[00:00:32] >> [MUSIC] NO. IT'S OKAY. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S ON IT. THANK YOU. ON MY BACK. WHEN I'M SETTING MY LAPTOP, IT'S LIKE YOURS. BUT IT'S I HAVE YEAH. YEAH. THIS IS LIKE AT LEAST FIVE-YEARS-OLD. IT'S ALL GOOD. >> [BACKGROUND] MISS CHAIR? I HAVE A EMAIL. YOU'RE READY TO GO. THEY'RE READY TO GO WHEN YOU ARE. COMMISSIONER BROOKS, I SAW HIM, SO HE'S NOT HERE. DIRECTOR SCHMIDT ISN'T HERE. I MEAN, HE'S HERE, YOU MIGHT WANT TO WAIT A MINUTE FOR THEM TO GET BACK. >> GIVE IT ANOTHER MINUTE. THANK YOU [BACKGROUND]. >> VOLUNTEER, COMMISSIONER BROOKS THIS MORNING [LAUGHTER]. >> I SAY THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO CALL TO ORDER THE NOVEMBER 17, [1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ] 2025 MEETING OF THE MAIN TOWNSHIP PANNING PLANNING COMMISSION AT 6:31. STARTING WITH ROLL CALL. COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. >> HERE. >> MR. BROOKS. >> HERE. >> MR. MCCARTIS. >> HERE. >> MS. SNYDER. >> HERE. >> MR. MCCONNELL. >> HERE. >> CHAIR SHREWSBURY IS HERE. THANK YOU. WE STILL HAVE A VACANCY. NOW WE ARE AT THE POINT IN OUR MEETING WHERE WE DO THE FIRST SET OF PUBLIC REMARKS. [3. PUBLIC REMARKS ] I HAVE A COUPLE OF PAPERS HERE. IF YOU HAVE NOT TURNED THE PAPER AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL SOMETHING OUT AND GIVE IT TO MR. SHIRKY. WE DO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AGENDA. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THINGS, THIS IS ONE OF THE TWO OPPORTUNITIES IN THE MEETING YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. THE FIRST PERSON REGISTERED TO SPEAK IS ED DO, AND THEN THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY PAULLETT GRACE. THANK YOU. PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU WILL HAVE 3 MINUTES. >> HELLO, GOOD ONE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ED DO AND I LEAVE IN 15-72 MAIDEN LANE. TODAY, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME QUESTION AND SOME ADVICE. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU TO SHARE REGARDING THE PREVIOUS MEETING THAT I ATTENDED HERE AND I HEAR VERY GOOD THOUGHT OF ALL OF YOU GUYS. TODAY, I SPECIFICALLY HAVE 2 THINGS THAT I WANT TO MENTION. FIRST OF ALL, FOR MS. SNYDER, YOU MENTIONED A POTENTIAL EIGHT UNIT PER ACRE ZONING CHANGE FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL. COULD WE FORMALLY REQUEST CONTINENTAL PROPERTY TO PROVIDE THE ZONING MAP AND THE POTENTIAL PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PLAN ON THAT, WITH THAT, I THINK IT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL FOR THE RESIDENTS IN CPE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THINGS WE ARE FACING. ALSO, I HEAR YOU MENTIONED THAT THE AMI OF THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL IS VERY HIGH. WITH THAT, WE CAN MOVE MORE DENSE PART ON THE UPPER PARCEL, WHICH CAN POSSIBLY BRING THE AMI LOWER. SECOND, FOR MR. MCCONNELL, GIVEN THAT TRAFFIC SAFETY IS YOUR PRIMARY CONCERN, [00:05:02] HAS A COMMITTEE CONSIDER THE SAFETY OF THE CYCLIST? BECAUSE THIS PROPOSED PLANNING IS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON THE CYCLIST AND IS LIKE WALKING DEPENDABLE. I BELIEVE WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE CYCLIST, GIVEN THAT, CENTRAL PARK ROAD, THERE IS ALREADY A BICYCLE LANE. WHAT ABOUT FOR THE MAIDEN LANE AND WHAT ABOUT [INAUDIBLE]? SHOULD WE ADD CYCLIST LANE ON THOSE TWO ROAD AS WELL? FOR THOSE THINGS WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED AND WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING FROM THE CONSTRUCTOR YET. HOW ARE WE PROCEED WITH THE DECISION TODAY? I URGE YOU GUYS TO CONTINUE TO LISTEN FOR THE FEEDBACKS OF THE RESIDENT AND ALSO THE THINGS FROM THE CONSTRUCTOR AS WELL. WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS ALREADY. WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS.. THERE'S NO URGENCY THAT WE NEED TO VOTE TODAY. PLEASE RECONSIDER THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, I HAVE PAULLETT GRACE, FOLLOWED BY MILTON SCALES. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PAULLETT GRACE, AND I LIVE AT 48-24 NASSAU STREET. I'VE SENT ALL OF YOU MANY LETTERS WITH SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AND WHY I OPPOSE IT. I GUESS, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD SIMPLY SAY THERE'S BEEN IN ALL THE CONVERSATIONS, REALLY NO BENEFIT TO THE AREA OR JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING A CHANGE TO THE ZONING OR THE VARIANCE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR THERE, AND WE ONLY ASK THAT IT BE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEEN APPROVED. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT IS MILTON SCALES, FOLLOWED BY JADE CHI. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MILTON SCALES. I RESIDE AT 15-34 DOWNING STREET IN HAZLETT. I'M OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AS IT IS WRITTEN. WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT IT. I'VE JUST REVIEWED THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, REDUCING THE TRAFFIC OF 135 DAILY TRIPS. I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE FOOLED BY THESE NUMBERS. THIS TRAFFIC ISSUE IS VERY SERIOUS. THE REDUCTION IS 135 FROM THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS BRINGING YOU AN ADDITION OF OVER 1,900. NOW IT'S DOWN INTO THE 1800S. WELL, IF I'M HITTING YOU UPSIDE YOUR HEAD 1,900 TIMES, AND I SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. I'M ONLY GOING TO HIT YOU 1,800 TIMES. THIS STILL IS NOT SOLVING THE ISSUE. THIS IS NOT A RESOLVE. THAT TRAFFIC STUDY WAS PRIOR TO WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. WE HAVE MORE APARTMENTS RIGHT DOWN THAT SAME QUARTER. WE'RE STILL DEALING WITH A COMPRESSED ROAD. THAT IS NOT A GOOD SITUATION. THAT'S ADDING CONGESTION IN THIS TOWNSHIP, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT NOW TO TRAVEL ON ROADS LIKE MARSH ROAD. BUT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CENTRAL PARK DRIVE. PEOPLE BUY HOUSES, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DRIVE THROUGH AN APARTMENT COMPLEX TO GET ONTO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE. THERE'S GOT TO BE A WAY TO RESOLVE THIS. THERE'S GOT TO BE A HAPPY MEDIUM, AND WE HAVE NOT REACHED THAT POINT YET. I READ WHERE STAFF IS TELLING YOU FOCUS ON THE LAND USE. WELL, THE LAND USE INCLUDES OTHER ISSUES. IT INCLUDES EVALUATING THE REZONING TO SEE HOW ITS EFFECT IS ON THE PUBLIC SERVICES. [00:10:04] HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE TRAFFIC? HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE INFRASTRUCTURE? HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT EVERYTHING THIS AFFECTS BEFORE YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD DEPENDS ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE YOU ARE THE INVESTIGATORS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. NEXT IS JADE CHI, FOLLOWED BY ROME, AND I'M GOING TO NEED YOU TO HELP ME SPELL THAT NAME. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS JADE CHI, 1572 MAIDEN LANE. I'M HERE TODAY TO REQUEST THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DELAY THE VOTING PROCESS BECAUSE AT THE OCTOBER'S MEETING, MANY QUESTIONS WERE RAISED BY ALL OF YOU. AFTER THE MEETING, THE RESIDENTS AT THE CPE HAVE SENT OUT MULTIPLE EMAILS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. A LOT OF QUESTIONS WERE RAISED AS WELL. WITHOUT ANSWERING ALL THOSE QUESTIONS, I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO VOTE. I'M JUST GOING TO REPEAT SOME OF THE KEY QUESTIONS HERE. THE FIRST ONE IS, HOW DOES THE PROPOSED REZONING ALIGN WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S ORIGINAL LAND USE VISION AND COMMUNITY PRIORITIES? WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR CONSIDERING A PROJECT WITH REDUCED ROADWAY CAPACITY, BUT INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY? THE NEXT QUESTION IS, WHY IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACCELERATING THIS PROCESS DESPITE SO MANY QUESTIONS ARE NOT ANSWERED? ALSO, HOW CAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION ENSURE ITS RECOMMENDATION IS FULLY INFORMED BEFORE REACHING THE TOWNSHIP BOARD? LASTLY, WHY WERE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE OCTOBER 13 MEETING, NOT INCLUDED IN THE OFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES. IS THERE A REQUIREMENT? ALSO IN OUR EMAILS, WE HAVE REQUESTED THE WRITTEN RESPONSES BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING YET FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. JUST TO EMPHASIZE, RESIDENTS ARE NOT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWNSHIP IN OKEMOS, BUT WE JUST OPPOSE THE REZONING REQUEST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S MASTER PLAN, AND ALSO IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY FOR THE RATIONALE. THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE UNANSWERED, AND MORE INVESTIGATION AND DISCUSSIONS SHOULD BE FACILITATED IN THAT SENSE. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOT PROCEED WITH THE VOTE AT TODAY'S MEETING. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE IS TO FIND OUT THE ANSWERS FOR ALL THOSE QUESTIONS AND TO SEE WHAT WOULD BE THE POSSIBLE OPTIONS AND WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEPS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT IS RONNIE. YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES SPEAK. THAT'S THE LAST FORM I HAVE. IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK, PLEASE CALL OUT A FORM. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS RAMAN SHARMA, AND I AM AT BELL AVENUE IN CENTER PARK ESTATE. I SENT AN EMAIL WITH WHERE THERE WAS A COMPARISON OF MASTER PLAN AND THE PROPOSED PLAN FROM THE DEVELOPER. IN THAT EMAIL, I HAD POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE MANY CONFLICTS WITH THE MASTER PLAN. IT'S NOT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN. THAT'S ONE THING, AND I HAVE THIS PAPER. I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AGAIN BECAUSE I DID NOT GET AN EMAIL REPLY FOR MY RESPONSE. WHO SHOULD I GIVE IT TO? >> YOU CAN GIVE IT TO HIM. >> THANK YOU. ALSO, THERE WAS A SECOND ATTACHMENT IN THE EMAIL WHICH I SENT WHICH HAD ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES TRAFFIC VOLUME AND STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER THINGS. I HAVE THAT ALSO WITH ME. SINCE I DID NOT GET THE REPLY FOR THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THIS ALSO AS A DOCUMENT FOR RECORDS. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WHEN WE PURCHASE THE LOTS, WE PURCHASE THE LOTS WITH CERTAIN ZONING. [00:15:02] ANY ORGANIZATION WHO IS SELLING SOMETHING ANYWHERE. ONCE THE CUSTOMER PAYS THE PRICE FOR SOMETHING, THEY CANNOT CHANGE THE PRODUCT AFTERWARDS. IF I GO, PAY THE PRICE FOR AN AUDI, AND THEY COME BACK AND SAY, THAT, WE'LL KEEP YOUR MONEY, BUT WE'LL GIVE YOU A REGULAR CAR, NOT A LUXURY CAR. THAT DOESN'T WORK. YOU PAY FOR CERTAIN THING AND YOU GET THAT THING. WHAT WE PAID WAS FOR THE ZONING WHICH WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL ZONING, WHICH IS NOT RC, WHICH IS REGULAR RESIDENTIAL ZONING. WE WOULD LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO KEEP IT THAT WAY AND DECLINE THE REQUEST FOR REZONING BECAUSE REZONING FIRST OF ALL DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE MASTER PLAN. ALSO, THIS IS WHAT WE PAID FOR, AND THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD GET. WE SHOULD NOT BE LIKE SHORT I DON'T KNOW. WE SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN SOMETHING WHICH WE DIDN'T PAY FOR SO THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT, I HAVE VINCE TIMONICA. >> I'M FROM CENTRAL PARK, STATES 48 77 NASA. PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL TO INCREASE DENSITY AND THE CHANGE IN ZONING. THE PROPOSAL FOR THE AUTHENTICS OKEMOS DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS FLAWS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS THAT SHOULD REMOVE IT FROM CONSIDERATION OR AT LEAST REQUIRE FURTHER STUDY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TOWNSHIP GOALS AND MASTER PLAN, AS WELL AS A PLAN THAT THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF OKEMOS AS A WHOLE CAN SUPPORT. THE PLAN IS NOT ALIGNED WITH THE TOWNSHIP STANDARDS AND GOALS, AND DOES NOT BENEFIT THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF OKEMOS OR THE SHOPPERS WHO VISIT HERE FROM ELSEWHERE. THE CONGESTION ON THE ROADS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. THE MASTER PLAN CALLS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION ON THE ROADS AND IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. IT'S ALREADY NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PEDESTRIAN TO CROSS CENTRAL PARK DRIVE NEAR THE PROPOSED AUTHENTIC SILT COMMITS. IT WILL BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE AMOUNT OF DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATED BY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE EXPECTED TO DOUBLE THE AMOUNT THAT'S MENTIONED IN THE PROPOSAL BECAUSE ALL THE TRAFFIC THAT GOES OUT HAS TO COME BACK IN AGAIN. IT'LL BE IN THE THOUSANDS OF TRIPS IN AND OUT. THE CLAIM THAT THERE WON'T BE AN INCREASE IN RUNOFF IS NOT ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED. THE ASPHALT AND CONCRETE FOOTPRINT OF 11 SPRAWLING APARTMENT BUILDINGS, A CLUBHOUSE, PARKING LOTS, INTERIOR ROADS, AND SIDEWALKS WILL NECESSARILY CREATE MUCH RUNOFF WITH MUCH REDUCED NATURAL AREAS TO DRAIN INTO, AND MUCH OF THE WETLANDS BURIED UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION. IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED THAT ALL OF THE NATURAL LAND TO BE BUILT UPON IS A DRAINAGE AREA, AND THAT THE LAND AND THAT LAND WILL BE REMOVED AND COVERED UP. THE PROPOSAL ALLOWS SIGNIFICANT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE WETLANDS. TRULY AND THE TOWNSHIP'S MASTER PLAN CALLS FOR COMMERCIAL USE ALONG CENTRAL DRIVE, AND THAT WOULD BE REPLACED WITH MULTIFAMILY USE. A TRULY GREAT AND PROFOUND IMPACT THAT THE COMMISSION COULD MAKE ON THIS COMMUNITY AND ALL OF MID MICHIGAN WOULD BE FOR OCMS TO HELP RESTORE THE LOST AMERICAN DREAM OF AFFORDABLE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. AS OPPOSED TO THE DEGRADING EXISTENCE OF BEING CRAMMED INTO APARTMENT BUILDINGS. SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THE $250,000 TO $300,000 RANGE ARE SOMETHING WITHIN REACH OF THE MASSES OF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T QUITE GET THERE YET. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE GOING UP IN THIS AREA, APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND LUXURY HOMES. WHAT ABOUT IN BETWEEN? WHAT ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS? THEY'RE BEING FORGOTTEN. THE AMERICAN DREAM IS BEING LOST AND SQUANDERED. THEY COULD AFFORD THOSE HOMES. THIS GROUP COULD AFFORD THEM WITH MORTGAGES. OKEMOS COULD HELP SHOW THE WAY BACK TO THIS LOST AMERICAN DREAM BY INCENTIVIZING A BUILDING IN AFFORDABLE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THAT WAS THE LAST SHEET I HAD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. [4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ] I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO TONS AGENDA. >> SOME MOVE. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. >> SECOND. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROOKS. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 27, 2025, MEETING. [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] MOTION TO APPROVE? SORRY. >> WHO WAS THAT? >> WE NEED A MOTION ON THE SECOND, AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> YOU WANT TO MOVE? BROOKS? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. >> THANK YOU. SECOND. >> SECOND. >> MOVED BY BROOKS, SECONDED BY MCCONNELL. ANY DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER SNYDERS [LAUGHTER]. >> PAGE 4, I THINK AT THE BOTTOM THERE. [00:20:03] I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT I SAID. IT SAYS IN MINUTES. VICE CHAIR SNYDER SAID THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING FOR THE AREA ARE CONFUSING FOR ANYONE TRYING TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND CURRENT ZONING, WHICH IS OBSOLETE, WOULD HAVE BEEN CONFUSING FOR ANY POTENTIAL RESIDENT OF CENTRAL PARK ESTATES. IT WAS VERY SPECIFIC TO THAT GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? >> I POINTED OUT TO THE STAFF A SMALL TYPO ON THE VERY FIRST LINE OF PAGE 3. >> THERE IS ALSO A VERY SMALL TYPO AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 5. THERE'S NO TIME BEFORE PM. IT IS AFTER WE TAKE THE VOTE, THERE'S A TIME JUST AT PM. >> IT WAS PM. >> I WOULD SAY 909 PERHAPS BECAUSE WE. >> IT WASN'T AS LONG AS THE PREVIOUS MEETING BEFORE THAT, BUT THAT SOUNDS. >> THERE'S 910 AS WHEN WE PASSED THE MOTION UNANIMOUSLY [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE OF SUBSTANCE OR MINOR? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES AS SLIGHTLY AMENDED. SAY AYE? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS AMENDED. NOW WE ARE DOWN TO COMMUNICATIONS. [6. COMMUNICATIONS] WE HAD A PACKET OF COMMUNICATIONS AROUND THE CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES CENTRAL PARK PROPOSAL IN THE PACKET, AND THEN WE GOT A FEW MORE ON OUR TABLE TONIGHT, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE WOOD HALL MASTER PLAN NOTICE. ARE YOU COMING TO TALK TO US ABOUT THAT? I HAVE NOT. YOU'RE NOT? >> DID YOU ALL GET THE ATTACHED DRAFT OF THE PLAN THAT I SENT OUT WITH THE LINK TO THE PACKET? IT WAS 25 MEGS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL GOT IT. IT'S NOT PART OF THE WOOD PACKET. I SENT THE DRAFT WITH THE WHOLE PLAN FOR YOU. >> WHAT IS THEIR FEEDBACK DUE ON? >> JANUARY. >> LET ME CHECK THAT AND MAKE SURE. >> IF ANY OF YOU NEED IT, IF THEY HAVE TROUBLE GETTING IT, I HAVE THE HARD COPY IN MY OFFICE, AND I CAN MAKE A COPY. >> THANK YOU. UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS, WE HAVE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND WE COULD MOVE ON TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS NUMBER 25022, [8.A. APP #25022 – Continental Properties/Eyde Central Park Drive proposal] THE CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES I CENTRAL PARK DRIVE PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR SCHMIDT. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS REVIEWED AT BOTH OF YOUR MEETINGS IN OCTOBER. THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE PROPERTY, THE VACANT PROPERTY ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE. SO ADJACENT TO CENTRAL PARK ESTATES. THE ORIGINAL REQUEST IS APARTMENTS ON THE NORTHERN TWO PROPERTIES. THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY WILL STAY AS A WETLAND AND BE USED FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. NO MORE THAN 312 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS, TWO-STOREY BUILDINGS ONLY BETWEEN BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS, ADJACENT TO CENTRAL PARK ESTATES. THE FULL-TIME ACCESS WILL ONLY BE ON CENTRAL PARK AND TIMES SQUARE, AND A MINIMUM 100-FOOT SETBACK FROM CENTRAL PARK STATE, AND THE FLEXIBILITY BEING SOUGHT IS THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE OPEN SPACE, ALLOWING FOR A LONGER THAN 200-FOOT MINUTE MAXIMUM BUILDING LENGTH, AND SOME ENCROACHMENTS THROUGHOUT THE SITE INTO THE WETLAND SETBACKS, BUT NO NET LOSS. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, BETWEEN YOUR LAST MEETING AND TONIGHT, THEY HAVE OFFERED A SLIGHT MODIFICATION TO REDUCE BY ONE BUILDING THE PROPOSAL, MOVING THE NUMBER OF UNITS DOWN TO 288 AND INCREASING THE SETBACK FROM CENTRAL PARK STATES BY AN ADDITIONAL TEN FEET. SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE ACTION THIS EVENING, POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU TAKE THOSE CHANGES INTO ACCOUNT AND AMEND YOUR MOTION AS SUCH, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. AS STAFF HAVE REITERATED MULTIPLE TIMES, THERE'S STILL A LOT OF REVIEW LEFT IN THIS PROCESS FROM A SITE PLAN PERSPECTIVE. [00:25:04] THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION STILL TO BE DONE WITH RESPECT TO WETLANDS AND STORMWATER AND ROADS AND SETBACKS AND PARKING, ETC. THERE WAS NOT AS MUCH FOLLOW-UP FROM THE OCTOBER 27 MEETING AS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, SO I WILL BRIEFLY TOUCH BASE ON THAT. YOU KNOW, IN LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL REZONING REQUEST, WHAT WE FOUND IS REALLY THERE WAS A PRETTY CLEAR PATH THERE FOR A SOLID DECADE THAT IF YOU WERE DOING MULTIFAMILY, DID THE MUPUD APPROACH AND THE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL IN THERE TO MAKE IT A MIXED-USE PROJECT. AND SO THERE'S NOT A GOOD COMPARATIVE FOR MULTIFAMILY REZONING IN THE TEN YEARS AND BEYOND. I CAN POINT TO THE MAJORITY OF MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE TOWNSHIP IN THE LAST. 20 YEARS HAVE PROBABLY BEEN SOME MIXED-USE PROJECT, WHETHER IT'S HORIZONTAL MIXED USE, LIKE YOU SEE WITH THE LODGES AND THE LOFTS, OR WHETHER IT'S VERTICAL MIXED USE, AS YOU SEE WITH THE HAMPTONS AT THE CORNER OF MOUNT HOPE AND HAGADOR. SO THAT REALLY BECAME THE MODUS OPERANDI IN THE TOWNSHIP, AND SO THERE'S NOT A GOOD COMPARISON FOR A STRAIGHT REZONING. BUT TO REITERATE, AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE TREATING THE CYCLE REZONING, THIS IS NOT A REZONING. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT. LONG-TERM PATHWAY MAINTENANCE, ULTIMATELY, WILL BECOME PART OF OUR PATHWAY MASTER PLAN. THE MORE THAT WE CAN CONSTRUCT IN THIS WAY, THE CHEAPER IT IS, AND IT ALLOWS US TO MAINTAIN IT IN THE LONG RUN. AND SO THEY WILL PAY, THEY WILL PAY THE PATHWAY MILLAGE, AND IT WILL BE MAINTAINED AS PART OF THE PATHWAY, THE PATHWAY MILLAGE PROCESS THAT HAPPENS EVERY YEAR. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE RD ZONING WOULD LOOK LIKE ACROSS THE WHOLE SITE. WE'VE PROVIDED YOU WITH THE ANALYSIS WE DID BEFORE TRYING TO DISCUSS THE DENSITY OVER THE THREE PARCELS. THEN WE TOOK THAT SAME MATH AND DID IT FOR THE RD. THE CURRENT THEORETICAL MAXIMUM DENSITY IS 412 DWELLING UNITS IF IT GETS REZONED TO OUR. AGAIN, THE DEVELOPER IS ONLY PROPOSING 288 AT THIS POINT. TAKING THAT MATH ONE STEP FURTHER TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION FROM THE LAST MEETING, IF IT JUST GETS REZONED, RD, YOUR 235 IS YOUR THEORETICAL MAX. THEN, JUST FOR FUN, WE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT ONE STEP FURTHER. AND DO THE MATH, IF ONLY THE CS WAS REZONED RD, YOU'D HAVE A HIGHER DENSITY MULTIFAMILY IN THE FRONT, THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY TO THE REAR, AND THEN CENTRAL PARK STATES, THAT GETS YOU TO 342 DRAW UNITS, MAKING THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE WETLANDS ARE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE SITES BECAUSE KINDLY THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I COULD DO THE MATH RIGHT NOW. WE'D HAVE TO GET INTO A WHOLE LOT MORE DETAIL IF THAT'S THE PATH THAT SOMEONE WANTED TO GO DOWN, BUT CERTAINLY WE'RE JUST PROVIDING THAT AT THIS POINT FOR COMPARATIVE SAKE. THEN, JUST TO REITERATE THE CHARGE FROM THE BOARD. I WANT TO REITERATE THIS AS YOU POTENTIALLY MAKE A DECISION. THE REQUEST IS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ORDERS GOVERNING THE ZONING PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE THREE PARCELS SHALL BE AMENDED TO REPLACE THE CURRENT ZONING WITH A NEW CLASSIFICATION. AS WE'VE STATED ALL ALONG, THIS IS A PURE LAND USE QUESTION. LAND USE AND WHAT CONDITIONS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE? WE HAVE UPDATED OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL TO INCLUDE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING, FIRST AND FOREMOST, LIMITING THE PARKING TO A MAXIMUM OF 1.75 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. IT'S A RELATIVELY SIMPLE CHANGE.IT ACTUALLY IS A STEP FURTHER THAN OUR RECENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS INTERESTING TO STAFF. BUT THE DEVELOPER HAS NO CONCERNS WITH THAT, AND WE THINK THAT'S A PRETTY SOLID CONDITION AS WELL. FOCUSING ON THE PRESERVATION OF ACTUAL AREAS, REQUESTING A DETAILED GRADING PLAN WITH A FOCUS ON LIMITING THE GRADING ACTIVITIES ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY. OBVIOUSLY, TRY TO MAINTAIN AS MUCH OF THAT NATURAL BUFFER AS POSSIBLE, THAT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN REMOVED BY SOME OF THE RESIDENTS ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE. AND THEN ALL THE LIGHTING ON THE SITE, MEETING OUR STANDARDS, AND JUST SPECIFYING THE NO VISIBLE LIGHT SOURCES THERE SHALL BE NO VISIBLE LIGHT SOURCES ON ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINES, JUST TO FURTHER HAMMER HOME THAT POINT. DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT BEING A PROBLEM IN THIS CASE, BUT WANTED TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR AS WE MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE THIS EVENING. WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. AND I KNOW THE DEVELOPER IS HERE AND HAS A PRESENTATION AS WELL TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT THE PLAINTIFF COMMISSION AT THEIR LAST MEETING. [00:30:06] >> TO FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE DEVELOPER PRESENTATION BEFORE WE DISCUSS WHETHER WE'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION AND SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION TO, AND THEN FOLLOW WITH DISCUSSION, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE. >> SOMETIMES WE ASK SOME QUESTIONS TO THE STAFF. >> PLEASE. I'M SORRY. YES. ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT OVERVIEW, DIRECTOR SCHMIDT. OF THE MANY, MANY PUBLIC COMMENTS WE'VE HEARD, THE ONE THAT IS IN MY MIND, MOST GERMANE IS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE PROPOSAL COMPORTS WITH THE MASTER PLAN. YOU'VE EXPLAINED IN THE PAST THAT WE CHOSE NOT TO MAKE A CHANGE ON THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE STATUS OF THE LAND, AND I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO JUST REMIND US OF THAT ISSUE. >> I THINK STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE REMAINS THE SAME; THIS PROPERTY REALISTICALLY HASN'T BEEN REVIEWED IN THE MASTER PLAN STATE PROCESS SINCE THE CONSENT JUDGMENT WAS PUT IN PLACE. TYPICALLY, WITH LAWSUITS, PLANNERS TAKE A SOFT HAND IN MAKING ANY CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. I MEAN, EVEN IN THIS CASE, WHEN WE REPEALED THE CS ZONING, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO CHANGE THE WAY WE DO COMMERCIAL ZONING IN THE TOWNSHIP. THERE IS ACTUALLY AN AMENDMENT TO THIS CONSENT JUDGMENT THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT REPEAL THE C ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT STILL IS IN PLACE. IT TENDS TO BE A SITUATION FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE; IF YOU MAKE ANY CHANGE THAT AFFECTS A POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, IT DOES TEND TO BE AN ISSUE, AND SO FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION AT ANY POINT THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO UPDATE THIS PROPERTY. TO BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALREADY NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUTURE AS MAP BECAUSE A PORTION OF ITS ZONED MULTIFAMILY, AND THE FUTURE AS MAP IS ALL COMMERCIAL ALL THE TIME ALONG CENTRAL PARK DRIVE. WE HAD IT COME UP; WE WOULD HAVE ADVISED AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF THE LAWSUIT, AND WE CONTINUE TO SAY, ALTHOUGH IT IS A PIECE OF THE DISCUSSION, IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE END-ALL IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL REVIEW OF IT SINCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WERE IN PLACE. >> THANK YOU. IN THAT CASE, IT FEELS A LITTLE BIT LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO DO A COUNTERFACTUAL AND SAY, IF WE WERE AT A POINT NOW IN REVISING THE MASTER PLAN AND THIS PROPOSAL WAS ON THE TABLE, WOULD IT HAVE APPEALED TO US AS COMPORTING WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE OVERALL IN THE MASTER PLAN? >> IS THAT? >> I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A FAIR QUESTION, AND THAT'S REALLY I THINK PART OF THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PIECES OF THE MASTER PLAN. I THINK ANYONE CAN LOOK AT OUR PLAN AND FIND ASPIRATIONAL PIECES THAT THEY THINK THIS MEETS IN ASPIRATIONAL PIECES THAT IT DOESN'T MEET. I THINK THAT'S THE CASE WITH ANY PLAN. I'VE NEVER HAD A PROJECT THAT MEETS EVERYTHING. >> FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, I GUESS MY THOUGHT IS, GIVEN WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE TOWNSHIP, ESPECIALLY MIXED USE COMMERCIAL, WE REALLY HAVE STUCK TO ENVISIONING SO MUCH COMMERCIAL IN THAT AREA GIVEN THAT THERE'S SO MUCH VACANCY AND AN EMPTY MALL NEARBY. >> IT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. I MEAN, THAT QUESTION, I THINK IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE MAIN QUESTIONS YOU DISCUSSED YOUR NEXT MASTER PLAN UPDATE WHEN WE HAVE SEEN THE FALLOUT FROM COVID. WE UNDERSTAND MORE WHAT THE MALL IS FACING GOING FORWARD. WHAT DOES COMMERCIAL LOOK LIKE IN A COMMUNITY THAT FOCUSED ON COMMERCIAL FOR MANY YEARS. >> TWO MORE QUICK ONES IF I COULD. >> SURE. ANYONE ELSE DYING TO GET IN, IT'S THEIR FIRST BITE AT THE APPLE BEFORE SOMEONE GET IN. >> CAN WE OR SHOULD WE PUT DUMPSTERS IN THE CONDITIONS? THE SECOND IS I'LL BE INTERESTED TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS WHETHER ANY THOUGHT WAS EVER GIVEN TO ANY COMMERCIAL ON THE SITE, CONVENIENCE STORE? >> I WILL DEFER TO THE APPLICANTS OR THE OWNER WHO IS ALSO HERE ON THE COMMERCIAL QUESTION. IN TERMS OF THE DUMPSTER QUESTION. CERTAINLY, IF THERE'S A CONCERN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS WITH RESPECT TO [00:35:04] THE LOCATION OR SOMETHING YOU WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT IT SHOULDN'T GO HERE, ABSOLUTELY. WELL WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO MAKE THAT COMMENT AT THIS POINT, TO HELP GUIDE THE DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD LEVEL. >> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. >> THANK YOU. MR. RON BECK. >> JUST A QUICK ONE BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE I KEEP GETTING STUCK. I DO APPRECIATE DR. SCHMIDT ALL THE WORK YOU PUT IN. I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT HAVE THE PRIOR REZONING LOOK LIKE AND ARE WE BEING CONSISTENT? I HAVE SOME DIFFERENT THOUGHTS AT THE MOMENT ON THAT, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE CHARGE FROM THE BOARD, LONG STORY SHORT, SHOULD THIS BE AMENDED TO REPLACE THE CURRENT ZONING WITH A NEW CLASSIFICATION? WE COULD JUST ANSWER, YES. >> YOU CERTAINLY COULD. I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO PUT CONDITIONS AND REASONS ON THE RECORD, BUT BY NO MEANS, ARE YOU REQUIRED TO DO THAT? >> CORRECT. I MEAN, THAT TO ME, THINKING YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THE LAWYERS ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS. IF WE STRICTLY FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE BOARD CHARGE, SHOULD IT BE RESUMED? YES. THEN OF COURSE, IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION AND THEN WHAT? THEN WHAT WE GET TO IS HOW DO WE ANSWER THAT QUESTION? BECAUSE I FIND AND I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE TO PUT IT OUT THERE. I FIND CLASH WITH THE MASTER PLAN, BUT I FIND CLASH BOTH WAYS. I HEAR COMMENTS ON, WELL, NO MASTER PLAN IS PERFECT, AND NO PLAN IS EVER PERFECT, BUT HOW DO YOU MAKE THE CONSCIOUS DECISION TO VARY FROM IT OR NOT. MOST OF THESE ARE RHETORICAL, AND I GRANT THAT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M COMING BACK TO BECAUSE I THINK I MADE A COMMENT THAT WE'RE SOMEWHAT OF A LIMITED PURPOSE BOARD HERE OR A LIMITED PURPOSE COMMISSION. SIMPLY ANSWERING THE QUESTION, SHOULD IT BE RECLASSIFIED WITH THE NEW CLASSIFICATION? I DON'T THINK THERE'S A DEBATE. BUT THEN, I'M HAVING A STRUGGLE GETTING TO VENT DETERMINING WHAT IT IS. MOST OF THAT I GRANT IS RHETORICAL. >> I WOULD SIMPLY ADD THAT IF YOU GO BACK AND WERE TO LOOK AT THE MEETING, STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDED MOTION SHOULD BE AMENDED TO REPLACE THE CURRENT ZONING WITH A NEW CLASSIFICATION. IT SHOULD BE AMENDED TO REPLACE THE CURRENT ZONING WITH THE RC CLASSIFICATION. BECAUSE RECOGNIZING SOME OF THAT RHETORICAL DISCUSSION WAS GOING TO COME UP. WE WERE TRYING TO, I THINK, FROM A STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE FOCUS A LITTLE BIT. THE BOARD THEN, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, OFFERED YOU A BROADER STROKE TO GET INTO SOME OF THOSE RHETORICAL AREAS. >> APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SAM. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU SAID THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION TO SHARE. >> I WILL DEFER TO THAT. >> THANK YOU. YOU'D INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THEN. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS STEVEN DORN. I'M A DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES. MY ADDRESS IS WEST 134 NORTH 8675 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY IN MENOMONEE FALLS, WISCONSIN. UNFORTUNATELY [INAUDIBLE] WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT'S MEETING. HOWEVER, I'M HERE TO PRESENT A BRIEF SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE CHANGES WE ARE PROPOSING TO THE AUTHENTICS OKEMOS COMMUNITY. BASED ON THE FEEDBACK WE HEARD AT THE OCTOBER 27 PLANNING COMMISSION BILL. JUST A QUICK REMINDER OF THE EXISTING USES ALLOWED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PER THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THE SITE SPLIT ZONE WITH ABOUT 18.3 ACRES OF LAND CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL USE OR CS AS DEPICTED IN BLUE, AND ABOUT 12.38 ACRES OF LAND CLASSIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL USE, RD AS DEPICTED IN GREEN. AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, CS ALLOWS FOR MORE HIGH INTENSE COMMERCIAL USES AND THE RD DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR MULTIFAMILY UP TO EIGHT UNITS BREAK. I REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO AMEND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY APPLYING THE RC ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PROPERTY WITH A MAXIMUM HOME COUNT AND WITH SPECIFIC SITE CONDITIONS AS WELL. AS DIRECTOR SMITH MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE A FEW ADJUSTMENTS WE ARE PROPOSING IN RESPONSE TO THE FEEDBACK AT THE OCTOBER PLANNING COMMISSION. IN A CONTINUED EFFORT TO COMPROMISE AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS REGARDING DENSITY. WE ARE PROPOSING TO DECREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY BY REMOVING A 24 UNIT BUILDING AND THE ASSOCIATED PARKING WITH THAT BUILDING. [00:40:02] PREVIOUSLY, WE WERE PROPOSING A TOTAL OF 312 UNITS. WE ARE NOW PROPOSING A MAXIMUM OF 288 UNITS. YOU CAN SEE IN THE GRAPHIC OF THE UPDATED SITE PLAN WITH THE REMOVAL OF PREVIOUSLY LABELED BUILDING FOUR AND A REDUCTION IN PARKING, AND THAT'S GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE RED CLOUDED AREA AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. THIS UNIT COUNT IS MUCH CLOSER TO THE RD DENSITY OF EIGHT UNITS AN ACRE RATHER THAN THE RC DENSITY OF 14 UNITS AN ACRE. OUR PROPOSAL IS AROUND 9.4 UNITS AN ACRE, AND I SEE APPROXIMATELY WITH THE WETLANDS THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. IN ADDITION, PER PLANNING COMMISSION FEEDBACK, WE ARE PROPOSING A MAXIMUM OF 1.75 PARKING STALLS PER DWELLING UNIT. THIS ALIGNS WITH THE HISTORICAL NEED OF CONTINENTAL SEAS WITHOUT THE EXTRA IMPERVIOUS OF UNUTILIZED STALLS. THE DECREASE IN DENSITY AND THE MAXIMUM PARKING RATIO WILL DECREASE OUR PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS, REDUCE OUR DAILY TRIPS ON THE ROAD NETWORK, AND WILL ALLOW US TO PRESERVE MORE WETLAND SPACES AND PROVIDE MORE OPEN SPACE. ALSO, WE WERE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE SETBACK ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING CENTRAL PARK ESTATES BY ADDITIONAL 10 FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 110 FEET. YOU CAN SEE THE SEQUENCE OF THAT BY THE CODE REQUIREMENT IS 45 FEET, AND AT THE NEIGHBORING MEETING, WE INCREASED IT TO 90 FEET AND OCTOBER 13 TO 100 AND NOW 110 FOR ALMOST 2.44 TIMES THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR THE RD DISTRICT THAT EXISTS TODAY. IN ADDITION, I WANT TO PRESENT THE UPDATED SECTION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SHARED JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT 110-FOOT SETBACK VERSED THE 45 FEET. THE TOP SECTION IS THE SECTION THAT'S THE PER CODE ORDINANCE OF 45 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK AND THEN THE BOTTOM SECTION IS AT A 110 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. YOU CAN SEE OUR CLOSEST PROPOSED BUILDING TO THE CLOSEST EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS JUST OVER 150 FEET. IN THE SUMMER, WE REQUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO THE RC ZONING WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT DIRECTOR SCHMIDT LISTED, AS WELL AS I'VE GOT LISTED HERE PORTIONS OF, EXCEPT FOR THE TWO ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT THE PROPOSED CHANGES I JUST NOTED. YOU'LL SEE CONDITION NUMBER 5 HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 288 DWELLING UNITS FROM 312, AND THAT'S THE NET DEDUCTION OF 24 UNITS. CONTINUING WITH THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS BEING COMMITTED TO, YOU'LL NOTICE COMMITMENT NUMBER 8 BEING REVISED FROM 100 FEET TO 110 FOOT FOR THE SETBACK FROM THE WESTERN LOT LINE OF THE NEAREST UNITS TO THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATE. BASED ON THESE COMMITMENTS AND THE CONTINUED EFFORT TO COMPROMISE, BASED ON THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBORS, FROM STAFF, AND FROM PLAN COMMISSION, WE REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THE PLANING COMMISSION. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I'M ALSO HERE WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND THE OWNER AND SOME OF THE DESIGN TEAM. I THINK COMMISSION MCCONNELL, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YOU HAD ASKED? >> LET GO. >> I'M SORRY. YOU HAD ASKED HAD WE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL ON THE PROPERTY? WE ARE JUST A STRICTLY A MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPER AND SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IN OUR LINE OF DEVELOPMENT. >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT DUMPSTERS. [LAUGHTER] I SEE IT'S NOW A COMPACT. >> YES. WE TYPICALLY HAVE A COMPACTOR ON SITE AS WELL AS A RECYCLE BIN. I WILL SAY WE ARE REFLECTING THAT. THAT'S A CONCEPT. I THINK AS DIRECTOR SMITH NOTED, WE'RE STILL GOT TO GO THROUGH STAFF REVIEW, COUNTY REVIEW WITH THE DRAIN OFFICE, COUNTY REVIEW WITH THE ROAD OFFICE, AND CERTAINLY THAT COULD SHAPE SHIFT IT. >> NO, I THINK THE SPOT WHERE IT'S AT RIGHT NOW LOOKS IDEAL TO ME. IT'S WELL SHIELDED. IT'S CENTRAL, IT'S ACCESSIBLE. FOR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COMPLEX IN GREEN, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PROXIMITY OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS MUCH TO WORRY ABOUT. THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT BUILDING 4. >> SORRY GO AHEAD. [OVERLAPPING]. >> I APOLOGIZE. >> THAT'S OKAY. PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU. BUILDING 4. THIS ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT WAS DIRECTLY OVER, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DIRECTLY OVER WETLAND B? >> YES, MA'AM. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER BUILDINGS CURRENTLY THAT ARE PLANNED IN A WETLAND? >> GOOD QUESTION. BUILDING 5, IF YOU CAN LOOK, LET'S SEE IF THIS MESS. CAN YOU SEE THE CURSOR ON YOU? >> YEAH. >> WETLAND B EXTENDS. YOU CAN SEE THE LINE RIGHT HERE. WETLAND B EXTENDS RIGHT HERE. IT CLIPS THE CORNER OF BUILDING 5. HOWEVER, WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT RIGHT NOW TO SEE IF WE CAN AVOID THAT ALTOGETHER. RIGHT NOW, THE AVOIDANCE WHERE THAT BUILDING 5 CLIPS ABOUT 1,500 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS 0.5% OF THE WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY. WE'RE TRYING TO JUST AVOID THEM ALTOGETHER IF WE CAN. >> WAS BUILDING 4 EVER A VIABLE OPTION THERE? [00:45:05] >> IT WAS, YES. THERE'S EXTRA HOOPS AND REQUIREMENTS TO GO THROUGH, BUT IT IS TECHNICALLY AN OPTION, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR THOSE ASPECTS. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. MORGAN. >> THANK YOU. MR. DARN, THERE WAS A PRESENTATION, I BELIEVE BY MR. MOZETI AT SOME POINT. IT SAID THAT THE PROPOSAL MAINTAINED SOMETHING LIKE 96. >> I THINK 95%. >> YES SIR, 95%. IF WE ELIMINATE BUILDING 4, THAT PERCENTAGE OF THE WETLAND PROTECTION, THEN THAT WOULD GO UP NATURALLY. >> YES, SIR. IT'S LIKE 99.5% BASED ON OUR CURRENT CONCEPT, WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT 100. >> I DON'T KNOW WHO THIS WOULD GO TO, BUT WOULD YOU ACCEPT A CONDITION THAT SAYS THAT BASED ON THE 99.5, YOU WILL MAINTAIN THE 99.5% OF THE WETLAND? >> I THINK WE CONSIDER PROBABLY 99%. >> THERE'S SOME NUMBER IN THERE. YES. I'M PUTTING YOU ON THE LINE ON THE SPOT FOR THE MATH. >> I THINK THE ONLY REASON I'M HESITANT IS JUST WITH THE UTILITY DESIGN NOT BEING FULLY DESIGNED OUT? >> SURE. >> WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE TO NAVIGATE TO THE EXISTING FOUR BASE WITH THE STORM PONDS. WE THINK WE CAN NAVIGATE WITHOUT IMPACTING THE WETLANDS, BUT THAT'S JUST TO BE CONFIRMED. >> SURE. >> BUT I THINK WE COULD COME TO A NUMBER THAT WOULD THAT WOULD COMMIT TO WETLAND RESERVATION UNDISTURBED. >> BECAUSE I REMEMBERED THE 96 NUMBER AND I WAS SEARCHING THROUGH THE MATERIALS AND I COULDN'T FIND IT, BUT KNOWING THAT THERE'S A NUMBER NORTH OF 96 THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, I THINK IS CERTAINLY A FACTOR FOR ME. >> I THINK WE COULD COMMIT TO 96% BECAUSE THE STORM THE UTILITY IMPACTS WOULD BE PRETTY MINIMAL. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> YEAH. >> MR. BROOKS. >> THANK YOU FOR THE ADDITIONAL PRESENTATION AND THE DIFFERENT COMPROMISES THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WILLING TO COME TO? I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE IS, SO I THINK I MENTIONED THIS AT THE LAST SESSION. I THINK IN THIS CASE, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF WHO THIS IS IMPACTING WHO CURRENTLY RESIDES THERE, BUT ALSO WHO WILL IN THE FUTURE RESIDE THERE AS WELL. WHEN I SEE A BUNCH OF TWO-STORY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE THE CLUBHOUSE AND THE OTHER ASPECTS OF BEING CENTRALLY LOCATED THERE IN THE SOUTHERN PARCEL, BUT THEN ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL, AND LIKE, HOW ARE PEOPLE WHO RENT THEY'RE GOING TO GET TO THE SERVICES THAT YOU ALL ARE OFFERING. WHAT IS THE EXPECTATION THERE? >> THEY WOULD HAVE TWO OPPORTUNITIES. THEY COULD DRIVE THEIR CAR, A STONE THROW, IF YOU WILL, TO THE AMENITY. THERE'S PARKING AT THE AMENITY, OR THEY COULD ALSO WALK ON THE NEW SIDEWALKS WILL BE PUTTING IN AND THE PROPOSED CROSSWALK CONNECTION ALONG BELVEDERE AS WELL? >> FINISH YOUR THOUGHT. >> SEPARATELY, WE DO HAVE OTHER AMENITIES AND I THINK WE TYPICALLY WILL HAVE A DOG PARK OR A DOG RUN, AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT DIVERSIFYING SOME OF THE AMENITIES. THAT WAS ACTUALLY A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION INTERNALLY AS WELL THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE OTHER AMENITIES ON THE NORTH SIDE OR PAGE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PLAN AS WELL. >> AT OTHER PROPERTIES THAT YOU ALL HAVE DEVELOPED, HAVE YOU ENDED UP IN A SITUATION SIMILAR TO THIS, WHERE THERE'S UNITS THAT ARE [OVERLAPPING] >> YES, SIR. IT'S NOT TOO UNCOMMON. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE A RING ROAD OR YOU WOULD HAVE A FUTURE ROAD ON A TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WOULD BISECT AND IT WOULD RUN THROUGH THE SITE. WE'RE LOOKING AT A FEW ACTUALLY RIGHT NOW THAT HAVE THE SAME SITUATION WITH PUBLIC STREETS THAT COME THROUGH. THEY OPERATING FEEL VERY SIMILAR, ESPECIALLY NOT BEING A THOROUGHFARE. THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE THE DIFFERENTIATOR WOULD BE, WHEREAS YOU HAVE HIGH VOLUME. THESE ARE MORE LOW VOLUME. >> MY QUESTION IS, YOU HAVE LOTS OF WETLANDS IN HERE THAT YOU'RE MAKING AN EFFORT TO CONSERVE AND NATURAL AREAS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT, WHICH I THINK WE APPRECIATE AND GOES ALONG WITH THE MASTER CLIENT HERE. THEN IS THERE ANY INTEREST IN HAVING PATHS THAT GO THROUGH THOSE AREAS THAT OTHER PEOPLE COULD ACCESS BEYOND JUST RESIDENTS? LET'S SAY PEOPLE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF CENTRAL PARK WANTED TO WALK TO WALMART, AND THERE WAS A PATH BETWEEN THE WETLAND AND THE STORM BASIN OR SOMETHING? >> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WHAT THE TRICK IS, IS THE LIABILITY THAT GETS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE PRIVATE TRAILS. THERE BE PRIVATE TO THE ENTITY THAT WE WOULD BE, [00:50:01] AND SO IF IT WAS A PUBLIC TRAIL SYSTEM THAT WAS MAPPED OUT, THEN THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT DIRECTOR SCHMIDT WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO, AND IF THE TOWNSHIP WANTED TO MAINTAIN THAT ASPECT OF IT, THAT WOULD BE THE VARIABLE THAT CAN HELP PREVENT SOME OF THAT LIABILITY. WE'RE NOT AGAINST CERTAINLY INTERCONNECTIVITY WITH PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY. THAT'S JUST SOME OF THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. I GET THE LIABILITY OF HAVING THAT IN THAT SPACE. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS ABOUT THE 10 FEET THAT WAS ADDED TO THE VOLUNTARY SETBACK. WHAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THAT? >> WE TRIED TO JUST TIGHTEN IT UP. BASICALLY, WE'RE HEARING CONVERSATIONS OF JUST CONCERNS WITH THOSE BUILDINGS FROM SOME OF THE RESIDENTS OF, CAN WE REMOVE THOSE ALTOGETHER? WHAT CAN WE DO ON THAT? WE'RE JUST TRYING TO INCREASE THAT BUFFER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THAT'S THE MINIMUM. OUR GOAL IS TO DO OUR BEST TO PUSH THOSE BUILDINGS AS FAR NORTH AS WE CAN. I THINK IT COMES INTO ONCE WE GET INTO THE SITE ENGINEERING, WHAT THAT WILL ACTUALLY ALLOW, BUT TANDEM WITH AVOIDING THE IMPACTS OF THE WETLAND. >> THIS IS SPECULATIVE. BUT IS THERE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT OF MAKING THAT BUFFER THE 110 FEET ON THE FUTURE DESIGN THAT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY SETTLE ON? >> WE WERE COMMITTING THAT AS A 110 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK TODAY. THAT WILL BE A COMMITMENT, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. >> I'M ASKING BECAUSE I'M IN FAVOR OF SOME STIPULATION LIKE THIS, BUT THEN I ALSO DON'T WANT TO HAVE OVERLY STRENUOUS BARRIERS FOR FLEXIBILITY. >> I CAN APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE. WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT ENOUGH. I THINK THAT WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THAT BUILDING SETBACK, WE CAN KEEP IT 110 FEET AT A MINIMUM AWAY. AS YOU CAN SEE IT, IT'S JUST THAT ONE PINCH POINT. AS YOU PROGRESS TO THE SOUTH PAGE LEFT, IT ACTUALLY EVEN IS FURTHER. IT'S JUST THAT ONE PINCH POINT, AND I THINK WE HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY BUT WE FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT THAT. I CAN APPRECIATE THE CONCERN. >> JUST DOUBLE TO CONFIRM. THE ONLY SETBACK ENCROACHMENT THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE REQUESTED WOULD BE AT THAT BUILDING 5 NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF THAT BUILDING. >> YES, SIR. WE'RE HOPING TO AVOID THAT. BUT YES, SIR, THAT WOULD BE THE PINCH POINT. I SHOULD CLARIFY. WE EXPECT TO NOT HAVE THAT SITUATION. >> THANK YOU FOR NOW. >> ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE ONE MORE. >> GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER BRIAN. >> MR. DON, THE REDUCED MAXIMUM 312-288, IS THAT REDUCTION PURELY BASED ON THE ELIMINATION OF BUILDING 4? >> YES, SIR. THAT'S THE DIRECT MYTH. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AND/OR STAFF OR FOR US IN TERMS OF PROCESS NEXT STEPS? >> YES, I WAS WONDERING WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE PROCESS SINCE WE DO HAVE TWO RESOLUTIONS. THEN THERE'S THIS HEARKENING BACK TO COMMISSIONER ROMBACK'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE CHARGE TO US, SHOULD THIS BE AMENDED TO REPLACE THE CURRENT ZONING WITH A NEW CLASSIFICATION? BECAUSE I'M INTERPRETING IT THE WAY THAT YOU ARE BUT TO ME MEANS THAT IT'S OPEN TO OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN EITHER RESOLUTION. I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THE PROCESS. >> MR. SCHMIDT, MAY I OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ONE? STAFF HAS OFFERED US SUGGESTED LANGUAGE FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE MINOR CHANGES TO REFLECT THE REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF UNITS, PARKING AND SUGGESTED RATIONALE FOR DOING THAT. [00:55:04] IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT LANGUAGE WANTED TO MOVE THAT, THEY COULD DO IT. IF THERE WAS A SECOND, WE WOULD DISCUSS, TAKE A VOTE. IF SOMEBODY IS COMPLETELY OPPOSED, WE'VE BEEN OFFERED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT IT NOT BE CHANGED. IF SOMEBODY IS SO INCLINED, WE COULD DO THAT. IF YOU HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS AND YOU'D LIKE US TO LOOK AT OPTIONS FOR SOMETHING THAT'S APPROVING WITH DIFFERENT CONDITIONS, OR IF YOU SAY, I HAVE THESE QUESTIONS THAT I NEED TO HAVE ANSWERED BEFORE I'M COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING ANY MOTION TO APPROVE OR RECOMMEND DENIAL ASK THEM NOW, AND STAFF MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THEM TODAY. BUT I DON'T WANT TO PUT OUR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT ON THE SPOT, BUT IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT YOU FEEL ARE UNANSWERED THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE ANSWERED BEFORE YOU'RE READY TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS, LET'S GET THOSE OUT IN THE OPEN AND TALK ABOUT IT. >> ULTIMATELY, THE DECISION IS EITHER ONE OF TWO RESOLUTIONS. >> WELL, IF YOU SAY THIS RESOLUTION DOESN'T GET AT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THIS CONDITION. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS OTHER OPTION. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S PROPOSED HERE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF DIDN'T HAVE ANY HESITATION OR CAUTION TO US. BEFORE I VOTED ON ANYTHING THAT WAS DIFFERING FROM WHAT STAFF HAS PUT FORWARD, I'D WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF HAD COMFORT LEVEL WITH THAT. OR THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD ACCEPT IT IF WE VOTED. ONCE WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, THEN IT IS THEIR DECISION TO MAKE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION REFLECTS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE COLLECTIVE VIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT, WHAT ABOUT THIS? WHAT ABOUT THAT? THIS IS THE TIME TO RAISE THOSE. IF I DIDN'T SAY THAT WELL OR OTHERS HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS, PLEASE SPEAK UP NOW. OR MR. SCHMIDT, IF I HAVE TOTALLY MANGLED THAT PROCESS? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. PLANNING COMMISSIONER ALWAYS HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S THE CASE WITH ANY PROJECT. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE IF THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED, TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND LET US WRITE IT UP OR COOK. >> NO THAT WE'RE READY FOR THAT YET UNTIL I HEAR WHAT IT MIGHT BE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS PROPOSING. BUT COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL, GO AHEAD. >> I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS MAKES ANY SENSE OR NOT. SORRY. COMMISSIONER ROMBACK SPOKE ELOQUENTLY, SHOULD IT BE REZONED? YES. WE CAN DO THAT TONIGHT PROBABLY WITHOUT OBJECTION. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S USEFUL. I CERTAINLY WOULD ABSOLVE THIS OF OUR CHARGE. GOOD WORK HERE. THE CURRENT ZONE DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL. GOOD LUCK. BUT I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO DEVELOP AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE THINK IS APPROPRIATE ON THIS SITE. WE'RE SEEING A PROCESS OF NEGOTIATION BETWEEN AN APPLICANT, SOME ADJACENT RESIDENTS AND A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND AMENDMENTS. BUT WE HAD THAT OVERHANGING QUESTION OF, HAD WE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS DURING OUR MASTER PLAN PROCESS, WHAT MIGHT WE HAVE DONE? IF THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WOULD LIKE TO INSTRUCT US TO CONSIDER THIS PARCELS IN THE NEXT REVISION OF THE MASTER PLAN THEN DIRECTION 1 COULD GO IN. >> MR. BROOKS AND THEN COMMISSIONER ROMBACK. >> I THINK IT'S HYPOTHETICAL TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD HAVE DONE WITH THE MASTER PLAN. IN MY MIND, WHEN I THINK ABOUT THIS SPACE, I COULD GO BOTH WAYS. I THINK COMMERCIAL COULD END UP BEING THERE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS ZONED, AND THERE'S STILL ALSO RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT ARE ON THERE THAT IT ALLOWS FOR. I COULD ALSO SEE DOING RD ZONING AS AN OPTION. [01:00:05] THE THING THAT I THINK I KEEP COMING BACK TO OR KEEP HEARING ABOUT FROM THE MASTER PLAN PERSPECTIVE IS WETLAND PROTECTION AND INCORPORATING WITHIN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND TRYING TO MAINTAIN THOSE WETLANDS TO BOTH ABSORB WATER, BUT ALSO MAINTAIN HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE, AND ETC. THEN TRAFFIC SAFETY IS THE OTHER ONE I KEEP HEARING ABOUT. I FEEL LIKE THIS REMEDIATES A LOT OF THE STUFF RELATED TO THE WETLANDS. I THINK THE WILLINGNESS TO REMOVE A WHOLE BUILDING WAS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND IT ALSO ADDRESSES BOTH CONCERNS AT SOME LEVEL. THE THING I'M WONDERING ABOUT THOUGH IS, IF WE PUT THESE BUILDINGS HERE, WHAT HAPPENS TO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE IN THE FUTURE? WHAT IF CENTRAL PARK NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED IN THE FUTURE, DIRECTOR SCHMIDT, IS THERE STILL ROOM? >> THERE'S ALWAYS AN ENGINEERING DESIGN TO MAKE IT WORK. THE AMOUNT OF BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN TO JUSTIFY GOING BACK TO A FOUR LANE CROSS SECTION WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL, EVEN WITH THIS PROJECT. YOU'RE TALKING A LOT OF BACKGROUND GROWTH. BECAUSE EVEN WITH THE PROJECT, EVEN WITH GRAND RESERVE, WE'RE STILL WELL BELOW THE 15,000 CAR THRESHOLD THAT IS WHERE YOU SEE A JUMP TO GOING TO ANOTHER LANE OF TRAFFIC. THAT'S WHY CENTRAL PARK WAS DOWNSIZED BECAUSE IT WAS TOO BIG TO BEGIN WITH. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY THE SPACE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. I THINK WHAT'S MORE LIKELY TO HAPPEN, IS THAT WE IN THE FUTURE, AS IT'S NEEDED, WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO MAKE THE ROAD SAFER. THIS IS BRINGING ON A PROJECT LIKE THIS IS HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET MORE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ACROSS CENTRAL PARK IN THIS AREA, BECAUSE WE TEND NOT TO, AS A STATE, THINK THAT FAR AHEAD ON PEDESTRIAN RELATED ISSUES. IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A BUILD IT, AND THEY WILL COME TYPE SETUP. IT'S A BUILDING, AND NOW WE HAVE TO FIX IT. CERTAINLY, I THINK AS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, THAT QUESTION IS GOING TO HAPPEN OF, WHERE DO WE ALIGN THOSE THINGS, AND WHAT CAN WE PLAN FOR NOW TO MAKE IT EASIER IN THE FUTURE WHEN THE COUNTS JUSTIFY IT. >> I'VE THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT THE DIFFERENT CLASHES WE HAVE HERE. YOU START TO THINK ABOUT WHAT DOES THE PLANNING COMMISSION DO WHEN IT ACTS IN ITS ADVISORY CAPACITY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO SO HERE BASED ON THE CHARGE FROM THE BOARD. THE CHARGE FROM THE BOARD COMES BACK AND SAYS, SHOULD IT BE REZONED? YES. THEN WE HAVE TO WORK OURSELVES. TO ME, IT IS NOW A SMALL JUMP. SHOULD IT BE REZONED, AND THEN TO WHAT? THE MENU, ESSENTIALLY, PUT IN FRONT OF US BY THE APPLICANT IS, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. WE WANT THE RC DENSITY. BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN THE MENU BASED ON WHAT DIRECTOR SCHMIDT, YOUR TEAM PUT TOGETHER, YOUR STAFF PUT TOGETHER ON WHAT HAS BEEN DONE OVER THE PAST. I THINK YOU SAID DECADE. I'M GOING TO GO WITH THAT IF THAT IS THE TRUTH. >> SURE. >> RC IS NOT ON THE MENU FROM THERE. THERE HAS BEEN NO REZONING FROM WHAT YOU PUT IN FRONT OF US TO AN RC. THERE IS TO WHAT COMMISSIONER BROOKS SAID, AN RD. BUT WHO ARE WE TO PUT THAT ON THE MENU? WHO ARE WE TO ADJUST THE MENU? THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE TO GET TO BECAUSE EVERYTHING WHEN YOU RUN A SIMPLE ANALYSIS OF THE MASTER PLAN, WE ARE TO STRENGTHEN AND EXPAND RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES. YOU THINK THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE HERE, BUT IT ACTUALLY SAYS, PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. APPLICANT HAS DONE THAT, THEY HAVE A TWO TIME SETBACK PLUS 10 FEET. BUT THEN IT SAYS FOCUSED ON NEW MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS. THIS IS NOT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. LOOK AT THE VIABILITY OF TOWNSHIP BUSINESSES. YOU ADD THIS MANY PEOPLE HERE. THIS HELPS VIABILITY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE PEOPLE, MORE SHOPPING, MORE SHOPPING IS GOOD, MORE REVENUE. LOOK AT THE OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICES, ELIMINATE INFLEXIBLE OR OBSOLLETE ZONING REGULATIONS. WE'RE DOING THAT HERE. BY EGG, THAT HAS TO BE DONE. PCA DEVELOPMENT. I DIDN'T ADDRESS ON MY NOTES BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND. IT DIDN'T SEEM RELEVANT TO THE ANALYSIS. THEN IT WAS BALANCED STRATEGIC GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. THEY'VE AGREED TO PROTECT THE 96% OF WETLANDS. ALL THIS TO SAY, THERE'S CLASH AT EVERY SINGLE PART OF THIS ANALYSIS. [01:05:05] TO ME, THAT MAKES THAT JUMP FROM, SHOULD IT BE REZONED? YES. THEN TO WHAT? THAT IS A BIG JUMP. THAT'S A GRAND CANYON JUMP. THAT'S NOT A LITTLE RIVER JUMP. THAT IS WHERE I'M STRUGGLING TO GET TO. >> COMMISSIONER CRIS. >> I DON'T WANT TO BE PER SE SOUND GOOD. >> I HAVE ONE SORT OF OUT SLASH OBSERVATION, JUST AS I'M LOOKING AT HOW THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED. I THINK ABOUT WHAT COULD GO THERE. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT I THINK ONE OF YOU AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO SAID WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT NOT JUST CURRENT RESIDENTS, BUT FUTURE RESIDENTS AS WELL. I THINK ABOUT THE CURRENT RESIDENTS. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THERE WAS ROBUST COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE PARCELS THAT ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL AND NO PROMISE TO PRESERVE WETLAND, AND NO PROMISE NOT TO YOU HAVE ROADS THAT COME OFF OF BELVEDERE OR COLUMBUS AS THIS DEVELOPMENT IS, SO YOU COULD SEE INCREASED TRAFFIC ON THE STREETS THAT ACTUALLY LEAD INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BOTH FROM THAT. THEN BY DEFAULT, YOU'D ALMOST HAVE TO FOR THAT PORTION THAT IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE IT'S SO FAR BACK ON THE PROPERTY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME ACCESS FROM THOSE SIDE STREETS. YOU WOULD ALSO JUST BY DEFAULT, BY THE SIZE OF THOSE, NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE THE LUXURY OF HAVING THE 110 FOOT BUFFER THAT'S BEEN PROMISED FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT, YOU WOULD MORE LIKELY SEE AN ENCROACHMENT INTO WETLANDS AND MITIGATION INTO THE FRONT PART OF THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO MITIGATE WETLANDS THAT ARE ON THE EASTERN SIDE, AND HOUSING THAT IS, ALTHOUGH, MAYBE NOT AS DENSE, MUCH CLOSER TO AND PROBABLY MUCH MORE IMPACTFUL TO THE RESIDENTS, I SEE THIS AS IN, MY MIND, A DECENT COMPROMISE BECAUSE IT DOES I KNOW IT'S NOT PERFECT, AND I KNOW IF I IF I LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU NEVER WANT TO SEE DEVELOPMENT, BUT I ALSO THINK ABOUT THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CLOSE TO MY HOUSE, BUT THE WETLAND SEPARATES US. WE HAVE, LIKE THE MONTESORI SCHOOL IS IN OUR BACKYARD. I CAN HEAR THE KIDS PLAY IN THE DAYTIME, BUT THERE'S TREES IN A WETLAND AND I DON'T SEE THEM, AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A ROAD THAT CONNECTS ME TO THEM. I I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S IN MY BACKYARD IN THE SAME WAY THAT I FEEL LIKE. IT SEEMS LIKE GIVEN THE WAY THIS IS DESIGNED, AND THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE TRAFFIC IS ON ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, NOT INTO THE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MY MIND SAYS, AND YOU GUYS CAN, I THINK THAT THERE COULD BE SOME MORE DISCUSSION AROUND DENSITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS IS ACTUALLY A SOLUTION THAT SOLVES MORE PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT BE THERE WERE IT DEVELOPED THE WAY IT IS ZONED CURRENTLY. TO ME, THAT SAYS, WHEN THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ASKED ME THE QUESTION, SHOULD IT BE REZONED? I SAY PROBABLY. SHOULD IT BE REZONED TO THIS? I SAY, MAYBE. THAT I COULD BE CONVINCED OF SOMETHING ELSE, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT WOULD BE THAT THAT, BECAUSE USE BY RIGHT BRINGS ITS OWN CHALLENGES, AND I THINK IF SOMEBODY WERE HERE DOING, THEY WOULDN'T COME TO US EXCEPT MAYBE THE 25,000 FEET SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BUT I COULD SEE A ROOMFUL OF PEOPLE OPPOSING THAT TOO, BECAUSE THE REALITY IS IT WOULD BE CLOSER. IT WOULD BE AS DENSE, AND IT PROBABLY WOULD BRING MORE TRAFFIC OR AT LEAST THE SAME AMOUNT AND IN DIFFERENT PLACES. I NORMALLY DON'T SPEAK MY OPINION THIS DEFINITIVELY, BUT I GUESS AS I'M LOOKING AT IT. THAT'S HOW I'M SEEING IT RIGHT NOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW OTHERS ARE AND IF THAT HELPS ANYBODY SOLIDIFY THEIR THINKING OR TELL ME I'M WRONG. >> I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT, PLEASE. >> LOOKING AT THE ZONING MAP RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS, AFTER HOW MANY DECADES OF THIS LAND BEING ZONED AS IT IS AND NOT BEING DEVELOPED, IT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S PROBABLY NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT IN A WORTHWHILE DEVELOPMENT IN RD SEGMENT THAT EXISTS CURRENTLY BETWEEN CENTRAL PARK ESTATES AND THE COMMERCIAL SERVICES PARCEL. [01:10:06] I DON'T SHARE THOSE CONCERNS WITH YOU THAT IF IT WERE NOT THAT THIS IS WHAT WE ALL WANT, BUT IF IT WERE TO REMAIN ZONED AS IT IS, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT COMING INTO THAT VERY THIN SLICE OF LAND ANYTIME SOON BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TO DO THAT, THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE ALREADY. I DON'T NECESSARILY SEE THIS AS THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME FOR EVERYBODY. ADDITIONALLY, THE SETBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY GENEROUS. ALSO POTENTIALLY MOSTLY NECESSARY DUE TO A WETLAND THAT'S THERE AS WELL. I'M NOT SO SURE THAT A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE RD ZONING IN THAT SMALL SLICE PARCEL WOULD GET MUCH CLOSER TO THOSE HOUSES ANYWAY. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. COMMISSIONER MOCK, YOU MENTIONED BIG JUMP EARLIER. DID YOU MEAN FROM RG 8 UNITS PER ACRE TO RC 14 UNITS PER ACRE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? >> NO. I'M I'M REFERRING TO THE JUMP FROM SHOULD THIS BE REZONED. THEN TO WHAT? IT'S MY QUESTION IS NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. MY QUESTION IS ABOUT IF WE EXCEED OR IF WE ARE WITHIN OUR WRITTEN AUTHORITY GRANTED WHAT DIRECTOR SCHMIDT SAID ABOUT, WHAT THE STAFF BELIEVES. BUT LIKE THE JUMP TO IMPARTING OUR JUDGMENT ON ANYTHING THAT'S NOT IN FRONT OF US BECAUSE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS REZONED, YES, AND THEN REZONED TO RC, VERSUS AN ENORMOUS SITUATION, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE OPTIONS. IN THIS SITUATION, WE COULD THEORETICALLY SAY, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, MAKE UP A COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS ONE. WE COULD MAKE UP A NEW ZONING, I GUESS, THEORETICALLY, OR DO SOMETHING WAY OFF THE CHARTS, BUT TO ME, THAT'S THE JUMP. THE JUMP FROM SHOULD THIS BE REZONED, ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THEN HOW DO WE GET TO ANSWER? HOW DO WE IS IT EVEN NECESSARY TO GET TO AND TO WHAT? SHOULD WE REZONE TO? THAT MAKES SENSE? THAT'S ALSO A LITTLE BIT OF ME. I LIKE TO GO BY THE LETTER OF IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REMARKABLY SIMPLE. IT'S ALSO I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID HERE AS I'VE TALKED TO MY THIRD GRADER ABOUT, WE HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH JUDICIAL BRANCH, AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, MR. SORKI AND DIRECTOR SCHMIDT ARE EMPLOYED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WE ARE, IN FACT, PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OTHERS. >> I ALSO TO BE THE JUDICIAL THERE. >> WHAT'S THAT? >> SOUND TO BE THE JUDICIAL THERE. >> I UNDERSTAND. I WORK IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. THAT WAS ENOUGH. THAT'S WHERE I AM FOR CLET. >> I WOULD JUST REITERATE. YOU'RE NOT WRONG. THE ANSWER COULD JUST BE YES. ON BEHALF OF THE TOWNSHIP FREDA, WHO WILL SAY. >> WE'LL SEND IT BACK. >> THEY WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOU GIVING THEM SOME MORE DIRECTION. >> BUT WOULD THEY SEND IT BACK? >> PROBABLY? >> THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THE APPLICANT. BECAUSE THEN WE ARE JUST FROM THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH PASSING THINGS BACK AND FORTH, WHICH YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO. >> SORRY. GO AHEAD. >> I KNOW THAT IT'S HARD TO RETROACTIVELY MAKE A DECISION ABOUT, LIKE, I WAS HERE FOR THE MASTER PLAN, REVISION AND IMPLEMENTATION. BUT JUST LOOKING AT THE CURRENT ZONING TO ME, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DISCUSSION ABOUT LIKE, DO WE CHANGE THE CS ZONING TO JUST ONE OF THE CURRENTLY EXISTING COMMERCIAL ZONING CATEGORIES, OR DO WE LOOK TO CHANGE THAT TO THE RD ZONING? JUST PURELY LOOKING AT THE CURRENT ZONING AND WHAT'S IN THE AREA, AND COMPLETELY JUST TAKING OUT OF THE EQUATION THE DEVELOPMENT. TO ME, THAT IS WHAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE. IT WOULD BE A CONVERSATION AROUND ONE OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS. THEN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STUCK OUT TO ME IN THE TWO DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS WAS, ONE OF THE RESOLUTIONS. [01:15:01] FOR APPROVAL, IT SAYS ONE OF THE WHEREAS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT OF THE COURT ORDERS GOVERNING THE SITE WILL PROVIDE THE MOST ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND. I FEEL LIKE MOST OF OUR QUESTIONS AND OUR CONCERNS OVER THE COURSE OF OUR MEETINGS HAVE REFLECTED A PRETTY HIGH LEVEL OF CONCERN AROUND WHETHER OR NOT THIS REALLY IS THE MOST ORDERLY USE OF THE LAND. I DON'T THINK THAT AS A AS A GROUP, WE GENERALLY FEEL THAT WAY, JUST BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION. FOR ME, LOOKING AT THE RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TO VOTE YES ON THAT. THOSE ARE MY REASONS. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE ZONING WOULD BE BETTER DONE AS RD, CHANGING CS TO RD OR TO POTENTIALLY COMMERCIAL, AND ONE OF THE REASONS BEING, I JUST DON'T SEE THIS AS THE MOST ORDERLY USE OF THE LAND. I HAVE OTHER REASONS TOO, BUT I'LL LIMIT IT TO THAT FOR NOW. I SEE WE HAVE THREE OPTIONS. IT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE ANYBODY IS RARING TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT THIS AT THIS POINT, AS PROPOSED OR AS PUT BEFORE US. I ALSO DON'T HEAR ANYBODY RECOMMENDING DENY. THEN IN ORDER TO AND AND I KNOW I AM NOT TRYING TO KEEP THIS MOVING TO KEEP IT MOVING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF MOVING, BUT I ALSO WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THE APPLICANT AND STAFF AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, THAT UNLESS WE CAN SAY THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO KNOW TO HELP US BE INFORMED TO MAKE A DECISION, I DON'T THINK WE'RE DOING ANYBODY ANY FAVORS TO KEEP IT HERE SORT OF CHURNING. I'M NOT TRYING TO MOVE IT FORWARD WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO SOMETHING, AND WE SHOULD EITHER RECOMMEND APPROVAL UNDER CONDITIONS OR WE SHOULD RECOMMEND NOT APPROVAL. FOR X REASONS, AND SO TO CONTINUE TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SURE ISN'T HELPING ANYONE GET CLOSURE, EVEN IF THAT CLOSURE IS TO SAY, YES OR THE CLOSURE IS YES OR NO. ULTIMATELY, IT'S THE BOARD'S DECISION. I THINK WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO GIVE OUR THOUGHTS AND OUR THOUGHTS NEED TO BE SOMETHING. I AM NOT TRYING TO PUSH THIS IF PEOPLE ARE NOT READY TO DO ONE OF THE TWO THINGS THERE, BUT I DO ASK THAT IF EVERYBODY IS EQUALLY NOT READY TO MAKE A MOTION, THAT WE BE VERY SPECIFIC IN WHAT IT IS THAT WE WANT TO DO NEXT SO THAT STAFF CAN HAVE TIME TO GET US ANSWERS, THE APPLICANT CAN CONSIDER THINGS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO KNOW OR SEE IF THEY'D BE WILLING TO DO. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER KURTZ. >> THIS IS PERFECTLY FINE. ACTUALLY, I AM LEANING WAY MORE TOWARD DENIAL. THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE FOR ONE, THIS IS TO FOR ME, IT'S A LITTLE BIT AMBIGUOUS. AS I SAID BEFORE, THE ROAD WHERE YOU HAVE TO LEAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND DRIVE INTO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, THEN OUT OF THE TIMES SQUARE. THAT'S CLUNKY, CENTRAL PARK DRIVE IS ALREADY. DIRECTOR SCHMIDT TALKED ABOUT HOW IT WAS BIG BEFORE. IT HAS BEEN I GUESS, CONDENSED, I GUESS, THREE LANES NOW. I GET IT. WE MIGHT NOT HAVE TO EXPAND IT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME, AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT THE TRAFFIC CONTROL. THEY DO ALL THAT. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD BE IT WOULD CREATE A LOT OF BACKUP. >> I THINK IT LEANS, OR THE WAY THAT THIS IS SET UP NOW, IT IS NOT IN THE PLAN OF OUR MIX OR NOT IN THE DESIGN OF OUR MIXED-USE PLAN, OR I GOT THE WORDS FROM. >> MASTER PLAN. >> MASTER PLAN. I KNOW WE CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE. BUT WHEN YOU PUT THIS AMOUNT OF APARTMENTS, AND I'M GLAD THEY TOOK OUT THE ONE BUILDING, BUT YOU PUT THIS AMOUNT OF APARTMENTS IN HERE, UNITS IN HERE AND THE DENSITY, [01:20:04] I DON'T KNOW IF IT CREATES THE RIGHT MIX THAT IT WAS INTENDED. I'M LEANING TOWARD DENIAL. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT THE ULTIMATE SASS THE TOWNSHIP BOARD. BUT THAT'S WHERE I AM. >> COMMISSIONER RUNDBECK? >> I DID IT ORIGINALLY TO BE, I DON'T WANT TO SAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TERM WOULD BE SNARKY, BUT I THINK WE DO AGREE THAT IT DOES NEED TO BE REZONED. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A TOUGH QUESTION. I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THE TIME THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO WAIT, AND AT WHAT POINT IS THAT INAPPROPRIATE? BECAUSE, TO ME, WE COULD MAKE A SIMPLE MOTION TODAY, SHOULD THIS BE REZONED? YES. THE COMMISSION SENDS THE QUESTION TO THE BOARD AND SAYS, BY WHAT FACTORS WOULD YOU LIKE US TO CONSIDER RC, RD, WHAT IS DEFINED ON THE MENU? IF THEY COME BACK AFTER THEIR NEXT MEETING AND SAY, HEY, WE BELIEVE THESE ARE ON THE MENU, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE. THOSE COULD BE ADDRESSED IN ONE MEETING BECAUSE THAT KEEPS IT MOVING SOMEWHAT. >> I WONDER IF A SIMPLE MOVE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL COULD FACILITATE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. IF WE RECOMMEND A DENIAL, IF THAT'S HOW THE VOTE WENT, THEN NATURALLY, THE APPLICANT WOULD COME BACK WITH A NEW IDEA FOR AN AMENDMENT. >> WOULD GO TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, AND THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WOULD MAKE THE DECISION. >> CORRECT. >> COME BACK TO US. >> IT WILL NOT COME BACK. >> EVENTUALLY, THOUGH. >> IT WILL NOT COME BACK TO THE PLANNING MOTION. >> NO. ONCE WE DO SOMETHING, IT GOES TO THE BOARD, AND THE BOARD MAKES THE DECISION. >> ONCE WE DO SOMETHING, EVEN IF WE DID MY BASIC YES VOTE, WE'RE OUT. >> I DIDN'T SPEAK TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, BUT THEY MAY CHOOSE TO SEND IT BACK [OVERLAPPING]. >> BUT I DO NOT EXPECT TO COME BACK. >> NO. I MEAN. >> THAT WAS MY QUESTION. >> I WASN'T A BUCK STOP. >> YES. >> THAT'S THE WAY. >> I'M SORRY. >> IT'S THEIR DECISION. THEY'VE ASKED US TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION, AND WE GO TO OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR OR AGAINST WE GO TO THEM. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE VACANT CENTRAL PARK DRIVE PROPERTIES, PARCEL D15 400, ETC, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LISTED. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. IS THERE A SECOND? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND IT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE AMENDMENTS. >> SECOND, IT FIRST, AND THEN YOU CAN TALK ABOUT A POSSIBLE [INAUDIBLE]. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> MOVE BY MCCONNELL AND SECONDED BY BROOKS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YOU HAVE MADE THAT MOTION THAT'S PRINTED WITH THE CHANGES? >> YES. >> IS THAT SUFFICIENT, MR SCHMIDT, IN TERMS OF THE WORDING OF THE MOTION, OR DO YOU NEED HIM TO READ WITH THE CHANGES 312-288? >> I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CHANGE OF 312-288 AND 100-110? CORRECT? >> THAT WAS MY INTENTION. >> THAT IS YOUR INTENTION, MR BROOKS, ARE YOU? >> I AGREE TO THOSE, BUT I HAVE [OVERLAPPING]. >> THEN GO AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR PROPOSE POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS. >> ANOTHER ONE. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROVISION THAT'S BEING REQUESTED. >> I THINK CANDIDLY, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WITH THE ATTORNEYS. I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER AS TO WHAT THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE. AS THE WALMART PART OF THIS PROCESS WENT THROUGH, ESSENTIALLY, THE WALMART DENIAL WAS THEN APPROVED BY THE COURTS, AND SUP WAS INSTITUTED. FUNCTIONALLY, BECAUSE WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE ON AN SUP LIKE THIS, WHERE IT'S BUILDING GREAT AND 25,000 SQUARE FEET, AND WE'RE MITIGATING A LOT OF THAT. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THAT PLAYS OUT, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WE HAVEN'T INCLUDED IT AS A CONDITION AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE I THINK THE ATTORNEYS ARE GOING TO GET TANGLED UP IN THIS ONE. >> BECAUSE I'M UNWILLING TO VOTE. >> YES, IF WE ARE GIVING UP THE SUP. >> UNDERSTOOD ON THIS. >> THANK YOU. >> THEN THAT WAS THE MAIN ONE, ACTUALLY. THEN WE HAVE THE 288 UNITS BAKED IN THERE. REMOVAL OF THE SUP PROCESS IS NOT PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION, [01:25:03] AND THEN THE 110 FEET RATHER THAN THE 100 FEET. THAT WAS THE MAIN ONE THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS. >> THAT WOULDN'T RESULT IN ANY AMENDMENTS THEN? >> NO. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS LIKE PROCEDURAL. BUT A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL, EVEN IF I PLAN TO VOTE, NO. MAY I OFFER AN AMENDMENT? >> ABSOLUTELY [LAUGHTER]. >> YES, YOU MAY. I GUESS IT'S THE SECOND PAGE OF THIS RESOLUTION ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN, JUST BELOW OR EXCUSE ME, I'M LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT PAGE IN THE PACKET. BUT THERE'S PART OF THE RESOLUTION TOWARDS THE END WHERE IT SAYS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, ABC. IMC SAYS THE ADDITION OF MORE HOUSING UNITS ADDRESSES A PROVEN NEED IN THE COMMUNITY FOR MORE HOUSING UNITS AT A MORE AFFORDABLE PRICE POINT. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE ON THIS BOARD AGREES THAT THIS IS A MORE AFFORDABLE PRICE POINT. I REALLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT SHOULD BE A PART OF THE RESOLUTION. I ALSO FIND THAT TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE AND PROBABLY DOESN'T BELONG THERE. IT'S TRUE THAT THE ADDITION OF MORE HOUSING UNITS WILL OCCUR, WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A MORE AFFORDABLE PRICE POINT, I THINK COULD BE DEBATED, AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT. >> WOULD THE MOVER ON THE SECONDER ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, OR DO WE NEED TO ACTUALLY YOU'VE PROPOSE BEFORE WE ASK FOR A SECOND? WOULD YOU TAKE THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? >> YES. >> COMMISSION MR BROOKS, YOU TOO? >> IS THAT GOING TO BE A DEAL BREAKER FOR ANYONE ELSE? OTHERWISE, WE CAN CONSIDER THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SNYDERS. ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER RUNDBECK? >> I WOULD MOVE TO ADD CONDITION 12 OR MAYBE 13 AFTER COMMISSIONER SNYDERS, WHICH WOULD BE THAT 96% OF THE WETLAND IS MAINTAINED PURSUANT TO COMMENTS FROM MR. DORN AND, I THINK, PRIOR COMMENTS FROM MR. MOZETI. 96% OR MORE. >> AGAIN FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. MOVER AND SECONDER ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THE DEVELOPER HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I JUST HAVE A REQUEST FOR STAFF FOR THIS. BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS, AND THERE'S MULTIPLE PACKETS HERE, I THINK IT WOULD BE A SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY TO I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED, BUT IF THERE COULD BE LIKE AN FAQ ON THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH, THAT WOULD BE IN THE WHOLE PACKET. >> TALK COMMUNICATIONS. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL [OVERLAPPING]? >> I'M SORRY. CAN I CLEAR? JUST BECAUSE I'M TYPING THIS OUT FOR FUTURE MINUTES, YOU SAID IN THE BOARD PACKET? THANK YOU. >> TO CONSOLIDATE THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT WE'VE ALL RECEIVED? >> YES. >> WE KNOW HOW IT NORMALLY GOES TO THE BOARD, BUT I'M SURE THEY WOULD APPRECIATE HAVING IT ALL AS SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN ON THE BOARD. >> I THINK THIS ISN'T JUST FOR THE BOARD, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT RESIDENTS WILL ALSO SHOW UP TO THIS NEXT SESSION, WHERE I WOULD SAY THAT THEY'RE WELCOME TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS THE FINAL SAY ON THIS SUBJECT. >> IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, OR MAY I TAKE THE VOTE? >> I WOULD ONLY SAY THAT I KNOW THAT SEVERAL OF US ARE NOT PREPARED TO ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION AT THE MOMENT. I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THAT. I THINK WE'VE GIVEN STAFF A FAIR AMOUNT OF INFORMATION ABOUT RESERVATIONS THAT ARE STILL OUT THERE, AND HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL GIVE THE BOARD THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. >> I WILL START WITH THE MOVER, COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER BROOKS? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER RUNDBECK? >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER MCCURDIS? >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER SNYDERS? >> NO. >> THE CHAIR VOTES, YES. YOU HAVE A TIE. [LAUGHTER] THIS DOESN'T FEEL IT. >> SEND TO THE BOARD. >> WHAT DO WE DO NOW?. [OVERLAPPING] THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION FAILS. >> THERE'S NO REALISTIC PATH FORWARD AT THIS POINT, [01:30:03] GIVEN THE CONVERSATION AND THE FACT THAT WE'RE SHORT OF BOARD MEMBERS. I THINK AT THIS POINT, WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE WILL TAKE THE SPLIT VOTE AND LEAN FURTHER ON THE FAQ COMMISSIONER BROOKS MENTIONED. UNLESS THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN TAKE AT THIS POINT, THAT WOULD GET A MAJORITY. >> I WOULD PROPOSE WE MOVE TO SEND A MESSAGE WE WOULD, I DON'T KNOW, A MOTION TO ANSWER THE SIMPLE BOARD QUESTION OF SHOULD THE PROPERTY BE REZONED? >> ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION? >> YES. > YOU ARE COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT? SORRY, MR SCHMIDT. [LAUGHTER] >> LET ME JUST EXPAND IT BY THE WAY. I THINK IT'S GREAT BECAUSE WE'RE SENDING A SPLIT UP. LET'S EXPLAIN THE SPLIT. THE SPLIT, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS, THE BOARD CHARGE WAS NOT NECESSARILY AS CLEAR AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN. TO ME, THE SIMPLE QUESTION OF SHOULD IT BE REZONED IS OBVIOUS. LIKE, I WOULD VOTE YES, THAT IT SHOULD BE REZONED. BUT TO TAKE THAT NEXT STEP IS JUST MORE THAN THAT TO ME UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I THINK THAT'S A FAIR THING TO SEND THAT WE DO AGREE SHOULD BE REZONED. MAYBE THAT TIPS THE BOARD TO SAY, OKAY, SPECIFICALLY, THE BOARD WILL OPEN THESE REZONINGS, OR IT MAY DO THIS IF THEY SEND IT BACK. IF NOT, THEY CAN JUST TAKE IT UP FOR WHAT IT IS. >> IF THAT MOTION WERE TO PASS, THAT'S CERTAINLY RESPONDING TO THE QUESTION. I THINK THAT THERE'S ENOUGH FLAVOR IN THE COLOR OF THE DISCUSSION THAT HAS OCCURRED THAT WILL PROVIDE THEM WITH THE ANALYSIS THAT THEY NEED. >> COMMISSIONER RUNDBECK, YOU HAD A MOTION. CAN YOU STATE THAT AGAIN SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE MOVING? >> I WANT TO READ MY NOTES. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, THE AFFIRMATIVE OR THE NEGATIVE, OF SHOULD THE REZONING BE AMENDED TO REPLACE THE CURRENT ZONING WITH A NEW CLASSIFICATION? >> I'M STILL NOT SURE. ARE WE SAYING YES OR NO? > THOSE ARE THE ANSWERS. >> AFFIRMATIVE. >> ARE YOU MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO? SAY TO. >> A MOTION FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. >> TO REZONE. >> TO REZONE. >> BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT? IT SHOULD BE REZONED. >> CORRECT. >> SECOND TO THAT MOTION. SECONDED. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER RUNDBECK. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCCURDIS. MR SHARKEY, MR SCHMIDT, DO YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU NEED? [INAUDIBLE] ANY DISCUSSION TO THAT MOTION? >> YES. >> GO AHEAD. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. IF IT SHOULD BE REZONED, THE QUESTION IS, WHY SHOULD IT BE REZONED? IF IT NEEDS TO BE REZONED, WHY SHOULD IT BE REZONED? WHY NOT KEEP IT AS IT IS? >> I'M HAPPY TO RESPOND. >> WHICH WAS IN THE WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? WHICH WAS IN THE MASTER PLAN, THE DIVISION OF THE MASTER PLAN? >> FUTURE LAND MAP. >> FUTURE. >> FUTURE LAND MAP. >> I UNDERSTAND TIMES CHANGE, AND WE HAVE TO ADJUST. I JUST WANT TO HEAR THE EXPLANATION. >> MY MIND WOULD BE THAT UNDER THE MASTER PLAN, THERE IS A NOTE IN THERE OF OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICES, AND ONE OF THE NOTES IN THERE IS TO ELIMINATE INFLEXIBLE OR OBSOLETE ZONING REGULATIONS TO STREAMLINE THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT MORE EASILY USED BY THE PUBLIC. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH OUR MASTER PLAN. IT ANSWERS THE BOARD'S QUESTION, AND EVEN TO SOME MINIMAL EXTENT, KEEPS IT MOVING FOR THE APPLICANT. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS? >> I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT. WE ALSO HAVE THE MASTER PLAN, THOUGH, AND THAT IS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT, AND WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REZONES. WHAT ARE WE SAYING IT SHOULD BE? >> WE'RE NOT. >> WE'RE NOT? >> I FEEL LIKE ONE OF THE THREADS IN THE DISCUSSION OF IT SHOULD BE THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTE ZONING THERE, SO IT'S NOT SHOULD IT BE? THAT'S A SILLY QUESTION. IT HAS TO BE. CAN'T DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH ZONE. IT'S AN IMPRACTICALITY. TO THAT, I WOULD ADD ANY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE THAT WAS ON THAT. IS THAT REALLY KNOWN? [01:35:01] >> WAIT. THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WAS REZONED IN 2004. IT'S CURRENTLY RD AND CS. I GUESS IF IT'S CURRENTLY RD AND CS, THIS IS MAY BE A BAD TIME TO ASK THIS, BUT HERE WE ARE THOSE AREN'T CURRENT ZONING CATEGORIES? >> CS NO LONGER EXISTS, BUT THERE'S A ADDITIONAL SET AMENDMENTS TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT REQUIRES US TO MAINTAIN THE CA ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY. >> THEN DOESN'T THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MAKE THAT ZONE A LEGITIMATE GRANDFATHERED? >> FUNCTIONALLY THE KING OF ALL GRANDFATHERED ZONINGS. >> WOULD YOU SAY IT'S OBSOLETE? >> I THINK STAFF HAS OUGHT ITS OBSOLETE FOR 20 YEARS, WHICH IS WHY WE GOT RID OF IT. >> BUT THEY CAN'T GET RID OF IT AS LONG AS THE AGREEMENT STANDS AS IS. IT WOULD NEED TO BE AMENDED PER THE ASK OF US OF IF WE AMEND IT, WHAT SHOULD IT BE AMENDED TO? AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TALKING IN CIRCLES. THE REASON THAT THE MASTER PLAN IS NOT ALIGNED TO ANYTHING IS BECAUSE THE MASTER PLAN CAN'T BE UPDATED AS LONG AS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN PLACE REQUIRING THIS ZONING STAYS AS IT IS. WE'RE IN THIS A LITTLE BIT OF A CATCH 22. THEY CAN NEVER GET A MASTER PLAN THAT ALIGNS TO ANYTHING. IF THIS MOTION THAT YOU MADE TO SAY, YES, IT SHOULD BE REZONED HELPS SHAKE THIS LOOSE, AND OTHERS WOULD BE WILLING TO SUPPORT IT, I WILL, TOO. I FEEL LIKE IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF NOT DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE. THAT WE ARE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WE WERE ASKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, AND IN OUR CURRENT COMPOSITION WITH HALF OF US IN FAVOR AND HALF OF US NOT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE. THIS MAY BE THE NEXT BEST THING AND THIS PLUS THE EXPLANATION OF OUR DISCUSSION OR A REVIEW OF THAT IS PROBABLY, I THINK HELPING THE BOARD GET TO ITS PLACE. CLEARLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT OF ONE MIND ON THIS. I THINK IF THIS RESOLUTION WILL GET US CLOSER TO GETTING THIS MOVING, AGAIN, NOT BECAUSE I THINK IT SHOULD BE DONE OR NOT DONE. I THINK THE TOWNSHIP BOARD, ULTIMATELY, IS THE DECIDER. I THINK FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPER, THIS GETS THIS TO A PLACE WHERE A DECISION CAN BE MADE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, AND THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF MOVING IT FORWARD. >> MADAM CHAIR, RESPECTFULLY, I WOULD SAY WE HAVE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE. WE'VE HAD THREE MEETINGS, ANY LEVEL OF TESTIMONY OR I WOULD SAY TESTIMONY OR AT LEAST COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FROM THE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE. I'M GOING BACK TO MY CLASH COMMENT. YOU HAVE A CLASH OF THE QUESTION BROUGHT TO US BY THE BOARD, A CLASH OF HOW YOU RUN THAT ANALYSIS THROUGH OUR MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS WHEN WE'RE ACTING IN ADVISORY CAPACITY. THAT'S DUE DILIGENCE. FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, AND I ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF HERE, I CAN'T GET TO THE QUESTION OF AND TO WHAT. I CAN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT AGREED TO. IT'S NOT OBVIOUS. THERE'S BEEN SOME NEGOTIATIONS. I CERTAINLY CREDIT BOTH SIDES FOR THAT, BUT THAT'S WHERE I'M STUCK. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, OR ARE YOU READY TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION THAT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE US? >> I CAN SEE WHAT COMMISSIONER ROMBACH IS SAYING AND THAT THIS WILL HOPEFULLY MOVE THIS THING FORWARD. I ALSO THOUGH FEEL LIKE IF WE REZONED THE WHOLE PLACE EVENTUALLY TO LIKE RD, THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD UP TO THIS POINT HAVE ALMOST GOTTEN TO THAT RD LEVEL. IN TERMS OF DRIVING INTO DIFFERENT AREAS AND HAVING DIFFERENT THINGS UP AGAINST WHERE YOU LIVE, I DON'T KNOW. [01:40:03] IS THERE LOTS OF PEOPLE LIVE IN LOTS OF DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE TOWNSHIP IN WHICH YOU'RE DRIVING AND THEN YOU HIT SOMETHING RIGHT OUT OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? THIS FEELS A GOOD COMPROMISE TO ME THAT WE ARE SPLIT ON. I GUESS I THINK THAT A ZONING CHANGE HAS TO HAPPEN. [LAUGHTER] >> IT'S COMPLICATED. >> IT'S FLOODED. >> MAYBE WE COULD PROCEED WITH THE MOTION. THEN PERHAPS PRESENT ANOTHER MOTION TO RECOMMEND RD ZONING IN ON THE PARCEL THAT IS CURRENTLY CS. >> THAT MIGHT HAPPEN, BUT IT MAY NOT BE AGREED TO BUT IT MIGHT. >> BUT IT COULD STILL PROVIDE DIRECTION. WHAT'S APPEALING FOR ME IN THAT IS DIRECTOR SCHMIDT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, THE WORKUP THAT THE STAFF DID ABOUT WHAT THE NUMBERS WOULD CHANGE TO AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF UNITS. CURRENTLY THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT THAT NUMBER DOWN 2012-288. DIRECTOR SCHMIDT NOTED THAT UNDER IF WE CHANGE THE CS PARCEL TO RD, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS WOULD BE 235, AND THAT'S APPEALING TO ME. FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, THE CONGESTION BEING ONE OF THEM, JUST LOWERING THE DENSITY. I THINK THAT KEEPS IT CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. WE HAVE ENTIRELY COMMERCIAL ON THE WEST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, AND THEN ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, IT'S WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT TINY CS PARCEL, AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WALMART. IT'S ALMOST ENTIRELY OR PERHAPS ENTIRELY RD, RA, THERE'S NO RC ANYWHERE CLOSE TO HERE. THAT TO ME IS THE MAIN REASONING FOR WHY I VOTED NO ON THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE. THERE'S NO RC ANYWHERE NEAR HERE. I THINK RD IS THE APPROPRIATE ZONING DESIGNATION. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S NOT GERMANE TO THIS MOTION, BUT PALLY TO ANOTHER ANOTHER RESOLUTION, IF DEPENDING ON WHAT, AND I GUESS THEY'RE NOT REALLY COUNTER TO ONE ANOTHER. THIS MOTION IS THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE REZONED. IF WE AGREE TO THAT, THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT. UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY OTHER COMMENTS, LET'S TAKE THE VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT COMMISSIONER ROMBACH PUT FORWARD. COMMISSIONER ROMBACH? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER BROOKS? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? I VOTE, YES, ALSO. SO WE HAVE THAT. COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, DID I HEAR YOU WANTING TO? >> SURE. I DON'T HAVE IT WRITTEN. >> WHAT I'M WONDERING, AND MR. SCHMIDT, HELP ME BECAUSE I'M READING THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU GAVE US. IS THERE A SIMPLE FIX TO CROSS OUT RC AND PUT RD IN THAT AND MOVE THAT? WOULD IT NEED MORE WORK THAN THAT THAT I DO? >> THERE IS NOT A SIMPLE FIX. IF THERE WAS A DESIRE TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION, I WOULD SIMPLY TREAT IT SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER ROMBACH'S MOTION AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. THE TOWNSHIP BOARD THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE ZONED THE CS PROPERTY SHOULD BE REZONED TO RD. LEAVE IT AT THAT AT THIS POINT? >> YES, IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GOING TO BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE? >> SURE. I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD THAT THE PARCEL CURRENTLY ZONED AS COMMERCIAL SERVICES BE ZONED TO RD RESIDENTIAL AND PLEASE THE ONE FILL IN THE BLANK FOR ME FOR WHAT THE D STANDS FOR RIGHT NOW. I CAN LOOK. [OVERLAPPING] MULTIPLE FAMILY RD. >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? >> I SUPPORT. [OVERLAPPING] ANY DISCUSSION? [01:45:04] COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS, AND THEN ROMBACH. >> MY CONCERN WITH JUST MAKING AN RD IS THAT YOU TAKE THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE OUT, WHICH IS WHAT IT IS NOW. THE POTENTIAL AND MAYBE I'M WRONG HERE. BUT IF IT'S ZONE JUST RD, THEN IT CAN BE EVEN MORE DENTS, THEY CAN PUT MORE APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON THERE. IF THIS IS ON RD. >> COMPARED TO THE CURRENT. CERTAINLY. IF YOU'RE COMPARING IT TO THE CURRENT ZONING BY REZONING THE FRONT, THEN YOU COULD OBVIOUSLY PUT MORE BUILDINGS ON IT, AND CERTAINLY, I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET BUILDINGS CLOSER TO CENTRAL PARK STATES AND ALL THAT JAZZ. >> THAT'S ALL I DECIDED. >> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IF WE CHANGED THE CS ZONING TO RD, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WOULD BE 235. DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? >> YEAH. >> IN THE PAST. >> ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S LOWER. >> I'M SAYING MORE THAN THE CURRENT. [OVERLAPPING] >>> MORE THAN THE COMMERCIAL SERVICES ZONING PLUS THE RD. >> THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THE COMMERCIAL SERVICES PARCEL WERE TO BE FULLY DEVELOPED AND VERY ROBUST. IS THAT A FAIR ASSUMPTION? >> I DO. >> IN TERMS OF THE DENSITY? >> NO. IF YOU'RE COMPARING THE CURRENT ZONING TO A SCENARIO WHERE IF IT'S ALL RD, THERE ARE MORE BUILDINGS. THERE'S REALLY NOT A SCENARIO WHERE YOU GET MORE BUILDINGS UNDER CS ZONING. I GUESS IT'S THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE MOST INEFFICIENT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT I THINK I'VE EVER SEEN. >> COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS, AND THEN COMMISSIONER ROMBACH. >> WHERE DID THE 233? HOW DOES THAT? BECAUSE IF IT'S ALL RD, THEN HOW HELP ME MAKE SENSE OF THE 233 PIECE? >> THE 235 IS THE THEORETICAL MAXIMUM. IF YOU JUST DID STRAIGHT MATH IN THE ORDINANCE, IF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS ZONED RD. THAT'S PURE MATH. ACREAGE MINUS WETLANDS, TIMES THE DENSITY OF THE ORDINANCE, TIMES THE BONUS PIP FOR THE WETLANDS. >> DOES THAT MEAN THEORETICALLY, IT WILL GO 288-235 JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING? >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE FORTUNATE THE POINT, WHETHER OR NOT THE PROJECT IS VIABLE AT THAT POINT. I CAN'T SPEAK. BY REZONING, IT'S RD YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY CAPPING THE NUMBER OF UNITS AT 2:35. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD. >> COMMISSIONER ROMBACH? >> I THINK TWO QUESTIONS, PROCEDURALLY, COULD WE OPEN THIS UP TO COMMENT FROM THE APPLICANT OR WE PAST THAT POINT? >> YOU CAN ALWAYS OPEN IT UP TO THE APPLICANT. I WOULD STRONGLY DISCOURAGE YOU FROM DOING SO, GIVEN ALL THE BACK AND FORTH THAT PLANNING COMMISSION HAS HAD BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SLIGHTLY OUT OF THE ORDINARY. >> I TEND TO AS MR. SMITH. >> IT WAS THEORETICAL. WE CAN WE CAN MOVE PAST IT BECAUSE I HAVE A FOLLOW UP COMMENT. >> GO AHEAD. >> JUST TO PUT IT OUT THERE. SIMILARLY, AND I THINK JUST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH MYSELF, I WOULD HAVE TO SIMILARLY VOTE NO ON COMMISSIONER SCHNEIDER'S PROPOSAL BECAUSE IN THE SAME TOKEN, I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN REACH THE QUESTION OF ORDERING OR RECOMMENDING A REZONING NOT PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AND IMPARTING OUR OWN WISDOM. I STRUGGLE WITH THAT. IT GOES BACK TO MY MENU ARGUMENT. IT WAS NOT ON THE MENU, AND WHO ARE WE TO ADD IT? WE ARE NOT THE CHEFS. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROOKS? >> I'M ALSO GOING TO VOTE, NO. THE REASON IS BECAUSE I FEEL UP UNTIL THIS POINT, WE'VE ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND MADE A LOT OF COMPROMISES AND REQUESTS. NOW WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING, HERE'S RD, WHICH I THINK AND I FEEL WE COULD HAVE MADE THAT IN THE BEGINNING. [01:50:10] >> I'M NOT WILLING, IF SOMEHOW AFTER THIS MEETING, SOMEBODY SAYS, HEY, WE'D LIKE TO PURSUE THIS AS AN OPTION, AND WE WANT TO COME BACK TO THIS, THEN I'M WILLING TO RECONSIDER AND GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AGAIN. I'M NOT WILLING TO GO THROUGH THAT THIS EVENING. >> THANK YOU. >> DO THAT. >> ALSO, I DON'T THINK I'LL BE VOTING FOR THIS. IN PART IT THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF YOU, OF THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE COME HERE WITH ALL OF THESE CONCERNS THAT HAVE PROMPTED OUR INABILITY TO GET TO A DECISION, HAVEN'T SAID IF THIS WOULD SATISFY IT, AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT DOESN'T GET THEM TO, THEY OPPOSED TO IT FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS, AND THIS MAY OR MAY NOT SATISFY THOSE CONCERNS, AND I DON'T WANT IT TO APPEAR THAT OUR DECISION WAS MADE WITHOUT THAT CONSIDERATION, TOO, BOTH THE APPLICANT, AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE CONCERNS. THAT'S WHY I'LL BE VOTING NO. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SAY OR CAN I? COMMISSIONER CURTIS? >> I WOULD BE VOTING NO AS WELL. BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH IS WHY I HESITATED. I DON'T WANT TO BE THERE [LAUGHTER] >> I USUALLY WAIT, AND I JUMPED IN, BUT THANK YOU. >> NO, YOU DIDN'T. >> NO. I JUST DIDN'T WAIT LIKE PEOPLE'S TIME. I WANT TO HEAR WHAT RESIDENTS HAVE REVEALED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THAT'S WHO WE REPRESENT. >> THANK YOU. >> I WOULD JOIN COMMISSIONER SNYDER'S COMMENT ON THE RD SIDE. IT IS THE ONE THING THAT IF YOU LOOK AROUND IN THE MEMO PRODUCED BY STAFF, THERE HAS BEEN A REZONING TO RD RECENTLY. IF YOU'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT A NORMAL REZONING REQUEST BY ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THE HISTORY WAS IMPORTANT IS WHAT HAS BEEN REZONED BEFORE, AND HOW CAN WE BE CONSISTENT WITH OURSELVES? THAT'S WHY I THINK RD WOULD BE ON THE TABLE. HOWEVER, I CAN'T REACH THAT, AND I CAN'T FOLLOW THAT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE PHILOSOPHY PUT FORTH AND SAYING, IT'S NOT FOR US TO PUT A SPECIFIC ZONING ON THE MENU. >> THANK YOU. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING OR MAY I TAKE THE VOTE HERE? >> GO AHEAD. >> COMMISSIONER SNYDER? >> YES. >> [LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONER CARL? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ROD BECK? >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER BROOKS? >> NO. >> COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS? >> NO. >> THE CHAIR VOTES NO. THAT MOTION IS NOT SUPPORTED, NOT APPROVED. >> WE CAN APPROVE THAT LATER. >> YES. [LAUGHTER] IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD AT THIS POINT FOR DISCUSSION OR OTHERWISE, OR SHOULD WE GIVE THE STAFF THIS IS OUR CONFUSING RECOMMENDATION? >> STAFF HAS WHAT WE NEED. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO MOVE ON THE EXECUTION ITEM. >> THANK YOU. UNLESS THERE ARE OBJECTIONS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE HAVE FINISHED THIS ONE. NOW WE ARE ON TO ITEM 9A, [9.A. 2026 Planning Commission Schedule ] OTHER BUSINESS, THE 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE. YOU NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR 2026. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BROOKS. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY DISCUSSION? YOU'RE ALL IN FAVOR. PLEASE AYE. WE NEED TO CALL VOTE FOR A RESOLUTION? >> NOT IN THIS CASE. >> NOT IN THIS, OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> IT PASSES. 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE IS APPROVED. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 10A. [BACKGROUND] >> BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT. >> DO WE HAVE A TOWN, I'M SORRY, TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE FIRST? I'M SORRY. [10.A. Township Board update] >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> JUST ONE MOMENT. >> TRYING TO REMEMBER THE CALENDAR, BUT I BELIEVE SINCE YOUR LAST MEETING, THE BOARD DID APPROVE, ACTUALLY, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON DOBIE ROAD, SUBJECT TO A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, AND THEY DID APPROVE THE ST. MARTHA'S SCHOOL EXPANSION ON GRAND RIVER. >> THANK YOU. >> THEY WILL ALSO BE TAKING UP, YOU WILL BE GETTING IN PROBABLY JANUARY, AT THE REQUEST OF A RESIDENT AT ONE OF THE LISTENING SESSIONS, YET ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO THE CHICKEN ORDINANCE. [01:55:01] WE'LL TALK CHICKENS WITH YOU AGAIN. AS I'VE SAID A FEW TIMES IN MY 20 YEARS, 25 ALMOST YEARS NOW, I DID NOT THINK THAT THE MOST POPULAR TOPIC WOULD BE CHICKENS, BUT I'M SLOWLY BECOMING AN EXPERT ON CHICKENS. [LAUGHTER] >> LIAISON REPORTS, COMMISSIONER BROOKS? [10.B. Liaison reports] >> BROWNFIELD COMMITTEE MET, AND WE SUBMITTED A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD THAT THEY TERMINATE THE BROWN, I'M GOING TO BUTCHER THIS NAME HERE. I HAVEN'T BEEN ON THIS COMMITTEE LONG ENOUGH. THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OKEMOS VILLAGE PROJECT. BECAUSE IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS NOW SINCE THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED. ONCE THAT TWO YEAR PERIOD HAPPENS, THE BOARD CAN SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE DEVELOPER AND THEY HAVE 30 DAYS TO RESPOND. IF THERE'S NO COMPLAINT, THEN THAT PLAN CAN BE TERMINATED BASICALLY. >> IS THAT SOMETHING MR. SCHMIDT OR MR. TUKEY THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD HAS TO TAKE ACTION ON AFTER THE FIELD ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. >> YES. THE BOARD WILL HAVE TO TAKE FINAL ACTION ON THIS BECAUSE TECHNICALLY, THE BOARD APPROVED IT AND FORWARDED IT TO THE STATE, BUT THE STATE NEVER ACCEPTED IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T COMPLETE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY AT THE TIME. THAT'S WHY IT'S BEEN IN LIMBO. WE ARE FORMALLY ESSENTIALLY WITHDRAWING IT AT THIS POINT. I BELIEVE WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO FORMALLY WITHDRAW AT THIS POINT. >> SORRY, IF I USED THE WRONG LANGUAGE THERE. >> NO. >> THIS IS CANDIDA, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN MY CAREER WE'VE HAD ONE OF THESE. WE'VE NEVER HAD A PROJECT CHANGE ENOUGH TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVE TO OFFICIALLY PULL BACK THE BROWNFIELD PLANE. DIRECTOR CLARK IS MASTERFULLY HANDLING THIS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE TIME FOR THIS MINUTIA RIGHT NOW. [LAUGHTER] >> ANY OTHER LIAISON REPORTS? ANY PROJECT UPDATES? >> NOT IN THIS MEETING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND POINT IN OUR MEETING WHERE WE CAN ACCEPT PUBLIC REMARKS IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? [12. PUBLIC REMARKS ] >> IF YOU'VE ALREADY TURNED IN A FORM, WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER FORM OR DO WE? >> I DON'T NEED ANOTHER FORM. >> IF YOU JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE? >> YES. MY NAME IS RAMON AND CENTRAL PARK ESTATE. I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION WE HAD TODAY. IT WAS VERY USEFUL. NO MATTER WHICH WAY YOU VOTED, IT'S GOOD DISCUSSION. WE HOPE YOU DIG DEEPER INTO THIS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND MORE AND HOPEFULLY WHOEVER DID NOT DENY CAN DENY NEXT TIME. [LAUGHTER] BUT, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS IS THAT THERE IS A MASTERPLAN, AND THEN THERE IS A PROPOSAL. THE PROPOSAL IS SUPPOSED TO COMPLY WITH THE MASTERPLAN, AND IT'S NOT COMPLYING. THE MASTERPLAN SHOULD BE REVISED OR IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT PROPOSAL, OTHERWISE, MASTERPLAN IS MASTERPLAN, THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT PART. THEN WHEN WE GO BY EXPERTISE FROM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT, FROM A SINGLE PERSON OR A SMALLER GROUP OF PEOPLE, WE MAY NOT GET A COMPLETE PICTURE. SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO DO OUR OWN MORE ANALYSIS OR GET MORE EXPERTS INVOLVED INTO THIS. I HAVE MY OWN PERSONAL EXAMPLE, WHERE IT'S A LONG STORY, BUT WE WENT BY AN EXPERT WHO IS VERY GOOD IN WHAT THEY DO. THEY ARE EXCELLENT, AND THAT'S TRUE HERE ALSO. BUT SOMETIMES PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKE. HUMANS ARE HUMANS. IT'S BETTER TO JUST DOUBLE CHECK EVERYTHING, WHICH IS HAPPENING AND THEN MAKE A DECISION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK? >> PD2 1572. I JUST WANT TO APPRECIATE ALL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION EFFORTS ON TODAY'S MEETING. WITH ALL THE MOTIONS YOU PROPOSED, SOME TIED, SOME PASSED, SOME DID NOT PASS. OFTEN ARE GOOD RESULT, I WOULD SAY. AGAIN, WE REITERATE WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT. IT IS OKAY THAT THEY ARE SOMETHING BUILDING OUR BACKYARD IS THE RIGHT OF USE FOR THE OWNERS. [02:00:03] BUT YOU GUYS ARE REALLY HEARING US RIGHT NOW AND KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE MORE THROUGHOUT DISCUSSION REGARDING HOW THIS SHOULD BE BILLED AND THAT YOU GUYS ARE NOT JUST SIMPLY VOTE YES ON THIS MATTER. YOU GUYS REALLY THINK, REALLY DISCUSS. THAT'S ALL MY COMMENTS FOR NOW. THANKS. >> THANK YOU. >> THERE'S AN OLD POLITICAL STATEMENT ABOUT SOMETHING ABOUT WATCHING SAUSAGE MADE. [LAUGHTER] I HAVE BEEN THE GRINDER, BUT TODAY, I'VE BEEN THE SAUSAGE, AND I TELL YOU, YOU WERE ALL HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE. COMMISSIONER SNYDER, YOU WERE ON POINT. COMMISSIONER ROD BECK, YOU WERE ON POINT. I JUST WISH YOU ALL HAD TABLED COMMISSIONER SNYDER'S MOTION SO THAT YOU COULD REALLY EVALUATE WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO DO AT MAYBE YOUR NEXT MEETING. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A WAY TO CONTINUE MOVING THE BALL, YET BEING ABLE TO HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY, BEING ABLE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT COULD ABSORB WHAT YOU WERE DOING AND COME BACK AND PUT SOMETHING BETTER ON THE TABLE FOR US. BUT IT'S STILL HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THEY STILL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY NOW TO DO THAT WITH THE BOARD. BUT THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. YOU HIT ALL OF THE ARTICLES THAT WERE IN OBJECTION. TRAFFIC. THE MASTERPLAN, WET LANDS, AND THIS REZONING, WE BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE REZONED. BUT THAT QUESTION IS RE-ZONE TO WHAT? I DON'T THINK THERE WAS AN ANSWER FOR THAT QUESTION TONIGHT, BUT THE DEVELOPER MAY HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT RESONATED IN THEIR EAR. THEY HEARD IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THEY KNOW WHERE YOU'RE AT, THEY PROBABLY WILL UNDERSTAND WHERE THE BOARD'S AT AND THE COMMUNITY. MAYBE WE'LL FIND THAT MAGIC CENTER POINT. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF YOUR EFFORTS. >> THANK YOU. SEEING NO ONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, WE CAN MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER COMMENTS IF THEY'RE READY. [13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ] >> I HAVE ONE. IN OUR FIRST PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MADE REFERENCE TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND USED WORDS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF THE DEGRADING EXPERIENCE OF BEING CRAMMED INTO AN APARTMENT BUILDING. THAT RHETORIC I FIND PROBLEMATIC. I'VE SPENT A GOOD PART OF MY LIFE IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS. I NEVER FELT I WAS CRAMMED INTO ONE. MANY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED ARE THAT THIS DOESN'T REALLY LOOK AFFORDABLE. THIS LOOKS OUT OF RANGE FOR OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS. TO THEN CHARACTERIZE IT AS A DEGRADING EXPERIENCE, I THINK IS A MISNOMER, AND I WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE RECORD THAT I FIND IT UNACCEPTABLE. >> NO, YOU MAY NOT. >> I'M SORRY. I FIND HARD TO UNDERSTAND. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU I APPRECIATE THAT. I ALSO HEARD THAT AND DON'T WANT THAT TO BE REFLECTED AS THE WAY, I BELIEVE THERE IS SPACE IN OUR TOWNSHIP FOR APARTMENTS AND RENTAL UNITS, AND THAT IT IS IMPORTANT AND PEOPLE ARE IN DIFFERENT PLACES IN THEIR LIVES AND THEY NEED TO HAVE CHOICES FOR WHERE THEY LIVE AND RENTAL UNITS DO REPRESENT ONE OF THOSE CHOICES. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. ROD BECK? [02:05:03] >> I WAS JUST GOING TO NOTE MR. MAZZETTI AND MR. DORN REALLY DID FANTASTIC JOBS WITH THEIR PROPOSAL. CLEAR, UNDERSTANDABLE, SIMPLE, ALL THE DATA WAS HERE. EVERYTHING WAS ANSWERED. I JUST THINK THAT THEY NEED NOTED CREDIT FOR THE WORK THEY DID TO PUT THAT WORK TOGETHER, PUT IT IN FRONT OF US AND THEN STAND IN FRONT OF US FOR A LONG TIME TAKING QUESTIONS. MUCH CREDIT TO THEM. >> I WOULD AGREE. I APPRECIATE THEM AND THE WORK THAT THEY DID, AND THE COMPROMISES THEY WERE WILLING TO MAKE IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT CAME OUT THROUGH THEIR LISTENING SESSION, OUR SESSIONS. I ALSO APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE WHO CAME TO THESE MEETINGS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, TO SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS AND THEIR CONCERNS, AND THAT IS PART OF THE PROCESS, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY HAVING TAKEN THE TIME TO DO THAT. THANK YOU. >> RYAN AND TIM, THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] >> THANK YOU. >> ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY FOR HAVING TO DOCUMENT ALL THIS. [LAUGHTER] >> I HOPE HE MAKE SENSE OF IT. >> IT'S OKAY. [LAUGHTER]. >> WE APPRECIATE IT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> I'LL MOVE TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING. >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SNYDER, AND BY COMMISSIONER MCCURTIS. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 8:35. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.