Dec 02, 2025 Township Board

[00:03:02]

>> [BACKGROUND] BLOOD PRESSURE NOT TOO HIGH.

>> WE'RE GOING TO MOVE 11A UP AHEAD OF 10.

IF WE CAN HAVE THAT IN THE AGENDA, WHEN THE AGENDA COMES UP. [BACKGROUND] IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC COMMENT OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING, THERE ARE GREEN CARDS ON THE TABLE THERE.

WE'VE ASKED THAT YOU PLEASE FILL ONE OF THOSE OUT.

ONCE YOU HAVE, YOU CAN PASS THOSE OFF TO A MEMBER OF OUR STAFF, AND THEY'LL MAKE SURE THEY BRING THOSE UP TO US SO THAT WE HAVE YOUR NAME AND CAN CALL ON YOU WHEN THE TIME COMES.

FOR NOW? [NOISE] IT IS 6:02 P.M. WE WILL CALL

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ]

THIS IS OUR REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 2ND, 2025.

FIRST ON AGENDA IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

WILL THOSE WHO ARE ABLE, PLEASE RISE AND JOIN US FOR THE PLEDGE.

>>

>> NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS A ROLL CALL.

WILL CLARK DEMAS PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON.

>> HERE.

>> CLARK DEMAS [INAUDIBLE] TRUSTEE LENTZ.

>> HERE.

>> TRUSTEE SIMONS.

>> HERE.

>> TRUSTEE TRUSINA.

>> HERE.

>> TRUSTEE WILSON.

>> HERE.

>> SIX BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS PRESENTATIONS.

WE HAVE NONE THIS EVENING, SO NEXT ON OUR AGENDA,

[5. CITIZENS ADDRESS AGENDA ITEMS AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS]

WOULD YOU MIND. SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT TONIGHT'S MEETING.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO ADDRESS OUR AGENDA OR ANY ITEM NOT ON OUR AGENDA, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, AS WELL AS AT THE END OF THE MEETING.

[00:05:02]

YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK AT BOTH OPPORTUNITIES, IF YOU LIKE, BUT GENERALLY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT AUTHENTICS, A PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE A GOOD TIME FOR THAT.

THOSE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MUST COMPLETE A GREEN CARD LOCATED ON THE TABLE BY THE DOOR AND PRESENT THAT CARD TO A MEMBER OF THE TOWNSHIP STAFF.

WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN, I'LL CALL YOU UP TO THE PODIUM TO SPEAK TO THE TOPICS INDICATED.

WHILE IT'S NOT REQUIRED, IT IS HELPFUL FOR THE SAKE OF OUR MEETING MINUTES, IF YOU CAN PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS.

CITIZENS ARE REQUIRED TO LIMIT COMMENTS TO 3 MINUTES.

AN AUTOMATED SYSTEM WILL KEEP TRACK OF A TIME AND AN INDICATOR LIGHT, AND AUDIBLE BEEP WILL ALERT YOU WHEN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD VALUE COMMENT AND INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC.

THE MEETING FORMAT AND RULES, HOWEVER, DO RESTRICT BOARD MEMBERS FROM ENGAGING IN CONVERSATION WITH COMMENTERS OR ANSWERING QUESTIONS DIRECTLY.

QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS MAY BE ADDRESSED BY BOARD MEMBERS AT A LATER TIME OR MAY BE REFERRED TO A MEMBER OF THE TOWNSHIP STAFF TO FOLLOW UP ON.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE BOARD OR THE BOARD'S CHAIR, AND NOT TO INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS OR OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE.

WITH THAT SAID THIS EVENING, WE DO HAVE SEVERAL GREEN CARDS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF I CALL YOUR NAME AND YOU'D LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING, JUST WAVE ME OFF, AND WE'LL GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

RAY GASSER IS UP FIRST.

DIANA CAVALIER. THEN TO MONICA.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO WAIT SOME PUBLIC HEARING OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? THEN PAUL AND GRACE IS ON DECK.

>> I LIVE IN CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, 4877 NASSAU.

I'D LIKE TO REMIND YOU OF THIS PETITION, WHICH WAS CIRCULATED, OVER 100 SIGNATURES FROM THE RESIDENTS REQUESTING THAT MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP REJECT THE AMENDMENT TO THE JUDGMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD INCREASE MULTIFAMILY DENSITY AND ALLOW FOR THE BUILDINGS OF AUTHENTIX [INAUDIBLE].

BY REJECTING THE DEVELOPMENT, YOU'LL BE SUPPORTING THE PRESERVATION OF CPE, CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.

SAFETY, INTEGRITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.

AS A PETITION STATES IF THIS GOES FORWARD, THE TOWNSHIP WILL BE PLACING IN JEOPARDY, THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF RESIDENTS AND THE MULTITUDE OF SHOPPERS WHO TRAVEL HERE.

HISTORICALLY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS PLACED GREAT WEIGHT UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ARRIVING AT ITS DECISION.

THE COMMISSION ON THE NOVEMBER 17TH MEETING DID NOT VOTE TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT.

THIS IS A WIN FOR A CPE BECAUSE IN THE EVENT OF A TIDE THE STATUS QUO IS MAINTAINED.

THEREFORE, WE HOPE THE BOARD WILL MAINTAIN ITS TRADITIONAL PRECEDENT OF FOLLOWING THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION OR NON RECOMMENDATION.

I BELIEVE YOU ALL HAVE RECEIVED THE EMAIL COPY OF THIS REFUTATION OF CINEL'S INCORRECT ASSERTIONS.

IT'S FOUR PAGES GO INTO MUCH GREATER DEPTH THAN I CAN COVER IN MY A LOT TIME HERE.

BUT THE PROPOSAL CONTAINS MANY FLAWS AND ERRORS AND IT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION OR REQUIRE FURTHER STUDY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S GOALS AND MASTER PLAN.

THE MASTER PLAN CALLS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, FOR INSTANCE.

IT'S ALREADY NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEDESTRIAN TO CROSS CENTRAL PARK DRIVE NEAR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

I CAN TELL YOU GOT TO BE QUITE ATHLETIC, AND IT'S A HAIR RAISING EXPERIENCE EVEN THEN RACING ACROSS THE STREET TO AVOID GETTING HIT.

THERE'S ACTUALLY NO DESIGNATED CROSSING AREA.

THE AMOUNT OF DAILY INCREASED TRAFFIC WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO DOUBLE THE 1,300 PROJECTED BY THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE ALL THE TRAFFIC THAT GOES OUT IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK.

MORE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 2,600 TRIPS.

TRAFFIC IS ALREADY RISKY ON THE HIGH SPEED NARROW CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

MY OWN FAMILY CAR WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR AT THE 90 DEGREE BEND IN THE ROAD WHERE AUTHENTIX [INAUDIBLE] PROPOSED TO BE BUILT.

THE PROPOSAL ASSERTS THAT THERE'S NO NET INCREASE IN STORMWATER RUNOFF AND WET LAND BUFFERS WILL MAINTAIN HYDROLOGIC BALANCE, BUT THERE IS NO SUPPORTING DATA, NO QUANTITATIVE STORMWATER MODEL, NO ANALYSIS OF POST DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF VOLUME, DETENTION CAPACITY OR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE INCREASE.

THUS, THE ASSERTION IS WITHOUT EVIDENCE, IMPLYING COMPLIANCE WITHOUT DEMONSTRATING IT.

THE ASPHALT AND CONCRETE FOOTPRINT OF 10 SPRAWLING APARTMENT BUILDINGS, A CLUBHOUSE PARKING LOT, INTERIOR ROADS, AND SIDEWALKS WILL CREATE MUCH RUNOFF WITH VULNERABLE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, HOMES ADJACENT.

IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED THAT ALL THE NATURAL LAND IS DRAINAGE AREA.

THE PROPOSAL ALLOWS FOR ENCROACHMENTS INTO WETLANDS AND NATURAL AREAS, WHERE THE TOWNSHIP'S MASTER PLAN CALLS FOR NO NET LOSS AND PRESERVATION FIRST.

THERE'S AN INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE TWO.THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WITH GREEN CARDS THIS EVENING? OTHERWISE, EVERYONE ELSE HAS PASSED UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING LATER, IT SEEMS. SEEING NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED AT 6:08 P.M. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 6,

[6. TOWNSHIP MANAGER REPORT ]

[00:10:06]

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR AND GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS.

SEVERAL THINGS THIS EVENING.

JUST A REMINDER THAT THE LISTENING SESSION SUMMARY IS NOW POSTED ONLINE ON THE TOWNSHIP'S WEBSITE, SO FOR ANY OF THE RESIDENTS WHO ATTENDED THAT SESSION AND WANT TO LOOK AT THE SUMMARY, IT'S AVAILABLE, AND FOR THOSE THAT WERE UNABLE TO ATTEND, IT'S AVAILABLE FOR THEM AS WELL.

WE ALSO HAVE THE PRIOR SESSION SUMMARIES ONLINE AS WELL.

YOU JUST NEED TO GO TO THE TOWNSHIP'S WEBSITE AND THEN TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD'S PAGE AND IT'LL BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT PAGE FOR THAT INFORMATION.

IT'S A DECEMBER TAX BILL SEASON.

TAX BILLS WENT OUT AND RESIDENTS WILL BE RECEIVING THOSE.

WE JUST WANT TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE DO PAY THOSE ONLINE.

THAT IS AN OPTION IF THEY DON'T WANT TO WRITE A CHECK OR COME INTO THE TOWNSHIP.

WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AN ISSUE WITH THE ONLINE PAYMENT AND REGARDING DATES, IF PEOPLE ARE RUNNING INTO A PROBLEM, IT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR ONLINE VENDOR TO SOLVE THAT ISSUE.

IT'S A ELECTRONIC SORT DATA TRANSFER ISSUE THAT WE RAN INTO.

BUT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IT, WE'RE WORKING ON IT, AND IT SHOULD BE RESOLVED HERE IN THE NEXT LIKE I SAID, THE NEXT DAY OR TWO.

WE APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S PATIENTS IN THE MEANTIME THAT UTILIZED THAT ONLINE SERVICE.

SOME NEWS ON THE GRAND RIVER BRIDGE CLOSURE.

AS WE ALL KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WAITING ANXIOUSLY FOR DECEMBER 5TH, WHICH WAS THE SCHEDULED DATE FOR THAT TO BE REOPENED.

WE DID LEARN TODAY, HOWEVER, THAT DUE TO THE RECENT WEATHER EVENT THAT WE HAD THIS PAST WEEKEND AND THE COLD SNAP THAT'S FOLLOWED THAT IS GOING TO BE DELAYED UNTIL NEXT WEEK.

WE HOPE NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 13TH.

WE'LL BE EXTENDED SOMEWHAT, BUT IF IT DOES OPEN BEFORE THAT, IN REGARDLESS REALLY OF WHAT THAT DATE FINALLY WE'LL BE SURE THAT WE COMMUNICATE OUT TO RESIDENTS SO THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF WHEN THAT'S GOING TO REOPEN.

WE KNOW THAT OUR FRIENDS AT MDOT WHO HAVE LED THAT PROJECT, HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY TO TRY TO MEET THEIR TIMELINES, AND FOR A PROJECT OF THAT MAGNITUDE, WE'RE ACTUALLY PRETTY PLEASED THAT IT MIGHT ONLY BE WEEKS DELAY.

LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT, FINALLY, OPENING UP.

ALSO WANT TO LET EVERYONE KNOW.

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN WORKING THROUGH ITS RE ACCREDITATION PROCESS.

TODAY, IT WAS THE FINAL STEP WHERE WE HAD ON SITE ACCREDITORS FROM THE MICHIGAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCREDITATION COMMISSION COME IN.

THEY DID A NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS.

I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WAS INTERVIEWED, I BELIEVE, SEVERAL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD BEEN INTERVIEWED AS WELL. GOING THROUGH THAT.

THE FEEDBACK THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE INTERVIEWER AFTERWARDS WAS VERY POSITIVE.

HE HAD INDICATED THAT THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP PROCESS WAS ONE OF THE BEST THAT THEY'VE SEEN.

IT WAS VERY SMOOTH. OUR TEAM HAD ALL THE DATA TOGETHER THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO, AND IT'S RATHER EXTENSIVE IN TERMS OF THE PAPERWORK AND THE PROCESS TO GO THROUGH THAT.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE MAKING A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ACCREDITATION COMMISSION.

IT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE WHEN THEY DO THAT, THE COMMISSION WILL TYPICALLY FOLLOW WITH RE ACCREDITATION.

IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, AND WE EXPECT IT WILL BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK, WE'LL BE JUST ONE OF 20 AGENCIES OUT OF 573 IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN THAT WILL HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS TWICE ON THE RE ACCREDITATION.

THERE WERE IN A 3.5 PERCENTILE OF THE AGENCIES ACROSS THE STATE, I THINK IT SAYS A LOT TO OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IN TERMS OF HOW THEY OPERATE, AND HOW THEY FUNCTION, IN TERMS OF THE BOARD SUPPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT.

I ESPECIALLY WANT TO POINT OUT AND THANK BOTH CHIEF GRILLO, WHO LEADS, OF COURSE, THE DEPARTMENT, AND THEN LIEUTENANT ED BESONEN, WHO LED THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND REALLY TOOK THE REINS OF THAT AND DID A PHENOMENAL JOB.

AGAIN, THANKS TO ALL THE STAFF THERE WHO SUPPORTS THEIR WORK, WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THAT DESIGNATION.

WITH THAT, THAT'S MY REPORT FOR THIS EVENING.

>> THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MANAGER'S REPORT THIS EVENING? I'LL SIMPLY SAY THAT IT WAS A VERY SMOOTH PROCESS TO ASSIST WITH THAT.

I WAS ONE OF THE ONES WHO WAS INTERVIEWED FOR THAT.

IT'S REALLY EASY TO SAY GREAT THINGS ABOUT THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WE'RE VERY PLEASED THAT WE'RE ON THE ROAD TO RE ACCREDITATION, IT SOUNDS LIKE.

WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE A GREAT TEAM BEHIND US AND ON THE STREETS.

THANK YOU TO THEM TO LIEUTENANT ED BESONEN AND CHIEF GRILLO FOR MAKING ALL OF THAT HAPPEN.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDAS BOARD MEMBER REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.

[7. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS]

>> THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON.

I MET WITH A BOARD LIAISON TO THE MERIDIAN CARES GROUP, AND I'M SO DELIGHTED TO REPORT THAT THEY HAVE

[00:15:03]

ALSO, LAST NIGHT, I ATTENDED THE OKEMOS PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

OPEN SESSION WITH THREE TRUSTEES TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE SCHOOLS BECAUSE WE'RE AT A POINT OF REAL CHANGE WITH OUR RELATIVELY LONG TERM SUPERVISOR, JOHN HOOD, RETIRING IN MARCH.

THEY ARE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO GO OUT TO THEIR WEBSITE AND ANSWER A THREE QUESTION SURVEY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR IN A NEW SUPERINTENDENT OF OKEMOS SCHOOLS, SO I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THAT, AND I ALSO HEARD THAT THEY ARE WITHIN BUDGET ON THE BUILDING OF THE THREE NEW SCHOOLS, WHICH IS QUITE AMAZING, AND THAT EVERYTHING IS ON TIME AND ON SCHEDULE FOR THAT, SO IT WAS A GOOD MEETING, VERY INFORMATIVE.

>> OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? TRUSTEE LENTZ.

>> MAY I ASK FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IS A BIT MORE FUN SUBJECT THAN ASSESSING EDUCATION.

THE TRI COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD THAT I SERVE ON, AS SOME MAY HAVE SEEN IN THE NEWS, WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING A 97-YEAR-OLD REO MOTOR CAR COMPANY BUS FROM THE LAST REMAINING ONE IN THE COUNTRY.

THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF RESTORING IT, AND THEY ARE LOOKING FOR ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO MAY HAVE SOME CONNECTION TO THE REO COMPANY.

I MIGHT BE A BIT REMOVED 97 YEARS, BUT IT SHOULD BE A VERY COOL PROJECT CONSIDERING LANSING'S MOTOR CENTRIC AUTOMOTIVE HISTORY.

ANYONE WHO'S INTERESTED, FEEL FREE TO LET ME KNOW, AND I CAN PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH THE STORY COLLECTOR, WHICH DOUBLES AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DETROIT COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, LAST WEEK, I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO ASSIST OUR FRIENDS OF HISTORIC MERIDIAN WITH A FUND RAISING SESSION IN MY CAPACITY AS A FUNDRAISER WITH MY DAY JOB.

I WOULD BE REMISS TO NOT MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT CHRISTMAS IN THE VILLAGE WILL BE TAKING PLACE ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 14.

WITH BUILDING TOURS, YOU CAN MEET SANTA IF YOUR ARE LUCKY, GENERAL STORE GIFT SHOP, THINGS LIKE THAT.

THE GIFT OF HAVING THOSE BUILDINGS THERE AND KNOWING THE HISTORY BEHIND THEM IS A NOBLE EFFORT THAT THEY HAVE UNDERTAKEN, AND I WAS HAPPY THAT I WAS ASKED TO COME IN AND SPEAK WITH THEM ABOUT HOW THEY CAN MAYBE GROW SOME OF THAT IMPACT.

DRAWN KETA ON THEIR CALENDARS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 8 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[8. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

THEN WE'LL DISPENSE WITH THE ACTION ITEMS BEFORE THAT.

DO YOU HAVE A MOTION FOR THE AGENDA THIS EVENING, TRUSTEE WILSON?

>> MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH THE CHANGE INDICATED TO MOVE 11A BEFORE 10A.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED BY TRUSTEE WILSON. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND?

>> SUPPORT.

>> SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE LENTZ.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED, PLEASE SAY AYE?

>> [OVERLAPPING] AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING.

[9. CONSENT AGENDA]

THE MINUTES FROM OUR LISTENING SESSION OF NOVEMBER 13TH, THE MINUTES FROM OUR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 18TH, THE BILLS, THE NON UNION WAGE SCHEDULE FOR 2026 FOR APPROVAL.

DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT, AN OPPORTUNITY TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE HAZLETT VILLAGE SQUARE BROWNFIELD PLAN AMENDMENT, NUMBER 2, CONTRACT AWARD FOR AMERICAN HOUSE PATHWAY SITE, A CONTRACT AWARD FOR AMERICAN HOUSE PATHWAY, SHEET PILE AND BOARDWALK.

A 2026 LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AWARD, 2025 GROUND MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AWARD, AND A 2025 ORDERED TO MAINTAIN RESOLUTION NUMBER 4 TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 20, 2026.

LOTS OF CONTRACTS TO AWARD.

ANY MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING? TRUSTEE TREZISE?

>> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.

>> OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY TRUSTEE TREZISE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY TRUSTEE SUNDLAND.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA?

[00:20:03]

>> CLARK DEMAS? YES.

>> TRUSTEE LENTZ?

>> YES.

>> TRUSTEE SUNDLAND?

>> YES.

>> TRUSTEE TREZISE?

>> YES.

>> TRUSTEE WILSON?

>> YES.

>> SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON?

>> YES.

>> MOTION CARRIES SIX, ZERO.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT BRINGS US TO THE NEW ITEM 10A,

[11.A. Hagadorn Road Land Donation/Acquisition]

FOR THIS, WE HAVE DEPUTY MANAGER [INAUDIBLE]

>> GOOD EVENING, SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON, AND BOARD MEMBERS.

BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING FOR THE THIRD TIME IS THE HAGADORN ROAD LAND ACQUISITION.

JUST A FRIENDLY REMINDER THIS IS TO ACQUIRE PORTIONS OF TWO PARCELS ON THE EAST SIDE OF HAGADORN ROAD JUST SOUTH OF MOUNT HOPE ROAD AND THE CSX RAIL ROAD.

SINCE THE NOVEMBER 18TH BOARD MEETING, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE FOUR EASEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE PATHWAY RUNNING PARALLEL TO HAGADORN ROAD ON THE EAST SIDE.

WE RECEIVED NO OBJECTIONS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THOSE FOUR EASEMENTS.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE APPLIED FOR THE PARCEL SPLITS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO EXECUTE THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, AND THE CLOSING DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING DRAFTED.

BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS A MOTION THAT WE HAVE PREPARED TO AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION OF THESE, WELL, 22.4 ACRES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BOARD MEMBERS, DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? YOU'VE SEEN THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE. TRUSTEE TREZISE?

>> I HAD A QUESTION. THIS STARTED OUT AS A DONATION AND NOW IT'S AN ACQUISITION. CAN YOU EXPLAIN?

>> THEY'RE DONATING IT. WE'RE ACQUIRING IT, SO INTERCHANGEABLE TERMS. CURRENT OWNER IS DONATING, WE ARE ACQUIRING.

>> ALL RIGHT. TRUSTEE LENTZ.

>> THANK YOU. MY ONLY QUESTION WAS THE MECHANISM BY WHICH THEY ARE RECEIVING THE TAX BENEFIT THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR HERE.

DOES THE TOWNSHIP PLAY A ROLE IN THAT? DO WE TELL THEM THIS LAND IS WORTH THIS VALUE, OR HOW DOES THAT VALUATION COME ABOUT?

>> NO, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HAVING THE ACREAGE APPRAISED, SO THEY'VE HIRED THEIR OWN APPRAISER.

THEY'RE PURSUING THAT, AND THEY'RE PAYING FOR THAT.

THEY WOULD USE THAT TO RECEIVE THE FEDERAL TAX BENEFITS SO THEY WOULD GET TAX BENEFITS FOR THE VALUE OF THE LAND DONATED.

>> GOT YOU.

>> THE FEDERAL TAX RETURN.

>> SO PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE AND THAT THE OPTIONS ARE STILL AVAILABLE.

ONCE WE ACQUIRE THIS FOR THE PURPOSES OF EVENTUAL POSSIBLE PATHWAYS THAT WOULD CONNECT VARIOUS AREAS, WE COULD KEEP IT.

WE COULD DONATE IT TO LAND PRESERVE TO INGHAM DRAIN OFFICE.

IS ALL OF THAT STILL IN PLAY?

>> YES. I WOULD SAY PREFERENCE WOULD BE PROBABLY TO MOVE IT OUT OF PATHWAY.

BUT THEN AGAIN, OUR PUBLIC WORKS CREW THAT MAINTAINS LAND PRESERVES AND PATHWAYS AND PARKS IS ONE CREW.

THAT ONE CREW MAINTAINS ALL OF THOSE ASSETS.

TECHNICALLY, THE SAME PUBLIC WORKS CREW WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LAND.

HOWEVER, IT WOULD FIT BETTER LONG TERM WITHIN LAND PRESERVATION OR POSSIBLY A DONATION TO THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN OFFICE AS THERE IS A DRAIN THAT RUNS THROUGH THE PROPERTY.

>> BUT WE WOULD MAINTAIN A PATHWAY EASEMENT IN OUR INTENDED LOCATION; IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> CORRECT. YEAH. WE'D HAVE TO WORK WITH PLANNING ON HOW EXACTLY WE WOULD DO THIS, BUT I THINK OUR BEST INTEREST WOULD BE TO HOLD ON TO ANY LAND THAT OUR TRAIL ROUTE AND COURSE COVERS.

IF IT WERE A DONATION TO THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN OFFICE, I THINK OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE CONSTRUCT THE TRAIL, FIND A WAY TO PARCEL OFF THE REMAINDER AND GIVE THAT TO THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN OFFICE, SO THAT WE OWN OUR LAND FOR THE ROUTE AND COURSE OF THE TRAIL OUTRIGHT.

>> OKAY. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO THEN GO THROUGH THE PARCEL SPLITS AND ALL THAT AS WE CONSIDER DONATING TO ONE OF THESE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS?

>> CORRECT. IF IT'S LAND PRESERVATION, WE WOULD JUST PROCEED SIMILAR TO HOW PHASE 2 WAS CONSTRUCTED OVER AN EXISTING LAND PRESERVE.

WE WOULD JUST DONATE THE ENTIRETY OF THE LAND TO THE LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM.

>> THIS PATHWAY IS NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE IN THE PLAN FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD POSSIBLY APPLY FOR GRANT MONEY FOR AND WHATNOT, BECAUSE IT'S MOSTLY MARSH LAND AND WETLAND BACK THERE, I SUSPECT WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A BOARDWALK, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. I THINK IT'S ABOUT A THIRD OF A MILE BOARDWALK.

I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE OVER A QUARTER MILE, I BELIEVE, FROM JUST SOME OF MY ROUGH MEASUREMENTS.

WE WOULD PURSUE TAP FUNDING AND/OR INGHAM COUNTY COUNTY TRAILS AND PARKS MILEAGE FUNDING.

[00:25:03]

>> OKAY. WELL, AS SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN AT LEAST OF LATE A VERY AVID USER OF OUR TRAIL AND PATHWAY SYSTEM, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD THING THAT WE CAN DO TO TRY TO EXTEND THAT.

THERE AREN'T TOO MANY OPTIONS THAT CONNECT UP TO HAGADORN AND NORTH TOWARD CAMPUS.

IN FACT, BY COMPLETING THIS PATHWAY AT SOME POINT IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE, THAT CONNECTS ALL THE WAY UP TO THE MSU TO LAKE LANSING TRAIL AS WELL, AND SO REALLY STARTS TO CREATE QUITE THE CIRCUIT AVAILABLE FOR THE PATHWAY SYSTEM.

I KNOW THAT I WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT MY KIDS WHO ARE NOW BIKERS IN ADDITION TO WALKERS WOULD CERTAINLY APPRECIATE HAVING THAT OPTION AS WELL.

I LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING IT THIS EVENING AND TO THE EVENTUAL PATHWAY THAT WE WOULD EXPECT DOWN THE LINE.

THANK YOU FOR THE HARD WORK YOU AND TEAM YOU PUT IN ON THIS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> CLARK DEMAS.

>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION TO ADD ON TO SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON'S QUESTIONS.

WITH THAT DECISION OF WHAT TO DO WITH THE LAND DONATION, WOULD THAT BE AN INTERNAL DECISION WITHIN PUBLIC WORKS OR PLANNING OR WOULD THAT COME BACK TO THE BOARD OR GO TO LAND PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD? JUST SO THAT I CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.

>> YEAH, I THINK WHAT WE WOULD DO IS HAVE SOME INTERNAL STAFF DISCUSSIONS ON VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD.

WE WOULD BE AT OUR LEISURE AT THAT POINT.

ONCE WE ACQUIRE THE LAND, WE'RE UNDER NO TIME CONSTRAINTS BY EXTERNAL ENTITIES.

THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON THAT WE'RE ACQUIRING IT.

I THINK THE LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM IS INTERESTED IN THE LAND.

THEY HAVEN'T DONE A DEEP DIVE ON THE LAND.

THEY HAVEN'T GONE IN AND TAKEN AN INVENTORY OF ALL THE SPECIES THAT ARE PRESENT, BUT I KNOW THEY'RE VERY INTERESTED.

THE ONLY REASON THAT WE'RE DOING IT AS A PATHWAY ACQUISITION WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S INTEREST IN DONATING AFTER JANUARY 1 DIMINISHED.

CONSIDERABLY, FROM WHAT THEY TOLD US AND THE ONLY WAY TO GET THIS DONE BY DECEMBER 31ST WAS TO COME DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

WOULD WE SEE THIS BACK ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING OR IS THAT TO COME?

>> PROBABLY NOT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.

WELL, I'LL HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH DIRECTOR WISNIEWSKI, I SUSPECT WE'LL HAVE SOME MEETINGS WITH OUR STAFF, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO PRESENT IN TERMS OF OPTIONS TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD.

PROBABLY SOMETIME IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2026, I WOULD SAY, EXPECT TO SEE IT BACK.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THIS EVENING OR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION TO BE MADE? YES.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION TO ACQUIRE THE PORTIONS OF PARCEL NUMBER 33-02-02-29-105-005 AND 33-02-02-29-151-004 SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A OF THE RESOLUTION CONSISTING OF 22.4 ACRES OF ENVIRONMENTALLY VALUABLE LAND IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE DOLLAR FROM THE SHANGRI-LA REAL ESTATE, LLC, AND AUTHORIZE TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE TOWNSHIP.

>> OKAY. SUPPORT.

>> IT'S BEEN MOVED BY TRUSTEE LENTZ, SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME? THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION TO ACQUIRE THE PORTIONS OF THE TWO PARCELS INDICATED AND SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A OF THE RESOLUTION, CONSISTING OF 22.4 ACRES FOR THE AMOUNT OF ONE DOLLAR FROM SHANGRI-LA REAL ESTATE.

CLARK DEMAS, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?

>> TRUSTEE LENTZ?

>> YES.

>> TRUSTEE SUNDLAND?

>> YES.

>> TRUSTEE TREZISE?

>> YES.

>> TRUSTEE WILSON?

>> YES.

>> SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON?

>> YES.

>> CLARK DEMAS? YES. MOTION CARRIES SIX, ZERO.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SINCE WE EXPECT THERE TO BE SOME LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, AND I SEE CUPS THAT ARE HALF FILLED AND EMPTY HERE, I'D ASK THAT WE TAKE A TWO OR THREE MINUTE RECESS TO REFILL WITH WATER.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE JOINED US LATE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TOPIC OF THE AUTHENTICS PROJECT, THAT'S OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM.

WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THESE GREEN CARDS THAT YOU CAN FIND ON THE TABLE BY THE DOOR, AND GET THOSE TO OUR STAFF SO WE CAN HAVE YOU QUEUED UP AND READY.

WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'LL TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTE RECESS AND BE BACK.

[00:30:08]

THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 11A,

[10.A. Authentix Central Park Project ]

ON THE AUTHENTICS CENTRAL PARK PROJECT.

WE HAVE DIRECTOR SCHMIDT, WHO WILL BE GIVING US A BRIEF INTRODUCTION, AND THEN WE'LL BE DOING OUR PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DIRECTOR SCHMIDT. WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU. I WILL KEEP IT BRIEF AND WE CAN GET INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS DURING THE DISCUSSION ITEM.

BUT WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED, ON THE SCREEN, TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

PROPERTY HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO LITIGATION SINCE THE LATE 80S, SUBJECT TO A SERIES OF CONSENT JUDGMENTS, THE CURRENT ZONING IS RD, MULTIFAMILY ADJACENT TO CENTRAL PARK ESTATES AND CS, COMMERCIAL SERVICES ALONG CENTRAL PARK ESTATES AND ALONG TIME SQUARE.

THAT ZONING ACTUALLY NO LONGER EXISTS IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, IT WAS REPEALED, BUT WE ARE REQUIRED BY THE CONSENT JUDGMENT TO RETAIN IT FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THE TOWNSHIP BOARD INITIALLY REVIEWED THIS IN AUGUST AND REFERRED IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW, ESSENTIALLY TREATING THIS LIKE A CONDITIONAL REZONING REQUEST.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED IT MULTIPLE TIMES THROUGHOUT SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER AND SENT BACK TO THE BOARD A 06:0 RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE REZONED.

THEY DID NOT PROVIDE A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHAT IT SHOULD BE REZONED TO AFTER A GREAT DEAL OF DELIBERATION.

I THINK AT THAT POINT, ESTABLISHING WHERE WE'RE AT IN THE PROCESS, I WILL STEP ASIDE, THE PUBLIC HEARING OCCUR AND THEN I'LL GET INTO THE NUTS AND BOLTS DURING THE DISCUSSION.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DIRECTOR SCHMIDT.

WE DECLARE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 6:34 PM.

WE'RE GOING TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT NEXT ON THIS.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE NOT HERE FOR THE INITIAL SET OF RULES AND FOR THOSE WHO WERE HERE, PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE THEY DO STILL APPLY.

THOSE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD MUST COMPLETE A GREEN CARD, WHICH ARE LOCATED ON A TABLE BY THE DOOR AND PRESENT IT TO THE BOARD OR A MEMBER OF THE TOWNSHIP STAFF.

WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN, I'LL CALL YOU UP TO THE PODIUM, AND I'LL ACTUALLY CALL THE NEXT PERSON AS WELL SO THAT WE HAVE FOLKS IN ORDERLY PROGRESSION HERE.

WHILE IT'S NOT REQUIRED, IT IS HELPFUL FOR THE SAKE OF OUR MEETING MINUTES.

IF YOU DO, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS.

WE'RE REQUIRED TO LIMIT COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES.

AN AUTOMATED SYSTEM KEEPS TRACK OF THE TIME AND AN INDICATOR LIGHTENED AUDIBLE BEEP WILL ALERT YOU WHEN YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD VALUE PUBLIC COMMENT AND INPUT.

OUR MEETING FORMAT AND RULES, HOWEVER, RESTRICT BOARD MEMBERS FROM ENGAGING IN CONVERSATION AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS DIRECTLY WITH COMMENTERS.

QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS MAY BE ADDRESSED BY BOARD MEMBERS AT A LATER TIME OR REFERRED TO A MEMBER OF THE TOWNSHIP STAFF TO FOLLOW UP ON.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE BOARD OR THE BOARD'S CHAIR AND NOT TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OR OTHERS IN THE AUDIENCE.

WE'D ASK THAT WE PLEASE HOLD ANY APPLAUSE OR ANY KIND OF NOISE OR OUTBURSTS AS WELL, IF YOU WOULD. THANK YOU.

FIRST UP THIS EVENING WE HAVE MILTON SCALES AND THEN ON DECK, WE HAVE RAY GASSER.

IF YOU'RE ON DECK, IF YOU COULD MAKE YOUR WAY TO BEHIND THE PODIUM THERE SO THAT WE'RE READY, WE'D APPRECIATE IT. MR. GASSER.

>> MR. GASSER IS STILL HERE?

>> GOOD EVENING.

>> THERE WE ARE.

>> MY NAME IS MILTON SCALES.

I LIVE IN OLD ENGLISH ESTATES.

I'M HERE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHERE THERE'S REZONING.

MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC THAT THIS IS GOING TO BRING ABOUT.

BUT I FOLLOWED THIS THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT I'D LIKE TO CHALLENGE YOU WITH.

IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE APPROVING THIS.

ONE THING I LOOK FOR IS WHERE'S THE IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT EVALUATES HOW THE REZONING COULD AFFECT PUBLIC SERVICES, TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE, SURROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.

[00:35:01]

IS THERE A CONSISTENCY CHECK TO DETERMINE IF THE REQUEST ALIGNS WITH THE LONG TERM LAND USE GOALS OUTLINED IN THE TOWNSHIP'S MASTER PLAN, AND IF IT UPHOLDS GOOD ZONING PRACTICE? HAVE ALL USES ALLOWED UNDER THE REQUESTED ZONING BEEN REVIEWED? NOT JUST THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED USE, BUT TO PREVENT UNINTENDED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

IS THERE COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONES? WHAT'S THE ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, SCHOOLS, ROADS, UTILITIES, ETC, FOR THE INCREASED DENSITY? YOU JUST GOT YOUR POLICE AND FIRE AT OR NEAR YOUR APPROVED LEVELS.

BUT NOW YOU'RE ADDING MORE DENSITY, NOT JUST WITH THIS PROJECT, BUT TWO PROJECTS TO THE SOUTH OF THIS.

HAVE YOU EXAMINED THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, DRAINAGE, GREEN SPACE PRESERVATION, ETC? YOU CAN HAVE THEM SHORTEN THAT FOOTPRINT OF SOME OF THOSE BUILDINGS AND TAKE AWAY SOME OF THIS UNGODLY CEMENT THAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING DOWN HERE? ARE THE TRAFFIC GENERATION AND SAFETY ISSUES IN THEIR TRAFFIC STUDY CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA? TWO MORE. PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE CONSIDERATIONS WITH FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES GROW IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS DENSITY INCREASE? ARE YOU PREPARED FOR THIS UNDERTAKING?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> RAY GASSER AND THEN PAULETTE GRACE IS ON DECK.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS RAY GASSER, 4849 NASSAU STREET.

I WANT TO BEGIN ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXTENSIVE WORK THAT THE STAFF AND THE COMMISSION HAVE ALREADY INVESTED IN STUDYING THIS APPLICATION.

THE LEVEL OF DETAIL REVIEWED TONIGHT, TRAFFIC ZONING HISTORY, DENSITY, AND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS APPRECIATED BY ALL OF US WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THOUGHTFUL, RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT IN OUR TOWNSHIP.

HOWEVER, AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I AM CLEARLY OPPOSED TO THIS MOVING FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

FIRST, THE PROPOSED DENSITY REMAINS A MAJOR CONCERN.

WHILE THE APPLICANT HAS ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY WITH COMPARISONS TO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, THE REALITY IS THE SURROUNDING AREA IS NOT ZONED RC, NOR IS IT BUILT TO RC INTENSITY.

RESIDENTS AND COMMISSIONERS ALIKE, HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE RD ZONING WOULD BE THE MORE APPROPRIATE FRAMEWORK, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT ONE OF THE PARCELS HAS ALREADY ZONED RD, WHEN A PROPOSAL REQUIRES STRETCHING DENSITY CALCULATIONS ACROSS WETLAND PARCELS, SIMPLY TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK, IT SIGNALS THAT THE PROJECT IS BEING FORCED ONTO A SITE THAT IS NOT TRULY SUPPORTIVE OF IT.

SECOND, THE TRAFFIC ISSUES REMAIN UNRESOLVED.

ALTHOUGH A TRAFFIC STUDY WAS INCLUDED IN A PREVIOUS PACKET, WE HAVE HEARD THE COMMUNITY'S CONTINUED UNEASE.

CENTRAL PARK DRIVE IS ALREADY HEAVILY TRAVELED, AND COMMISSIONERS RAISED LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT TRIP GENERATION, CRASH HISTORY, AND THE IMPACT OF ADDING HUNDREDS OF UNITS THAT RELY ON THE SAME INTERSECTION TO AN ALREADY STRAINED CORRIDORS.

THE PRESENCE OF SIGNALIZED CROSSWALKS DOES NOT NEGATE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF INTENSIFIED TRAFFIC IN AN AREA BORDERED BY COMMERCIAL DESTINATIONS AND EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

THIRD, THE SITE ITSELF IS NOT READY FOR APPROVAL.

COMMISSIONERS DESCRIBED IT AS CLUNKY, AND I AGREE.

KEY ELEMENTS ARE EITHER NOT ADDRESSED OR UNDERDEVELOPED, INCLUDING DRAINAGE SOLUTIONS, PATHWAY ALIGNMENT, LIGHTING IMPACTS, AND EVEN BASIC COMPONENTS LIKE DUMPSTER PLACEMENT.

THESE ARE NOT SMALL OVERSIGHTS.

THEY ARE AN INDICATION THAT THE DESIGN HAS NOT MATURED TO A LEVEL APPROPRIATE FOR REZONING OF THIS SCALE.

WHEN COMMISSIONERS ARE ASKING WHETHER PARKING COULD BE REDUCED, WHETHER PATHWAYS CAN MOVE OR WHETHER BUFFERS AND FENCING SHOULD BE REQUIRED,

[00:40:01]

APPROVING REZONING BEFORE A COHESIVE DESIGN IS IN PLACE WOULD BE PREMATURE.

FOURTH, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY.

WHEN ASKED WHETHER UNITS COULD BE RESERVED AT 30% AMI, A LEVEL THAT WOULD SERVE WORKERS, YOUNG ADULTS, AND RESIDENTS ON FIXED INCOMES, THE APPLICANTS DECLINED WITHOUT INCENTIVES.

YET THE PROPOSED RENTS OF ROUGHLY $1,678 IS NOT ALIGNED WITH THE ACTUAL NEED OF THE COMMUNITY.

IF WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT INCREASED DENSITY, IT SHOULD BE BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT SOLVES A REAL LOCAL HOUSING ISSUE, NOT BECAUSE IT MEETS BUSINESS MODEL OF A NATIONAL COMPANY.

FIFTH, THE LEGAL AND ZONING CONTEXT REMAINS UNSETTLED.

MULTIPLE COMMISSIONERS EXPRESSED DISCOMFORT ABOUT HOW THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INTERSECTS WITH ZONING DECISIONS, SUP REQUIREMENTS, AND THE TOWNSHIP'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PAULETTE GRACE AND DIANA CAVALIER IS ON DECK.

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M PAULETTE GRACE, AND I'M A RESIDENT OF CPE.

I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD DENY THE PROPOSED VARIANCE CHANGE FOR THIS PLANNED CPE DEVELOPMENT.

THE PRIMARY REASONS ARE THAT THERE WILL BE TRAFFIC AND ROAD CONGESTION THAT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY IMPACT PEDESTRIAN AND RESIDENTS SAFETY.

THERE WILL BE A STRAIN ON INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FORM OF FIRE AND OTHER EMERGENCY SERVICES, AND WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS WILL FACE ADDED PRESSURE.

THERE WILL BE NEW SECURITY CONCERNS, GREATER NOISE, AND PRIVACY ISSUES THAT WILL ARISE BECAUSE OF A MORE DENSE POPULATION, AND THE DESIRABILITY OF THE AREA WILL DECLINE NEGATIVELY AFFECTING HOME VALUES.

THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS CONTAINS SEVERAL INCONSISTENCIES AND UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RELIES ON UNREALISTIC SCENARIOS, ESTIMATING DATA FOR A LARGE RETAIL STORE, WHICH WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO OCCUPY THE SITE AND UNDER REPORTING RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE FLOW.

THE STORM WATER RUNOFF CLAIMS ARE MADE WITHOUT DATA TO SUPPORT THEM.

DENSITY FIGURES USE THE TOTAL LAND AREA INSTEAD OF THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL AREA OF LAND ACTUALLY AVAILABLE TO BUILD ON.

THEN THERE'S ASSERTIONS OF ECONOMIC OR PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT HAVE NO MARKET OR FINANCIAL EVIDENCE.

THE TI VOTE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND EVEN THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO RECOMMEND MOVING FORWARD.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT SOME DEVELOPMENT WILL EVENTUALLY OCCUR ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT WE REQUEST THAT ANY FUTURE PROPOSALS ADHERE TO EXISTING ZONING AND VARIANCE GUIDELINES WHICH WERE IN PLACE WHEN WE CHOSE OUR PROPERTIES IN CPE.

WE TRUST THAT THE BOARD WILL TAKE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION INTO CONSIDERATION AND DENY APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DIANA CAVALIER AND THEN VINCE MONICA IS ON DECK.

>> I'M DIANA CAVALIER.

I LIVE AT 1508 BELVEDERE.

I'VE BEEN UP SPEAKING SEVERAL TIMES NOW ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

I OPPOSE THIS PROJECT BECAUSE I DO THINK THE TRAFFIC INCREASE IN THAT ON A CURVE OF A TWO LANE ROAD AND TO ADD ANOTHER 600 PEOPLE TO THE MIX IS GOING TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE BUSINESSES AROUND THERE, TO PEOPLE WALKING.

I WALK MY DOGS, AND IT'S ALREADY CRAZY WITH THE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA.

I THINK THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, WHICH COULD TAKE QUITE A WHILE WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR COMMUNITY WHEN WE HAVE TO TRAVEL THROUGH THAT ON A DAILY BASIS FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG, AND YOU HAVE TWO ROADS THAT ARE MERGING THAT ARE ALREADY VERY BUSY.

YOU'VE GOT CENTRAL PARK, AND THE ROAD THAT RUNS IN FRONT OF WALMART.

I JUST THINK IT'S A RECIPE FOR DISASTER, AND I DON'T THINK IT CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT MANY PEOPLE.

THEY WILL BE COMING AND GOING.

THEY LIVE IN APARTMENTS.

IT'LL BE CONSTANT TRAFFIC, AND I THINK IT ALSO IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE AESTHETICS OF THE AREA AND DOES NOT MESH WITH THAT.

I THINK IT ALSO WILL IMPACT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

I KNOW THEY'RE BUILDING NEW SCHOOLS, BUT I THINK THIS WILL ADD MORE TRANSIENT PEOPLE MOVING INTO THE COMMUNITY TO GET INTO THE SCHOOLS, AND IT WILL STRAIN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

>> VINCE TI MONICA AND THEN [INAUDIBLE] IS ON DECK.

>> THANKS FOR CALLING ME BACK UP AGAIN.

[00:45:03]

NOW SPEAKING ABOUT THE INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE MASTER PLAN AND THE AUTHENTIC COMMISSION PROPOSAL.

THE MASTER PLAN CALLS FOR COMMERCIAL USE ALONG CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, WHICH THE PROPOSAL IS IN OPPOSITION TO BY PLACING AN EXTENSIVE COMPLEX ALONG THAT DRIVE.

THE MASTER PLAN CALLS FOR INFILL ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED SITES, NOT DEVELOPMENT IN WET LANDS OR WET LAND ADJACENT BUFFER AREAS.

THE PROPOSED COMPLEX REPLACES COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE, WETLANDS, AND NATURAL AREAS, AND WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVE DRAINAGE, IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND POLICY GOALS OF THE 2023 MASTER PLAN.

WE CALL FOR A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE THIS DEVELOPMENT, ROADS, STORM-WATER RUNOFF, SEWAGE, AND A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF WHO WILL PAY FOR THESE COSTS.

THE PUBLIC DESERVES THAT, THE BUILDER OR THE TAXPAYERS.

WE ARE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT IN PRINCIPLE, WE'RE FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT.

AT THIS POINT, THE PLAN ONLY SEEMS HALF DEVELOPED.

THERE'S TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTION, STUDIES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DONE.

ANOTHER TOPIC IS APPROVAL OF THIS WOULD CAUSE REAL FINANCIAL HARM TO THE CURRENT RESIDENTS.

AS SOMEONE MENTIONED EARLIER, WE BOUGHT INTO THAT AREA WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ZONING WAS GOING TO REMAIN WHAT IT WAS.

I WAS EVEN TOLD BECAUSE I CALLED PLANNING BEFORE BUYING THE LOT, THAT IT WOULDN'T BE FEASIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO BE BUILT THERE BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY A NARROW STRIP THAT WAS AVAILABLE.

APPARENTLY, I WAS TOLD INCORRECTLY, BUT THAT'S $600,000 INVESTMENT BASED UPON WHAT I WAS TOLD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

APPROVAL WOULD CAUSE REAL FINANCIAL HARM, NOT ONLY IN PROPERTY VALUES GOING DOWN, BUT FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO MOVE BECAUSE OF INTOLERABLE AND DANGEROUS CONDITIONS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC.

ALL THE COSTS INVOLVED, I ESTIMATE WOULD BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, $40,000.

IT'S AN IRRESPONSIBLE DECISION BY THE TRUSTEES, WOULD CAUSE US REAL HARM IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. IDI YU AND THEN JADE SHI IS ON DECK.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS IDI YU, I LIVE IN 1572 MAIN LANE.

I'M HERE TONIGHT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS HANDLED PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS CONTINENTAL PROPERTY PROPOSAL.

OVER THE LAST THREE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS ON OCTOBER 13, OCTOBER 27, AND NOVEMBER 17, MY NEIGHBORS AND I HAVE CONSISTENTLY ATTENDED BECAUSE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT.

WE HAVE OFFERED DETAILED, THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS, AND REPEATEDLY ASKED FOR REAL CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMISSIONERS YET IT HAS FAILED AS THROUGH OUR CONCERNS ARE LARGELY BEING IGNORED, AND NO MEANINGFUL DIALOGUES WITH OUR COMMUNITY HAS TAKEN PLACES.

I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NOT EVERY COMMISSIONER HAS DISMISSED PUBLIC INPUT.

COMMISSIONER SNYDER LISTENED TO THE RESIDENTS AND EVEN PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE PLAN, AND COMMISSIONER RONBECK RAISED A CONCERN ABOUT CONTINENTAL'S POOR REPUTATION, WHICH MANY OF NEIGHBORS HAVE MENTIONED.

WE APPRECIATE THAT. HOWEVER, I AM DEEPLY TROUBLED BY THE OVERALL PROCESS.

CHAIR SHREWSBURY SEEM FOCUSED MAINLY ON MOVING THE VOTE FORWARD, DESPITE MANY UNRESOLVED ISSUE RAISED BY THE PUBLIC, WHICH LEAD TO A TIGHT VOTE.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL SEEMS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS SAFETY, BUT THOSE CONCERNS WERE NEVER TRULY RESOLVED IN THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL.

RESIDENT ALSO REPEATEDLY ASKED AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY TRAFFIC STUDY.

DESPITE THAT, HE STILL VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION.

TO US, THIS DOES NOT FEEL LIKE THE PLANNING PROCESS THAT TRULY CENTERS THE PUBLIC SAFETY OR PUBLIC INPUT.

FOR THIS REASON, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE TOWNSHIP BOARD TO REJECT THE CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES PROPOSAL AND TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.

PRIORITIZING PEOPLE WHO WILL GENERALLY LISTEN TO THE RESIDENT AND

[00:50:01]

RESIDENTS OF MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP DESERVE A TRANSPARENT COMMUNITY CENTER PROCESS, WHERE OUR VOICES MATTER.

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND LISTENING.

>> THANK YOU. JADE SHI AND THEN DAVID LATIMER IS ON DECK.

>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR CONCERNS AND THOUGHTS.

I'M HERE TO EXPRESS MY STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES FOR THE PROPOSED AUTHENTIC OKEMOS PROJECT.

SO I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD TO DISCUSS AND ALSO PROVIDE ANSWERS.

THE FIRST ONE IS, HOW DOES THE PROPOSED REZONING ALIGN WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S MASTER PLAN AND THE LAND USE VISION, AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY PRIORITIES? THE NEXT QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR CONSIDERING A PROJECT WITH REDUCED THE ROADWAY CAPACITY, BUT INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY? THE THIRD QUESTION IS, ARE THERE ANY COMPARABLE CASES THAT WE CAN USE AS REFERENCES?

>> IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE ANSWER FROM DR. SCHMIDT IS NO.

IF THERE ARE NO COMPARABLE CASES THAT WE CAN USE AS REFERENCES, IT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT SUCH A DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AT ALL.

ALSO, THERE ARE MANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND THE TOWNSHIP'S MASTER PLAN.

IF THE MASTER PLAN DOESN'T CORRECTLY REFLECT THE VISION OF THE TOWNSHIP, THEN THIS PLAN MUST BE REVISITED AND REVISED BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS.

IF THE MASTER PLAN CORRECTLY REFLECTS THE VISION OF THE TOWNSHIP, THEN THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST SHOULD BE DENIED.

ALSO ALL THE TRUSTEE MEMBERS ARE ELECTED MEMBERS.

EACH OF YOU SHOULD SPEAK FOR THE RESIDENTS, SPEAK FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND ALSO SHOULD REPRESENT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS.

ANOTHER THING IS, PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T TEST THIS PROJECT, WHICH IN THE PAST, WE WERE TOLD THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WE WILL CONSIDER PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION A LOT IN THE VOTING PROCESS.

I HOPE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD WILL RESPECT THE DECISION MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WILL DENY THE PROJECT.

THE OTHER THING IS, IN THE MODIFIED PROPOSAL, THE DEVELOPER SAID THEY HAVE REDUCED THE DENSITY FOR THE PROJECT.

HOWEVER, THOSE CHANGES WERE MADE DUE TO THE VIOLENCE, NOT DUE TO THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL RESIDENTS.

I HOPE THE TOWNSHIP BOARD CAN ALSO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DAVID LATIMER, AND THEN PRAVEEN RAPARTHI IS ON DECK.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.

MY NAME IS DAVID LATIMER.

I LIVE AT 1491 BELVEDERE AVENUE, WITH MY WIFE, BELL, AND OUR CHILDREN.

WE'VE BEEN RESIDENTS INSIDE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE 2012, SO WE'VE BEEN THERE QUITE A WHILE.

IN THAT TIME, I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ENJOY THE SPACE IN MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, AND THAT INCLUDES RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS RUNNING AND BIKING IN THE SPACE.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL.

I THINK THERE'S CONCERNS WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC DENSITY THAT WILL BE CREATED BY THIS PROPOSAL.

WE ARE BOTH PUBLIC TRANSIT WITH VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND CYCLING TRAFFIC.

I HAVE CONCERNS OVER THE REPLACEMENT OF WETLANDS AND REPLACEMENT THAT WITH RETENTION PONDS THAT DON'T HAVE NATURAL WILDLIFE FEEL AND LOOK, AND THEY REMOVE SOME OF THE SPACES FOR THE WILDLIFE THAT'S THERE TODAY, WHICH WE ALSO ENJOY SEEING.

EVEN THOUGH THE DEER CAN BE SOMETIMES PEST, WE DO HAVE A LOT OF DEER AND TURKEYS AND OTHER WILDLIFE IN THAT SPACE THAT WE ENJOY.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS THIS INCREASED DENSITY OF THESE APARTMENTS WOULD NOT CREATE THE PROPER BUFFER TO THE LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT'S IN OUR SPACE TODAY.

THAT'S A CONCERN, AS MENTIONED BY SOME OTHERS ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT AFFECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES IN THIS AREA.

[00:55:04]

>> THANK YOU. PRAVEEN RAPARTHI, AND THEN PREM NALEGANTI IS ON DECK.

>> HI. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS PRAVEEN RAPARTHI.

I LIVE IN 1565 BELVEDERE AVENUE FROM 2014.

MY NEIGHBORS HAVE ALREADY RAISED IMPORTANT POINTS, I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE FEW ADDITIONAL ISSUES, BUT EVERYBODY TOLD ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS.

I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT, BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE FEW THINGS.

ESPECIALLY, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS UNIQUELY CHARACTERIZED BY THE GREEN TREES AND NATURAL SURROUNDINGS.

DESPITE BEING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OKEMOS CENTER.

IF YOU REMOVE THE GREENERY, SO FAR, WE HAVE GREATER PRIVACY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS BESIDE THE ROAD, BUT WE HAVE VERY PRIVACY IN BETWEEN THE LARGE TREES AND GREENERY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS PROJECT REMOVING THE GREENERY WILL CAUSE THE DIMINISHED THE BEAUTY OF OUR AREA, BUT ALSO NEGATIVELY IMPACT QUALITY AND WILDLIFE HABITATS AND TRAFFIC AND SAFETY.

MOST OF OUR NEIGHBORS TOLD ABOUT TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ALSO.

INCREASED DENSITY WILL INEVITABLY LEAD MORE TRAFFIC CONCERN.

THIS RAISES RISK OF ACCIDENTS BECAUSE OUR ROADS ARE VERY CURVED WHEN WE ENTER INTO THE BOTH SIDES OF THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT WILL CAUSE A LOT OF ACCIDENTS ALSO.

RIGHT NOW ITSELF, THE TRAFFIC COULDN'T ABLE TO ADJUST IN THAT ROAD IN THE WALMART AREA AND THE ENTRANCE TO THE CENTRAL PARK. PLEASE CONSIDER THAT.

SECURITY CONCERN. THIS HIGH RISE DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS OFFER BRINGS CHALLENGES RELATED TO SAFETY AND SECURITY.

OUR CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD FEELS SAFE AND CLOSE KNIT, AND WE WORRY THAT THIS PROJECT COULD COMPROMISE THAT. COMMUNITY CHARACTER.

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS DEFINED BY ITS BALANCE OF CENTRAL LOCATION AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

REPLACING TREES WITH LARGE APARTMENT COMPLEXES WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY.

AS A SIMPLE MAN, SIMPLE REQUEST, PLEASE RESPECTFULLY CONSIDER AS A BOARD MEMBERS AND DO JUSTICE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. PREM NALEGANTI, AND THEN RUPENDA VERDI.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PREM NALEGANTI.

I LIVE IN 1532 BELVEDERE AVENUE.

I'M HERE TO RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE APARTMENTS AROUND MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

BECAUSE MOST OF THE POINTS MY NEIGHBORS HAVE ALREADY EXPRESSED, AND I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT ALL THOSE POINTS, BUT MY MAIN CONCERN IS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC THERE.

IF YOU ALREADY LOOK AT THE MAP, ALL THE ROADS ARE LIKE CURVY ROADS, AND WE ALREADY HAVE SOME BLIND SPOTS THERE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU WANT TO TAKE LEFT ON THOSE ROADS, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TAKE LEFT.

WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR A LONG TIME TO TAKE LEFT.

THE BLIND SPOTS ON THE CURVY ROADS LIKE ALREADY WE COME ACROSS CARS AND PEOPLE WALKING ON THE ROAD, AND SO SUDDENLY PEOPLE COME ON THE ROAD BECAUSE OF THE BLIND SPOTS.

MY REQUEST IS LIKE HAVING THESE APARTMENTS, IT WILL EVEN CREATE A CHAOTIC THING THERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ALSO, THE APARTMENTS ARE CHOKING THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY BREATHING SPACE THERE.

MOST OF THE DENSE AREA IS IN THE FRONT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND GOING IN AND OUT WILL BE A PROBLEM WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC THERE.

THE OTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION IS THE APARTMENTS IS A COMPLEX IS SPLIT INTO TWO AREAS NORTH AND SOUTH AND THERE'S NO PROPER CONNECTIVITY TO THAT, AND THE LEASING OFFICE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE LEASING OFFICE, AND THE SWIMMING POOL IS ON ONE SIDE OF THE PLAN, AND PEOPLE MIGHT WALK AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT WILL BE VERY CHAOTIC.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PEOPLE WALKING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WHEN WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE, WE KNOW THAT SOMETHING WILL COME THERE BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT THAT'S A COMMERCIAL ZONE AND THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

[01:00:03]

>> THANK YOU. RUPENDA VERDI, AND THEN MARK KLAUS IS ON DECK.

THAT WOULD BE THE LAST GREEN CARD WE HAVE, IF ANYONE ELSE WISHES TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, PLEASE COMPLETE YOUR GREEN CARD AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IT MAKES ITS WAY UP TO US AT THAT TIME. SIR.

>> GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS.

MY NAME IS RUPENDA VERDI.

I'M FROM CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, 1551 MAIDEN LANE OKEMOS.

I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THIS PROPOSED PROJECT FOR AS PRAVEEN HAS MENTIONED REASONS ALREADY, BUT AGAIN, MY PET PEEVES ON THIS ONE IS MOSTLY WHILE THESE NUMBERS GOT SO MUCH MANIPULATED IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE BUILT ON THE AREAS WHERE THEY'RE CONSIDERING THREE PARCELS, ONE, TWO, THREE, BUT THIRD PARCEL IS TOTALLY IGNORED AND CRAMMING THOSE NUMBERS INTO THE OTHER NORTHERN TWO PARCELS, WHICH MAKES IT MORE DENSE THAN WHAT NORMALLY THEY'RE ASKING FOR 14 UNITS PER ACRE INSTEAD OF 10 OR 12.

BESIDES OUR CENTRAL PARK IS AT EIGHT PER ACRE.

ARCHITECTURALLY, HOW IS IT LINING UP WITH WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE HAVE THERE, CONSIDERING ALL THE PARTNERS COMING UP? IF YOU LOOK AT THE OKEMOS IN GENERAL, WE HAVE SEEN AREAS WHERE ALL THE APARTMENTS ARE GROUPED TOGETHER AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE GROUPED TOGETHER.

BUT THIS ONE CASE IS PLOPPING A BUNCH OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS RIGHT IN FRONT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS SINGLE HOME FAMILY HOMES.

THE OTHER THING IS, FOR TRAFFIC ITSELF, RIGHT NOW, IT'S THREE LANE WITH A BUFFER LANE, AND PEOPLE USING BUFFER LANE AS PASSING LANES DOESN'T HELP MUCH AS IT IS WITH THE CROWDED ROADS THERE.

MANY TIMES I JUST AWARE ACCIDENTS BY HAIR JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO PASS AROUND ME THROUGH THOSE BUFFER LANES WHERE WE'RE WAITING THERE.

OTHER THING IS, HOW DOES THIS FIT? THESE APARTMENT BUILDINGS FIT WITHIN THE TOWNSHIPS OVERALL PLAN OR ARCHITECTURAL PLAN AS A TOWNSHIP AND THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DOWNTOWN, LET'S SAY, OF OKEMOS.

THESE ARE OUR CONCERNS AND NOT TO MENTION OTHER CONCERNS WHICH ARE DRAINING, TRAFFIC ISSUES, AND LAND PRESERVATION WETLANDS AND WHATNOT.

WHEN YOU PROPOSE SOMETHING, PLEASE KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN PICTURE, AND SOMETHING THAT IS COMING UP ALIGNS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE GOT, AND WE BOUGHT INTO AND WHAT WE CALL HOMES TODAY.

THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS FOR US. IT'S OUR HOMES.

WE WANT TO COME BACK EVERY DAY AND RAISE OUR CHILDREN THERE.

PLEASE CONSIDER BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THIS ONE AND LINE YOUR JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO THE EXISTING PLANS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. MARK KLAUS, AND THEN STEVEN DORN.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARK KLAUS.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE IDE LAND HOLDINGS GROUP.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS BEFORE I START.

ONE IS THAT THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE OF THIS PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS 31 YEARS AGO WHEN THE LITIGATION TOOK PLACE.

THE GOAL OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS IS TO DEVELOP OR SELL FOR DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S NOT A LONG HOLD, AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY WITH THE IDE FAMILY.

THE PROPERTY WILL BE DEVELOPED, AND IT'S NOW LOOKING AT WHAT BEST USE OF THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE, BOTH QUITE HONESTLY FOR OWNERSHIP, BUT ALSO FOR THE COMMUNITY.

AS I SAID, IT'S BEEN 33 YEARS SINCE THE ORIGINAL ORDER, AND 21 YEARS SINCE WE LOOKED AT THE PARTICULAR ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED MULTIFAMILY ADJACENT TO CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.

I KNOW THAT PREVIOUS SPEAKER AND MANY OF THEM THAT SPOKE TODAY DON'T LIKE THE IDEA THAT THERE WOULD BE MULTIPLE FAMILY ADJACENT TO THEIR HOMES.

IN FACT, THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD ALLOW THOSE BUILDINGS TO BE 40 FEET AWAY FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE.

THE PROPOSED PLAN THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING FROM CONTINENTAL SHOWS THOSE BUILDINGS TO BE 110 FEET, THE CLOSEST THERE.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT DOING THESE BUILDINGS NEARLY THREE TIMES THE DISTANCE THAT'S REQUIRED.

THEY'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT DOING TWO STORY BUILDINGS RATHER THAN THREE STORY BUILDINGS IN THIS AREA, WHICH ALSO CHANGES THAT DENSITY LAYOUT.

[01:05:02]

I REALIZE THAT SOME OF THE RESIDENTS CONSIDER PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN APARTMENTS TO BE TRANSIENT, OR WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO FOR RESIDENTS THAT LIVE HERE CURRENTLY? WE'RE LOOKING AT BRINGING NEW RESIDENTS INTO THE COMMUNITY FOR THE CONTINUED GROWTH AND DIVERSITY AND CHANGES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS 15 ACRES ZONE COMMERCIAL.

THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND YOUR OWN STAFF HAVE EXPLAINED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND EACH OF THE REPORTS OF THE OVERALL USE AND THE DENSITY, IF YOU WILL, OF COMMERCIAL IS MUCH STRONGER THAN IT IS OF THE MULTIFAMILY.

THE TRAFFIC GENERATION IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE WITH THE COMMERCIAL.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE TOWNSHIP'S FOCUS ON COMMERCIAL THROUGH ITS MASTER PLAN AND THE STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON BRINGING YOUR COMMERCIAL TO YOUR DOWNTOWN CORE AREAS OF OKEMOS AND HASLETT.

THAT'S WHAT YOUR MASTER PLAN DISCUSSES.

IT DOESN'T DISCUSS EXPANDING IT AROUND THE MALL, AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE PERHAPS 33 YEARS AGO.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THOSE THINGS.

THOSE THINGS HAVE CHANGED.

THE MASTER PLAN DID NOT CHANGE IN THIS AREA, AS TIM HAS EXPLAINED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND I BELIEVE FOR YOU AS WELL, AND THAT'S BECAUSE THIS WAS COURT ORDERED ZONING.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THOSE ITEMS. I'LL BE HERE AS YOU GO ON TO YOUR DISCUSSION, AND BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION.

>> THANK YOU. STEVEN DORN.

>> BUT YOU'RE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS SHOULD THE BOARD HAVE ANY ALONG YOUR WAY? OKAY. THAT IS ALL OF THE GREEN CARDS THAT I HAVE THIS EVENING.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT NOW WOULD BE THE TIME.

SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED AT 7:09 P.M. THAT BRINGS US TO THE ITEM 12 A,

[12.A. Authentix Central Park Project]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON.

I GAVE YOU A BRIEF UPDATE ON WHERE THIS HAS COME BEFORE, BUT TO REITERATE, BOARD HAD THIS ON AUGUST 7, REFERRED IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD A DISCUSSION ON SEPTEMBER 8, JUST ABOUT THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROPERTY, GIVEN THE EXTENSIVE LEGAL HISTORY ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEN HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON 13 OCTOBER AND DISCUSSED IT ON OCTOBER 27 AND NOVEMBER 17.

THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS FOR CHANGING THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO RC ZONING, WHICH IS OUR MIDDLE DENSITY MULTI FAMILY UP TO A MAXIMUM 14 DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE.

BUT ESSENTIALLY, AND AS I'VE SHARED WITH THE BOARD AND AS I'VE SHARED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WE'RE TREATING THIS LIKE A CONDITIONAL REZONING, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION.

THAT'S THE ONLY CONTEXT THAT WE HAD FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THIS IN.

AS PART OF THAT CONTEXT, THE DEVELOPMENT IS LIMITED IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS.

THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS 312.

THEY DID REDUCE THAT DOWN TO 288 BEFORE THE LAST PLANTING COMMISSION MEETING.

THEY HAVE PROPOSED A SETBACK FROM CENTRAL PARK ESTATES OF 110 FEET, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY 100 FEET.

SO THEY INCREASED THAT SLIGHTLY AS WELL.

THEY WOULD LIMIT THE TWO STORY BUILDING HEIGHT TO TWO STORY IN THE AREA BETWEEN COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE, AND UP TO POTENTIALLY THREE STORIES IN THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE WALMART PROPERTY AND TIMES SQUARE.

THE ACCESS POINTS WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE MAIN ROADS.

TIMES SQUARE IN CENTRAL PARK, AS OPPOSED TO COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE.

THERE WOULD BE EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY THERE JUST TO MEET FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPOSAL.

THEN AS PART OF THIS, A COUPLE OF THINGS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, ONE, THEIR BUILDING LENGTH IS ABOUT 20 FEET LONGER THAN OUR ORDINANCE ALLOWS, AND SO THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE TO ALLOW FOR WETLAND BUFFER TO ESSENTIALLY BE NO NET LOSS, BUT IN SOME AREAS, THERE WOULD BE AN ENCROACHMENT IN SOME AREAS, THERE WOULDN'T BE GIVEN THAT THAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THIS PROPOSAL, SINCE THIS PROPERTY ORIGINALLY WENT INTO LITIGATION, AND THAT THE SUP REQUIREMENT OF 25,000 SQUARE FEET ESSENTIALLY BE INCORPORATED IN THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,

[01:10:04]

THOSE ARE THE BACKGROUND PIECES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED ALL ALONG WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD, THERE WERE TWO ITEMS THAT CAME UP THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT, ONE THAT WE WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING ON THE SITE TO 1.75 SPACES PER UNIT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY EVEN LOWER THAN OUR ORDINANCE SHIFTED TO RECENTLY.

SO THIS IS MORE PROOF OF CONCEPT THAT WE'RE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF THE PARKING ORDINANCE.1.75 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT PLUS 17 THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLUBHOUSE AND STAFF AND VISITORS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SLIGHT REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF PARKING REQUIRED.

THERE WOULD BE A MINIMUM 96% OF THE WETLANDS ON THE SITE BEING MAINTAINED.

THAT GOES ALONG WITH THE WETLAND REPORT ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH INDICATES THAT THREE OF THE VERY SMALL WETLANDS ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BETWEEN BELVEDERE AND TIMES SQUARE, 0.01 ACRES, 0.04 ACRES AND 0.07 ACRES ARE NON ESSENTIAL.

THAT DETERMINATION WOULD NEED TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD.

BUT OUR CONSULTANT HAS REVIEWED AND AGREES WITH THAT, THAT THEY ARE NON ESSENTIAL, AND THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS INDICATED THAT THEY INTEND ON ESSENTIALLY PRESERVING ALMOST ALL THE REMAINDER.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF SMALL AREAS THEY NEED TO WORK ON IN THE MIDDLE PROPERTY BETWEEN BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS, BUT THOSE ARE ITEMS THAT WE ADDRESS THE SITE PLAN.

THE LAST PIECE OF ALL THIS IS, THIS STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH A SITE PLAN REVIEW.

THIS IS STANDARD PROCESS WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER THERE'S A LAWSUIT OR REZONING OR JUST A PLAIN OLD SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

SITE PLANS LAST PIECE, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

THAT'S WHEN WE GET THE DETAILS ON THE DRAINAGE.

THAT'S WHEN WE GET THE DETAILS ON THE SEWER DESIGN, AND THE WATER DESIGN, AND THE SPECIFIC ROAD DESIGN AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE STAGE AT WHICH THIS PROJECT FINDS ITSELF AT THIS POINT.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE STAND AT THIS POINT.

LET ME TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE PLAN COMMISSIONS REVIEW.

THE PLAN COMMISSION VERY THOROUGHLY REVIEWED THIS AND ULTIMATELY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY DIRECTLY ANSWERED THE BOARD'S QUESTION, WHICH WAS, SHOULD THE PROPERTY BE REZONED? THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY AGREES THAT IT SHOULD BE REZONED.

WHERE THEY COULD NOT COME TO A CONCLUSION WAS WHAT TO BE REZONED TO.

THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO REZONE TO RC, SUBJECT TO A SERIES OF 12 CONDITIONS.

THAT WAS NOT APPROVED BY A 3-3 VOTE.

A FURTHER MOTION WAS MADE TO REZONE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO RD, WHICH FAILED BY A 2-4 VOTE.

THERE'S CERTAINLY A SPLIT OPINION, BUT THE PLAINTIFF DID DO A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS, AND THAT'S WHY WE SET UP OUR MEMO THE WAY WE DID TO YOU THAT SO YOU COULD REALLY GET THE FLAVOR FROM THEM DIRECTLY, AS OPPOSED TO ME TRYING TO RELATE IT.

BUT SUFFICE TO SAY THEY TOUCHED ON JUST ABOUT EVERY TOPIC YOU COULD THINK OF HERE.

I DO BRIEFLY WANT TO TOUCH BASE ON THE FUTURE LANE SPAC QUESTION.

JUST REITERATE THIS POINT.

GIVEN THE LITIGATION ON THE SITE, AND GIVEN EVEN WHEN WE REPEALED THE CS ZONING, WE HAD TO GO BACK AND GET ANOTHER COURT ORDER.

JUST TO MAKE A CHANGE TO OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, STAFF IN NO WAY WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED A CHANGE TO THE MASTER PLAN AT THIS POINT. IT IS WHAT IT IS.

I RECOGNIZE THAT THE MASTER PLAN IS NOT DIRECTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS REQUEST IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME.

THIS IS A LITIGATION PROCESS.

THIS IS ZONING BY LITIGATION, AND IT DOESN'T ALWAYS COMPLY, IN FACT, RARELY COMPLIES WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

USUALLY WHY YOU GET IN THE LITIGATION IS YOU HAVE ZONING THAT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE.

STAFF HAS NOT HEAVILY RELIED ON THAT, ALTHOUGH THAT IS A FACTOR THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID DISCUSS IN THEIR ANALYSIS OF THIS.

I WILL HAPPILY DISCUSS ANY OF THE TOPICS THAT THE PLAINTIFF WHO SHOULD DISCUSS OR THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC WOULD DISCUSS.

I THINK AT THIS POINT, IT WOULD PROBABLY BEHOOVE ME TO STEP ASIDE AND LET THE APPLICANT PROVIDE THEIR PRESENTATION TO YOU AND GIVE ADDITIONAL FLAVOR THERE AND THEN CIRCLE BACK FOR ANY CONVERSATION THAT THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE.

>> GOOD. OF A BRIEF PRESENTATION FROM OUR APPLICANT, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.

[01:15:19]

>> [BACKGROUND] GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS STEVEN DORN.

I'M A DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AT CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES.

MY ADDRESS IS WEST 134 NORTH 8675, EXECUTIVE PARKWAY IN MENOMONEE FALLS, WISCONSIN.

WE'RE HERE TONIGHT REQUESTING THE TOWNSHIP BOARD SUPPORT TO AMEND THE 2004 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

ALONG WITH ME, I HAVE MY COLLEAGUE, ERIC ON AND OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AS WELL AS MARK KLAUS, WHO JUST PRESENTED BRIEFLY.

SORRY, I GET THE KEYBOARD HERE. [NOISE] AS IT'S BEEN A FEW MONTHS SINCE WE'VE BEEN FROM THE BOARD, I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO REINTRODUCE WHO CONTINENTAL PROPERTIES IS.

WE ARE A PRIVATELY HELD MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPER, OWNER AND OPERATOR BASED OUT OF WISCONSIN.

WE WERE FOUNDED IN 1979 WITH OVER 46 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.

WE HAVE BECOME A LEADING MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPER OWNER IN THE NATION.

WE HAVE DEVELOPED OVER 125 COMMUNITIES IN 19 STATES WITH OVER 30,000 HOMES BUILT TO DATE.

OUR SUCCESS COMES FROM HAVING A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED TEAM, THAT MEANS ALL THE DISCIPLINES ARE IN HOUSE.

MOST NOTABLY, OUR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TEAM THAT MAINTAINS A HIGH LEVEL OF QUALITY THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.

AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, WE ARE AN OWNER OPERATOR, WHICH MEANS WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO SELL THE PROPERTY, BUT RATHER WE MAINTAIN AND MANAGE THE PROPERTY LONG TERM AND WE BECOME A PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

[NOISE] IN MICHIGAN, WE HAVE CURRENTLY ABOUT 1,700 HOMES, EITHER IN OPERATION OR UNDER DEVELOPMENT ACROSS NINE COMMUNITIES.

YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATIONS ON THE MAP ON THE EAST AND THE WEST SIDE OF THE STATE.

WE'RE LOOKING TO GROW OUR PRESENCE IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THE STATE.

AGAIN, WE'VE NEVER SOLD A COMMUNITY IN MICHIGAN, AND WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE WITHIN THE MAN TOWNSHIP.

ALL OF OUR PROPERTIES INCLUDE HIGH END AMENITIES, WHICH INCLUDE A RESORT STYLE, CLUBHOUSE AND POOL, 24 HOUR FITNESS CENTER, DOG PARK, AND COURT YARDS TO SERVE THE RESIDENTS.

[NOISE] THIS IS AN IMAGE OF OUR QUINCY STREET INN, THAT WAS RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED IN HOLLAND, MICHIGAN.

THIS CLUBHOUSE WILL BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE PROPOSE WITH THIS COMMUNITY.

INSIDE THE CLUBHOUSE, THIS IS THE FITNESS CENTER I JUST MENTIONED, AND THIS IS THE RESORT STYLE POOL.

IT'S GOING TO HAVE A SUN DECK.

IT'S GOT SHADE TILES, STRUCTURES.

AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE WOULD HAVE IN THIS COMMUNITY AS WELL.

THEN THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE FRONT FACING BUILDINGS IN THAT COURTYARD.

AGAIN, IT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF THE PEDESTRIAN SCALE, AND THE WALKABILITY WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY THAT WE STRIVE TO SEE.

AGAIN, OUR BUILDINGS HAVE TWO FRONTS.

THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A BACK TO THEM.

THEY HAVE FRONT DOORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THESE BUILDINGS.

SO A QUICK LOOK, AND I'LL BE BRIEF.

A QUICK LOOK AT THE EXISTING PROPERTIES GOVERNED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, JUST GROUND US A LITTLE BIT.

WE'RE SEEKING TO MANAGE THREE PARCELS, [NOISE] TOWARD 30.68 ACRES FRONTING ALONG CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

WALMART'S JUST TO NORTH, COLES IS JUST TO THE WEST, YOU'VE GOT CENTRAL PARK STATES TO THE EAST.

I ZOOMED OUT WITH AN AERIAL HIGHLIGHTING THE SITE WITHIN THE RED BOUNDARY, AND TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT.

TO THE NORTH AND WEST, THERE'S EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL.

TO THE EAST AND SOUTH, THERE'S VARYING RESIDENTIAL USES.

THERE'S CENTRAL PARK ESTATES, AS WE NOTED, GRAND RESERVE, THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION, MULTIFAMILY WITH CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS AND SENIOR LIVING WITH THE WILLOWS AT OKEMOS.

THERE'S NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE UNTIL YOU GET CLOSER TO GRAND RIVER AVENUE.

WE SEE THIS AS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL USE FOR MULTIFAMILY, GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST, AND THEN SINGLE FAMILY TO THE EAST.

AS NOTED, THE EXISTING SITE ZONING UNDER THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWS FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL, WHICH WOULD BE RETAIL, BANK, OFFICES, SUPPLY STORES, ETC, AND RESIDENTIAL.

THE SITE SPLIT ZONE WITH ABOUT 18 ACRES OF LAND CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL USE, AND THAT'S ZONED CS, AND THAT'S DEPICTED IN BLUE ON THE MAP, AND ABOUT 12.4 ACRES OF LAND CLASSIFIED AS A RESIDENTIAL USE, THAT'S ZONED RD, DEPICTED IN GREEN.

THE CS, AS WE NOTED, [NOISE] ALLOWS FOR A MORE AND HIGH INTENSE COMMERCIAL USE, AND THE RD DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR MULTI FAMILY UP TO EIGHT UNITS AN ACRE, 35 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND WITH 45 FOOT BUILDING SETBACKS.

AGAIN, OUR REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO APPROVE TO AMEND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO REMOVE THE COMMERCIAL USES FROM THE PROPERTY AND TO ALLOW UP TO 288 RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN ADDITION TO SPECIFIC SITE RESTRICTIONS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS PRESENTED BY THE NEIGHBORS.

OUR REQUEST IS FOCUSED ON THE LAND USE.

[NOISE] HOWEVER, WE ARE ALSO MAKING SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS AS WELL,

[01:20:01]

MOVING ON TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ON SOME OF THE SPECIFICS., I'VE INCLUDED THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE JULY 22 TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETING AS A REMINDER OF WHERE WE STARTED ORIGINALLY.

WE HAVE SINCE MADE MANY REVISIONS.

AS STAFF NOTED, WE'VE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY BEGINNING BACK IN JULY WITH THE TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETING.

SINCE THEN, WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, AS WELL AS THREE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS WHERE WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.

WE'VE MADE ADJUSTMENT STATE CONCEPT PLAN BASED ON THIS FEEDBACK, AND WE'RE EXCITED TO SHARE THOSE CHANGES WITH THE BOARD TONIGHT THAT WE FEEL ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS.

I'VE ALSO LISTED THE ANTICIPATED TIMELINE FOR PERMITTING REQUIRED THIS DEVELOPMENT IF IT WAS TO MOVE FORWARD.

WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT DETAILED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS THROUGH THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT, INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND E ENERGY, ALSO KNOWN AS EAGLE, AS WELL AS FOR STAFF REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

WE WILL MEET ALL LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES AT THAT TIME.

NEXT, YOU'LL SEE THE REVISED CONCEPT PLAN WE'RE PURSUING.

OVER THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, I WILL HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS FROM THE COMMUNITY.

GENERALLY, WE'VE TRIED TO BALANCE OUR DEVELOPMENT WITH BEING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE, MINIMIZING TRAFFIC CONCERNS, PRESERVING THE EXISTING COMMUNITY CHARACTER WHILE ADDING MORE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY, AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL HIGH QUALITY HOUSING OPTION TO THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY.

SOME GENERAL SITE ADJUSTMENTS MADE OR SHIFTING THE AMENITY SOUTH TO AVOID THE WETLAND IMPACTS.

WE'RE NOW FRONTING OUR BUILDINGS ALONG CENTRAL PARK AVENUE TO CREATE A MORE VISUALLY APPEALING STREETSCAPE.

WE'VE CONDENSED OUR DEVELOPMENT TO MAXIMIZE THE DISTANCE FROM THE ADJACENT SCENE HOME COMMUNITY, WHICH I'LL SPEAK TO MORE ON IN A MOMENT.

>> REGARDING THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY, WE'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY WITH TWO SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS CONNECTING THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY TO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

SPECIFICALLY, THERE'S AN EIGHT-FOOT CROSS COUNTRY PATH ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BELVEDERE, HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THERE AND A FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF COLUMBUS AVENUE, ALSO HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW.

IN ADDITION, WE'LL BE MAKING A SIDEWALK CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING WALMART THROUGH OUR INTERNAL SIDEWALKS, AS WELL AS SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS AT ALL OF OUR SITE DRIVES FOR INCREASED WALKABILITY.

ALSO, WE'RE PROPOSING ADDITIONAL CROSSWALKS AT COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE AVENUE WITH A FLASHING RAPID BEACON CROSSWALK AT COLUMBUS AVENUE.

I WILL SAY THAT THOSE HAVE TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT AS WELL.

ACCESS AND TRAFFIC HAVE BEEN A COMMON CONCERN FROM THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AS WE HEARD AGAIN TONIGHT.

WE'VE REDUCED OUR ACCESS POINT TO ONE POINT THAT DIRECTLY CONNECTS TO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE VERSUS TWO THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN IN JULY.

ALSO, BASED ON THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED AT THE NEIGHBOR COMMUNITY MEETING, WE ARE PROPOSING TO RESTRICT THE TWO ACCESS POINTS AT COLUMBUS AVENUE AND BELVEDERE AVENUE TO EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.

THEY ARE THE TWO CIRCLED IN RED ON THE SCREEN.

THUS, OUR RESIDENTS WILL NOT BE ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TO COLUMBUS OR BELVEDERE AVENUE.

THE COMMUNITY ACCESS POINTS WOULD BE ALONG TIME SQUARE DRIVE, AND CENTRAL PARK DRIVE CIRCLED IN BLUE.

DENSITY HAS BEEN ANOTHER CONCERN PRESENTED BY THE COMMUNITY.

THE CONCERN WITH DENSITY IS MOSTLY ASSOCIATED WITH TRAFFIC, HEIGHT AND PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.

I'LL TOUCH ON TRAFFIC IN A MOMENT, BUT WE'VE REDUCED OUR MAXIMUM DENSITY FROM 312-288 AS NOTED.

PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD AN ADDITIONAL 24 UNITS BEING PROPOSED IN GENERAL LOCATION AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IN RED.

IN ADDITION, WE HAVE RESTRICTED THE DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF BELVEDERE AVENUE TO A MAXIMUM OF TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT.

THIS VERY CLOSELY ALIGNS WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY IN THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES COMMUNITY.

IN ADDITION, WE'VE PROPOSED TO REDUCE THE PARKING, AS DIRECTOR SCHMIDT NOTED TO 1.75 STALLS.

THIS ALIGNS WITH WHAT WE NEED TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITIES WHILE NOT PROVIDING UNUSED PARKING STALLS AND ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS.

IN ADDITION TO THE HEIGHT LIMITATION, WE ARE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE BUILDING SETBACK ADJACENT TO THE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES FROM THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 45 FEET TO A TOTAL OF 110 FOOT MINIMUM.

THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT ILLUSTRATES IN BLUE THE REQUIRED 45 FOOT MINIMUM PER THE BUILDING SETBACK PER THE EXISTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

IN RED, THE MINIMUM THAT WE ARE PROPOSING OF 110 FEET, WHICH IS ABOUT 2.44 TIMES WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS REQUIRED.

ALSO INCLUDE AN IMAGE ON THE LEFT.

IT'S JUST A SECTION VIEW, LOCATE A BUILDING 4.

THAT HELPS GRAPHICALLY UNDERSTAND OR ILLUSTRATE THAT DELTA WITH THE TOP BEING A SECTION THAT WOULD BE MINIMUM PER THE ORDINANCE.

THE BOTTOM SECTION IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING FROM BUILDING TO BUILDING SEPARATION IS OVER 150 FEET.

[01:25:01]

WE'RE WELL OVER THAT AS YOU PROGRESS NORTH AND SOUTH ON THE SITE. REGARDING TRAFFIC.

WE HAVE CONDUCTED A TRAFFIC STUDY BY A LICENSED TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AND THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT ALL INTERSECTIONS AND MOVEMENTS IN THE STUDY WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE.

FURTHERMORE, CENTRAL PARK DRIVE IS OPERATING AT LESS THAN HALF OF ITS ALLOWABLE CAPACITY WITH OUR TRAFFIC INCLUDED.

AS WE NOTED, PER THE EXISTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, COMMERCIAL USES ARE ALLOWED, THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE INTENSE USES THAN WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING.

THUS, WE HAD OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER RUN SOME POTENTIAL SCENARIOS OF THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT VERSUS THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

OUR PROPOSAL IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ON THE MAP ABOVE.

THE PROPOSED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IS 1,862 DAILY TRIPS FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS ABOUT 2,600-6,500 DAILY TRIPS LESS THAN THE THREE SCENARIOS THAT WE RAN THAT WILL BE ALLOWED PER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TODAY.

THE RESULTS OF THIS EVALUATION SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS EXPECTED TO GENERATE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS TRAFFIC THAN WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THE EXISTING CONSENT JUDGMENT TODAY.

THUS, WHILE WE CONTINUE TO HEAR CONCERNS OF TRAFFIC, OUR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN WHAT COULD BE BUILT WITH THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

WETLANDS. THEY'RE ALSO A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION, AND WE'VE DONE I THINK A GOOD JOB, I'M PROUD OF THIS ABLE TO ADJUST THE SITE PLAN OR THE CONCEPT PLAN RATHER TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT.

RIGHT NOW, WE'RE COMMITTING TO 96% OF JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND PRESERVATION WITH CURRENTLY ONLY 0.04 ACRES OF IMPACT PROJECTED.

THAT'S ACTUALLY MORE CLOSER TO 99%.

YOU CAN SEE THERE'S TWO AREAS ON WETLAND ON THE NORTH SIDE.

THE TIP OF THIS WETLAND HERE AND THEN THE TIP OF THIS WETLAND HERE.

WE MAY NEED THAT FOR UTILITY IMPACT DESIGN.

WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH STAFF IN THE COUNTY TO SEE IF WE CAN AVOID ALL JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND IMPACTS AS WE MOVE TO THE SITE DESIGN.

REGARDING STORM DRAINAGE, WE'RE PROPOSING TWO STORMWATER DEVICES THAT ARE GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE DARKER GREEN AREAS ON THE SCREEN.

THIS WILL CAPTURE AND TREAT OUR STORMWATER FOR THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION STANDARDS, AND WILL BE REVIEWED AT THE TIME OF ENGINEERING DRAWINGS WITH THE REVIEW BY THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION.

IN ADDITION, WITH REDUCTION IN DENSITY AND THE REDUCTION IN THE PARKING RATIOS, I WANTED TO PRESENT THIS GRAPHIC OF THE PERVIOUS AREA, WHICH IS EVERYTHING IN GREEN TO HELP VISUALIZE HOW MUCH OF THE 36 ACRES WILL ULTIMATELY BE OPEN SPACE IMPERVIOUS.

OUR DEVELOPMENT IS VERY EFFICIENT WHILE BALANCING THE SITE CONSTRAINTS AND WILL PROVIDE WELL OVER HALF ALMOST TWO-THIRDS OF THE SITE AS PERVIOUS AND OPEN SPACE.

NOW IT'S MUCH DIFFERENT THAN, I WOULD SAY A TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE ORIENTATION OF WHY THE BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED WHERE THEY ARE IS BECAUSE OF THE SITE CONSTRAINTS AND TRYING TO BALANCE AND PRESERVE AS MUCH OF THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL ITEMS AS WE CAN.

FURTHERMORE, BASED ON THE REVISIONS PROPOSED WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN AND THE COMMITMENTS MADE, WE BELIEVE OUR SITE PROVIDES MANY PUBLIC BENEFITS AND ALIGNS WELL WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

WITH INCREASED SETBACKS AND SIMILAR HEIGHTS OF THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WE ARE PRESERVING THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER WHILE PROVIDING A MORE IDEAL TRANSITIONAL LAND USE FROM THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPER.

THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED THAT'S WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY WITH ADEQUATE UTILITIES TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY.

IT REDIRECTS COMMERCIAL USES TO MORE APPROPRIATE TOWNSHIP AREAS.

IT ELIMINATES OBSOLETE ZONING REGULATIONS WITH THE CS ZONING.

IT PRESERVES THE NATURAL RESOURCES WITH OVER 96% OF THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS PRESERVED.

WE'RE MITIGATING TRAFFIC CONCERNS WITH THE SITE SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS LIMITING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON ROADS UTILIZED BY THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

IT INCREASES THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS BY FILLING GAPS OF NASSAU STREET TO CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, PROVIDING THE COMMUNITY WITH A SAFER WALK TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

IN ADDITION, I'VE INCLUDED A THREE MODEL RENDERING OF THE CONCEPT PLAN AS YOU'RE LOOKING FROM CENTRAL PARK ESTATES INTO OUR SITE AT OUR ACCESS AS YOU'RE HEADING NORTH.

AGAIN, IT GIVES YOU A VISUALIZATION OF WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT FRONT DOOR TO LOOK LIKE.

HERE'S A 3D MODEL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN AND HOW THE SITE IS ANTICIPATED TO FIT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMUNITY.

I'VE OUTLINED THE GENERAL BOUNDARY IN RED, AND IT GIVES A GOOD SENSE OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS AND OUR APARTMENTS, AS WELL AS HOW MUCH GREEN SPACE AND VEGETATION THERE ULTIMATELY WILL BE ON THE PROPERTY.

[01:30:08]

I WILL NOT REPEAT THEM, BUT THEY ARE LISTED HERE FOR REFERENCE, AS WELL AS THE REVISION TO NUMBER 5, WHICH IS THE REDUCTION FROM 312-288 UNITS.

THEN AS WELL AS HERE ON CONDITION 8 BEING REVISED FROM 100 FEET TO 110 FEET FOR THE BUILDING SETBACK ON THE WESTERN LOT LINE NEAR TO THE UNITS IN CENTRAL PARK ESTATES.

IN CONCLUSION, WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY.

WE BELIEVE IT NOT ONLY ALIGNS WITH THE MASTER PLAN, BUT IT ALSO ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY, REMOVES OUTDATED ZONING CLASSIFICATION, PROVIDES A BETTER TRANSITION TO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORS AND BALANCES GROWTH WITH BEING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE.

BASED ON THESE COMMITMENTS AND THE CONTINUED EFFORT TO INCORPORATE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBORS, STAFF, AND PLANING COMMISSION, WE REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT TO AMEND THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION AND THIS EVENING, BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS LONG AS MY TEAM AS WELL, IF I CAN ANSWER.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL CALL ON YOU IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MR. SCHMIDT, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR DISCUSSION?

>> NO, SIR.

>> BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE US DISCUSSION ITEM THIS EVENING.

I'LL POINT OUT FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH OUR PROCESS.

WE TYPICALLY DON'T TAKE THINGS UP FOR FINAL ACTION TONIGHT THAT WE ARE PRESENTED TO US.

WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE MEETING OF DISCUSSION.

IF YOU ARE EXPECTING US TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT, WE WILL NOT.

PLEASE BEAR THAT IN MIND AS WE CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION HERE.

ANY BOARD MEMBERS WISHING TO KICK IT OFF THIS EVENING? YES. TRUSTEE WILSON.

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR SCHMIDT.

IS THERE ANY PRECEDENCE FOR A 96% WETLAND PRESERVATION IN ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOWNSHIP?

>> AS A GENERAL RULE, WE HAVE A NO NET LOSS POLICY.

REGARDLESS OF ANY IMPACT, THEY'RE GOING TO MITIGATE TO GET US BACK TO IF IT'S TWO ACRES AND YOU TOUCH A HALF ACRE.

AS A GENERAL RULE, MOST PROJECTS TEND TO AVOID THEM WHEREVER POSSIBLE.

WHAT YOU SEE IS STUFF LIKE THIS WHERE IT'S LIKE THE EDGES OR LITTLE FINGERS THAT GET IMPACTED BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THE WHOLESALE FILLING OF WETLANDS IS A VERY CHALLENGING PROSPECT IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN IN GENERAL, LIKE NOT JUST US, ALTHOUGH WE DO HAVE LOCAL REGULATIONS THAT ARE MORE STRICT IN THE STATE.

BUT THE STATE REGULATIONS ARE PRETTY STRICT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEM AS A WHOLE.

I CAN'T GIVE YOU A NUMBER.

BUT THAT'S WHAT I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE ON A PROJECT.

I THINK THE FACT THAT THEY WERE RECOGNIZING AND TRYING TO PUT IT OUT THERE IS ADMIRABLE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN GIVE YOU A GOOD COMPARISON.

THAT'S BECOME PRACTICE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO IMPACT WETLANDS AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.

>> ABSOLUTELY. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE DO HAVE TO INFILL A PORTION OF THE WETLANDS, WHY WE CANNOT GET AROUND THAT AND DO THE PRESERVATION OF THE WETLANDS IN THEIR ENTIRETY 100%.

>> YES, I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY A CONVERSATION THAT CAN BE ADDED.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THE REQUEST THAT IF THIS WAS A NORMAL PROJECT, THERE WOULD BE WETLAND USE PERMIT REQUEST AT THIS POINT TO FILL 0.04 ACRES OF WETLAND WITH MITIGATION ON THE SITE.

IT'S JUST THE WAY THIS PROJECT IS BECAUSE OF THE LITIGATION AROUND IT.

IT'S JUST BEING BROUGHT UP NOW OUTSIDE OF THAT CONTEXT.

WE'RE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION EARLIER THAN WE WOULD NORMALLY EXPECT TO HAVE IT.

>> COULD YOU TALK ABOUT SIDEWALKS? AREN'T SIDEWALKS REQUIRED WHEN A NEW DEVELOPMENT COMES IN? ARE THERE GOING TO BE SIDEWALKS AS FRONTAGE ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, AS WELL AS THE TWO PROPOSALS ALONG COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE?

>> THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE TOWNSHIPS PATHWAY MASTER PLAN INDICATES A PATHWAY BETWEEN POWER ROAD AND CENTRAL PARK ESTATES TO THE NORTH OF BELVEDERE, RUNNING AND AS OF YET TO BE DETERMINED LOCATION, WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND WHAT THEY'VE PROPOSED AND WHAT WE SUGGESTED.

TALKING ENGINEERING WILL MEET THE INTENT OF THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN IS TO MAKE THAT EIGHT FOOT WIDE PATHWAY THAT WOULD THEN BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PATHWAY NETWORK.

THEN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAN FIGURE

[01:35:02]

THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> SORRY, JUST TO CLARIFY. NOT REQUIRED BY TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES BUT WOULD BE OFFERED HERE BY THE APPLICANT?

>> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE SIDEWALKS IN GENERAL ALONG COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE I HAVEN'T REALLY DUG INTO IT.

I WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T GET BUILT ORIGINALLY CANDIDLY BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT MY SUSPICION IS THEY WERE LEAVING THEM TO BE ADDRESSED WITH THIS PROJECT SO THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO RIP SOMETHING OUT AND PUT IT BACK IN LATER.

CERTAINLY, WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A FIVE FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK, NO MATTER WHAT.

IT'S THAT UPGRADES TO THE EIGHT FOOT THAT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND.

>> IS THERE A SIDEWALK ON THE FRONT EDGE OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE?

>> THERE IS.

>> YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR COMMENTS EARLIER THAT THE BUILDING LENGTHS ARE 20 FEET LONGER THAN ALLOWED. IS THAT WHAT I HEARD?

>> YES. ORDINANCE HAS A SOMEWHAT UNIQUE PROVISION THAT LIMITS BUILDING LENGTHS 200 FEET.

THEY'RE PROPOSING 220 FEET, ESSENTIALLY, AND INSTEAD OF BREAKING THEM OFF, THEY WOULD HAVE ARTICULATION IN THE FACADE.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF A PROVISION LIKE THIS HISTORICALLY IS SO YOU DON'T END UP WITH JUST A BIG RUN OF BUILDINGS IN A STRAIGHT LINE.

TWO HUNDRED FEET IS STILL A LONG WAY TO RUN A STRAIGHT LINE.

I WOULD PREFER THE WAY THEY'RE DOING IT IS ARTICULATING THE FRONT EDGE AS OPPOSED TO JUST 200 FEET A STRAIGHT LINE.

BUT THAT IS THE CURRENT STANDARD IN THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT IS 200 FEET.

>> PIGGYBACK ON THAT.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> ARE THEY ASKING THEN FOR US TO INCLUDE A VARIANCE TO THAT ORDINANCE IN THIS SETTLEMENT DISCUSSION, OR ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE EPA?

>> THAT IS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT DISCUSSION.

I THINK AND ATTACH OF ATTORNEY KUSHAL IS BEHIND ME AND WE'LL THROW SOMETHING AT ME IF I SPEAK OUT OF TURN.

BUT, I THINK THE ANTICIPATION HERE IS THAT ANY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS GOING TO BE A UNIVERSAL.

THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANOTHER SET OF APPROVALS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE A LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE GUIDING THIS.

>> YOU'RE FINE. THANK YOU. ARE WE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT?

>> THE FUTURE LANDS MAP ABSOLUTELY CALLS FOR COMMERCIAL ON THE PROPERTY.

AS I SAID, STAFF HAD NO INTENTION OF REVIEWING OR CHANGING THAT DURING THE MOST RECENT UPDATE BECAUSE OF THE LITIGATION ON THE PROPERTY.

CERTAINLY, IF YOU REVIEW THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN, YOU WILL FIND PLACES WHERE ABSOLUTELY MEETS, AND YOU'LL FIND PLACES WHERE PEOPLE WOULD AGREE TO DISAGREE ON WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN.

BUT I THINK THAT'S WHY A MASTER PLAN IS AN ASPIRATIONAL DOCUMENT.

YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY, WE WANT 42 UNITS OF BRICK TOWN HOMES.

WE WANT THESE ASPIRATIONAL THINGS, AND HOW DOES THE MARKET AND THE TOWNSHIP IN PARTNERSHIP BRING THOSE FORWARD?

>> PARCEL A IN OUR DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO AS PARCEL 3 IN THE DEVELOPER'S DOCUMENTS IS UNBUILDABLE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE WETLAND THERE?

>> I WOULD NOT NECESSARILY SAY THAT, BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A CHALLENGE TO BUILD ON.

I WOULD LIKE TO ZOOM THERE.

>> SOUTH OF COLUMBUS.

>> THE WETLAND IS HERE.

THERE IS UPLAND HERE.

IT'S NOT BIG, BUT CERTAINLY FROM A COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVE, YOU COULD PROBABLY BUILD SOMETHING ON IT.

THIS DEVELOPMENT'S PERSPECTIVE, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ADD THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR LIKE ONE BUILDING.

YOU WOULD JUST LEAVE IT.

>> YOU REFERRED TO RC ZONING 14 UNITS PER ACRE AS MEDIUM DENSITY?

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S THE MIDDLE.

LET ME DOUBLE CHECK IT.

>> MIDDLE, I THINK IS EIGHT RD, BECAUSE WE HAVE RDD AT FIVE.

>> I MAY HAVE JUMPED UP ONE ON YOU.

RC AND RN ARE THE SAME.

IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHART, THAT'S IN MY HEAD.

RDD IS FIVE, RD IS EIGHT, RC AND RN ARE BOTH 14, AND THEN RCC IS 34.

>> FORGET ABOUT THE 34. THANK YOU.

THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBERS, I SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT, ATTORNEY KUSHAL IS HERE, IF WE HAVE ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS SINCE THIS IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND NOT SIMPLY TRADITIONAL REZONING OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

I'D LIKE TO JUST TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE JUST TO LAY THE FOUNDATION OF WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

[01:40:03]

AFTER THREE MEETING, THE STATE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, YES, IT NEEDS TO BE REZONED.

THEY ATTEMPTED SEVERAL TIMES TO DEFINE WHAT IT SHOULD BE REZONED AS AND EVENTUALLY ULTIMATELY DECIDED NOT TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION AGAINST SEVERAL ZONINGS, WHICH FRANKLY, I THINK IS MORE OR LESS EQUIVALENT TO NOT PROVIDING AN ANSWER OF ANY KIND, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT IT DOES HAPPEN AND SO HERE WE ARE HAVING TO WORK ON THIS IN THAT WAY.

THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY DID COME TO QUITE DEFINITIVELY IS THAT, YES, IT SHOULD BE REZONED IN THEIR OPINION.

GENERALLY, I AGREE WITH THAT NOTION.

I THINK, THAT THE CS COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT'S PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY IS NO LONGER APPROPRIATE FOR IT.

WE HAVE SEEN WITH THE EXPANSION OF ONLINE RETAIL.

WE HAVE SEEN THAT THERE'S COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT GOES VACANT, THAT GOES DORMANT, AND THERE'S PLENTY OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL SPACE THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP THAT COULD BE UTILIZED IF SOMEONE WISHED TO LOCATE THEIR BUSINESS HERE.

THE QUESTION THEN FOR ME, BECAME WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REQUESTED ZONING, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS RC OR SOME OTHER VARIANT OF THE ZONING, WHICH WAS LESS DENSE, BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT 34 UNITS PER ACRE WOULD BE A BIT ABSURD ON THIS LOCATION.

WE WERE ASKED ABOUT COMPARABLE CASES.

I KNOW I HEARD ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS MENTION THAT DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT THIS EVENING.

I THINK, THERE ARE PLENTY OF COMPARABLE CASES FOR REZONING'S, AND PLENTY THAT WOULD MOVE TO MULTIFAMILY AND PLENTY OF THAT WOULD MOVE TO RD.

I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN DIRECTOR SCHMIDT'S MOUTH HERE, BUT I THINK THE LACK OF COMPARABLE CASES IS SURROUNDING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS A METHOD OF ZONING, AS OPPOSED TO THE TYPICAL ZONING PROCESS, WHICH WE OF COURSE, HAVE SEEN MANY TIMES BEFORE.

THERE ARE PLENTY OF COMPARABLE CASES WHEN IT COMES TO THE REZONING'S THAT WE HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH.

DIRECTOR SCHMIDT HAS IDENTIFIED THAT THIS WAS LEFT OUT OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE MASTER PLAN THE LAST TIME AROUND, AND THERE'S PLENTY OF REASONS FOR WHY THAT MIGHT BE.

I THINK THE LONG STANDING NATURE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND LACK OF KNOWN ACTIVITY ON THIS PARCEL WOULD CERTAINLY LEAVE ONE TO LEAVE IT ALONE.

IN THE 30 YEARS THAT THIS PARCEL HAS EXISTED UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WE MUST HAVE UNDERGONE SIX MASTER PLANS PROBABLY?

>> AT LEAST FIVE.

>> AT LEAST FIVE UPDATES TO THE MASTER PLAN, AND THIS HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED IN ANY OF THEM, LARGELY FOR THOSE SAME REASONS I WOULD SUSPECT.

THE QUESTION BECOMES FOR ME, WHAT IS THE DENSITY THAT WE WOULD SEEK TO ACHIEVE HERE? IS HOUSING EVEN THE RIGHT OPTION? I THINK DIRECTOR SCHMIDT, WE'VE HAD A HOUSING STUDY DONE ABOUT WHAT OUR NEEDS MIGHT BE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS OR SO, IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> CORRECT.

>> WE HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHAT THAT MIGHT HAVE SAID?

>> I BELIEVE IT'S 1,500 UNITS, AND DIRECTOR CLARK IS PROBABLY TEXTING MY PHONE RIGHT NOW TO REMIND ME THE NUMBER.

SHE STEPPED AWAY TO GET TO AN EVENT.

I BELIEVE IT'S 1,500 UNITS OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

>> 1,500 UNITS OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS IN ORDER TO WHAT?

>> TO GET US TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE NOW, NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FUTURE GROWTH.

IT'S A BIT OF A CAT CHASING ITS TAIL TYPE STUDY BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU NEED NOW FOR THE FUTURE.

THEN IN THE FUTURE, THAT NUMBER WILL INEVITABLY GO UP BECAUSE EMPLOYMENT DEMAND, ETC, WILL INCREASE.

>> IT'S ESSENTIALLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE HAVE A HOUSING SHORTAGE OVER THE NEXT DECADE.

>> ENTIRE REGION DOES, YES.

>> IT'S NOT TERRIBLY OUT OF STEP WITH WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE FROM A HOUSING PERSPECTIVE, THAT WE WOULD MAYBE CONSIDER MOVING THIS TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

THEN HOW DENSE? I PERSONALLY

[01:45:02]

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT RD THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY WOULD MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE IN TERMS OF BEING ONE, INTERNALLY CONSISTENT, AND TWO, COULD ACCOMPLISH THE BRINGING OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING WITHOUT OVER STRAPPING THE AREA.

NOW, I ALSO HAVE A TAKE ISSUE, AND THIS IS WHERE I'LL ASK ATTORNEY KUSHAL THIS NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS, I DON'T APPRECIATE, I DON'T LIKE THE NOTION OF USING THE ACREAGE OF THE SOUTHERN PARCEL TO INCREASE THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THE SITE IN ORDER TO BOOST THE UNIT COUNT.

MY THOUGHT IS IF THEY ARE PLANNING ON USING THAT ACREAGE FOR A BUILDING, THEN FINE.

BUT I DON'T LIKE USING THE ACREAGE FROM THAT SITE FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THAT.

MY QUESTION TO YOU ATTORNEY KUSHAL WOULD BE, SINCE THIS IS A RELATIVELY UNIQUE PROCESS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE, WE ARE GIVEN MORE OR LESS CARTE BLANCHE TO PUT IN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT DIFFER FROM OUR STANDARD ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOW WE WOULD HANDLE A PARCEL LIKE THIS, ARE WE NOT?

>> CORRECT. I WOULD SAY LESS THAN CARTE BLANCHE.

BUT THE THRUST IS CORRECT BOTH IN CONCEPT AND IN TERMS OF WHERE I SEE YOU GOING.

ON THE ONE HAND, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WITH MULTIPLE PARCELS TO UNDERSTAND WITH THE DEVELOPER HOW THOSE CALCULATIONS ARE GOING TO BE ARTICULATED AND UNDERSTOOD WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE CRITICISM, IF I CAN CALL IT THAT OF THIS PARCELS VACANT, THEREFORE, I DON'T WANT TO COUNT IT.

IT'S NOT CONVINCING TO ME AS A BOARD MEMBER FOR A DENSITY CALCULATION.

I THINK, THAT'S A VALID COMMENT.

THEN IN THE CONTEXT HERE, YES, GIVEN THE SETTLEMENT DYNAMICS, AND THE FACT THAT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT REZONING AS PART OF THE REQUEST THAT'S COMING IN TO THE BOARD, AND THE FACT THAT WAS THE FUNDAMENTAL INITIAL LITIGATION.

WHEN WE BRING THESE INTO COURT, A SETTLEMENT DOES ALLOW FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY THERE BECAUSE IT RECOGNIZES, THERE'S SOME GIVE AND TAKE HERE BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO TRY AND RESOLVE A DISPUTE WITHOUT HAVING TO LITIGATE IT, WHICH GIVES YOU THAT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF ARTICULATING HOW WE'RE GOING TO CALCULATE OR APPLY CONDITIONS ON THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT BEING PROPOSED.

>> THANK YOU. BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, I WILL TRY TO STOP FROM ASKING SO MANY QUESTIONS THAT MAKE YOU JUMP UP.

THE TOWNSHIP AND THE IDE, FAMILY ARE TWO OF THE PARTIES TO THIS LITIGATION.

THERE IS A THIRD, IS THERE NOT?

>> CORRECT.

>> WHAT APPROVAL, IF ANY, DO WE HAVE TO RECEIVE FROM THAT THIRD PARTY IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD ON ANYTHING HERE?

>> MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO HAVE APPROVAL FROM THAT THIRD PARTY, AND WHICH IS THE WALMART STORES.

INITIALLY, THE PLAINTIFFS WERE WALMART AND IDE WITH THE TOWNSHIP.

THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE, AS HAS BEEN REFERENCED, THIS IS 30 YEARS OF LITIGATION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED IN THE LATE 2000S WAS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH WALMART AS TO SOME OF THEIR PIECES, AND IDE'S DID NOT PARTICIPATE AT LEAST ON THE DOCUMENT SIDE.

GETTING INTO THE DETAILS, WHEN NOW I CAN SAY, WELL, WE FLIPPED THE SCRIPT HERE.

THIS IS MAINLY IDE FOCUS PROPERTY AWAY FROM THE WALMART.

THAT MAY PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF WHEN WE REALLY GET INTO THE DETAILS, WHAT DO WE NEED WALMART TO SIGN OFF ON AS ORIGINAL PARTY TO THE LITIGATION? BUT IT DOES ALSO EXTEND UP, AND THERE'S A SIDEWALK CONNECTION INTO THEIR COMPLEX.

THERE'S SOME IMPACTS THERE.

I WOULD PLAN THAT ALL THREE PARTIES WOULD COME TO THE TABLE AND BE PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS.

IF SOMETHING MOVES FORWARD, THERE MAY BE ABILITIES OF ONE PARTY TO MOVE FORWARD ON THEIR PIECES WHILE

[01:50:02]

I THINK THEY'RE ALL COMING TOGETHER, BUT THEY CAN ALSO WORK WITH THE TOWNSHIP IN A SEMI INDEPENDENT FASHION, IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

>> WELL, I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD APPRECIATE INCLUDING THEM IN SO FAR AS AT LEAST GETTING A LETTER OF SUPPORT OF WHATEVER THE AGREEMENT APPEARS TO BE BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION ON IT HERE.

I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE RIGMAROLE OF COMING TO AN AGREEMENT, SENDING YOU AND THE IDE'S TO COURT, ONLY TO HAVE WALMART SHOW UP AND TRY TO SCUTTLE THIS AT THE LAST SECOND, WHATEVER ANY CHANGE HAPPENS TO BE.

I WOULD PREFER BEFORE THE BOARD TAKES ACTION THAT WE GET SOME ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM THEM THAT EITHER THEY WILL SIT OUT, OR THAT THEY ARE TACITLY APPROVING BY NOT BEING INVOLVED IN WHATEVER IT IS THAT GETS DONE.

I'LL MAKE THAT COMMENT OUT TO THE WORLD.

CAN SOMEONE TELL ME THE ACREAGE OF THE MIDDLE SITE AND THE NORTHERN SITE, PLEASE? INDIVIDUALLY.

>> THE NORTHERN PARCEL IS 13.1 ACRES, THE MIDDLE PARCEL IS 12.84 ACRES.

>> I ASK BECAUSE MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO RESTRICT IT BY PARCEL, AS OPPOSED TO CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE THREE PARCELS WHEN DOING THE CALCULATING FOR THE UNITS.

MY QUICK MATH HERE TELLS ME THAT, THAT WOULD LEAVE 104 UNITS POSSIBLE 0.8 ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL, AND 102.72 ON THE MIDDLE PARCEL, AND SO WOULD REDUCE THE TOTAL OF POSSIBLE UNITS FROM THE 288 THAT WAS PROPOSED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM DOWN TO 206, 207.

>> THAT TO ME FEELS FAR MORE REASONABLE WHEN IT COMES TO THE DENSITY CALCULATIONS OF THESE SITES.

I THINK IS A MIDDLE GROUND.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY WITH THIS.

I DON'T PRETEND TO HOLD THAT BELIEF.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT IS LESS DENSE, WOULD HAVE LESS TRAFFIC IMPACT, AND WOULD ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO USE THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS THAT WE ALWAYS CONSIDER HERE IS THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES HAVE RIGHTS, AND THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY UNDER THE ZONING THAT'S APPROVED.

I BELIEVE THAT, RESIDENTIAL ZONING BEING A BETTER USE OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF DENSITY IS FAR MORE REASONABLE AND BETTER TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS.

I'D ASK FOR A COUPLE OTHER THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED AS WE LOOK AT THIS.

ONE, I APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL DISTANCE TO THE EAST FROM THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

I WOULD ASK THAT THE DEVELOPER PUT THAT INTO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

A CONSERVATION EASEMENT WOULD ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO THE EAST TO KNOW THAT THAT LAND WILL NEVER BE DEVELOPED WHILE STILL ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER TO USE THAT LAND IN THE CALCULATION FOR THEIR DENSITY.

I THINK THAT'S FAIR.

I TALKED ABOUT OR THOUGHT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A LAND DONATION, BUT APPARENTLY, A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS WHAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE, AND WOULD ALLOW EVERYONE TO BENEFIT FROM THEM.

I'D ALSO ASK THAT THEY CONSIDER THAT ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL AS WELL.

IT'S LESS IMPACTFUL ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL BECAUSE THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ISN'T DIRECTLY ABUTTING, BUT I DO THINK IT'S STILL IMPORTANT.

I DO APPRECIATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATHWAYS AND THE SIDEWALKS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY NOTES THERE.

ON THE DRIVEWAYS, IT'S APPROPRIATE TO FILTER THOSE OUT INTO CENTRAL PARK AND A TIME SQUARE.

WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER PROPOSALS THE EMERGENCY BALLADS BEING USED TO ALLOW FOR

[01:55:03]

AND YOU CAN JUST GIVE ME A THUMBS UP FROM OUR DEVELOPER HERE? AM I SEEING CORRECTLY THAT THE BALLADS HAVE BEEN REMOVED ON THE ROUTE CANAL, MADISON AVENUE, ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THAT NORTHERN PARCEL?

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. WE HAVE NOT DONE ANY ADJUSTMENTS.

>> I SAW THEM ON ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PACKETS.

I DON'T SEE IT LISTED IN THIS EXHIBIT B THAT YOU'VE GOT HERE.

I'LL SIMPLY SAY THAT I THINK THAT THE BALLADS ON THAT ONE SHOULD BE LEFT OFF.

YOU ARE THE EXISTING RESIDENTS IN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE NORTHEAST CURRENTLY HAVE AN ACCESS POINT OUT OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD INTO TIME SQUARE DRIVE, AND I THINK TO TAKE THAT AWAY WOULD BE ILL-ADVISED.

IT'S CONTRARY TO THE OTHER AREAS, WHICH I THINK THE BALLADS MAKE SENSE; ON THAT ONE, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE BALLADS ARE ACTUALLY A DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IMPACTS ON THE SCHOOLS, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT EXCEPT TO SAY THAT WHEN I WAS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER FOR SEVERAL YEARS, I HAD GOTTEN INTO A HABIT OF CONTACTING THE SUPERINTENDENT OR THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY TO VERIFY THEIR THOUGHTS ON A NEW PROPOSAL COMING IN.

I WILL SAY THAT UNCEASINGLY AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THE ANSWER WAS ALWAYS YES, WE HAVE NO ISSUE.

NOW, THERE ARE SEVERAL THAT HAVE COME IN SINCE THEN, BUT NEW FACILITIES ARE ALSO BEING BUILT.

I HAVE NOT REACHED OUT TO THEM ON THIS ONE YET.

I WILL PRIOR TO THE FINAL DECISION THAT WE MAKE ON THIS.

BUT TYPICALLY, THE ANSWER HAS BEEN A POSITIVE ANSWER. YES.

>> CAN I ADD THAT A MEETING WITH THE OAK MOS PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF TRUSTEES LAST NIGHT? I ASKED THIS EXACT QUESTION, AND THEY SAID WE HAVE CAPACITY.

I SPECIFICALLY NOTED THIS DEVELOPMENT, GRAND RESERVE, THE FEDERAL PROPERTY, AND I SAID IT'S GOING TO ADD THIS MANY UNITS POTENTIALLY, AND THEY SAID IT IS NOT A PROBLEM.

>> THEN THE LAST THING IS THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT AND THE INGHAM COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSION.

THESE ORGANIZATIONS TYPICALLY ARE LAST THEREABOUTS OR TOWARD THE END OF THE PROCESS.

LET ME CLARIFY FIRST, THOSE COME TYPICALLY AFTER A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

>> HOW I WOULD QUANTIFY THEIR POSITIONING IS ONCE WE'VE DONE THE LOCAL PLANNING AND POLICY PART, THEY GET INVOLVED WITH THE NUTS AND BOLTS.

THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE, ACTUALLY, AND WE DO THE POLICY, AND THEN THERE'S THE CONSTRUCTION OVER HERE.

BUT THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF MAKING SURE THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF EVERYTHING IS GOING TO WORK CORRECTLY.

>> FOR MY PEACE OF MIND AND THE PEACE OF MIND OF THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IF EVEN IN SOME RELATIVELY INFORMAL WAY, THE ROAD DEPARTMENT AND THE DRAIN COMMISSION COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND PROVIDE SOME INFORMAL SIGN-OFF THAT THEY'RE GENERALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THIS AND THAT WOULD HELP, I THINK TO OFFER A LOT OF PEACE OF MIND TO OUR RESIDENTS THAT ARE IN THE ADJACENT COMMUNITY, THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE FACING, LOTS OF WATER RUNOFF OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

JUST A GENERAL, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE CONCEPT PLAN, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED DETENTION.

IS THIS IN THE BALLPARK OF WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT WOULD SUFFICIENTLY CAPTURE THE WATER? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT PRIOR TO ANY APPROVAL FROM OUR BODY.

>> WE WILL CERTAINLY ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN.

I JUST WANT TO SET EXPECTATIONS THAT I DO NOT EXPECT WE WILL GET THE ANSWER YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO ASK.

>> WHICH IS ANY ANSWER AT ALL.

>> WHICH IS ANY ANSWER AT ALL. CORRECT. THEY'RE GOING TO SEEK A FORMAL SUBMITTAL BEFORE THEY PROVIDE REAL FEEDBACK.

BUT WE'LL CERTAINLY ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN.

>> WE HAVE TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS BEST WE CAN.

>> TO BE CLEAR, WE TRIED. TO CAST NO ASPERSIONS ON MY STAFF, WE DID ATTEMPT.

>> THEN LASTLY, TRAFFIC, WHICH I THINK IT WAS THE ONE COMMENT THAT WAS MENTIONED IN EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC, BOTH IN WRITTEN FORM AND ALSO HERE TONIGHT.

[02:00:04]

I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC STUDIES.

IT'S IMPORTANT AND VERY CHALLENGING TO LOOK AT A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR AN EXISTING PARCEL THAT IS VACANT AND SAY, HOW DO I COMPARE THIS TO WHAT'S POSSIBLE TODAY, BUT ISN'T IN USE? HAVING LOOKED AT A LOT OF THESE, I'VE BECOME, I THINK, A LITTLE MORE ACCUSTOMED TO HOW WE HANDLE TRAFFIC STUDIES AND HOW WE THINK ABOUT THEM.

BUT FOR FOLKS WHO ARE LOOKING AT THEIR FIRST ONE IN THIS PARCEL NEXT TO THEIR PROPERTY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS THEORETICALLY COULD BE A BIG BOX COMMERCIAL.

THIS THEORETICALLY COULD BE A LOT OF STRIP MALL WITH A LOT OF VERY POPULAR BUSINESSES.

I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT THAT WAY TODAY, THE TRAFFIC GENERATION THAT COULD OCCUR IS WHAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS COMPARING THIS RESIDENTIAL PROPOSAL AGAINST.

I SAY THAT SO I CAN SAY THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE THAT I THINK THAT IT'S CHARACTERIZED APPROPRIATELY WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIP GENERATION, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AGAINST THE COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES THAT ARE EXISTING TODAY.

I DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH THE STUDY ITSELF AS OF ABILITY TO GAUGE WHAT THE TRAFFIC MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

THERE WAS ONE PERSON WHO HAD AN ALLEGATION THAT IT WAS HALF AS MUCH AS IT SHOULD BE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE CASE, HAVING LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF THESE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY MISSED ALL THE RETURN TRIPS.

THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT FINAL NUMBER.

I'VE BEEN MONOLOGUING FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES HERE.

BUT JUST AS A SUMMARY RECAP, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS RATHER THAN THE RC THAT WAS REQUESTED, THAT MY PREFERRED WAY FORWARD WOULD BE TO REZONE THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARCEL, BOTH PARCELS, I GUESS, ALL THREE, TO RD, INSTEAD, WHICH IS EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, RESTRICT THE DENSITY CALCULATION TO EACH INDIVIDUAL PARCEL, AS OPPOSED TO CONSIDERING ALL THREE IN ONE LUMP.

REDUCING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS FROM 288-206 APPROXIMATELY ON THE NORTHERN AND CENTRAL PARCELS.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE CONSIDER REQUESTING OR CONDITIONING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE 110-FOOT BUFFER TO THE EAST OF A CENTRAL PARCEL, AT LEAST.

CONTINUING ON WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE ALREADY PUT IN PLACE OR SUGGESTED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL FOR THE PATHWAYS, THE WETLAND CONSERVATION, AND SIDEWALKS AND PATHWAYS IN THE CONSERVATION.

THE ACCESS POINTS AT CENTRAL AND PARK AND TIME SQUARE DRIVE ONLY WITH EMERGENCY BALLADS AT THE BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS STREETS, AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE WETLANDS, WHICH I THINK WAS A GOOD ONE AS WELL.

I ALSO CONTINUE TO AGREE WITH THE NO BUILDINGS HIGHER THAN TWO STORIES IN THE CENTRAL PARCEL, THOUGH I THINK THE DENSITY REDUCTION PROBABLY WOULD HAVE LIKELY TAKEN CARE OF THAT ALREADY.

THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT AND MY SUGGESTION FOR HOW WE MOVE FORWARD.

I'M OPEN TO ANY FEEDBACK OR OTHER PROPOSALS IF THERE ARE ANY ON THE BOARD, AND I GUESS, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE FOR A MOMENT. YES.

>> THANK YOU FOR LEADING US THROUGH THAT, SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON.

I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH YOUR SUGGESTION OF CAPPING AROUND 207, 206 UNITS BASED ON THAT REDRAWN AND ELIMINATING THAT SOUTHERNMOST PORTION.

JUST ADDRESSING A COUPLE OF THINGS IN YOUR BACK AND FORTH WITH MR. SCHMIDT.

AS THE PERSON WHO SITS ON THE TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT NUMBER YOU CITED WAS VERY CLOSE.

WE'RE SHORT 1,448, AND THEY ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL NEED ANOTHER 01,652 UNITS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS IN ORDER TO STAY AS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AS WE ARE.

[02:05:09]

IN OUR COMMUNITY, THE UPJOHN FOUNDATION, WHICH DOES RIGOROUS PUBLIC RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THAT EVEN MARKET RATE HOUSING DOES IMPROVE HOUSING STOCK ON AN AFFORDABILITY LEVEL, IN ADDITION TO, EVEN IF IT IS NOT MARKETED SPECIFICALLY AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I'M INCLINED TO TRUST THOSE WHO RESEARCH THIS ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS.

TIM, TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF THINGS, THE 12.4 THAT IS CURRENTLY ZONED RD, THE PLAN AS OF NOW, BECAUSE OF WHERE THAT IS SITUATED, THOSE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT 100 IN TOTAL, THEY CAN ONLY EXIT ONTO BELVEDERE AND COLUMBUS, CORRECT? IF IT IS LEFT THE SAME, SO DOES CS, UP AGAINST CENTRAL PARK AND THEN THAT WOULD FORCE THE 100-UNIT INDIVIDUALS TO EXCLUSIVELY USE THOSE EXITS?

>> WE HAVE SITUATIONS IN THE TOWNSHIP WHERE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS EXIT THROUGH COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

MOST NOTABLE IS THE NISSAN DEALERSHIP ACTUALLY SHARES A DRIVEWAY WITH AN APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE REAR.

I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SAY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO, BUT IT CERTAINLY BECOMES A LOT MORE DIFFICULT TRYING TO COORDINATE THROUGH AN UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

>> FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS, I DON'T THINK PUTTING MORE CARS ON COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE IS WHAT ANYONE IS ASKING FOR.

I DO APPRECIATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUGGESTING THAT SOME CHANGE BE MADE.

I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH WHAT SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON HAS SUGGESTED HERE, AS SOMEONE WHO USED TO LIVE IN CENTRAL PARK APARTMENTS RIGHT THERE.

I ALSO APPRECIATE THE SHOUT-OUT OF KEEPING MADISON AVENUE OPEN.

THAT WAS A CHOKE POINT.

IF YOU WERE TO ASK ALL OF THOSE RESIDENTS TO EXIT ON FIFTH AVENUE AND ON TO TY HARD, IT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE BACK THERE.

ALSO, I CAN SAY THAT, I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT BEFORE LEARNING ABOUT THIS PROCESS.

I THINK IT'S AN ADEQUATE WAY OF KEEPING THE WETLANDS THAT SO MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS DO CARE ABOUT AROUND.

I AM INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT OTHER APPROVAL WOULD NEED TO BE DONE BY VARIOUS BODIES NEEDED FOR THIS, BUT AS IT STANDS, IF THE APPLICANT IS OPEN TO THE MYRIAD OF ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ON THIS, I THINK THIS FACILITATES A LOT OF GOOD NEW HOUSING THAT WE NEED, AS WELL AS MAKING SURE THAT A NEW NEIGHBOR, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE OWNING APARTMENTS DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T BE NEIGHBORLY, FEELS THAT THEY ARE LISTENED TO AND ARE WELCOMED INTO THIS COMMUNITY.

EXCUSE ME. THAT'S ALL.

>> TRUSTEE SENTIMENT.

>> JUST A QUICK LITTLE OBSERVATION.

IT'S IN A WAY, IT'S TOO BAD ON THE SOUTHERN PART, THOSE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE BACKING UP TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT'S TOO BAD THEY WOULDN'T JUST DISAPPEAR.

I'M JUST SAYING BECAUSE IF THEY WEREN'T THERE, THE RESIDENTS WOULDN'T BE AS UPSET ABOUT ALL THIS GOING IN. I THINK.

>> I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT.

MY WISH LIST THAT IS MY CHRISTMAS WISH LIST.

>> SURE. THANK YOU. TRUSTEE JESSE.

>> I APPRECIATE YOUR LAYING OUT THESE PROPOSALS AND THOUGHTS.

I DO TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU.

THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE RATHER THAN ZONING IT BY PARCEL.

TO GIVE A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY TO THE BUILDER, GIVEN WHERE THE WETLANDS ARE.

COMBINE THE TOP TWO AND USE THAT, AND ELIMINATE THE BOTTOM ONE THAT HAS NO BUILDING ON IT.

STILL ROUGHLY THE SAME NUMBER OF ACREAGE, BUT IT DOES OFFER THE ABILITY TO MITIGATE AROUND THE WETLANDS A LITTLE MORE EASILY.

>> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND.

REZONE THE WHOLE THING,

[02:10:01]

>> NOW WE HAVE DONE ZONING OR INCLUDED PROPERTY THAT COULDN'T BE BUILT UPON IN A CALCULATION OF THE TOTAL UNITS THEY COULD PUT ON THERE.

EVEN WITH THE MALL, WHEN WE BOUGHT THE MARKETPLACE ON THE GREEN, WE HAD TO GIVE THEM, OR WE HAD TO SUPPLY THEM WITH SOME WETLANDS TO OFFSET.

THEIR PERCENTAGE UNDER THEIR SUP OR MUPUD, WHICHEVER THEY HAD STAYED WITHIN THE LIMITS, SO THAT THEY HAD ENOUGH PROPERTY THAT WASN'T BUILT UPON, SO THAT THEY STAYED WITHIN THAT.

BUT I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF SINCE THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A NON-BUILDABLE AREA NOT INCLUDING THAT IN THE CALCULATION.

>> I'M SORRY, I MEANT TO ASK ONE QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT.

IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE AND KNOW THIS INFORMATION BALLPARKING.

OUTSIDE OF THIS PROJECT THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE, WHAT IS THE AVERAGE SIZE OF YOUR MICHIGAN PROJECTS THAT YOU MAINTAIN RIGHT NOW? YOU MENTIONED HALL 1, AND THERE ARE QUITE A FEW OTHERS.

I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE SIZE.

>> I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. THANK YOU.

>> WE CAN RUN THROUGH THE REST OF OUR MICHIGAN PORTFOLIO.

WE HAVE THE PARKING RATIOS FOR EACH BEDROOM TYPE, SO IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL HERE THAT WE'RE PURSUING.

OUR FIRST AUTHENTIC COMMUNITY IN THE STATE IS 240 HOMES TOTAL.

THAT'S AUTHENTIC'S QUINCY STREET AND HOLLAND TOWNSHIP.

OUR FIRST SPRING'S COMMUNITY IN GRAND RAPIDS CHARTER WAS 248.

OUR SECOND SPRINGS COMMUNITY IN WYOMING WAS 300 OR IS 300 HOMES.

MORE RECENTLY, WE'RE BUILDING 284 HOMES IN COMMERCE TOWNSHIP AND 300 IN CANON TOWNSHIP.

>> THANK YOU. I ASKED BECAUSE I DID NOTICE HOW MANY LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION FROM OTHER TOWNS WERE INVOLVED IN THE CITIES THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT, SO I WAS CURIOUS IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIMILAR SIZE, WHICH, IF ANYTHING, IS THAT 207 IS THE MAGIC NUMBER FOR THIS.

IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S VERY WITHIN YOUR RANGE OF WHAT IS REASONABLE FOR YOUR WORK.

>> TYPICALLY, WE'RE SEEKING ABOUT MID TWO HUNDREDS FOR OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY.

BELOW THAT, OUR EXPENSES RISE, AND THE EXPENSE RATIO DOESN'T WORK OUT WITH PAYROLL.

TYPICALLY, SO THAT'S JUST A METRIC WE USE.

USUALLY, THERE HAS TO BE SOME OFFSET FOR THE PAYROLL WHEN WE ARE SUB 240, 250.

LATELY, WITH BUILDING COSTS RISING, WE'RE SEEKING YIELD TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK FOR THE EQUITY REQUIRED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN.

MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, ESPECIALLY IN ILLINOIS, WE'RE SEEKING UPWARDS OF 320 HOMES.

THOSE DENSITIES RANGE FROM REALLY UPWARDS OF 15 UNITS AN ACRE.

COMMERCE TOWNSHIP IS CLOSE IT'S ABOVE 20, SO THOSE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMUNITIES.

I WOULD COMMENT THAT EIGHT UNITS AN ACRE IS A TOWNHOME DENSITY, AN OCCUPIED DENSITY.

MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, IF WE HAD OUR DRUTHERS WITH BUILDINGS PLACED ON THE USABLE LAND OR TYPICALLY WITH THIS BRAND OF HOUSING, OPERATING AROUND 17 UNITS AN ACRE.

HOLLAND WAS 11.98 JUST FOR EXAMPLE.

>> GOT YOU. THANK YOU FOR GIVING THAT INFORMATION. I APPRECIATE IT.

>> OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.

>> I WANTED TO ADDRESS PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND SPECIFICALLY, SOMETHING THAT I RECALL HAS HAPPENED SO FAR.

I WANT TO FOCUS ON BUILDING TRUST BACK IN OUR COMMUNITY, REVIVING THIS PROJECT, AND I SEE THAT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY TO TRY TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY CONCERNS, BUT THERE ARE STILL PUBLIC CONCERNS SURROUNDING THIS.

I THINK ONE INCIDENT THAT DREW MY ATTENTION WAS THE TREES BEING TORN DOWN ON THIS PROPERTY, AND I KNOW THAT WAS IN VIOLATION, AND I DO WANT TO COMMEND DIRECTOR SCHMIDT AND HIS DEPARTMENT FOR SHUTTING DOWN THE SITUATION BEFORE IT CONTINUED.

BUT I JUST WANT TO KNOW, CAN THE DEVELOPERS GUARANTEE THAT

[02:15:01]

>> I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE DEVELOPER WASN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.

THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY OWNER?

>> PROPERTY OWNER.

>> IT WAS AN INTERNAL MISCOMMUNICATION ON THEIR END.

THERE WERE NO TREES OF ANY SIZE REMOVED.

BUT FOR COMPARISON, WE HAVE A SITUATION ON HASLETT ROAD RIGHT NOW.

WE WERE ACTUALLY TRYING TO CALCULATE HOW MANY TREES WERE REMOVED BECAUSE IT WAS FAR MORE THAN WE WERE ORIGINALLY LED TO BELIEVE.

IN THIS CASE, THEY ESSENTIALLY STARTED GRUBBING THE LAND, WHICH IS THE FIRST STEP OF CLEARING ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALKS AND SO I THINK CERTAINLY THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP HAS INDICATED THAT THEY ARE VERY AWARE OF WHAT OUR PROCESS IS GOING FORWARD AND ARE EVEN, IN PREPARATION OF JUST PUNCHING HOLES FOR GEOTECHNICAL.

UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WILL NEED A LAND CLEARING PERMIT, EVEN THOUGH PROBABLY NOT REQUIRED.

GEOTECH HOLES ARE PRETTY COMMON, BUT IN THIS CASE, WE ARE REQUIRING ONE.

THE DEVELOPERS ARE AWARE.

THE PROPERTY OWNER IS VERY APOLOGETIC THAT IT HAPPENED.

I MEAN, THAT'S NOT HOW THEY FUNCTION AS A GENERAL RULE.

BUT IT HAPPENED, AND SO WE ADDRESSED IT QUICKLY, AND WE HAVE MOVED ON, AS IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO OUR LAND USE DISCUSSION.

>> BUT WITH THAT, GOING BACK TO THE 96% OF WETLANDS BEING PRESERVED, I DO HAVE CONCERNS.

WE'VE HAD ISSUES ON THIS PROPERTY PRESERVING THE LAND TREES, AND NOW OUR WETLANDS.

HOW CAN WE GET IT TO 100%? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK TOWARDS SO THAT WE CAN PRESERVE OUR LAND PROPERLY?

>> THAT'S A VALID POINT THAT WE'LL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.

I THINK THE THREE NON-JURISDICTIONAL, NON-REGULATED WETLANDS ARE ESSENTIALLY A COUPLE OF HOLES IN THE GROUND THAT ARE FAR SMALLER THAN THIS ROOM.

THEY ARE PROBABLY NOT SALVAGEABLE.

I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED TO ANYTHING HYDROLOGICALLY.

THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREAS.

THEY WERE NOT ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED TO BE PRESERVED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BUT WE CERTAINLY TAKE THAT MESSAGE BACK TO THEM AND TRY AND AVOID THOSE LAST TWO SMALL IMPACTS TO THE REGULATED WETLANDS.

RECOGNIZING THE WORK THAT I WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO THE SMALL IMPACTS.

>> HAS THE LAND PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD BEEN MADE AWARE OF THIS? I WOULD BE AWARE OF THIS PROJECT.

I SERVE ON THE BOARD, SO I HAVEN'T HEARD OF IT.

HEARD OF US DISCUSSING THE WETLANDS FOR THIS PROJECT DURING BOARD DISCUSSION, BUT HAS THIS BEEN BROUGHT UP TO THE BOARD AT ALL?

>> NO, MA'AM. THE LAND PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD WOULD HAVE NO ROLE IN THE PROJECT LIKE THIS.

>> NOT EVEN TO TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?

>> CORRECT. A WETLAND PERMIT WOULD GO TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION SHOULD ONE BE SUBMITTED.

>> HAS THAT OCCURRED?

>> NO, IT HAS NOT. WE ARE NOT AT THAT POINT IN THE PROCESS.

>> WHAT POINT IN THE PROCESS WOULD THAT OCCUR?

>> WHEN A WETLAND PERMIT WOULD BE SUBMITTED.

I THINK PART OF THE DISCUSSION HERE IS THAT IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A WELL AND IMPACT, HOW DOES THAT GET INCORPORATED INTO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, OR NOT? IT WOULD BE A FUTURE ITEM IF THEY CHOOSE TO MAKE AN IMPACT.

>> JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, THERE WAS AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION.

ONE OF THE COMMENTS DIRECTOR SCHMIDT MADE ABOUT THE EXISTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT AGAIN, WE'VE HIT ON, BUT IT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE TRAFFIC PIECE OF WE HAVE COMMERCIAL UPFRONT.

WHAT WOULD THAT TRAFFIC LOOK LIKE? IT'S NOT JUST WHAT IS THE REAL ESTATE IS AND HOW IT COULD BE DEVELOPED, BUT ALSO WHAT THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ALLOWS FOR VERSUS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE'S TWO OR THREE PARTIES COMING TO THE TABLE.

IT'S WEIGHING WHAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED OVER THE COURSE OF THESE 30 YEARS, AND WHAT COULD BE THERE AND POTENTIALLY WHAT'S ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED VERSUS WHAT'S COMING FORWARD NOW, AND THOSE TRADE-OFFS, AND SPEAKING TO THE MASTER PLAN ABOUT HOW WE CAN REACH THE GOALS FROM A MASTER PLAN PERSPECTIVE? I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT.

[02:20:02]

SOME OF THOSE DETAILS COULD BE FUN FOR ME, PROBABLY NOT FOR EVERYONE ELSE.

>> I'LL ENJOY THEM WITH YOU.

>> THAT SOUNDS GOOD. I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT.

JUST AGAIN, THE UNIQUENESS OF WHAT WE'RE POTENTIALLY DEALING WITH.

>> NEXT QUESTION, SO AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 17, AS SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON MENTIONED, THERE WAS NO REAL RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THE ZONING DESIGNATION.

WHICH ZONING DESIGNATION SHOULD THIS BE CLASSIFIED AS? I SEE THAT THEY PROVIDED TWO MOTIONS, ONE ON RC ZONING AND ONE ON RD ZONING.

AS I AM A FAIRLY NEW BOARD MEMBER, ARE THERE ANY OTHER ZONING DESIGNATIONS THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR THIS?

>> I MEAN, IN THEORY, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, BUT REALISTICALLY, THOSE ARE THE TWO DESIGNATIONS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING?

>> CORRECT.

>> SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT AGREE TO RECOMMEND.

DID NOT VOTE TO AGREE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION ON EITHER OF THOSE ZONING DESIGNATIONS, I WOULD ASK OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US WITH HOW WE SHOULD CLASSIFY THIS REZONING? IF THEY ARE NOT SAYING A VALUE OF RC OR RD ZONING.

HOW SHOULD WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? IF RESIDENTS CLEARLY HAVE OPPOSITION TO THIS, WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID CONSIDER.

THEN I WOULD ASK, HOW CAN WE COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING HERE? HOW CAN WE COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING TO SEE HOW THIS ZONING WILL BENEFIT THE TOWNSHIP, BECAUSE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, I GUESS, HOW I SEE IT.

I'M TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION RESIDENTIAL CONCERNS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDRESSED BEFORE DECIDING ON THIS.

>> WELL, I'LL TAKE A STAB AT THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION, WHICH IS, HOW DO WE GO FORWARD GIVEN THEIR LACK OF RECOMMENDATION? ULTIMATELY, WHAT THEY PROVIDE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO US, WHERE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING GETS REZONED OR NOT EVEN IN THE TYPICAL PROCESS.

IN THIS CASE, WE'RE ASKING FOR A LEGAL CHANGE TO A LEGAL ASSIGNMENT THAT THE TOWNSHIP IS A PARTY TO, AND WE ARE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON THAT AS WELL.

I WATCHED THAT MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND, AT THE END OF IT, IT FELT LIKE THE SENTIMENT WAS WELL.

WE DON'T KNOW. WE KNOW IT SHOULD BE REZONED.

WE KNOW THAT NONE OF THE PROPOSALS THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT AT THE TIME WERE PERFECT, AND THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO RECOMMEND EITHER OF THEM.

THEY GAVE LOTS OF REASONS THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THAT MEETING AS TO WHY AND WHY NOT. THAT WAS THE CASE.

ULTIMATELY, ONE OF THE ELECTED BODIES OF THE TOWNSHIP, IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO COME TO A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ON THIS.

WHICH IS WHY I WAS SUGGESTING AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT WAS BEING REQUESTED AND BEING PROPOSED IS WHICH I PERSONALLY FIND TO BE MORE PALATABLE.

BUT IT'S UP TO THIS GROUP TO DETERMINE WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ALL SENT HERE TO DO.

>> I APPRECIATE YOU PROVIDING YOUR PERSPECTIVE HERE BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF YOUR SUGGESTIONS, THINGS THAT I CAN EVEN CONSIDER, LIKE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, COULD BE SOMETHING TO LOOK INTO.

>> YOU MENTIONED HOW WE ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND BECAUSE OF IT, WE ARE MEANT TO REPRESENT A RESIDENT IN THE TOWNSHIP.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT INCENTIVE WE WOULD HAVE TO SUPPORT THIS TYPE OF PROJECT THEN.

AS WE SAW WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY DID OPPOSE.

THE MOTIONS FAILED TO RECOMMEND RC AND RD ZONING.

THERE WAS CLEAR OPPOSITION.

WE JUST WATCHING THE MEETING.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER, AND I THINK THAT IS INFLUENCED BY OUR RESIDENTS.

>> CERTAINLY WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING THAT FEEDBACK AS WELL,

[02:25:01]

RESIDENTS ARE HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT IT, AND I SUSPECT THAT IF THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN CONSIDERING WHAT I SUGGESTED EARLIER, THE FOLKS IN THE ROOM AND THE FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO ARE WATCHING AT HOME AND HEAR ABOUT THIS WILL LIKELY EQUALLY WEIGH IN ON THAT AS WELL.

I SUSPECT THAT THIS IS NOT THE LAST WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR RESIDENTS ON THIS ISSUE.

WHENEVER I TAKE UP A REZONING, AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY OBVIOUSLY THAT WE'VE CONSIDERED OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO WEIGH THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND THEIR CONCERNS, AS WELL AS THE OVERALL BENEFIT TO THE TOWNSHIP AS A WHOLE.

WE KNOW THAT WE NEED MORE HOUSING IN THE TOWNSHIP.

WE HAVE STUDIES THAT SHOW IT.

MANY OF US RAN ON BRINGING A MORE AFFORDABLE VERSION OF HOUSING TO THE TOWNSHIP.

THE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT MORE HOUSING WILL, EVENTUALLY, BRING DOWN THE COST OF ALL HOUSING BECAUSE IT'S A SUPPLY AND DEMAND QUESTION, IT'S BASIC ECONOMICS.

I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THE TREPIDATION OF THE NEIGHBORS.

IT'S A BIG ASK TO HAVE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BETWEEN WHERE YOU LIVE AND THE ROAD.

I'M IN A UNIQUE POSITION WHERE I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BETWEEN ME AND THE MAIN ROAD.

I'M IN OKEMOS SQUARE, AND BETWEEN OKEMOS ROAD AND GREYSTONE DRIVE, THERE IS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF THIS HAD BEEN BUILT IN THE OPPOSITE ORDER, IF THEY HAD BUILT A MULTIFAMILY AND THEN BUILT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, I DON'T IMAGINE ANYONE WOULD BE HERE TONIGHT IN OPPOSITION TO EITHER OF THOSE PROJECTS.

IT'S ONLY BECAUSE IT'S COMING IN SINGLE FAMILY FIRST THEN MULTIFAMILY.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES NEXT TO A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT.

THE CONCERNS, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE FEAR OF THE CHANGE AND THE FEAR OF SOMETHING NEW COMING IN, THEY ARE MY NEIGHBORS.

THEY'RE JUST PEOPLE.

THEY WALK THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE TRAFFIC IS MINIMAL.

THEY GO TO THEIR HOMES, I GO TO MY HOME, AND TRULY THERE'S VERY LITTLE IMPACT.

CENTRAL PARK DRIVE IS A CHALLENGE SO AS OKEMOS ROAD.

I'LL TELL YOU THAT THE TRAFFIC IS JUST A CHALLENGE ACROSS THE TOWNSHIP ANYWHERE.

I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DISMISSIVE OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC, BUT I DO THINK WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT THE FACT THAT TRAFFIC IS A CONCERN ON ALL OF OUR MAJOR ROADS.

I THINK ALL WHAT WE CAN DO IS ATTEMPT TO DO OUR BEST TO TRY TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT.

I THINK ONE, KEEPING FOLKS OFF OF COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE IS CERTAINLY ONE WAY TO DO THAT.

PUTTING IN SOME PEDESTRIAN I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE RRFP CONTROLS FOR PEDESTRIANS.

CERTAINLY WOULD BE HELPFUL.

YOU'VE SEEN AT WORK WONDERS ON CENTRAL PARK JUST TO THE WEST IN FRONT OF THE FARMERS MARKET.

I PERSONALLY THINK THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM SOME RESIDENTS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO ANYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING HERE.

I WEIGH THOSE CONCERNS AGAINST THE GREATER GOOD OF BRINGING HOUSING TO THE TOWNSHIP, WHICH WE KNOW WE DESPERATELY NEED, WHICH WE HOPE WILL BRING DOWN THE OVERALL COST OF LIVING OVER TIME.

SO THAT'S MY RATIONALE, MY THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND IT.

YES, I'M SORRY.

IF YOU HAVE MORE YOU'RE WELCOME TO KEEP THE.

>> JUST ONE COMMENT. ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE, IN THE TOWNSHIP, IS MORE AFFORDABLE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WISH THAT WE HAD MORE OF A FOCUS ON.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I RAN ON, AND I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY CARE VERY DEEPLY ABOUT.

WHILE I DO SEE THE VALUE OF BRINGING IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AND I CAN UNDERSTAND BRING IN MORE UNITS CAN BE BENEFICIAL TO THE TOWNSHIP AS A WHOLE.

HAVING PLACES TO LIVE HERE IN THE TOWNSHIP AND TO BUILD AND GROW FAMILY.

THAT IS THE DREAM, AND THAT IS WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE MOVE HERE, SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

[02:30:03]

>> TRUSTEE WILSON?

>> I AGREE, BUT WE CAN'T BRING THE DEVELOPMENT OURSELVES.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A DEVELOPER COME FORWARD AND SAY, I'D LIKE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND WE'VE EVEN CREATED AN ORDINANCE TO HELP THEM EXECUTE THAT.

I CONCUR WITH SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON'S OPINION.

I HAVE BELIEVED ALL ALONG THAT THIS LAND SHOULD BE RESIDENTIAL.

THE COMMERCIAL BUILD-OUT IN THE CORE IS PRETTY MUCH DONE, WE HOPE.

IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE THAT THIS BE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING, AND CERTAINLY THE DEMAND IS THERE FOR THAT.

THERE ARE TWO OTHER STIPULATIONS THAT WERE IN OUR NOTES ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

I BELIEVE THESE CAME FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 12 CONDITIONS.

TWO, WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED.

ONE, IS THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A DETAILED GRADING PLAN.

THE SECOND IS THAT ALL LIGHTING ON THE SITE SHALL MEET STANDARDS AND NOT GO OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LIMITS.

I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE GET THOSE TWO CONCERNS INTO OUR OTHER CONDITIONAL APPROVED INTO OUR OTHER SITE PLAN CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE LIGHTING, IN PARTICULAR, IS ALREADY REQUIRED BY [INAUDIBLE].

>> IT IS.

>> BOTH ARE ALREADY REQUIRED.

STAFF PROVIDED THOSE AS CONDITIONS TO TRY AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE BEING RAISED.

>> THANK YOU.

>> TO ADD TO YOUR ANSWER, SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON, IN ADDRESSING THE COURSE CONCERNS.

ONE OF MY BIGGEST ISSUES, THAT I THINK I'VE HEARD MOST FROM RESIDENTS, IS THAT COLUMBUS AND BELVEDERE TRAFFIC, AND I THINK WITH THE RD ZONING, MORE THAN LIKELY HAVING TO FUNNEL OUT ONTO THOSE ROADS, BECAUSE OF CS TRAPPING IT THERE BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY AND CS, IT NATURALLY CREATES THAT CONSEQUENCE.

I WOULD SAY, MOST IMPORTANTLY, FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WANT TO HAVE THAT TRANQUIL AND WOODSY BACK YARD ON NASA ROAD, A 45' DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THAT FIRST BUILDING, WHICH IS WHAT IS ALLOWED IN RD HOUSING IS MOTIVATING TO ME.

IF WE DID REDUCE IT TO THE NUMBER PROPOSED BY SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON, 110' SEEMS TO BE AT THE VERY MINIMUM, WHERE IS 45' AS WE SAW IN SKETCHES IS PRETTY MINIMAL.

THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WAS INTERESTED IN SEEING WHERE THIS PROJECT COULD GO RATHER THAN A FLAT REJECTION OF THAT IDEA.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I THINK WE'VE GIVEN YOU THE ROUGH IDEA OF SOMETHING WE'D LIKE TO AT LEAST TALK ABOUT IN THE FUTURE HERE.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVEN'T GIVEN THE APPLICANT A WHOLE LOT OF ROOM.

THIS WAS PRESENTED AT THE SAME TIME TO THEM AS IT WAS TO EVERYONE.

MY SUGGESTION IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS WOULD BE THAT WE GIVE THEM THE NEXT TWO WEEKS TO CIRCLE AROUND INTERNALLY AND IDENTIFY THE FEASIBILITY STAFF CAN THEN ALSO RUN DOWN REQUESTS OUT TO SOME OF THESE OTHER AGENCIES WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.

THEN WE'LL SEE IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION. AND WHAT?

>> AND WALMART.

>> AND WALMART. SHOULD PROBABLY REACH OUT TO WALMART.

THEN WE COULD SEE THIS BACK, PERHAPS, FOR DISCUSSION AT OUR NEXT MEETING, NOT FOR ACTION.

>> CERTAINLY. THAT IS THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD.

I CERTAINLY THINK THAT THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO BE SEEKING SOME CLARITY ON THIS PROJECT SOONER THAN LATER, BUT WE WILL BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT MEETING.

THAT IS THE DESIRE OF THE BOARD.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THAT'S NOT THE END OF OUR AGENDA.

BUT WHILE WE LET FOLKS, YOU WANT TO TAKE A COUPLE OF MOMENTS HERE? LET'S TAKE A THREE-MINUTE RECESS VERY QUICK, IF WE COULD.

WE'LL BE BACK AT 8:40.

[NOISE]

[02:39:37]

>> YEAH. IS HE THERE?

>> YEAH.

>> OKAY. YES. THANK YOU.

>> LET'S BRING OURSELVES BACK.

[02:40:20]

[12.B. Haslett Road Corridor Study Proposal]

>> GOOD EVENING, SUPERVISOR HENDRICKSON, AND BOARD MEMBERS.

SO THIS EVENING BEFORE YOU IS A PROPOSAL FROM SPALDING DEDECKER.

SPALDING DEDECKER WAS RETAINED BY THE TOWNSHIP THROUGH A COMPETITIVE RFP IN 2023 FOR THE LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM.

AT THE REQUEST OF THE BOARD, AND ALSO IN RESPONSE TO TWO DIFFERENT VEHICLE PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED ON THE HASLETT ROAD CORRIDOR IN 2023 AND 2025.

THE TOWNSHIP HAS SPOKEN TO SPALDING DEDECKER ABOUT SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL FOR THIS CORRIDOR STUDY.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND PRECEDING THE PROPOSAL.

THE TOWNSHIP HAD MET WITH INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT STAFF TO REQUEST THAT THEY CONSIDER A ROAD DIET FOR HASLETT ROAD IN RESPONSE TO THE ACCIDENTS.

THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT STAFF ARE SOMEWHAT CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC VOLUME ON HASLETT ROAD.

SO, GENERALLY SPEAKING, FOR ROAD DIETS TO BE SUCCESSFUL, ANYTHING UNDER 15,000 ADT, OR AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME, IS GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

ONCE YOU GET INTO THE 15 TO 20,000 RANGE, IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE ENGINEER AND THE ROAD NETWORK IN GENERAL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL.

ENGINEERS WILL GIVE YOU DIFFERING OPINIONS ON THAT.

SPALDING DEDECKER THINKS OUR PROSPECTS OF IMPLEMENTING A ROAD DIET ON HASLETT ROAD ARE QUITE GOOD.

I THINK THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE COUNTY STAFF, WE HAD ONE WHO WAS SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE AND ONE WHO WANTED TO SEE MORE DATA AS IT RELATED TO A ROAD DIET.

SO WHAT WE PROPOSED IS THAT WE UNDERTAKE A CORRIDOR STUDY.

PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE DATA AND ALL OF THE WORK THAT IS COMPRISED IN THE STUDY WOULD ALSO BE NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE A SAFETY GRANT TO HELP FUND THE ROAD DIET.

MOST RECENTLY, A ROAD DIET WAS PERFORMED ON MOUNT HOPE ROAD THIS YEAR.

THAT WAS PERFORMED WITH A SAFETY GRANT FUNDING 80% OF THE PROJECT.

I BELIEVE THOSE MAX OUT AT $1 MILLION.

SO THE CORRIDOR STUDY WILL NOT ONLY HELP US EXAMINE THE IMPACTS AND THE VIABILITY OF A ROAD DIET, IT WILL ALSO HELP US SECURE THE GRANT TO IMPLEMENT IT IF THAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY.

BEYOND JUST LOOKING AT A ROAD DIET BETWEEN PARK LAKE AND MARSH ROAD, WHICH IS THE REMAINING PORTION OF HASLETT ROAD THAT HAS NOT BEEN DIETED NOW.

WE WILL ALSO EXAMINE OTHER SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING ADDING CROSSWALKS BETWEEN PARK LAKE AND MARSH ROAD, AND THEN ENHANCING SAFETY AT EXISTING CROSSWALKS.

AND THE STUDY WILL ACTUALLY TAKE US ALL THE WAY TO COPPER CREEK AND THE BIRD STRAWBERRY FARM NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE THERE IS NO CROSSWALK BETWEEN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO WE WILL BE EXAMINING PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRETY OF THE HASLETT CORRIDOR IN SOME CAPACITY.

AND THEN ONE BENEFIT OF THE STUDY ON ANOTHER PROJECT WOULD BE THE ACADEMIC WAY LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM PROJECT.

SO ACADEMIC WAY IS A LOCAL ROAD, BUT IT ALSO HAS WILKSHIRE AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC AS WELL AS SOME MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.

AND SO, AS WE'VE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT THE ACADEMIC WAY PROJECT, CONGESTION MITIGATION FOR THE AM AND PM SCHOOL TRAFFIC HAS BEEN ONE OF THE SUBJECTS THAT WE'VE TOUCHED ON THE MOST.

AND SO DATA FOUND OR DATA ACQUIRED THROUGH THIS STUDY WILL ACTUALLY HELP US IN DETERMINING HOW WE COULD BEST MITIGATE CONGESTION AT ACADEMIC WAY AND HASLETT ROAD AS WELL.

ONE THING THAT I WOULD ALSO HIGHLIGHT AS PART OF THE STUDY WOULD BE BENSON DRIVE.

SO AS THE BOARD IS AWARE, YOU APPROVED THE AMERICAN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS THIS EVENING.

SO WE WILL BE BUILDING THE REMAINDER OF THE CONNECTION FROM THE INTERURBAN PATHWAY TO HASLETT ROAD.

AND SO BASICALLY, THE TRAIL WILL STUB AT HASLETT ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE ONCE THAT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS COMPLETED IN 2026.

BUT THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE PATHWAY MASTER PLAN, WE DO HAVE A PLAN TO HAVE A CROSSWALK AT BENSON DRIVE AND THEN AN OFF ROAD TRAIL THAT WOULD WEAVE THROUGH HILLBROOK PARK AND THEN TERMINATE AT LAKE LANSING ROAD.

SO THAT'S A KEY PATHWAY PROJECT THAT WILL ALSO KIND OF INTERFACE WITH THIS PROJECT,

[02:45:03]

ONE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD POINT OUT FROM THE COVER MEMORANDUM IS THAT BETWEEN PARK LAKE ROAD AND THE OKEMOS ROAD INTERSECTION ON HASLETT ROAD, WHICH SPANS APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE, THERE IS NO ADA FACILITY TO CROSS.

THE SAME IS TRUE FROM OKEMOS ROAD TO MARSH ROAD.

APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE, NO FACILITIES TO CROSS THE ROAD.

AND SO WITH THAT, I WOULD JUST HIGHLIGHT TOWARDS THE END OF MY COVER MEMORANDUM, BASED ON ALL OF THOSE FACTORS, THE ROAD DIET BEING THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF THE NEED FOR THIS STUDY.

AND THE BENEFIT OF A ROAD DIET WOULD BE REDUCING DEMAND ON OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, HAVING FEWER ACCIDENTS ON THE CORRIDOR, FEWER SPEEDING COMPLAINTS.

IF ANYONE'S DRIVEN MOUNT HOPE ROAD RECENTLY, IT'S VERY HARD TO GET ABOVE 40 MILES PER HOUR.

IF A SPEED STUDY IS CONDUCTED, I SUSPECT THERE'S A VERY REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SPEED LIMIT COULD BE REDUCED TO 35 MILES PER HOUR OR AT LEAST 40.

IN THE CURRENT 45 MILE PER HOUR ZONE, RIGHT? SO THE PRIMARY BENEFIT OF THE STUDY IS THE ROAD DIET.

WHICH FOR THE TOWNSHIP'S SAKE, IS PRIMARILY GOING TO BENEFIT OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, WHICH IS A GENERAL FUND COMMITMENT FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING THAT 70% OF THIS STUDY BE FUNDED THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND, 20% FOR THE PATHWAY SYSTEM.

THERE ARE SOME BENEFITS TO THE PATHWAY SYSTEM.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING FOR MID BLOCK CROSSINGS LIKE THESE, WE DO NOT NEED TO UNDERTAKE A STUDY LIKE THIS.

AND THEN 10% FROM THE LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM.

FOR THE BENEFIT FOR THE ACADEMIC WAY LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM PROJECT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL, THERE ARE PHASES.

PHASE ONE, I BELIEVE IS 14,600 IN TOTAL. YES, IT IS.

AFTER WE COMPLETE PHASE ONE AND GET THE COUNTS, WE WILL REASSESS THINGS AND SEE IF WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED FURTHER BASED ON THOSE COUNTS IN THAT DATA, OR IF THAT WILL CONCLUDE THE STUDY.

SO THAT'S HOW WE WILL APPROACH THIS AT FIRST.

BUT THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PHASES.

IN TOTAL, THE STUDY COMES OUT TO, I FORGET IF IT WAS TOTALED, 18.

SO 32,000 FOR PHASES TWO AND THREE AND 14,600 FOR THE INITIAL PHASE, AT WHICH POINT WE WILL REASSESS.

SO THAT'S KIND OF A BROAD OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE BOARD THIS EVENING.

AND WE DO HAVE OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, STEVE STRAMSAK FROM SPALDING DEDECKER, WHO IS IN ATTENDANCE.

SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS?

>> QUICK QUESTION. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HASLETT ROAD AND PUTTING SOME CROSSWALKS IN.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PUTTING ANYTHING IN THE MIDDLE LIKE AN ISLAND THING?

>> YES. ACTUALLY, THAT IS A 0.3 ON KIND OF MY OVERARCHING COMPONENTS THAT WILL BE EXAMINED DURING THE STUDY.

NOW, THE PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS, THESE WOULD BE MANY ISLANDS LIKE WHAT YOU SEE ON BURCHAM DRIVE OR HAGADORN IN THE CITY OF EAST LANSING.

THE REASON BEING THE HOUSING STOCK ON HASLETT ROAD, IS OLDER HOUSING STOCK, AND SO WE HAVE A LOT OF CURB CUTS.

WE CAN'T BLOCK RIGHT HAND OR LEFT HAND TURN MOVEMENT, I SHOULD SAY LEFT HAND TURN MOVEMENT IN AND OUT OF DRIVEWAYS.

SO WE COULD DO MANY REFUGE ISLANDS IF WE CAN IMPLEMENT A ROAD DIET.

MANAGER DEMPSEY IS ZOOMING IN FOR ME.

SO WE NEED THAT LEFT HAND TURN LANE SO THAT WE CAN CONSTRUCT THE REFUGE ISLANDS WITHIN THE LEFT HAND TURN LANE.

I WOULD ALSO JUST ADD THAT THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT HAS NOT IMPLEMENTED, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

THERE MIGHT BE ONE OR TWO IN DEL HIGH THAT I'M UNAWARE OF.

BUT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THEY'VE NEVER ALLOWED A PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND.

WE'VE TOUCHED ON THAT SUBJECT WITH THEM, AND THEY'VE BEEN RELUCTANT.

BUT THAT'S PART OF THE STUDY, IS TO EXAMINE THE PROS AND CONS OF ALL OF THESE VARIOUS FEATURES.

WHETHER THAT BE THE RRFB'S, LIKE WE HAVE ACROSS THE TOWNSHIP, HAWK SIGNALS, WHICH WOULD BE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL ACTIVATED BY A PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON, REFUGE ISLANDS, AND IT COULD EVEN BE IN STREET SIGNAGE WHERE THERE IS NO LEFT HAND TURN LANE.

[02:50:02]

>> I WANT TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT QUESTION, OR WAS IT A DIFFERENT QUESTION? BUT ANYWAY, ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES I EVER TRAVELED ON A ROAD WITH THE ROAD DIET, THERE WAS A PERSON THAT NOT PASS ME.

THEY WERE PASSING SOMEONE ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND THEY LITERALLY WENT INTO THE LEFT LANE TO PASS THEM.

NOW, I'M NOT SURE THAT WOULD BE A POLICE ENFORCEMENT THING.

BUT THE FIRST TIME I WAS ON A ROAD DIET, THAT HAPPENED.

SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO UTILIZE THE MIDDLE LANE TO PASS.

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE A TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT.

SO THAT PERSON COULD BE STOPPED AND CITED FOR A MOVING VIOLATION.

I'VE HAD THAT HAPPEN ONCE ON ALL OF THE ROADS THAT HAVE BEEN DIETED IN THE TOWNSHIP.

IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED RIGHT NEAR THIS COMPLEX ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

SO THAT DOES OCCASIONALLY HAPPEN, RIGHT, JUST LIKE MOVING VIOLATIONS HAPPEN EVERY HOUR THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP, UNFORTUNATELY.

SO THAT IS ONE CONSEQUENCE.

BUT TYPICALLY WHAT COMES UP MORE OFTEN IS THE UPS TRUCKS, AND HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT AS SOMEONE WHO'S TRYING TO DO THROUGH TRAFFIC? AND TYPICALLY A US POSTAL SERVICE TRUCK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IS GOING TO BE, FOR THE MOST PART, STAGGERED ONTO THE PAVED SHOULDER.

SO WHEN YOU GO BACK, RIGHT? WHATEVER THE BALANCE OF THE ROADWAY IS, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO REPLACE CURB AND GUTTER.

SO THE WIDTH FROM GUTTER PAN TO GUTTER PAN OF THE ROAD IS GOING TO STAY THE SAME.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE 11 FOOT WIDE LANES.

COULD MAYBE LOOK AT 10.5 FOOT LANES, RIGHT? JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE SHOULDER.

THE SHOULDERS WILL PROBABLY BE FOUR FOOT OR GREATER IN WIDTH, NOT INCLUDING THE GUTTER PAN.

SO FOR THE MOST PART, ANY VEHICLE THAT'S ONTO THE SHOULDERS IS ONLY GOING TO BE MINIMALLY OUT INTO THE LANE, AND TRAFFIC WOULD JOG AROUND IT, LIKE IT WOULD TODAY ON JOLLEY ROAD OR MOUNT HOPE, LAKE LANSING, HASLETT, AND ALL OF THE ROADS THAT HAVE BEEN DIETED THIS FAR.

>> YEAH, WELL, THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOULD DO.

THE ONLY TIME I WAS IN A ROAD DIET, AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I WAS THERE, SOMEBODY PASSED IN THE LEFT TURN LANE.

YOU KNOW HOW PEOPLE THAT ZIP IN AND OUT, AND THEY ZIP HERE, AND THEY ZIP THERE.

THAT WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT WAS ZIPPING IN AND OUT.

ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING, BUT THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I'D EVER SEEN IT, AND IT WAS LIKE ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES I BET ON A ROAD DIET.

AND I WENT, OH, MY GOODNESS.

>> I SUSPECT THAT WASN'T THE LAST MOVING VIOLATION THAT PERSON HAD THAT DAY.

>> PROBABLY NOT.

>> THANK YOU. DAN YOU AND I HAVE HAD PLENTY OF BACK AND FORTH WITH RESIDENTS AND BETWEEN THE TWO OF US ABOUT SAFETY ON THE ROADS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS.

SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING, LIKE REFUGE ISLANDS AND HAWK SIGNALS.

I'M CURIOUS WITH THIS REPORT OR EXCUSE ME, WITH THIS STUDY BEING CONDUCTED, IF WE DO MOVE FORWARD, IF IT DID THOSE HAWK SIGNALS AND REFUGE ISLANDS ONLY, DO WE NEED TO REACH A CERTAIN THRESHOLD OF DATA IN ORDER TO INSTALL THOSE, OR CAN THOSE BE BECAUSE WE AS MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP SEE THE VALUE IN ADDING THOSE? CAN WE REQUEST THAT AS A PART OF THIS ROAD DIET? DOES THAT QUESTION MAKE SENSE?

>> YES, IT DOES. ANSWER IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT GRAY.

SO THERE IS A POLICY THAT THE ROAD DEPARTMENT RECENTLY ADOPTED TO GOVERN ALL CROSSWALKS THAT ARE NOT AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS.

HOWEVER, WITH PHASE TWO OF THE MSU TO LAKE LANSING TRAIL, FOR INSTANCE, WE CREATED A NEW CROSSWALK AT OKEMOS ROAD JUST SOUTH OF GAILLARD C. SMITH.

THEY DID NOT MAKE US PROVIDE THE PEDESTRIAN COUNTS UNDER THEIR POLICY TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT.

SO TO DATE, I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE EVER HAD TO ACTUALLY SHOW DATA TO CONFORM WITH THE POLICY.

BUT THEY'VE CITED THE POLICY TO US, RIGHT, THAT WE NEED TO CONFORM WITH IT.

BUT WHEN IT CAME TO GETTING APPROVALS TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION, WE'VE NEVER HAD TO TAKE A PEDESTRIAN COUNT.

AS IT RELATES TO THIS STUDY, AT OUR INITIAL MEETING, WHAT WE DID TALK TO THE ROAD DEPARTMENT ABOUT, THEY SAID WE COULD JUST COUNT PEDESTRIANS CROSSING BY THE FUTURE CROSSWALK, RIGHT?

[02:55:03]

SO THEY SAID WE COULD COUNT PEDESTRIANS JUST CROSSING BY IT.

AND IT WAS ONLY, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO HIT 20 IN AN HOUR OR 15 IN AN HOUR.

20 IS THE MDOT STANDARD.

>> CHILDREN COUNT IS TWO THOUGH.

YOU NEED 10 ADULTS AND FIVE KIDS.

>> HALF THE SIZE.

>> IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL OF THE COUNTER AS TO WHO IS A MINOR.

FIVE CHILDREN AND 10 ADULTS GETS YOU A CROSSING.

WITH AN RRFB.

>> THANK YOU. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH IN OUR CAMPAIGNING FOR OUR POSITIONS HERE LAST YEAR, MADE IT A POINT TO GO AND KNOCK ON DOORS OF FOLKS ON HASLETT ROAD AND WALKING ALONG THOSE IS A TERRIFYING ACTIVITY AT TIMES, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THOSE FOLKS TRAVELING EAST, SO A LOT OF TIMES THEY ARE TRYING TO GET HOME AS QUICK AS THEY CAN, AND THERE'S THAT HILL THAT THEY CAN COME UP.

I'VE SEEN CRASHES THERE AS SOMEONE WHO WAS THAT COMMUTER GOING ON THAT ROAD EVERY DAY FOR 7, 8 YEARS.

IN GENERAL, I'M IN ENCOURAGED BY ROAD DIETS.

MY OTHER QUESTION IS, HAVE THESE SAFETY GRANTS BEEN ISSUED FOR OTHER MERIDIAN ROAD DIETS IN THE PAST?

>> I BELIEVE ONLY MOUNT HOPE.

I BELIEVE THE ROAD DEPARTMENT FUNDED THE OTHER ROAD DIETS WITHOUT SAFETY GRANTS.

BUT IT'S A GOOD INVESTMENT TO APPLY FOR THE SAFETY GRANT BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXPENSIVE PROJECT AND YOU GET THE ROAD RESURFACED OR AT LEAST THE PORTIONS THAT NEED TO BE RESURFACED.

>> I UNDERSTAND. I AGREE.

MY FOLLOW UP TO THAT WOULD BE, WERE THERE ANY STIPULATIONS PUT ON THE MOUNT ROAD PROJECT OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER TO BE NORMAL BUSINESS? THEN FOLLOWING THAT MONEY LINE QUESTION.

IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ROAD DIET.

WE APPLY FOR THE SAFETY GRANT.

WE DO NOT GET IT.

WOULD THIS BE A PRIORITY THEN OF THE TOWNSHIPS MOVING FORWARD OR IS THAT TO BE DECIDED ON A BUDGETARY LEVEL?

>> TYPICALLY, IF WE DIDN'T GET AWARDED.

WE WOULD START BY JUST MEETING WITH THE ENTITY TO DETERMINE WHY WE WERE NOT AWARDED.

IT MIGHT JUST BE, THAT WE NEED TO REAPPLY AND THAT THEY HAD TOO MANY APPLICATIONS DURING THAT CALL FOR PROJECTS.

WE COULD LOOK AT REAPPLYING IN MAY OF 2027.

BUT WE WOULD ASSESS WITH THE ENTITY AS TO WHY.

WE'RE GOING TO SCORE VERY HIGH GIVEN THAT THERE'S TWO VEHICLE PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS ON THIS CORRIDOR IN THE PAST TWO YEARS.

>> LAST COMMENT, I APPRECIATE IT.

AS TRI COUNTY, I'LL REFERENCE SOME FOR THE THIRD TIME TONIGHT.

THEY RECENTLY LAUNCHED A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY MARKETING CAMPAIGN ALL AROUND THIS, AND IT WAS NOTABLE BECAUSE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP SCORES LOW COMPARED TO THE CITY OF LANSING, BUT THOSE TWO ACCIDENTS ON HASLETT ROAD WERE SPECIFICALLY POINTED TO AS THIS CAN HAPPEN IN ANY AREA IN OUR COMMUNITY, NOT JUST IN THE CITY OF LANSING.

I WOULD BE ENCOURAGED IF THIS DOES MOVE FORWARD, AND THE DATA SHOWS THAT IT IS NECESSARY THAT WE TALK WITH THEM ABOUT MAYBE IMPLEMENTING THAT MARKETING CAMPAIGN HERE BECAUSE AS A PEDESTRIAN AND BIKER MYSELF.

I SHOULD FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE LAW FOR MY SAFETY AND EVERYONE ON THE ROAD AS WELL AS THOSE VEHICLES. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HASLETT BETWEEN PARK LAKE AND MARSH, ACTUALLY.

>> YES. AND THE CITY OF EAST LANSING OR THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT IS ALREADY DOING A PROJECT ON HASLETT FROM PARK LAKE TO HAGADORN?

>> CORRECT. TECHNICALLY, THAT PROJECT NEXT YEAR WILL CLOSE THE HAGADORN HASLETT INTERSECTION, AND THESE TWO RAMPS RIGHT HERE COMING OFF SAGINAW HIGHWAY.

BASICALLY, ALL OF THIS WILL BE CLOSED FOR THE FINAL PHASE.

BUT WHAT EAST LANSING DID THIS YEAR WAS DIET FROM HASLETT ROAD FROM THE HAGADORN INTERSECTION, APPROXIMATELY RIGHT HERE AT THIS INTERSECTION TO THE PARK LAKE ROAD INTERSECTION.

BECAUSE WE DON'T GIVE UP CAPACITY AT THE INTERSECTION.

WE ONLY GIVE UP CAPACITY IN BETWEEN THE INTERSECTION.

>> I GUESS WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS WE'VE GOT ROAD DIET TO THE EAST.

WE'VE GOT ROAD DIET TO THE WEST.

DOES EAST LANSING USE A DIFFERENT STANDARD OF DETERMINING WHAT ROAD DIET SHOULD BE?

[03:00:02]

>> THEY DID DO A TRAFFIC STUDY, AND I BELIEVE THEY APPLIED FOR A SAFETY GRANT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR CERTAIN OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

BUT THE ADT IS LOWER WEST OF PARK LAKE ROAD.

IT'S 13,000 IN CHANGE BASED ON THE MOST RECENT TRAFFIC COUNTS.

>> THE CONTENTION IS THAT THERE ARE SOME 2,000 DAILY TRIPS OR MORE THAT ARE BETWEEN PARK LAKE AND MARSH THAN THERE ARE BETWEEN PARK LAKE AND HAGADORN.

>> CORRECT. ABOUT 2,500-3,200, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

>> THAT'S DATA ADDITION.

>> THOSE ARE ISOLATED COUNTS THAT WERE TAKEN.

WE DO HAVE EAST LANSING'S TRAFFIC STUDY THOUGH, WHICH IS PART OF WHAT OUR FIRM WILL LOOK AT RELATIVE TO THE COUNTS THAT WE GET.

>> I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH FUNDING A STUDY AND MAKING THIS HAPPEN.

MY BIGGEST QUESTION WAS THIS IS A COUNTY ROAD, AND THE FACT THAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO FOOT THE BILL TO DO THIS IS PRETTY RIDICULOUS, IN MY OPINION, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THEY'VE DONE ONE IN THE TOWNSHIP AS RECENTLY AS LAST YEAR ON MOUNT HOPE, AND WE WERE NOT REQUESTED TO PAY FOR ANY OF THAT.

>> CORRECT. WE PAID A SMALL PORTION OF THE LOCAL MATCH.

AGAIN, 80,20 FOR MOUNT HOPE FOR PATHWAY RELATED PAY ITEMS, RAMPS.

>> THAT WASN'T ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION?

>> CORRECT.

>> THIS IS A RADICAL CHANGE IN POLICY BY THE INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT TO FORCE THE TOWNSHIP TO TAKE ON BOTH THE EXPENSE OF THE STUDY AND THE STAFF TIME TO PROCESS ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE GRANT, AND I ASSUME, AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT THEY WILL PAY FOR THEIR PORTION OF THE LOCAL MATCH WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ACTUALLY PAY FOR IT IF WE GET AWARDED?

>> THAT IS AN ONGOING CONVERSATION.

>> BUT IT WOULD BE A DRAMATIC DEPARTURE FROM EXISTING PROCEDURE FOR THEM TO ASK US TO PAY THE LOCAL MATCH?

>> CORRECT, AND THERE ARE LEADERSHIP CHANGES, AS YOU'RE AWARE, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE FULL BOARD IS AWARE.

>> WE'RE AWARE.

>> BUT THERE ARE LEADERSHIP CHANGES OCCURRING RIGHT NOW.

THE SAFETY GRANT THAT WAS OBTAINED FOR THE MOUNT HOPE ROAD DIET PROJECT, WELL, THAT WAS 2025 CONSTRUCTION, THAT WAS OBTAINED WHEN BILL CONKLIN WAS STILL THE DIRECTOR OF THE ROAD DEPARTMENT.

WITH ANY LEADERSHIP CHANGE COMES CHANGES IN POLICIES AND THOUGHT PROCESSES AND I DON'T THINK THE OUTGOING LEADERSHIP AT THE ROAD DEPARTMENT WAS VERY RECEPTIVE TO THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS THAT WE'RE REALLY PUSHING FOR.

WE'RE SEEING OUR NEIGHBOR IN EAST LANSING, ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.

THEY'RE HEARING ALL THE SAME CONCERNS.

I TALKED TO MY COLLEAGUES AT THE CITY, AND THEY'RE HEARING ALL THE SAME CONCERNS THAT WE HEAR ABOUT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CALMING.

THE DIFFERENCE IS THEY ARE ABLE TO GOVERN THEIR ROADS, AND WE DID TRY TO TALK AND COMMUNICATE WITH THE OUTGOING LEADERSHIP RIGHT ABOUT, WE WANT TO BLUR INFRASTRUCTURE LINES WITH THE CITY OF EAST LANSING, NOT WITH ALDEN TOWNSHIP, OR WILLIAMSTOWN TOWNSHIP.

WE WANT YOU TO NOT BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE WHERE THE CITY LINE IS BECAUSE THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES IN SOME DISCERNIBLE WAY.

EXITING AND ENTERING MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, AND I THINK MANAGER DEMPSEY AND I MET WITH CONTROLLER TODD AND BECKY DENNETT AT THE COUNTY YESTERDAY, AND WE CONVEYED SOME OF THAT.

WHEN YOU'RE GOING THROUGH YOUR SEARCH, STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND URBAN AND SUBURBAN ROAD DESIGN, GETTING SOMEONE WHO AT LEAST BUYS INTO THAT, EVEN IF THEY COME FROM A RURAL TOWNSHIP WOULD BE VERY MEANINGFUL TO THE TOWNSHIP.

>> THANK YOU. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE ASKED ABOUT AT THE LISTENING SESSION OR MAYBE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME BEFORE IT WAS SPECIFICALLY TRAFFIC SAFETY BETWEEN MARSH AND JUST EAST OF GREEN ROAD ON HASLETT.

ONE OF THE REQUESTS, SPECIFICALLY, WAS TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF ROUNDABOUTS AT BOTH GREEN AND ACADEMIC WAY.

WOULD A SAFETY STUDY LIKE THIS BE SOMETHING THAT COULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS LIKE THAT AS WELL?

>> IT COULD. I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO STEVE ON WHETHER OR NOT ROUNDABOUTS WOULD REALLY BE ELIGIBLE UNDER THE SAFETY STUDY, BUT TRAFFIC COUNTS WOULD BE CRITICAL TO THAT, AND THEN AVAILABLE LAND AND RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE THE OTHER CHALLENGE FOR THE ROUNDABOUTS.

[03:05:02]

>> SURE.

>> ROUNDABOUTS CAN BE LOOKED AT AS PART OF THE SAFETY STUDY.

WE'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS THERE TO COVER IT TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA STANDARD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF, SAY, HASLETT AND MARSH, JUST TO PICK AN INTERSECTION.

FAIRLY EASY ABOUT A LEVEL TWO COMPLEXITY OUT OF TEN.

ROUNDABOUTS ARE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THAT, SO IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE STAFF TIME TO DO THAT.

CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT.

>> THE CONCERN WAS EXCESSIVE SPEED BETWEEN JUST EAST OF GREEN AND ESSENTIALLY THE SCHOOL ON I THINK IT'S SCHOOL STREET.

>> ACADEMICAL?

>> NO, SCHOOL STREET WAS WHERE THE CONCERN ENDED.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS.

SPEED ON HASLETT BETWEEN THOSE TWO AREAS WAS OF BIG CONCERN, AND ONE OF THE POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS THAT THIS RESIDENT WAS REQUEST ASKING THAT WE LOOK INTO WOULD BE TO LOOK AT THE ROUNDABOUTS IN THOSE TWO AREAS.

>> SCHOOL STREET IN GREEN ROAD INTERSECTIONS OR SCHOOL STREET TO SOME OTHER ROAD?

>> THE SPEED ISSUE WAS BETWEEN SCHOOL STREET AND JUST EAST OF GREEN.

THE ROUNDABOUTS THEY WERE SUGGESTING WERE AT GREEN ROAD AND ACADEMIC WAY.

THEY THOUGHT THAT THE SLOWDOWNS IN THOSE TWO POSITIONS WOULD CARRY OVER THIS SO THAT IT WASN'T SO FAST AT SCHOOL STREET.

>> PIVOTING BACK TO THE LOCAL ROAD PROGRAM PROJECT, WHICH GETS WOVEN INTO THIS, BUT IS A SEPARATE PROJECT, AND OUR DESIGN WE'RE VERY MUCH IN THE CONCEPT PHASE.

WE'VE NOT REALLY GOTTEN INTO ANY DESIGN PHASE.

WE'VE MET WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CONCEPTUALLY IS A ROUNDABOUT TO ADDRESS THE CONGESTION MITIGATION.

BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MODELED, AND OUR LIMITING FACTOR IS GOING TO BE LAND THERE.

THE RADIUS WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE LAND ACQUISITION, AND SO IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE PROPERTY OWNERS BEING VERY OPEN MINDED IN ALL LIKELIHOOD.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CONCEPTUALLY TO ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC THAT BACKS UP ONTO OKEMOS ROAD.

>> JUST TO GET BACK TO THE QUESTION AT HAND HERE.

I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH FUNDING THE PHASE 1 STUDY FOR THIS.

THIS IS EASY.

I HAVE PHILOSOPHICAL OBJECTIONS BECAUSE I THINK THE ROW DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE DOING THIS, BUT IF THEY WON'T, THEN THIS FEELS LIKE SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY SHOULD DO FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

>> MAY I MAKE A MOTION?

>> PLEASE. NO. THIS IS FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IT WOULD BE FOR ACTION AT OUR NEXT MEETING.

>> UNLESS YOU'D LIKE TO SUSPEND YOUR RULES AND MAKE IT TONIGHT AND WE CAN GET STARTED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, THE CALL FOR PROJECTS WILL BE AROUND FEBRUARY 1ST.

IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO THE BOARD.

>> IT'LL OPEN FEBRUARY 1ST.

>> WITH APPS DUE IN MAY.

>> BOARD, IS THERE AN APPETITE TO SUSPEND OUR RULES FOR THIS?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S A NEED.

>> WE'LL SEE IT BACK IN DECEMBER 16TH THEN.

I GUESS LET ME ASK THE BOARD MAYBE THE LAWYERS WILL OBJECT TO ME WHEN THEY LEFT THE ROOM, SO THEY CAN ANSWER LATER.

IS THIS SOMETHING WE COULD PUT ON CONSENT?

>>YES.

>> VERY GOOD.

>> MY PARTING THING THAT I FORGOT TO COVER DURING MY COVER OR MY INTRODUCTION OF THE ITEM.

THIS MEASUREMENT TOOL THAT I PUT UP, THOSE ARE THE LIMITS OF THE PATHWAY THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED NEXT YEAR THROUGH THE FEDERAL TAP GRANT THAT WE ACQUIRED THROUGH TRENT COUNTY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S GREAT.

>> THAT BRINGS US TO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

[13. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC]

MR. HUN, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE, AND THEN JOSH NAME AFTER THAT.

>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, ERIC HUN.

ADDRESSES W134N8675 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY IN MENOMONEE FALLS.

I HAD A FAULTY MEMORY EARLIER ON THE HOME COUNTS FOR TRUSTEE LENTZ.

OUR HOLLAND COMMUNITY, I STATED 240.

I WAS TRYING TO GO OFF FROM MEMORY.

THAT'S ACTUALLY 264 HOMES.

OUR CANON COMMUNITY, I SAID 300, AGAIN, MEMORY LAPSES 280.

I CONFUSED HOLLAND WITH KALAMAZOO, WHICH IS 240.

THAT ONE I DIDN'T MENTION, BUT THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING.

>> THANK YOU. MR. DAN.

>> JOSH 1517, RIVER TERRACE.

I WANTED TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AN ACTION THAT I DIDN'T NEED TO, AND THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T GO IN THE BEGINNING BECAUSE I ASSUMED YOU GUYS WOULD APPROVE IT OR PASS FORWARD, AND THAT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE ROAD DIET STUDY.

I LIVE RIGHT ON HAGADORN, AND THE ROAD DIET THAT THEY RECENTLY PUT IN THERE HAS MADE THAT ROAD MASSIVELY SAFER FOR PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLISTS, WHICH I'M ONE OF, AND I'M IN FAVOR OF ROAD DIETS, PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE THAT THEY CAN BE PUT.

THEY HAVE A LOT OF BENEFITS AS I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU GUYS AND GIVEN HOW QUICKLY YOU GUYS ARE LIKE.

LET'S THROW IT ON THE CONSIDER JENNIFER NEXT MEETING,

[03:10:01]

I'VE BEEN TO ALL THOSE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, AND IT'S BEEN PAINFUL TO WATCH A LOT OF UNABLE TO COME TO A STRONG RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU GUYS, AND I APOLOGIZE THAT YOU GUYS ARE HAVING TO MAKE A LOT OF THOSE DECISIONS UP AS THE MAIN BOARD, BUT I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING HOW THAT RESOLVES. THANK YOU ALL.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE. PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED AT 9:13.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA, OTHER MATTERS AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS, AND THE OTHER MATTERS AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS THIS EVENING.

SEEING NONE. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS ADJOURNMENT.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOVED BY TRUSTEE LENTZ.

>> SUPPORT.

>> SUPPORTED BY TRUSTEE WILSON.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT, PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE.

>> THE MOTION CARS. WE STAND ADJOURNED AT 9:13 P.M.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.