[6A. Rezoning #20050 (DTN 2013 LLC), rezone three parcels totaling 31.63 acres located on the east side of Central Park Drive, west of Powell Road, and north of Grand River Avenue from RA (Single Family-Medium Density) to RD (Multiple Family – maximum eight dwelling units per acre).]

WHICH IS OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EVENING.

THIS IS REZONING NO.

TWO ZERO ZERO FIVE ZERO DTN, TWENTY THIRTEEN L.L.C.

TO REZONE THREE PARCELS TOTALING THIRTY ONE POINT SIX THREE ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, WEST OF POWELL ROAD AND NORTH OF GRAND RIVER AVENUE FROM RA SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY TO RD MULTIPLE FAMILY MAXIMUM EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

AND WE WILL GO AHEAD AND TURN THINGS OVER TO OUR PRINCIPAL PLANNER, PETER MENSER.

EVERYBODY, A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT FOR THE REZONING, GIVE ME ONE SECOND, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER SCREEN.

OH, THANKS, STEVEN.

THIS ALWAYS TAKES A COUPLE OF SECONDS.

AND WE CAN'T SEE YOUR SCREEN, PETER.

YEAH, THANK YOU. SO WHILE I'M WAITING FOR THIS TO COME UP, HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HAS A CHANCE TO PULL UP TONIGHT'S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PACKAGE.

I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS.

SORRY THIS ISN'T--. GOT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT LOOK TO MY SCREEN THAN I'M USED TO.

SO THE MEETING [INAUDIBLE] ON THE TOWNSHIP WEBSITE RIGHT NOW, IT'S UNDER THE MEETING'S TAB HERE ON THE HOME PAGE AND YOU'LL GO TO THAT AND CLICK THROUGH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A MEMO, A HUGE PACKET.

BUT IN THERE YOU'LL SEE A MEMO FROM ME THAT STARTS ON--.

WELL, I CAN'T SEE WHAT PAGE IT STARTS ON.

I HAVE SO MANY SCREENS IN FRONT OF ME, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

PAGE TWENTY FOUR OF THE PDF I THINK.

YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

SO THE MEMO STARTS ON PAGE TWENTY FOUR AND I'M GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH THAT HERE WHILE WE'RE TALKING. SO [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC HEARING RESULTING TWO ZERO ZERO FIVE ZERO TO REQUEST REZONE THIRTY ONE POINT SIX THREE ACRES.

IT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE, WEST OF POWELL ROAD AND NORTH OF GRAND RIVER. THE REQUEST IS TO GO FROM RA SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY TO RD MULTIPLE FAMILY WITH A MAXIMUM EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

SO I JUST MENTIONED THE COMMENT ABOUT THE MEETINGS TAB ON THE TOWNSHIP WEBSITE.

IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT YOU FIND THAT STAFF MEMO BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO ANSWER A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS AND ACTUALLY ADDRESSES SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP EARLIER TONIGHT. AND AFTER TONIGHT, YOU'LL FIND THE MEETING PACKET UNDER THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION OF THE WEBSITE.

YOU HAVE TO NAVIGATE TO THINK IT GOES BY YEAR AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO FIND THE MEETING FOR TONIGHT. SO THAT'S WHERE WE'LL IT AFTERWARDS.

FROM THEN A PUBLIC HEARING IS THE STAFF SUMMARY, WHICH IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

THE APPLICANT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO MAKE A SMALL PRESENTATION AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AGAIN, THIS PUBLIC COMMENT SPECIFIC TO THIS TOPIC ONLY, AND IT'S JUST LIKE WE DID BEFORE, THREE MINUTES MAX PER PERSON, USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE, SAME TIMING THREE MINUTE LIMIT, ALL THAT. SO AND AFTER THAT, THERE'LL BE A PERIOD OF PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION DURING WHICH THEY MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME.

THEY MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT THERE'S NOT THERE WON'T BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DIALOG WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS.

THE STAFF FOCUS [INAUDIBLE], BUT THE STAFF FOCUS IS ON THE REZONING, THE STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION. AND YOU'LL SEE WHEN IT GETS TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARDS THE SAME THING.

WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE REZONING RIGHT NOW, NOT THE POTENTIAL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S HUMAN NATURE TO HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN DOWN THE ROAD.

AND WITH THIS REZONING, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT MORE THAN YOU TYPICALLY WOULD BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THIS AREA.

BUT THAT'S NOT UNDER SCRUTINY TONIGHT AND THERE'S NOT ANY ACTION BEING TAKEN ON THAT PLAN. WE'RE SOLELY FOCUSED ON REZONING.

[00:30:01]

THAT'S GOING TO BE A THEME AS TO THROUGHOUT THE EVENING HERE.

WHEN THE DEVELOPER PROCESSES PROPOSED OR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS PROPOSED, THERE WILL BE A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR THAT.

SO [INAUDIBLE] SUMMARY.

THERE'S THREE PARCELS TOTAL, IT'S REALLY TWO AND A HALF THAT ARE PROPOSED TO REZONING.

THE ENTIRE REASON IS THIRTY ONE POINT SIX THREE ACRES.

PROPERTY HAS FRONTAGE BUILT ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE AND POWELL ROAD.

CURRENT ZONING IS RA. PROPOSED IS, THAT'S WRONG.

IT'S RD.

I MADE THIS REALLY QUICKLY.

SO IN THE STAFF MEMO YOU WILL YOU SEE THIS LOCATION MAP.

IN THE RED DASH LINE, YOU SEE THE AREA THAT'S PROPOSED FOR REZONING.

AND IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT PARCEL TWO TWO DASH TWO FIVE TWO DASH ZERO ZERO FIVE, THAT'S THE EASTERN HALF OR APPROXIMATELY HALF, MAYBE TWO THIRDS OF THE PARCEL THAT HAS SPLIT ZONING.

THE REASON YOU SEE PARCEL NUMBERS IS THAT THESE PARCELS ARE NOT DEVELOPED.

SO THEY'VE NEVER BEEN ISSUED AN ADDRESS.

SO WE REFER TO THEM BY THE RATHER CUMBERSOME PARCEL NUMBER TWENTY TWO DASH SO AND SO.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.

GENERAL REZONING PROCESS APPLICATIONS FILED WITH OUR DEPARTMENT, WE DO PROVIDE NOTICES.

SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM ME AND WE DO POST A NOTICE ON THE PROPERTY.

IN THIS CASE, WE POSTED ONE BOTH ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE AND POWELL ROAD.

SO THE GENERAL PROCESS FROM HERE AFTER TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING, AT OUR NEXT MEETING ON THE TWENTY THIRD, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL LIKELY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE REQUEST AND BY THE END OF THIS EVENING, YOU'LL KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT.

AND THEN WE MOVE ON TO THE TOWNSHIP BOARD.

TOWNSHIP BOARD WILL GO THROUGH A SIMILAR PROCESS WITHOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THEY WILL DISCUSS THE REQUEST OVER THE COURSE OF PROBABLY TWO MEETINGS.

IN THIS CASE, PLANNING COMMISSION IS ADVISORY ON REZONING, SO THEY'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. TOWNSHIP BOARD IS THE FINAL DECISION MAKER.

SO ONCE THEY'VE MADE THEIR DECISION, THAT'S THE ACTION.

AND THEN IT'S A TWO STEP APPROVAL PROCESS.

IF THE BOARD DOES CHOOSE TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY, THERE'LL BE TWO MEETINGS IN WHICH ONE WOULD BE INTRODUCTION, THE OTHER WOULD BE FINAL ADOPTION.

SO ON THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED CONDITIONS ON THE REASONING.

THE CONDITIONS ARE VOLUNTARY OR OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT.

THEY RUN WITH THE LAND AND THEY APPLY TO NOT ONLY CURRENT OWNERS, BUT ALSO FUTURE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. SO THEY STAY WITH THE LAND.

SO SOMEONE SO AN APPLICANT, IT OFFERS THESE CONDITIONS TODAY.

THEY STAY WITH THE LAND, WHETHER OR NOT THEY CONTINUE ON TO DEVELOP A PROJECT OR DO ANYTHING WITH THE PROPERTY. SO THE CONDITIONS OFFERED WITH THIS REZONING ARE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS UNITS TO NO GREATER THAN TWO HUNDRED TWENTY UNITS.

THERE WILL BE NO FEWER THAN TWENTY FIVE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.

NO BUILDINGS WILL BE GREATER THAN TWO STORIES AND ENCLOSED GARAGES WILL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY DWELLING UNIT.

WE'RE GOING TO GET A LOT MORE INTO DETAIL ON SOME OF THE CONDITIONS LATER ON HERE.

I WANT TO TALK REALLY QUICKLY ABOUT THE 2020 ZONING AMENDMENT THAT KIND OF MADE THIS PROJECT POSSIBLE.

EARLIER THIS YEAR, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE EONS AGO, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD HEARD A RESULT, A ZONING AMENDMENT AND WHAT IT ULTIMATELY ALLOWED TO DO, AMONG SOME OTHER THINGS, BUT IT TOOK A LOOK AT OUR MULTIPLE FAMILIES ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS DIVIDED INTO FOUR.

RDD, RD, RC AND RCC.

AND WHEN THAT GOES UP FROM ZERO UP IN DENSITY, AS YOU GO TO RCC, I THINK, IS THAT THIRTY FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

BUT IT ALLOWED A MIX OF SINGLE DETACHED SINGLE STRUCTURES AND MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.

PREVIOUSLY YOU COULD NOT HAVE THAT MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY.

AND THEN THEY ALSO ESTABLISHED A 50 PERCENT MAXIMUM STANDARD FOR THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT, SO IT COULDN'T JUST BE ALL SINGLE FAMILY, THEY HAD AN UPPER LIMIT TO NO MORE THAN HALF.

CONCEPT PLAN, I TALKED ABOUT THAT REALLY BRIEFLY A SECOND AGO.

THERE SHOULD BE A SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR THAT.

ULTIMATELY, IF THE PROJECT AS SHOWN ON THE CONCEPT PLAN WOULD BE DEVELOPED AND THE REZONING WAS APPROVED, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED, THAT PROCESS WOULD FOLLOW SIMILARLY, WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE REZONING, THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES BEING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION, TOWNSHIP BOARD.

BECAUSE IT ALSO THE BUILDINGS THAT ESPECIALLY [INAUDIBLE] ALSO REQUIRED FOR BUILDING A GROUP OF BUILDINGS IS GREATER THAN TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

SO REALLY, THIS PROCESS, WE'RE NOT FOCUSED ON DEVELOPMENT PLAN, YOU'RE REALLY PLANNING COMMISSION OR THEY'RE FOCUSED ONLY ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT RD ZONING IS APPROPRIATE ON THE SITE.

FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM OUR TWENTY SEVENTEEN MASTER PLAN SHOWS THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED MOSTLY AS R3 RESIDENTIAL ONE POINT TWO FIVE TO THREE POINT FIVE DWELLING UNITS

[00:35:02]

PER ACRE. AS I NOTE IN THE MEMO, THERE'S A SMALL PART OF THE WEST, THE WESTERN PORTION OF THAT ONE PARCEL HAS SPLIT ZONING, BUT DOES HAVE A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION IN THE MASTER PLAN. SO THE PROPOSED ZONING TO RD, WHICH IS EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION.

AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE STAFF MEMO THERE IS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP ON SCREEN NOW AS YELLOW IS THAT ARE THREE CATEGORY.

PINK IS COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST ACROSS POWELL IS R1 RESIDENTIAL ZERO TO ZERO POINT FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND THEN TO THE NORTH WHERE CENTRAL PARK ESTATES IS, THAT'S ALL R2. ZONING CURRENTS, ZONING IS RA.

PROPOSES RD. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THE LETTERS AND NUMBERS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING NECESSARILY, BUT THE ZONING DISTRICT DOES ESTABLISHED MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THE MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE THAT'S ALLOWED IN ZONING DISTRICT, BUT ALSO THE ALLOWED LAND USES.

AND WE'RE GOING TO TOUCH ON THAT LATER AS WELL.

SO IN THIS CASE, THE PARCELS, THEY MEET THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS.

YOU'LL SEE IN THE STAFF MEMO ON PAGE FOUR, THERE IS THE ZONING MAP.

CURRENT ZONING IS RA, YOU'LL SEE THE SPLIT IS WITH THE RD AND RA ZONING.

ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST, YOU SEE RAA WITH A LITTLE ASTERISK.

THAT'S THE SILVERSTONE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW.

THE STAR ASTERISK MEANS THERE WAS A CONDITIONAL ZONING BECAUSE THERE WAS A LIMIT, I BELIEVE, ON ONE UNIT PER ACRE.

THERE'S A SOME SORT OF DENSITY LIMIT IN THAT CASE.

SO YOU WOULD SEE A SIMILAR ASTERISK IF THIS REZONING IS APPROVED BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION. WETLANDS.

THERE ARE WETLANDS ON THE SITE.

THERE'S AN ATTACHMENT IN THE STAFF MEMO THAT LAYS OUT WETLANDS BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE DRAWN THEM ON THE SCREEN.

SO THERE ARE EIGHT WETLANDS ON THE SITE.

THREE OF THOSE ARE REGULATED BY MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

THERE'S A FOURTH WETLAND THAT WOULD REQUIRE TOWNSHIP BOARD ESSENTIALITY DETERMINATION.

AND I DETAIL THAT IN THE MEMO.

IN MY TIME AT THE TOWNSHIP, AND THE DIRECTOR MAY AGREE WITH ME, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE BOARD SAY THAT A WETLAND IS NOT ESSENTIAL.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT FOURTH WETLAND IS GOING TO BE REGULATED AND WHAT THAT MEANS TO US FOR A FUTURE PROJECT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT OF A 40 FOOT SET BACK AROUND THE WETLAND.

SO REZONING REVIEW CRITERIA.

WHAT IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD CONSIDERING WHEN THEY MAKE DECISIONS LIKE THIS? THEY LOOK AT ALL THE USES ALLOWED BY RIGHT AND BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS.

AND THEN THE REASONS FOR REZONING ARE LISTED ON PAGE TWO OF THE REZONING APPLICATION AND ALL THAT IS IN THE MEETING PACKET FOR TONIGHT AND THEN AS WELL AS ALONG THE-- EXCUSE ME, AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT RESPONSES TO THOSE REASONS, WHICH IS REALLY A BIG PART OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA. SO IN THE MEMO I GO INTO DETAIL AND LISTS.

SOME OF THE USES ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT.

AND THE USERS ARE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

AND BOTH OF THOSE DISTRICTS SO YOU'LL WANT TO CONFER THAT LIST AS THE MEETING GOES ON HERE. DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS, SOMETHING THAT INHERENTLY COMES UP DURING THE REZONING PROJECTS, AND WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH THIS PROPERTY? I'M TRYING TO HEAD THIS OFF A LITTLE BIT BY ANSWERING BRINGING SOME OF THAT OUT IN THE STAFF MEMO NOW WITH A GIANT DISCLAIMER THAT I'LL TOUCH ON IN A SECOND.

SO IF THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW IS ZONED RA, THEIR OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ARE PLATTED SUBDIVISION, RD, WHICH IS A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND OUR [INAUDIBLE] LOTS, WHICH IS JUST LIKE A LOT WITH FRONTAGE ON A STREET AND NO SPECIAL DESIGNATION PLATTED.

WHICH WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF AROUND THE TOWNSHIP ANYMORE.

UNDER RD, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS, REALLY.

TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS I THINK ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT, AND THEN A MIX OF SINGLE DUPLEXES AND MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, KIND OF LIKE THE APPLICANT IS OFFERING RIGHT NOW.

THE DENSITY ESTIMATES, YOU'LL SEE WHAT I'VE ATTEMPTING TO DO IS GO THROUGH IN THE MEMO AND PROVIDE SOME ESTIMATES FOR VARIOUS SCENARIOS FOR DENSITY.

THE PROPOSED RD ZONING WE HAVE IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE A CONCEPT PLAN.

THEY DID A SURVEY. THEY [INAUDIBLE] THE WETLANDS.

SO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A STRAIGHT IDEA ON HOW THAT MIGHT GO.

AND WE ESTIMATE THAT THE NUMBER OF THE NUMBER OF PLOTS IN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THERE WILL BE TWO FIFTY EIGHT. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER, PARTICULARLY IN CONTEXT OF THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THEY OFFERED TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN A FUTURE PROJECT.

BUT I WANT TO THROW JUST A REALLY BIG DISCLAIMER OUT THERE THAT I MADE MY ESTIMATES JUST FOR EXAMPLE PURPOSES, JUST SO PEOPLE CAN HAVE AN IDEA OF THE NUMBERS I'M USING ARE NOT 100 PERCENT ACCURATE AMID THINGS LIKE TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS, UTILITIES, SITE LAYOUTS THAT I

[00:40:05]

JUST DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON RIGHT NOW.

SO PLEASE CONSIDER THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE AND THEY'RE ONLY ESTIMATES.

SO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS.

A LOT OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH WHAT ARE THE PROVISIONS OF OUR RD ORDINANCE THAT MIGHT IMPACT FUTURE PROJECT.

AND JUST SO WE ALL KNOW, THERE IS A 50 FOOT STEP BACK FROM ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

SO THAT'S FOR ALL BUILDINGS AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.

THIS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE SINGLE FAMILIES ZONING TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST.

SO THAT 50 FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE THERE.

THERE'S REQUIRED 80 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY CENTER, THE RIGHT OF WAYS ON CENTRAL PARK DRIVE AND POWELL.

AND THEN IN AN RD DEVELOPMENT, ALL BUILDINGS, INCLUDING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, IT CAN'T COVER MORE THAN THIRTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE LAND, BUT ALSO THAT A MINIMUM OF THIRTY FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA EXCLUSIVE OF DRIVES AND PARKING AREAS MUST REMAIN AS OPEN SPACE. AND THEN DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, THERE ARE A REQUIREMENT FOR DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, THAT'S TWENTY FIVE FEET FOR ANY DWELLING, ANY BUILDING WITH TWO OR MORE UNITS AND THEN 10 FEET FOR JUST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.

WHAT'S NEXT? FURTHER DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE AND PROBABLE ACTION.

PLANNING COMMISSION'S NEXT MEETING ON NOVEMBER TWENTY THREE.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, NO ADDITIONAL NOTICES OR LETTERS WILL BE SENT OUT.

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL GO IS AN EMAIL FOR THE MEETING PACKET TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. STAFF WILL BE PREPARING A RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION BASED ON DISCUSSION TONIGHT. I DO ALWAYS EMPHASIZE THAT MY STAFF IS AVAILABLE TONIGHT, BUT ALSO IN BETWEEN MEETINGS TO GIVE ME QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE PROJECTS.

PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO CONTACT ME.

I'M EASY TO FIND, YOU SEE MY PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL HERE.

YOU CAN FIND ME ON THE TOWNSHIP WEBSITE.

THAT'S IT FOR ME FOR NOW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, PETER. THE THOROUGH PRESENTATION, AS ALWAYS.

NEXT UP IS OUR APPLICANT, IS THAT RIGHT? WE WE SPOKE WITH HIM EARLIER SO IF WE CAN GET HIM PROMOTED ONE MORE TIME, PETER, I'D APPRECIATE IT. YEAH, I'M GOING TO PROMOTE CHUCK COLEMAN AS A PANELIST TO THE GROUP HERE.

AND THEN [INAUDIBLE] IS ON.

OR HE WAS, I DON'T SEE HIM RIGHT THIS MOMENT.

OH, HE'S THERE. AND WE'LL MOVE HIM TOO.

IF THERE'S [INAUDIBLE], IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE, JUST LET ME KNOW.

AND GENTLEMEN, MAKE SURE YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF SO WE CAN HEAR YOU.

PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. AND, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF WHAT'S GOING ON, CHUCK WILL PROBABLY BE BETTER TO ANSWER WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. BUT OUR INTENTIONS FOR REZONING THIS PROPERTY REALLY IS TO PUT A RENTER BY CHOICE IN A LUXURY PROPERTY FOR THE OKEMOS AREA.

WE HAVE DONE IT IN [INAUDIBLE] DELPHI TOWNSHIP.

AS I WAS SAYING EARLIER, AT ASPEN LAKES.

AND WE'VE ALSO DONE IT AT THE QUARRY MORE RECENTLY.

THE INTENT BEHIND WHAT WE'RE BUILDING HERE IS TO TAKE THE PRODUCTS THAT WE HAVE USED IN THE PAST AT ASPEN LAKES AND THE QUARRY AND BRING THEM TO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

AND WE'VE HAD TREMENDOUS SUCCESS WHERE WE'VE BEEN BUILDING TWO STORY 10 UNIT BUILDINGS, WHERE THERE ARE GARAGES THAT ARE ATTACHED TO EACH ONE OF THOSE UNITS.

SOME ARE TWO CAR, SOME ARE ONE AND A HALF CAR, SOME ARE ONE CAR.

THEY VARY BETWEEN ONE, TWO AND THREE BEDROOMS TYPICALLY.

WE'RE TRYING TO BRING A HOUSING TYPE OF PRODUCT THAT WE HAVE DONE AT ASPEN LAKES, THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE OFFERING THE TWENTY FIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING HOUSES ALONG THERE.

AND IT'S REALLY TO BUFFER THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING THAT'S SITTING ADJACENT TO IT.

WE ALSO ARE PUTTING IN A TOWNHOME PRODUCT THAT WE ARE BUILDING CURRENTLY OUT IN [INAUDIBLE] AND A PARTNER OF OURS IS BUILT ALL ALSO THROUGHOUT GRAND RAPIDS AREA.

AND THOSE PRODUCTS ARE USUALLY FOURPLEXES, ALTHOUGH I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE PUT A COUPLE OF SIXPLEXES IN HERE. BUT IN GENERAL, THEY'RE FOURPLEX IS A BIT BETTER IN A COUPLE OF SPOTS.

BUT THE IDEA BEHIND THOSE IS THOSE ARE OFTEN SINGLE STORY WITH A FLAT WHERE YOU HAVE UNIVERSAL ACCESS ALONG WITH THOSE HOMES ALSO.

AND IN ADDITION, WE DO SOME TWO STOREY HOMES THAT WILL BE MAYBE MORE FOR YOUNG PROFESSIONALS AND FAMILIES IN TERMS OF THAT TYPE OF STUFF.

WE HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT, THAT PEOPLE NO LONGER USED TO--. PEOPLE USED TO THINK THAT, MYSELF INCLUDED, MY FIRST JOB WHEN I WAS WORKING AT [INAUDIBLE] ELECTRONICS, FIRST QUESTION ASKED WAS WHAT'S MY PENSION AND WHY DID I ASK THAT AND ASK THAT? BECAUSE I THOUGHT I WAS WORKING THERE FOR LIFE.

AND TODAY I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT INTERACTION ISN'T AS TRUE AS IT

[00:45:03]

USED TO BE. AND SO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A CROWD WHERE PEOPLE ARE PROFESSIONALS, BUT THEIR JOBS AND THINGS CHANGE OVER A TWO A FIVE YEAR PERIOD AND OFTEN MOVE LOCATIONS.

SO THE INTENTION BEHIND THIS IS TO PROVIDE HOUSINGS LIKE PEOPLE THAT ARE AT THE [INAUDIBLE], PEOPLE THAT WORK AT MICHIGAN STATE, PEOPLE THAT WORK JACKSON LIFE AND OTHER OTHER PROFESSIONAL AREAS THAT WE HAVE.

TO OFFER THEM A LIFESTYLE WHERE IT'S MAINTENANCE FREE AND ALSO PROVIDES THE SAME TYPE OF LIVING AS IF YOU WERE IN A HOME, TOWNHOME OR IN THIS CASE, I WOULD EVEN CALL IT A SINGLE STORY CONDO. WE ARE TRYING TO DO THINGS AS GREEN AS POSSIBLE.

WE LIKE TO PUT IN ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS IN EACH OF THE GARAGES AS WE GET MORE GREEN AND START DOING HOPEFULLY I MEAN, I'M NOT GOING TO SELL TESLA, BUT CARS LIKE TESLA THAT ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF THAT TECHNOLOGY.

WE DID OUR BEST TO ACCOMMODATE AND WORK WITHIN THE WETLANDS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED.

AND A LITTLE BIT OF BACKSTORY ON THAT WETLANDS.

WHEN THE SENIOR HOUSING WAS BUILT, UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT IT DID WAS THEY BLOCKED SOME WATER.

THEY CREATED THINGS THAT [INAUDIBLE] THAT TURNED INTO THIS TRANSITIONAL WETLAND.

AND EVEN THOUGH I WOULDN'T-- WE TALK ABOUT QUALITY OF WETLAND, IT WAS A MISTAKE THAT SOMEONE COULD HAVE PUT A PIPE THROUGH AND SOLVE THAT WHEN THEY HAD ORIGINALLY DONE THE DEVELOPMENT, THEY DID NOT.

AND AS PART OF THAT, WE'RE STILL TRYING TO WORK AROUND THAT WETLAND AND ACCOMMODATE AND SUPPORT THAT. WE THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A TREMENDOUS ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY.

AT THE PLACES THAT WE'RE DOING IT NOW, WE HAVE CHILDREN THAT ARE GOING TO SCHOOLS AND SUPPORT THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE CHOOSING TO LIVE THERE.

THE MEDIAN INCOME IN OUR PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THERE ARE NORTH OF EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH.

SO THESE ARE NOT PEOPLE THAT COULDN'T GO BUY A HOME TOMORROW.

THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE CHOOSING NOT TO BUY A HOME, BUT WANT THE COMFORTS OF A HOME.

THIS IS A RENTER BY CHOICE.

AND SO WE REALLY HOPE THAT THAT WILL HELP DO THESE TYPES OF THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES.

WE'VE HAD TREMENDOUS SUCCESS WITH THIS AND WE LIVE IN THIS TOWNSHIP AND WE LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH COVID.

AND AS WE TALK ABOUT COVID, EACH ONE OF THESE THINGS THAT'S GOING ON AS AN INDEPENDENT ENTRY INTO EACH ONE OF YOUR UNITS.

SO YOU'RE NOT IN A COMMON HALLWAY.

SO IF PEOPLE WANTED THAT ISOLATION, I HEARD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT SENIORS WERE RIGHT NEXT TO A SENIORS HOME THAT'S ADJACENT TO US.

WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD A PRODUCT THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

THAT'S THE INTENT OF WHAT OUR INTENTIONS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO BRING TO THE TOWNSHIP.

WE WANT TO BRING IT TO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN HOW WELL IT'S WORKED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY AND WE BELIEVE IN OUR HOME WE HAVEN'T EVEN DONE THIS.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET AS YOU GUYS ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT AT [INAUDIBLE] POINT, WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT FOR THE HASLETT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND HERE FOR THE OKEMOS SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND OUR INTENTIONS ARE TO TRY AND MAKE THIS AS GOOD AS WE CAN.

AND I DO HAVE SOME NUMBERS THAT STATE ECONOMIC IMPACT, BUT THAT'S SECONDARY IN NATURE.

BUT THERE IS TREMENDOUS PURCHASING POWER AND TAX BASE THAT COMES FROM THIS.

WE PAY TAXES AND NOT HOMESTEAD, AND THERE'LL BE SIGNIFICANT TAX BASE THAT COMES TO THE TOWNSHIP THAT WILL HELP SUPPORT THE GENERAL FUND.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE PURCHASING POWER.

AND I'VE HEARD NUMBERS AS MUCH AS ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY JOBS ARE SUPPORTED FROM THIS COMMUNITY. IF I GO TO SOME WEBSITES THAT KIND OF PRODUCE A NUMBER BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE BUILDING IN GENERALITIES TO PRODUCE ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY LOCAL JOBS AROUND THE COMMUNITY BASED ON DOING THIS, THE CONSTRUCTION, THE NUMBER THAT CAME UP WAS NORTH OF FIVE HUNDRED JOBS. AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE FIVE TO 10 JOBS SITTING THERE SUPPORTING THIS COMMUNITY.

AND WE REALLY WORK ON BUILDING OUR COMMUNITIES AS A LIFESTYLE.

WE ARE MAKING THESE PARKS PUBLIC FORWARD OR THESE COMMON AREAS PUBLIC FACING IS MAYBE THE BETTER WORD FOR IT WITH THE INTENTION THAT IT'S NOT JUST FOR US TO USE.

OTHER PEOPLE CAN USE THESE AMENITIES ALSO.

AND WE SEE THAT HAPPENING IN QUARRY.

WHEN I GO TO THE PICKLEBALL COURTS AND I SEE SOMEONE ELSE USING IT, PERSON, SOMEONE SAID, HEY, THEY MIGHT NOT BE A RESIDENT.

MY ANSWER IS NOT THAT.

MY ANSWER IS, BOY, THIS IS GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY.

ISN'T THAT EXCITING? THEY'RE GOING TO COME LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

SO OUR INTENTIONS OF OUR AMENITIES AND THE THINGS THAT WE PUT FORTH IN OUR COMMUNITIES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

AND AS I WAS TELLING YOU EARLIER, WE HAVE ABOUT 50 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN DOING THIS IN THE GREATER LANSING AREA.

AND WE ARE FOCUSING ON A PURELY CONVENTIONAL MARKET, MEANING THIS IS NOT FOCUSED ON STUDENTS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

THIS IS DIRECTED MORE TOWARDS INCOME QUALIFIED AND PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THAT.

NOT THAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO STUDENTS AND WE HOUSE MANY STUDENTS, BUT THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE MORE ACCOMMODATING TOWARDS YOUNG PROFESSIONALS, SENIORS AND FAMILIES.

AT LEAST I WAS TRYING TO GIVE YOU A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF WHAT THIS PROJECT IS.

AND IF ANYONE HAS MORE QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WE BELIEVE THIS IS A GOOD TRANSITION. I KNOW THIS PROPERTY.

THEY'VE LOOKED AT BIG BOXES ON THIS PROPERTY IN THE PAST, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW IF IT EVER GOT THROUGH OR NOT. WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT TRANSITIONS THIS.

AND AS WE LOOK AT THE ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE HAPPENING THROUGHOUT THE TOWNSHIP WITH MERIDIAN MALL STRUGGLING AND OTHERS, WE WANT TO BE PART TO TRY TO HELP THE SOLUTION.

[00:50:04]

AND WE BELIEVE THAT HOUSING IS PART OF THAT SOLUTION THAT WILL HELP PROFESSIONALS THAT WANT TO LIVE HERE. IT'S GOING TO HELP THAT COMMUNITY, THE AGING COMMUNITY.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING IT TO, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN BUILDING THESE TOWN HOMES AND DUPLEXES THAT WE JUST STARTED.

AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY PEOPLE COME BY AND SAY, I'M GOING TO SOMEDAY WANT TO SELL MY HOME AND I'M GOING TO BE A SNOWBIRD.

WHEN CAN I GET INTO THIS? WHEN'S IT AVAILABLE? AND SO WE'RE GETTING TREMENDOUS DEMAND FOR THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT AND WE JUST WANT TO BRING IT TO MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP.

I HOPE THAT HELPS AT LEAST DESCRIBE IT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE A CAR DEALER.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE SOMEONE WHO'S NOT FROM OUT OF TOWN.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE THESE OTHER THINGS THAT I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT ANY OF THOSE THINGS. I'M JUST TELLING WE'RE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

WE JUST BELIEVE THIS IS A PART OF THE COMMUNITY THAT NEEDS TO BE ENHANCED AND PROVIDES DIVERSITY AND HEALTH TO THE MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP AREA.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CHUCK, I SEE WE'VE ADDED YOU AS WELL.

ARE YOU OPEN TO ADD ANYTHING AT THIS TIME OR ARE YOU JUST HERE FOR QUESTIONS LATER? YES, THANK YOU.

THIS IS CHUCK COLEMAN, I LIVE AT 1317 COOLIDGE ROAD.

VICE PRESIDENT OF CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT FOR [INAUDIBLE].

AND THERE'S NOT A LOT TO ADD TO WHAT ROGER JUST SAID, HE MADE IT FAIRLY CLEAR.

BUT I DO WANT TO RECALL THAT WE WERE WITH YOU BACK IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN AND WE HAD A CONCEPT PLAN BACK THEN.

AND I RECALL AND YOU PROBABLY DO, TOO, AT THAT TIME, THE PLAN INCLUDED THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY UNITS.

THINGS DIDN'T GO EXTREMELY WELL AT THAT MEETING, AND BUT WE LISTENED VERY CAREFULLY TO WHAT SUGGESTIONS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE.

AND NOW, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE'S LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY UNITS ON THIS PLAN. NONE OF IT'S MORE THAN TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT, AND IT IS TRANSITIONAL NEAR CENTRAL PARK DRIVE.

WE HAVE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY CALL BIG HOUSE PRODUCTS, WHICH ARE TWO STORY WITH 10 UNITS IN THOSE ALL WITH GARAGES.

AND IT TRANSITIONS TO FOUR UNIT BUILDINGS AND THEN ULTIMATELY TWO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ALONG POWELL ROAD, SO IT'S A TRANSITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY, THERE IS ABOUT FIVE ACRES OF WETLANDS ON THE SITE AND WE WERE VERY CAREFUL IN MAINTAINING THAT WETLAND AND ACTUALLY USING THAT AS AN AMENITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE RESIDENTS AND FOR THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL.

OTHER THAN THAT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, CHUCK. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION.

AS BEFORE YOU CAN USE IF YOU ARE IN THE ZOOM MEETING YOU CAN USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE TO INDICATE THAT YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC.

ALSO, YOU CAN CALL US AT FIVE ONE SEVEN THREE FOUR NINE ONE, TWO, THREE, TWO.

THE SAME RULES APPLY TO THE PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENTS.

YOU'LL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.

AND WE DO ASK THAT YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, EVEN IF YOU HAVE BEFORE, FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. I WILL POINT OUT THAT FOR THIS PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU ARE RESTRICTED TO SPEAKING ON THE TOPIC AT HAND.

SO PLEASE LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THIS TOPIC.

WITH THAT SAID, I WILL GIVE EVERYONE A MOMENT TO RAISE THEIR HANDS OR CALL IN AND THEN WE'LL GET STARTED.

IT'S LIKE WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF HANDS RAISED HERE.

OK, WHILE WE'RE WAITING, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD PUT MS. JESSE ADLER THROUGH.

SAME PROCESS AS BEFORE FOR THIS ROUND.

ALL RIGHT JESSE, YOU'RE ON. ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY, YOU HEAR ME? YES. ALL RIGHT. JESSE ADLER, 1580 HILLSIDE DRIVE, MEMBER OF THE FOREST HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. REITERATING MY COMMENTS THAT WE SUGGEST THAT YOU VOTE NO ON THIS REZONING.

IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE MASTER PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT.

AS YOU SAW FROM PETER'S REMARKS, PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE NORTHEAST AND SOUTH SIDE OF IT IS

[00:55:03]

ALSO RA.

AND IN KEEPING WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT AND THE TOWNSHIPS MASTER PLAN, THE RA DESIGNATION SEEMS TO BE THE BEST LAND USE FIT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE TRANSITION HOUSING WE HAVE.

I MEAN, THE TRANSITION MEANING FROM LIKE EIGHT UNITS TO SINGLE FAMILY, THAT WHOLE AREA IS NOTHING BUT SINGLE FAMILY RIGHT NOW.

AND I THINK THAT IS PERFECTLY AN ACCEPTABLE USE.

I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF, YOU KNOW, HAVING SOME MORE OF THAT HOUSING THAT'S AVAILABLE AND AFFORDABLE.

BUT I KIND OF HAVE TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE FAMILIES COMING AND GOING BECAUSE OF JOB SITUATIONS.

AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY WANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

DON'T WE WANT PEOPLE TO STAY HERE AND TO LIVE AND WORK IN THIS COMMUNITY? AND IN PROVIDING THAT RENTAL HOUSING DOESN'T REALLY SEEM TO FIT AGAIN WITH THE MASTER PLAN OF PROVIDING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND KEEPING THEM SAFE.

SO JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS AN INTERESTING COMMENT FROM THE DEVELOPER.

AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, GOAL TWO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL AREAS AND CONSERVING WETLANDS. I THINK IT'S A RED FLAG ANY TIME THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING DEALING WITH WETLANDS.

AND THAT SHOULD BE AN AUTOMATIC NO IN TERMS OF HOW YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT.

SO JUST KIND OF TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION THAT RA SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY WOULD BE MUCH MORE CONDUCIVE TO WORKING AROUND THOSE WETLANDS ON THIS SPACE AND NOT INTRUDING AND DEALING WITH FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT GO INTO THOSE LANDSCAPING THAT'S POTENTIALLY GOING TO IMPACT OUR ECOSYSTEM.

YOU KNOW, OBJECTIVE B OF GOAL ONE, INSURE NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, MEET HIGH STANDARDS OF VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS.

I'M NOT SURE THAT ALL THESE EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE ONLY TWO STORY, ALL THESE UNITS I'VE LOOKED UP THE ONES IN [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY'RE LITERALLY LIKE 10 FEET FROM EACH OTHER.

AND I KNOW THAT'S THE MINIMUM, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY VERY ATTRACTIVE AND FRIENDLY AND MINIMIZING EROSION IN THE INTRUSION OF ROADS, PATHWAYS.

YOU CAN READ IT FOR YOURSELF WHAT THE GOAL SAYS, BUT NONE OF THAT IS GOING TO BE HAPPENING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AND I KNOW WE'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE REZONING, BUT YOU CAN'T CONSIDER THE REZONING WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHAT THE REZONING IS FOR AND ALL THOSE USES.

AND IN THIS CASE, IT'S ALL THAT.

SO I'VE TALKED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

YOU CAN READ MY ADDITIONAL NOTES IN THE LETTER I SENT, AND I HOPE YOU PLEASE DO THAT SO YOU CAN DO THAT. I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW THESE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH PRACTICES AND THE PARKS AND THE DIVERSE PARK SYSTEM IS REALLY GOING.

I DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO WALK THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THOSE ACTIVITIES. AND I ONLY SEE A TINY PLAYGROUND IN HERE.

SO, AGAIN, I WOULD CONSIDER THAT YOU PLEASE LOOK AT KEEPING THIS RA AND KEEPING IT IN USE WITH THE HOUSES THAT ARE ALREADY AROUND IT FOR THEIR SAKE AND FOR THE REST OF THE TOWNSHIPS. THANK YOU, JESSE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OK, NEXT, WE'LL HAVE CECILIA KRAMER.

OK, CECILIA, YOU'RE ON WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

OK, HELLO AGAIN, CECILIA KRAMER, 4560 OAKWOOD HERE IN OKEMOS.

JUST AGAIN, IT'S THE DENSITY ISSUE.

THIS IS A TREMENDOUSLY INCREDIBLE INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING AND STUFF THAT YOU'RE PUTTING ON THIS PROPERTY.

IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO TO THIS SORT OF LEVEL OF DENSITY IF YOU WOULD LEAVE IT AT THE RA ZONING AND MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, GET RID OF THE TEN FOOT BETWEEN THE APARTMENT OR THE UNITS OF THE SINGLE UNITS, SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT YOU WOULD USE THAT.

THE PUBLIC STREETS.

I GATHER THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE PUBLIC STREETS, SO THEREFORE THE PUBLIC CANNOT COME ON TO THE PROPERTY UNLESS THEY'RE JUST TO USE THE PARKS IN THE PICKLEBALL COURTS.

AND BY AND LARGE, IT IS TRULY GOING TO BE SPOT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT THE SURROUNDING PARCELS BEING AT THE RA.

LEVEL. AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU WOULD MOVE AHEAD ON THE REZONING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CECILIA.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? STEVEN, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ON THE PHONES? WE'VE GOT ONE MORE ON THE--.

I'M SORRY, I MUST HAVE MISSED THE HAND.

NOPE, JACK ZHANG WAS HAD HIS HAND UP.

[01:00:04]

HERE HE IS. THERE WE GO.

THANK YOU. OK, JACK, YOU'RE BACK ON WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

HI, MY NAME IS JACK.

MY DAUGHTER WANTED TO TALK AND SHE'S EIGHT YEARS OLD AND [INAUDIBLE] OUTRAGEOUS.

4719 POWELL ROAD, OKEMOS.

AND YOU COULD BUILD A PARK INSTEAD OF A HOUSING COMPLEX.

I THINK THAT--.

I THINK MORE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE HERE, AND IT'S MORE LIKE I THINK IT'D BE MORE CONVENIENT FOR ALL THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE TO ENJOY.

THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? THERE ARE NO CALLS, SIR. ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND WRAP UP OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

AND SO AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE FLOOR TO PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WITH QUESTIONS OR POINTS OF DISCUSSION.

AND I SEE COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

AND FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE.

MY SYSTEM AT HOME CRASHED AND I HAD TO RESET EVERYTHING.

THAT'S WHY I LEFT THE MEETING FOR A WHILE.

IT OCCURS TO ME ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME, I WAS STUNNED AT THE MDOT TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FOR THAT AREA.

I HAD NO IDEA IT CARRIED THAT HEAVY A LOAD OF TRAFFIC.

I THINK IT SAID 11000 PLUS CARS PER DAY.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BUILDING A MODERATE TO HEAVY DENSITY DEVELOPMENT RIGHT FRONTING ON THAT ROAD COULD VERY WELL SIMPLY OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM AT THAT LOCATION.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLUMER. I ALSO SHARE THAT CONCERN.

THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY ON CENTRAL PARK, IN AND OUT.

I DON'T TRAVEL DOWN POWELL VERY OFTEN, BUT CERTAINLY ON CENTRAL PARK THERE ARE QUITE A BIT. AND YEAH, IT'S ALWAYS BUSY AND IT IS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CORDILL. YES, THANK YOU.

I HAVE A CONCERN.

WELL, IT'S NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE MASTER PLAN, WHICH THAT'S A CRITICAL PROBLEM WITH THIS. FOR REZONING, WE CAN TAKE IN CONSIDERATION--.

WHILE WE'RE NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT KIND OF PROJECT IT COULD BE, THAT WOULD BE A SUBSEQUENT STEP IN THAT.

SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT DOES THAT KIND OF ZONING FIT IN THE AREA? SO THE MASTER IN COMPATIBILITY WITH THE MASTER PLAN IS A CONCERN.

I'M ALSO WONDERING ABOUT STREETS AND TRAFFIC.

CENTRAL PARK IS THE COLLECTOR AND I CAN SEE THAT.

APPARENTLY POWELL IS CLASSIFIED AS A COLLECTOR.

WAS MY READING OF THAT CORRECT, PRINCIPLE PLANNER.

MENSER? YEAH, YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT I NOTED THAT THAT'S WHAT OUR STREET MAP AS CLASSIFIED AS THAT NOTED THAT MEMO . OK, AND IT'S TWO LANE ROAD.

I MEAN, COMPARED TO CENTRAL PARK, WHICH IS A BUSIER STREET AND HAS MORE WITH I--.

I'M THINKING THAT JUST IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A PROJECT LIKE THIS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO--.

OF COURSE, NOT ONLY IMPROVE IT, BUT WIDEN IT.

I'M ASSUMING THAT WAS A QUESTION FOR ME.

THE QUESTION IS ABOUT WIDENING POWELL ROAD FOR A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PLANS THAT WOULD WOULD REQUIRE THAT.

KEEPING IN MIND, THE ZONING AND THE REZONING FIRST MINDSET WE WILL RECEIVE A MORE DETAILED TRAFFIC STUDY IF AND WHEN A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL IS SUBMITTED FOR THIS PROPERTY.

SO THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT A CONSULTANT WOULD LOOK AT.

AND WE WOULD ALSO ENGAGE AT THAT TIME WITH INGHAM COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS TO MAKE SURE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IF THERE'S A THRESHOLD FOR THAT OR NOT.

ONE THING I DID NOTE IN THE STAFF MEMO IS THE FUTURE PROJECT.

AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, IT HASN'T STARTED YET.

[01:05:03]

BUT ACROSS THE STREET AT SILVERSTONE, THE BOARD DID REQUIRE PAVING FROM THEIR NORTHERN EXTENT DOWN TO GRAND RIVER.

MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE BOARD WILL REQUIRE A SIMILAR PAVING REQUIREMENT FOR IT TO COVER, AT LEAST THROUGH IF YOU TOOK A LOOK AT THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT SHOWED A DRIVE ON POWELL TO THE NORTH OF THAT.

SO THERE MAY ALSO BE PAVING FOR THAT.

THAT'S NOT A GUARANTEE, BUT I WOULD ASSUME A SIMILAR PROVISION REQUIREMENT COULD COME ALONG. OK, THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WOULD BE DEMAND AND INTEREST IN SUCH A DEVELOPMENT.

I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE PLACE FOR IT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS INTERESTED IN PROVIDING ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. YEAH, I HAD THE SAME CONCERNS AS COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

WHEN I READ THE APPLICATION AND STAFF MEMO, I'M FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AND IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER PLAN.

I'M READING THE CURRENT ZONING IS NOT CONSISTENT AND THE NEW ZONING WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CATEGORIES IN THE LAND USE FUTURE LAND USE MAPPING AND THE CURRENT ZONING DON'T MATCH PERFECTLY.

BUT IT FEELS TO ME LIKE THIS IS ASKING FOR A DENSITY THAT EXCEEDS WHAT THE MASTER PLAN ENVISIONS, AND IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY, THEN IN MY MIND THAT'S A BASIS FOR SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING THIS REZONING.

I'M READING A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT LOOKS AT CENTRAL PARK DRIVE AS A FOUR LANE ROAD.

AND I GUESS I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT OF THE PROPOSALS HERE.

THE CYCLING COMMUNITY WOULD LOVE TO THINK OF CENTRAL PARK NOW AS A FOUR LANE ROAD BECAUSE IT'S GOT TWO BIKE LANES AND TWO MOTOR VEHICLE LANES.

RIGHT? IT'S THAT ROAD HAS BEEN RECONFIGURED.

IT IS NO LONGER IN THAT.

HAS IT BEEN IN THAT AREA? AM I MISUNDERSTANDING THE LOCATION OF THE--? MAYBE I DIDN'T-- SORRY, MAYBE I DIDN'T NOTICE IT WHEN I DROVE OVER THERE THIS WEEKEND, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS STILL FOUR IN THAT SECTION.

MAYBE I JUST WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION.

OH, I'M SEEING A LOT OF SHAKING HEADS.

SO, YEAH, LOOKS LIKE IT'S TWO CAR LANES NOW IS WHAT IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

YEAH, AND TO ME THAT'S ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS UPDATED THIS MONTH. SO TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION WITH A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT MISUNDERSTANDS THE CONFIGURATION OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO ME IS A FAIRLY SERIOUS FLAW IN THE APPLICATION.

I ALSO MADE THE SAME MISTAKE RELYING ON GOOGLE IMAGERY, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN OUT THERE RECENTLY, SO THAT MAY VERY WELL BE WHAT HAPPENED.

SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. NO, THAT'S FINE.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

I'M ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OTHER ENTRANCE TO THE PROPERTY ON POWELL ROAD.

THE APPROACH TO GRAND RIVER SOUTH BOUND ON POWELL IS A FAIRLY STEEP INCLINE.

BUT YOU COME UP TO THAT INTERSECTION ON A STEEP HILL AND ADDING IN AND OUTBOUND TRAFFIC.

OK, HERE, SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN ON TO GRAND RIVER WESTBOUND.

FINE. BUT IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GO TO MASON, I'M SORRY IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GO TO WILLIAMSTON FROM POWELL ROAD AT RUSH HOUR, WITH NO SIGNAL.

AND I BELIEVE WE'VE HEARD THIS IN OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT THAT'S A REAL ISSUE.

SO I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND SOME OF THE CLAIMS ABOUT ABOUT ZONING. AND THOSE WOULD MAKE ME UNABLE TO SUPPORT THE REZONING AT THIS TIME.

I DID SEE COMMISSIONER PREMOE'S HAND.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE RECONFIGURATION OF CENTRAL PARK DRIVE TOOK PLACE THIS SUMMER.

I MEAN, THAT'S BEEN IN THE LAST THREE AND A HALF, MAYBE FOUR MONTHS.

SO IT MAY BE THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE TIMING OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY, BUT THAT WAS A RECONFIGURATION. THEY REPAVED AND REALIGNED AND RECONFIGURED.

LESS THAN SIX MONTHS PROBABLY LOOK LIKE THREE.

[01:10:03]

ON THE MEMO IT SAYS OCTOBER 15TH, REVISED NOVEMBER SIX 2020.

THERE YOU GO. SO THAT WAS ALL SINCE THAT RECONFIGURATION WAS DONE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

I JUST LIKE TO TAG ON TO THE LAST THING THAT COMMISSIONER CORDILL SAID.

I AGREE WITH HER VERY MUCH.

THIS REALLY IS A VERY ATTRACTIVE PROJECT.

A LOT GOING FOR IT.

I AGREE WITH THE DEVELOPERS THAT THERE PROBABLY IS A SIGNIFICANT DEMAND FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. MY OBJECTION IS TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT, NOT TO THE NATURE OF THE PROJECT ITSELF. OTHER THOUGHTS, QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

I ACTUALLY JUST WANT TO SAY DITTO TO COMMISSIONER BLUMER, I WAS ABOUT TO SAY THAT IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER CORDILL.

LOOKING AT THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT THEY REFERENCED.

IT IS HARD TO SEPARATE BECAUSE THIS IS WE'RE NOT REALLY LOOKING AT THEIR PLAN RIGHT NOW, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY GOOD, SOLID PLAN.

I DO AGREE THAT THERE'S PROBABLY A MARKET IN OUR COMMUNITY.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT SOMEWHERE.

BUT AGAIN, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION AND THAT WOULD GIVE ME PAUSE TO SUPPORT A REZONING IF THIS IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO LEAD TO.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS. YOU KNOW, OF CLARIFICATION, I GUESS I'D ASK IS THE--.

OF THE FOUR CONDITIONS THAT WERE OFFERED, THE PLAN THAT'S PROPOSED IS IN ONE OF THE CONDITIONS, IS THAT AM I CORRECT ON THAT? YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. THE REZONING IS NOT CONDITIONED ON [INAUDIBLE] USING THE PLAN.

YEAH, YEAH, AND SO AS MUCH AS AND MOST OF THE DISCUSSION, PARTICULARLY BY THE APPLICANT, WAS ABOUT THE PLAN MORE THAN THE REZONING.

SO THAT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING.

AND I GUESS I WANT TO REITERATE THAT WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IS THE REZONING.

AND SO I HAVE AT THIS POINT A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THE PROJECT, ALTHOUGH I SEE IT AS A GOOD PROJECT. AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE CHALLENGE HERE.

AND I ALMOST WONDER WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THE CHANGING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS MIGHT HAVE US LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THAT GENERAL AREA TO SEE IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IF THAT IS STILL CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING CURRENTLY, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TO ME A STRETCH TO SAY THAT THE REZONING ITSELF, NOT LOOKING AT THE PROJECT, MEETS THE CRITERIA AND WOULD FIT. IT'S HARD TO FIND ENOUGH RATIONALE, EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT ITSELF WAS A VERY GOOD PROJECT AND I THINK WOULD BE VERY GOOD FOR THE TOWNSHIP.

SO I GUESS MY APPROACH MIGHT BE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TIME WE WOULD DO THAT.

WE'VE LOOKED AT ZONING AMENDMENTS THEMSELVES WHEN PEOPLE WERE DOING PROJECTS THAT WE REALLY CAN'T FIT THE PROJECT INTO THE ZONING AMENDMENT.

SO I GUESS THAT WOULD BE MY APPROACH, AT LEAST ONE SUGGESTION.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER RICHARDS. COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

YEAH, AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND AGREE WITH THEM. ONE THING I'M LOOKING AT IS THE DENSITY ESTIMATE AND RECOGNIZING THAT MR. MENSER'S ESTIMATES WERE, SHALL WE SAY, ROUGH.

I'M LOOKING AT THE CURRENT ZONING, IF THEY WENT THROUGH A PUD, THEY COULD GET UP TO ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY UNITS THERE WITHOUT CHANGING THE ZONING.

NOW, THAT'S AN ESTIMATE, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS WOULDN'T BE A BETTER PROJECT AT HUNDRED AND SIXTY UNITS RATHER THAN 220.

YEAH, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

I AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID BY MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HERE.

I THINK THAT THE PROJECT IS REALLY EXCITING AND WOULD WE BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER THAT PROJECT AS WE'RE MAKING OUR DECISION ON THE REZONING? I THINK THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A FACTOR IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD.

BUT WE DO NEED TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, THAT THIS RUNS WITH THE LAND RIVER AND THAT THIS

[01:15:01]

MAY NOT BE YOU KNOW, THIS MAY NOT EVEN BE DEVELOPED IN THIS WAY AFTER IT'S REZONED.

AND SO WE HAVE TO RESTRICT OURSELVES TO VIEWING THIS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, IS THIS ZONING APPROPRIATE OR NOT? SO I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR PETER.

I THINK FIRST, THE FIRST IS WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE DENSITY ZONING IF YOU WERE TO BLANK SLATE TODAY INTO THE R3 CATEGORY? WHAT WOULD GENERALLY FIT IN THERE? DO YOU HAPPEN TO--? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE R1 R2 R3 ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

AND THEN WE HAVE A RA, RAA, RC, RD ALL SORTS OF OTHER R DESIGNATIONS.

IF YOU WERE TO WIPE AWAY CURRENT ZONING AND JUST USE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHAT ZONING CATEGORIES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THERE? I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, BUT I'M GOING TO RELY ON THE MASTER PLAN.

SO IN THE MASTER PLAN, THERE'S A TABLE THAT LOOKS AT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE MAP AND THE ZONING MAP AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

UNDER R3, IT CALLS FOR RA, RA AND RX AS BEING KIND OF THE EQUIVALENT CORRELATING DISTRICTS. THANK YOU.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.

YEAH, AND SO IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THE RD ZONING TO BE APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT, AS PETER MENTIONED WITH HIS STAFF MEMO, I ALSO HAD CONCERNS WITH SOME OF THE ANSWERS PROVIDED TO THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ON PAGE TWO OF THE REZONING REQUEST, BECAUSE I DIDN'T FIND ANY COMPELLING ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT THEIR PRESENT REZONING-- SORRY, THE PRESENT ZONING IS UNREASONABLE.

RIGHT. THERE ARE ARGUMENTS MADE, BUT I DON'T PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THEY SATISFIED MY NEED FOR THOSE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED.

AND I THINK THAT THERE WAS SOME STRONGER ANSWERS GIVEN FOR WHY THE NEW ZONING WAS APPROPRIATE. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS ENOUGH FOR ME TO GET IT OVER THAT HUMP INTO MAKING IT INTO A PROPOSAL FOR REZONING THAT I COULD SUPPORT.

AGAIN, I LIKE THE CONCEPT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT SOMEWHERE IN OUR TOWNSHIP.

KNOW THAT THIS REQUESTED REZONING IS APPROPRIATE TO MOVE FORWARD AT THIS TIME, JUST BASED ON MY REVIEW OF JUST THE REZONING REQUEST.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS? COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. CAN I BOOKMARK THIS MEETING FOR LATER? WE DON'T NEED TO GET AN ANSWER THIS EVENING, BUT THE APPLICANT DID MAKE AN ASSERTION ABOUT A PRIOR DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT THAT HAD INADEQUATELY DESIGNED STORM WATER.

AND I'D BE INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT THAT HISTORY, NOT NECESSARILY THIS EVENING.

OK, THANK YOU. I MADE NOTE OF THAT IT CAME UP IN A PREVIOUS MEETING.

I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN FIND.

WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD SO FAR IS THERE WOULD BE A [INAUDIBLE] PERMIT PROPOSED FOR THIS PROPERTY, SO WE WOULD CERTAINLY FIND OUT A LOT MORE AT THAT TIME, BUT I'LL SEE WHAT WE'VE GOT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS OR CONCERNS? OK, SEEING NONE.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON THEN TO OUR STRAW POLL.

A NOTE FOR THOSE WATCHING IN EITHER AT HOME OR IN THE ZOOM MEETING.

STRAW POLL IS MERELY A TOOL THAT WE USE TO PROVIDE PETER WITH GUIDANCE WHEN HE IS CRAFTING HIS RESOLUTION FOR OUR NEXT MEETING ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE LEANING TOWARD SUPPORTING OR LEANING TOWARD OPPOSING A PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.

IT IS NOT A VOTE.

IT IS MERELY JUST A GUIDANCE FOR PETER.

WITH THAT SAID, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL.

I AM NOT CURRENTLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS APPLICATION.

COMMISSIONER PREMOE. NO.

MISSIONER CORDILL. NO, I CANNOT SUPPORT THE REZONING.

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY. ALSO, NO.

COMMISSIONER RICHARDS.

NO. COMMISSIONER BLUMER.

I WOULD VOTE NO. COMMISSIONER TREZISE.

NO. AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WHILE I SUPPORT THE CONCEPT PLAN, I WOULD VOTE NO ON THIS REZONING, AS IT CURRENTLY IS BEFORE US.

SO, PETER, I THINK YOU'VE GOT OUR GUIDANCE AS TO THE SENSE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON

[01:20:05]

THIS ISSUE.

AND WITH THAT SAID, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE OUR PUBLIC MEETING-- OR A PUBLIC HEARING, RATHER, AT 8:19 PM.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO PUBLIC HEARING, OUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EVENING

[6B. Commercial Planned Unit Development #20-13034 (Meridian Mall Limited Partnership), amend commercial planned unit development approval to construct 2,500 square foot bank with three drive-up ATMs at 1982 Grand River Avenue.]

. THIS IS THE AGENDA ITEM SIX B, COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 20, DASH ONE THREE ZERO THREE FOUR, MERIDIAN MALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AMEND COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT BANK WITH THREE DRIVE UP ATMS AT NINETEEN EIGHTY TWO GRAND RIVER AVENUE.

WE'LL GIVE PETER A MOMENT TO CATCH UP ON HIS ZOOM MEETING MAINTENANCE HERE BEFORE WE HAVE HIM JUMP INTO HIS PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I APPRECIATE THAT.

OK, THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.

SECOND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EVENING, SIMILAR, NOT SIMILAR, EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE FIRST [INAUDIBLE] REQUESTS, SAME PROCEDURES.

SO THIS IS OF AN AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL-- THIS IS THE PROJECT IS COMMERCIAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 20 DASH ONE THREE ZERO THREE FOUR.

IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO A COMMERCIAL [INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPMENT FROM TWENTY THIRTEEN, WHICH WAS ONE THREE, THREE, FOUR.

THIS IS THE 2020 AMENDMENT TO THAT.

SO THIS IS A PROJECT PROPOSED BY MERIDIAN MALL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE EXISTING CPUD AT THE MALL TO CONSTRUCT A TWENTY FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT BANK.

SO BACK IN TWENTY THIRTEEN WHEN THE MALL CAME ALONG.

NOT WHEN THE MALL CAME ALONG.

WHEN [INAUDIBLE] WAS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED AS AN ADDITION TO THE MALL AT THAT TIME MALL PUT THE ENTIRE MALL SITE UNDER COMMERCIAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.