIS ALL FUNCTIONS, BECAUSE IT IS CONFUSING. IT'S VERY CONFUSING.
SO JUST KIND OF ALMOST A PLEA TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF HOW THINGS FUNCTION, EVEN JUST AT A VERY MINIMAL LEVEL SO THAT YOU KNOW WHO TO TAKE YOUR CONCERNS TO, ESPECIALLY. THAT WOULD BE THE ONE THING I JUST REALLY WANTED TO SAY TODAY.
I THINK ALL OF US HERE ARE DOING OUR BEST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE HEARING EVERYBODY'S INPUT AND SERVING OUR COMMUNITY AS BEST AS WE CAN. I KNOW FOR SURE THAT THERE ARE NO ULTERIOR MOTIVES ON THIS BOARD SO, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S ALL. RIGHT. WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.