[0:16] And then it's really hard to visualize

[0:17] how you could ever put it in, right?

[0:20] You know like

[0:23] Good Evening by the clock on the wall.

[0:25] It is now 6:00 PM

[0:26] and it's time for the SMO Township Planning Commission

[0:30] meeting of September the 24th.

[0:31] 2026. Would you please rise and join us?

[0:35] In the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance,

[0:40] I plead to the flag of the United States of America

[0:44] and to the republic for which it stands.

[0:47] One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty

[0:51] and justice for all.

[0:58] Thank you. We have an agenda in front of us.

[1:01] Does anybody have any additions

[1:03] or corrections to be made to the agenda as it is prepared?

[1:11] If there are none, can I have a motion

[1:12] to approve the agenda?

[1:14] I move that we approve this agenda as prepared.

[1:18] Is there a second? Second Support.

[1:21] We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda.

[1:24] All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

[1:27] All opposed. And the ayes have it. The agenda is approved.

[1:30] Moving on. Item number four, approval of the minutes

[1:33] of September the 10th, 2026.

[1:37] Everyone's had the opportunity to review the minutes.

[1:41] Are there any corrections that need to be made?

[1:45] Hearing none. If it meets with everyone's approval.

[1:49] Can I have a motion to approve the agenda as presented?

[1:54] The minutes, I'm sorry, as presented.

[2:01] No, go ahead. Move

[2:03] that we accept the minutes from the past meeting

[2:06] as prepared.

[2:08] And do we have a second? Second.

[2:12] All those in favor of approving the minutes please

[2:14] signify by saying aye.

[2:16] Aye. Aye. All opposed. And the minutes are approved.

[2:20] Moving on to item number five. This is a work item.

[2:23] It's dealing with the zoning ordinance updates.

[2:27] These are suggested updates to the non-residential schedule

[2:31] of regulations and land uses.

[2:34] Mr. Chair, before Jason gets started,

[2:37] Trustee Chapman asked me to announce for him

[2:40] that he has a military assignment this week

[2:43] and that is why he is not president.

[2:45] He's a colonel in the United States Air Force

[2:48] and so he has a temporary military assignment keeping

[2:50] him from the meeting tonight.

[2:52] Now we thank him for his service, not only here

[2:54] but in the military as well.

[2:55] That's a lot on your plate. Okay, the

[2:58] Floor is all yours.

[3:00] Thank you. Good evening. It's nice to be here

[3:02] with you all again tonight.

[3:04] As you mentioned tonight,

[3:06] last time we were together we talked all about residential

[3:08] uses and residential standards and and district regulations.

[3:12] Tonight we're turning our attention towards

[3:15] the commercial districts and standards.

[3:18] Before we dive into that,

[3:19] just a reminder on our things sitting in our parking lot,

[3:22] these are the things that we've identified

[3:23] during discussion throughout this process

[3:25] that we have promised to come back to A couple

[3:28] of those things we hit on tonight,

[3:31] but they're not totally out of the parking lot.

[3:32] They're gonna come up again for us as we work

[3:34] through additional updates to the zoning ordinance.

[3:37] So tonight you may have noticed in your packet that

[3:40] that building transparency

[3:41] or how much, how much of a building frontage is made up

[3:44] of windows came up again.

[3:46] So we're talking about windows, not transparency

[3:48] because that's a much more clear and obvious term.

[3:50] And then there is an opportunity to move some

[3:52] of our shared parking standards into one place instead

[3:55] of them being buried in other areas.

[3:57] So we'll talk about those a little bit tonight.

[4:00] There are two minor errors in your packet that I wanted

[4:03] to point out and I apologize

[4:05] 'cause this slide got totally screwed up.

[4:07] Gimme just one second.

[4:21] All right. So the one minor error

[4:24] that is in your packet that I wanted to point out

[4:28] was we're talking about the mixed use district tonight in

[4:31] the table of regulations we summarize it

[4:33] as MX U for mixed use.

[4:35] It should be mu. So if any of you notice that

[4:37] and we're confused, I apologize.

[4:39] We talk about the mixed use district, we'll abbreviate it

[4:41] as mu not MXU going forward.

[4:45] The other issue is that in that same schedule

[4:49] of regulations, the term frontage exists next

[4:54] to several of the industrial districts.

[4:56] That frontage term shouldn't be there.

[4:58] It was a misunderstanding on my part on exactly how

[5:01] that worked in the ordinance.

[5:02] So just that that term frontage crossed that, that out,

[5:06] that won't be present in in any of the drafts going forward.

[5:09] That was an an error that Jodi, Leanna

[5:12] and team pointed out to us today.

[5:14] So just a couple of little record keeping things

[5:16] for your packet as we walk through.

[5:19] As a reminder, we are continuing

[5:22] to consolidate zoning districts for simplicity's sake.

[5:24] So tonight we're looking at all those zoning districts in

[5:26] the red box here on your screen.

[5:29] So all of those commercial

[5:30] zoning districts we're dealing with.

[5:33] You will notice as we walk through it

[5:34] that we are suggesting a change

[5:36] to the sea local business district

[5:38] to be called regional commercial that aligns

[5:40] with the comprehensive plan designation for

[5:42] that place type as regional corridor.

[5:45] It also is sort of more indicative of the kinds

[5:47] of uses we're looking at in that area

[5:49] as being pretty intensive commercial land uses.

[5:54] So getting into some

[5:55] of the recommended use changes again from your memo,

[5:58] these aren't substantial changes at all.

[6:00] We're following through on that table.

[6:02] We looked at together in May that had the various green

[6:05] and red uses.

[6:06] We were crossing some things out.

[6:08] So some of those recommended commercial use change changes

[6:10] that are noted in that table.

[6:12] Adding some conditions to the commercial center use.

[6:15] So should you have a new use that comes in

[6:17] that's a large kind

[6:18] of commercial center adding some conditions to that approval

[6:21] for things like parking, storm water management traffic,

[6:24] things that are sort of unique to that large scale use

[6:27] that are gonna be different from a typical just

[6:29] single commercial use.

[6:32] We're we are differentiating between drive through

[6:34] or drive-ins versus pickup windows.

[6:37] There are two different uses for that.

[6:38] That's a new use that doesn't exist in your code today.

[6:42] We're clarifying a couple of uses related to craft food

[6:45] and beverage productions, micro breweries, wine tasting.

[6:48] The current ordinance has uses for micro brewery, brew pub

[6:53] and craft beverage production

[6:55] and they're all permitted in the same zoning districts.

[6:58] So we've just separated those out.

[7:00] So it's clear that craft beverage

[7:01] production is an industrial use.

[7:03] It's located in the industrial districts.

[7:05] And then those uses like wine taste tasting room

[7:09] or brew pub are permitted in the commercial districts

[7:13] 'cause it's it they also operate as sort

[7:14] of a restaurant or tavr.

[7:18] Lastly, there are new uses

[7:19] for neighborhood retail establishments

[7:21] and large retail establishments.

[7:23] So we'll talk about exactly how to define that

[7:26] as we get into standards next time.

[7:28] But typically that definition is sort

[7:31] of neighborhood retail establishments.

[7:32] Think of your Hardings market down on Stadium Drive

[7:35] as being sort of the high end

[7:37] of a neighborhood retail

[7:38] establishment in terms of how big it is.

[7:40] So things that are that size are smaller are typically your

[7:43] neighborhood retail establishment.

[7:44] Those large retail establishments think big box stores, men,

[7:47] Menards, Myers, those kinds of things that have lots

[7:50] of parking, lots of traffic.

[7:52] We're gonna treat those differently than those smaller

[7:54] format retail uses.

[7:58] So again, as we think about that commercial use table,

[8:00] we're going from this that we looked at together back in May

[8:03] where we identified a series of changes we were recommending

[8:07] and now in your packet is a cleaned up table

[8:09] that looks like this

[8:12] or just clearly identify what are those uses,

[8:14] where are they permitted?

[8:15] As we work through this, think about this as being 95% done

[8:21] as we work through all

[8:22] of the different sections in your code

[8:23] and we work through definitions of uses

[8:26] and standards that are assigned to them.

[8:28] Some of these we may come back

[8:30] and tweak this, we'll let you know

[8:31] and we'll show that change.

[8:33] But this puts us kind of 95% of the way there

[8:36] and gives us a clear understanding of

[8:37] what we're permitting in which district as we move forward.

[8:42] So I'll pause there just as it relates to

[8:45] that commercial use table

[8:47] and sort of the, the revisions we've made in having

[8:49] that draft in front of you.

[8:50] Any questions, comments, concerns that came up for you all

[8:54] as you were looking through that?

[8:59] Are you talking about the whole,

[9:00] the entire table or just this page?

[9:03] The entire table. Sorry, this was just an example.

[9:06] I had a question about, this would be on packet page 11,

[9:10] under production and storage it listed compounding drugs,

[9:15] cosmetics, pottery, plastics and food products.

[9:19] What, what, how is pottery defined?

[9:22] I'm thinking that you could have someone

[9:24] who sets up a little shop to, for people to come

[9:26] and do like paint your own pottery,

[9:29] which wouldn't be a industrial use.

[9:33] Sure. More of a commercial use.

[9:36] Yeah. So let me just check and that

[9:39] and we can clarify as we get into definitions.

[9:41] As I mentioned we'll sort of confirm those.

[9:44] I think we can clear, so one of the tricks there

[9:48] as we define what is like a small or

[9:50] or a neighborhood retail establishment is

[9:53] how much like small scale manufacturing

[9:56] or things can happen in those sites in that definition.

[9:59] Typically there's something there that allows for sale or

[10:02] or small production of things

[10:03] that are then sold on that site.

[10:05] So I agree with you that pottery is not typically an

[10:08] industrial use and we can definitely strike that

[10:10] and be sure that those small kind of

[10:13] production uses would be permitted in the neighborhood mixed

[10:16] use in other districts.

[10:20] Okay. I also had a question then on the next page,

[10:22] on page 12 under public

[10:29] it lists fire stations separately

[10:31] but then the the one two down from

[10:35] that says publicly owned and operated buildings

[10:37] and uses would fire station fall under that?

[10:42] We wanted to really clearly identify fire station

[10:44] and treat it differently because the impacts there are a

[10:47] little different right in in terms of the trucks coming in

[10:50] and out and potential noise.

[10:52] So that was separated out purposely. Okay, good question.

[10:57] I think I just have one more where it talks about

[11:03] events and it talked about your notes talked

[11:05] about food truck.

[11:08] Yes, I don am.

[11:12] I'm not sure how I would would write that

[11:14] but like sometimes you know like

[11:16] the food trucks will like be at somebody's business

[11:19] and I know in the past we've even had some

[11:22] requests to like be in the park.

[11:25] So when it comes to those, are we going to define

[11:28] where these things can be?

[11:32] Yeah, so that is part of the, the

[11:33] what we'll be going over at the next meeting is some

[11:35] of the standards and requirements that apply,

[11:38] we call 'em conditions today in your code that apply

[11:40] to these different uses so that food truck use

[11:42] and those event conditions are,

[11:44] we will go over together next time. Okay.

[11:46] Alright. Thank you.

[11:48] Great questions. I appreciate you going

[11:50] through the table in detail.

[11:51] Anything else that folks noted as looking through that?

[12:00] Okay, the one thing in that table that we wanted to get,

[12:04] wanted to call out specifically to get your feedback on

[12:06] and it was noted in your memo was we wanted

[12:08] to talk about whether

[12:10] or not we should remove single family homes from the mixed

[12:13] use district EZ we're,

[12:15] and we have edits to the mixed use district

[12:17] that are in your packet as well.

[12:18] We'll talk through the question here is like we have,

[12:21] as we talked about last time, we have lots

[12:23] of areas in the Township where we allow

[12:24] for single family homes

[12:26] that mixed use district isn't a district

[12:28] that exists on the zoning map without somebody applying

[12:31] to change their property to that district.

[12:34] And the intent there is to sort of follow through on some

[12:37] of the comprehensive plan special study areas as well

[12:41] as sort of those nodes in this Township

[12:43] with the most activity.

[12:45] And so we have lots of areas in the Township

[12:47] with single family development,

[12:48] but if we want to try to have a development where we

[12:52] have enough residential density

[12:54] where we aren't creating a lot of extra trips, which is one

[12:56] of the goals of that mixed use district, it's hard to do

[12:59] that with single family 'cause it's spread out.

[13:02] So wanted to get your feedback on whether you're supportive

[13:05] of removing single family from that mixed use district

[13:08] or if we should keep it in that district.

[13:11] What your thoughts were on that.

[13:17] Could you talk a little bit more about that?

[13:21] It would have to be a special study

[13:24] or it's not a specific area at this time.

[13:27] Yeah, so those areas that, so today in your code,

[13:30] the mixed use district has to apply

[13:31] to a sub area from the old master plan.

[13:35] The, so sub areas no longer exist

[13:37] because you've adopted a new master plan.

[13:39] So in the current comprehensive plan there are a couple

[13:42] of sub of special study areas

[13:44] that were specifically identified with boundaries

[13:46] where the plan dug into more detail on

[13:48] how development could occur.

[13:50] And then there were also regional corridors

[13:53] and nodes that were identified in that plan as being sort

[13:56] of focuses for higher density development.

[13:59] So those were the places that we identified in your draft A

[14:02] as places where a rezo

[14:05] to this mis mixed use district which provides more

[14:08] flexibility for development would be appropriate.

[14:15] So I, I guess just to tie back,

[14:18] last time we were together we looked at these maps.

[14:20] This is the map of everywhere that's not sort of

[14:22] that light gray color on this map permits single family

[14:25] residential development today, right?

[14:27] So in those mixed use districts, we still, many

[14:30] of them are adjacent to or

[14:31] or close to one of these single family districts.

[14:34] We could maintain that district as it exists.

[14:37] It's just that that mixed use district,

[14:39] the idea there is we're providing more flexibility

[14:41] for things we couldn't accomplish under a typical

[14:43] zoning district.

[14:45] And we have lots of ways to accomplish single family today.

[14:49] So the thought was to really sort of hone in on what

[14:52] that mixed use district is for, which is those sort

[14:55] of big redevelopment projects, right?

[14:56] That the space behind the mall, those things that are tricky

[14:59] to redevelop versus just sort of using that district

[15:02] as a way to create a typical single family home subdivision.

[15:07] Seems to me the last time I remember you

[15:10] and I had a discussion on

[15:14] what a mixed use district was going

[15:18] to look like in a predominantly single family

[15:22] housing development.

[15:23] And I had used Westport

[15:25] because that was the, the development I'm most familiar with

[15:29] and I really couldn't see that.

[15:32] And the answer I thought I was getting from you was,

[15:35] well it's not something that's going to happen overnight

[15:37] or within the next couple of months.

[15:39] You're talking about 10, 20 years down the road as people

[15:44] abandoned their homes in the single family area,

[15:47] rip them down, do something different.

[15:49] It's kind of an incremental transition. Okay.

[15:52] And in light of that, man, I just don't see,

[15:56] and I I might be wrong, I'm a bit of a Luddite,

[15:59] I I just don't see transition

[16:03] occurring very rapidly.

[16:06] I I I think we're talking about 30, 40 years down the road.

[16:11] Yeah. And with that, I don't see any reason why

[16:16] we should try and integrate the the

[16:19] single family into the multi use district.

[16:24] It it is a separate entity.

[16:26] It's, yeah, it's been here for years. Am I wrong? Am I

[16:30] Well I don't think you're wrong.

[16:32] And I guess I would add a clarifying point to this.

[16:34] So the, the mixed use district in your zoning

[16:37] ordinance is a little unique.

[16:38] You all are familiar with the planned unit development

[16:40] and the mixed use district in your zoning ordinance kind

[16:44] of operates like a special kind of planned unit development.

[16:47] So you have to come to you all with a special plan, you have

[16:49] to go through a process in order to activate

[16:52] that mixed use district as you are all aware.

[16:53] And so it's part of versus that sort

[16:56] of gradual transition we talked about last time,

[16:58] if somebody's gonna trigger that mixed use district,

[17:01] it is a, like we're developing something significant

[17:05] to close to a finished state.

[17:06] It's not that gradual incremental development

[17:08] that would happen if we have sort of neighborhoods

[17:11] that are more mixed use and they change gradually over time.

[17:14] This is, I have a five acre or larger parcel

[17:17] and I'm doing a major development project on

[17:20] it. Does that make sense?

[17:22] Yeah, I mean I understand what you're saying.

[17:26] I think to place a little historical context here,

[17:30] one item is that the whole thrust

[17:33] of the mixed use district was

[17:35] to add more residential housing.

[17:39] The the second thing and,

[17:40] and I'll just speak on behalf of the developers

[17:43] that were in the room when we were doing the mixed use,

[17:47] they want flexibility.

[17:48] Yeah. And so to take the single family homes out of

[17:52] that kind of reduces flexibility,

[17:54] especially if they're a budding, an area

[17:57] where there are single family homes makes a better

[18:00] transition for that development.

[18:03] So those are just a couple of items that I see in that

[18:10] I'm, I'm happy to leave it.

[18:12] I would say the, the only the downside

[18:15] of leaving it right is that if you have relatively,

[18:17] you have limited land

[18:18] and space where that mixed use district can work.

[18:22] So if it becomes single family homes, you're just using up

[18:25] that space in a way that that is

[18:28] less efficient from a

[18:30] how many housing units can we fit in this space

[18:32] or how dense is the commercial development?

[18:34] That's okay. It's just something that

[18:36] as we were reviewing it

[18:37] and thinking about those, those areas

[18:39] that were identified in the comprehensive plan,

[18:41] it felt like keeping it in

[18:42] that single family designation didn't make sense.

[18:44] It likely is not an issue.

[18:46] I don't imagine somebody coming to you with a mixed use

[18:49] development proposal

[18:51] and proposing a lot of single family just

[18:53] because the areas that that's identified for.

[18:55] Maybe it's a transition area to your point,

[18:58] but it's unlikely to be predominantly single family

[19:01] 'cause other they could do that with current zoning

[19:03] or under a more simple rezoning request

[19:06] or how the areas are zoned today.

[19:09] Well if I could just speak to that as well and,

[19:12] and it goes back to the heart of mixed use.

[19:15] I've brought this up before

[19:17] and I hope I don't get yelled at.

[19:20] The, the mixed use D district in my mind is a district

[19:25] that's integrated for people and business.

[19:31] And so we, we could leave commercial at the street

[19:36] and residential at the back and have two different districts

[19:39] and that would be the similar to

[19:42] what I'm seeing mixed use being thought of.

[19:45] So I don't know how we can get to the, the concept

[19:50] of integration walkability a a home

[19:54] for people to enjoy.

[19:56] That's that's not just strip mall

[20:00] and housing. Yeah. Do you follow

[20:03] I I do completely.

[20:04] And I think the, the trick on this,

[20:06] and I think we can definitely come back to

[20:08] how we're thinking about the mixed use district

[20:10] after we get through all of the other sort of adjustments

[20:13] to zoning districts in terms of uses

[20:15] and dimensions and standards.

[20:17] 'cause part of this effort I think is to make that idea

[20:21] that we can have more of a neighborhood

[20:22] and a place versus strip mall and house.

[20:25] It applies to a lot

[20:27] of the work we're doing on the neighborhood mixed use

[20:29] district on, we talked about more flexibility on the

[20:32] neighborhood residential district.

[20:34] So I think that theme kind

[20:36] of underlies all the work we're doing.

[20:37] And so I think once we get through that

[20:40] and get done, we can come back to this mixed use district

[20:43] and be sure that we're getting to what we need to get to.

[20:47] Because fundamentally what it does is it creates more,

[20:50] it allows somebody to,

[20:51] to deviate from the regular zoning district standards.

[20:55] And so if we're creating more flexibility in those

[20:57] standards, the need to deviate isn't as great as it was.

[21:01] Does that make sense? It does

[21:03] Make sense and I, I appreciate your desire to put that

[21:06] as a note and to keep us moving towards,

[21:10] So we will add, we will keep the mixed use district in our

[21:13] parking lot as we move forward after night

[21:15] and we'll go through edits to that together as well.

[21:17] Great. So I think

[21:18] for now we'll keep single family in based on this discussion

[21:21] and, and depending on how we go we can, we can revisit that.

[21:25] Any other questions about the commercial use table

[21:30] or standard or the commercial use table

[21:32] or any of that that we had in your packet?

[21:37] Okay, we'll get into the schedule of regulations now.

[21:39] So on your screen is the ugly version

[21:42] of the SC schedule of regulations.

[21:44] This shows all the proposed changes.

[21:46] So all the red lines

[21:47] and crossouts, this looks like way more

[21:51] change than it actually is.

[21:53] The primary reason for that is, is we've gone through

[21:55] and we've eliminated all of the carve outs

[21:57] for commercial districts without access to water or sewer

[22:01] because with like one very small exception, all

[22:05] of your commercial industrial districts have

[22:06] access to water and sewer.

[22:08] So there's no need to have these different carve outs for

[22:10] what, for commercial uses

[22:12] that don't have access to water and sewer.

[22:14] They just all should have that access at this point.

[22:16] And that's appropriate for commercial uses

[22:18] because it's hard

[22:19] to have a commercial use on a septic system if we're gonna

[22:22] have that level of activity.

[22:24] The big reason for moving

[22:26] to the schedule regulations is we're trying

[22:28] to go from this kind of information in your ordinance today.

[22:32] So these are the current, this is the current kind

[22:34] of schedule of regulations for the,

[22:36] the village commercial district today.

[22:40] This is the way that we're showing that same schedule

[22:43] of regulations in the new proposed

[22:45] proposed neighborhood mixed use.

[22:47] So the information here is essentially the same, right?

[22:50] If you track this through, there's still in

[22:52] that table there 65 feet of lot frontage or 230

[22:57] and you see 65 feet

[22:59] or two 30 if conflicting

[23:00] with the transportation mobility ordinance shown there.

[23:03] It's just a much simpler way to look at all

[23:05] of those same standards

[23:06] and then compare them across all

[23:07] of your different zoning districts.

[23:10] So as Leanna and Jodi

[23:13] and Colton can can tell you there are lots of standards

[23:16] that relate to or there are lots

[23:17] of places in your zoning ordinance today where these kinds

[23:21] of standards around dimensions are sort of hidden.

[23:23] And so what we're trying to do is get all those into one

[23:25] place and be sure that we're consistent across zoning

[23:28] districts so we don't get surprised when we dig into one

[23:30] particular use versus another.

[23:34] The one other change that that

[23:37] table shows is a consistent approach to lot coverage today.

[23:42] There isn't a consistent standard

[23:43] for ladder building coverage in

[23:45] all of your zoning districts.

[23:46] Some have them, some don't.

[23:47] Some uses even have a standard

[23:49] for what's called ground coverage.

[23:51] Meaning how much of the ground is covered

[23:53] by impervious surface building parking lot,

[23:56] et cetera, versus just building.

[23:58] So in that lot coverage standard

[23:59] that we're looking at now we're only talking about areas

[24:02] covered by a building.

[24:04] So this is Menards here in town.

[24:06] So the, or in the Township,

[24:09] the gray outline here is all the area on Menards

[24:11] that would be counted within lot coverage

[24:14] or building coverage as we have it create

[24:16] as it exists in that table today.

[24:18] This is an important standard

[24:20] because it, it allows you to be sure how much

[24:22] of the lot's gonna be building and how much isn't.

[24:25] But then you can also on,

[24:26] on intense commercial uses like this, add some standards

[24:29] for additional green space that goes

[24:31] beyond just the building versus a a wholesale

[24:36] prohibition of impervious surface.

[24:37] 'cause there are lots of ways to manage impervious

[24:39] surface on the site.

[24:43] So with that clean version of the commercial schedule

[24:46] of regulations, again with that word frontage crossed out,

[24:49] sorry it's on here.

[24:51] Some of the big changes there, I mentioned removal

[24:53] of the options for development without

[24:55] access to water and sewer.

[24:56] So fundamentally someone couldn't come in

[24:58] and ask for a rezoning to one of these uses

[25:00] that they didn't have access to water or sewer.

[25:02] That would be inconsistent with the the ordinance we've,

[25:07] I mentioned lot coverage.

[25:08] There's also now a clear maximum building height

[25:11] for every zoning district today in your code.

[25:14] There is not a clear maximum building height

[25:15] for every zoning district.

[25:18] They're sort of located in different places and it,

[25:20] and it's not clear what it is.

[25:21] So there is that clear height along with a number of stories

[25:25] for everything outside of industrial

[25:26] because industrial buildings stories doesn't matter so much.

[25:30] We're just thinking about total height.

[25:33] We've replaced the village commercial district

[25:35] with the neighborhood mixed use district,

[25:37] which we've talked about in the past.

[25:40] We also removed the building height related setbacks in the

[25:44] industrial districts Today the industrial district includes

[25:47] a a setback that says if your building is so tall,

[25:50] your setback has to be equal to the height of the building.

[25:53] If you remember last time we talked about those additional

[25:55] landscape buffers that we were gonna require

[25:57] for industrial uses that were adjacent to other uses.

[26:00] Those were 50 feet.

[26:01] So we're already covering 50 feet for everything other than

[26:05] that i three district, which is the most intense district

[26:08] that can go up to 60.

[26:10] And most of those uses

[26:11] that are gonna go over 60 are gonna require special land use

[26:13] and you can require a different additional setbacks

[26:16] or deal with those otherwise.

[26:19] So again, trying to really simplify

[26:21] and clarify this table so that both developers

[26:25] but also staff planning, commissioners, residents understand

[26:28] what are the standards across all those

[26:29] different zoning districts.

[26:34] As you all looked through that, were there any questions or,

[26:37] or concerns that you had

[26:38] that you wanted to talk through tonight?

[26:48] Again, it doesn't represent a ton of change.

[26:50] It's a lot of just sort of getting everything in the same

[26:52] place and adding some consistency

[26:55] and as I mentioned, consider this 95% done.

[26:58] It's the same as the the use table as we work through

[27:02] standards for all those commercial uses.

[27:03] As we continue to work our way through the rest

[27:05] of the ordinance, we may come back to this

[27:07] and make minor modifications here and there,

[27:09] but again it gives us a place that we can sort

[27:11] of evaluate everything else in the code.

[27:17] Okay. Now we'll dig into I think the last 20 pages

[27:21] of your packet and, and that are the red line.

[27:24] Those are the red lines and changes to village commercial

[27:27] and then to the mixed use district.

[27:30] So from a high level, the,

[27:32] the changes from village commercial

[27:34] to neighborhood mixed use are

[27:35] all about simplification, right?

[27:36] So this is our stadium drive area today.

[27:40] There are two different articles

[27:41] that control development in that area.

[27:43] It's article I think 19, which is Village Commercial.

[27:46] And there's article 34,

[27:47] which is the form-based code overlay.

[27:50] And that article 34 is like 78 pages long.

[27:54] So like it, it it's, it's great zoning language,

[27:57] it's really nice job of controlling development

[27:59] but it's very complex.

[28:02] So what we're proposing is wiping away that article 34,

[28:06] taking some pieces of it

[28:07] and moving them into the the new neighborhood mixed use

[28:10] district and then taking other peaches pieces of it related

[28:13] to signs and parking and moving those into the signs

[28:16] and parking articles that they apply to lots of places,

[28:19] not just this one little section of the Township.

[28:23] Other significant changes is we're proposing a more flexible

[28:26] front building setback today, the maximum setbacks,

[28:30] this is the one area Township

[28:31] where we have maximum setbacks, not minimums.

[28:34] So in other words, the maximum distance a building could be

[28:36] set back from the right of ways is 15 feet.

[28:39] We're suggesting taking that to 40.

[28:41] What 40 feet does is it allows for one row of a parking

[28:45] with a access drive

[28:46] and landscaping in front of a building

[28:48] that's more consistent with the development

[28:50] that you have there and the kind

[28:52] of development you're likely to attract on a five lane,

[28:54] pretty busy road still gives some flexi, still sort

[28:58] of moves buildings closer

[28:59] to the street than many that you have now.

[29:02] And sort of strikes a balance between going, wanting to have

[29:05] that village center but understanding

[29:06] that you've got really large busy roads

[29:08] that aren't probably ever gonna feel like you're walking

[29:11] around a small village hamlet,

[29:12] unless those roads changed really drastically

[29:16] In, in light of the fact that we're, we're trying

[29:19] to in the same process define the amount

[29:24] of windows versus non windows.

[29:27] Yeah. Parking in the front seems to defeat whatever

[29:31] that is trying to accomplish.

[29:33] Which I'm not always clear on

[29:35] but can you help me

[29:38] match those two up? The parking in the front

[29:40] And the exposure of Windows building.

[29:44] So the exposure of Windows does a couple of things, right?

[29:47] One, it makes the building, it forces the building to relate

[29:50] to people that are coming into the building and using it.

[29:52] It also relates it to the street.

[29:53] So parking in the front is sort of

[29:58] a change away from that.

[29:59] And the parking in the front recognizes the reality sort

[30:02] of development in this area and how the area is laid out.

[30:06] It's a autocentric area

[30:08] and you all don't have any control over that roadway today.

[30:11] So sort of pushing it to be a smaller,

[30:14] more walkable village center is gonna be hard.

[30:16] So what we're suggesting is kind of striking a balance,

[30:19] allowing some vehicle access, still requiring buildings

[30:22] to present positively towards that parking lot or not.

[30:26] Again, that's a maximum. Somebody could locate their

[30:28] building against the street if they wanted to

[30:30] and felt like that was the

[30:31] way they wanted designed their building.

[30:33] But we're allowing for that option

[30:35] to have it be set further back.

[30:38] Okay, thank you.

[30:43] And so as part of that, in the current

[30:46] form-based code overlay, there are standards

[30:49] what we call building frontage.

[30:51] Again that word frontage is coming up tonight.

[30:53] This is the idea of how much

[30:55] of the total lot width is composed of a building.

[30:59] So this is the standard that exists today.

[31:01] We're proposing in simplifying that

[31:02] and this graphic is included in your packet that just says

[31:06] that build that we're requiring 60% building frontage.

[31:09] So the building has to make up the

[31:10] majority of the lot frontage.

[31:12] So again, we don't have big expanses of space in that

[31:16] neighborhood mixed use district that don't have buildings so

[31:19] that it is more walkable.

[31:20] I can get from one place to another.

[31:22] I don't have large gaps or parking lots in between.

[31:27] Jason, are we writing language in there

[31:30] so the reviewing body can grant relief from that in a case

[31:34] by case if it's warranted by the site conditions

[31:37] or neighboring land uses?

[31:39] Yeah, so we, we have flexibility for the setback standard.

[31:41] Jodi, we didn't actually have flexibility for this standard.

[31:44] We can do that if you all would like to.

[31:47] I guess the question is do you want that flexibility

[31:49] standard by standard or do you want it just sort

[31:51] of wholesale against the standards in

[31:54] the neighborhood mixed use. Does that make sense?

[31:57] Yeah, probably wholesale.

[32:00] I could just see this resulting in a bunch of land divisions

[32:02] so somebody can hit that 60% mark

[32:05] and then, then there's just a vacant lot sitting there

[32:08] 'cause they're trying to hit that number.

[32:10] Yeah, and and to some extent that's a little bit

[32:14] of the idea because you create development

[32:17] lots then with frontage.

[32:19] So pro and con there for sure, right?

[32:22] You have that risk that somebody does divide their

[32:25] lot to meet the standard.

[32:26] The potential benefit of

[32:28] that is now you have a development lot that

[32:30] in theory is sitting next to it.

[32:35] So we can certainly give some flexibility.

[32:37] I would say what we'd want there is if somebody comes to you

[32:39] and says, well I want to build this building,

[32:41] I have this wide lot, you could say, well shucks,

[32:43] you could split it and then sell that lot next to you

[32:46] to somebody else to build a great building.

[32:48] But share a driveway. Yes, but share a driveway per the TMO.

[32:55] Were there any other changes within that village?

[32:58] Commercial district?

[33:01] I, there's a lot of markups there, right?

[33:03] A lot of the reductions are, we're taking that big long list

[33:06] of uses that it was in is in every article now

[33:08] and we're moving it into the table.

[33:10] So the table is the one place where every,

[33:12] where all the uses that are permitted has shown.

[33:14] So we don't have potential conflicts in

[33:16] different places of the ordinance.

[33:18] That's the, you know, the markup for the first two

[33:20] and a half pages or so in what you have.

[33:28] So as far as the, the village form

[33:33] overlay,

[33:40] are we taking out like the requirements for,

[33:45] are we leaving in the a, the architectural requirements, the

[33:50] facade requirements, what they have to look the,

[33:52] Yep.

[33:53] So if you flip to, I don't

[33:53] know what page it is in your packet.

[33:55] Page six in the village commercial

[33:58] or neighborhood mixed use markup.

[34:02] There's a, there's a section there

[34:03] for exterior building materials.

[34:07] Page 24. Page 24. Okay.

[34:17] I can pull it up really quickly on screen too.

[34:19] Okay, Hang on.

[34:24] I just gotta figure out which direction to drag this.

[34:26] Ah, To the right.

[34:30] Oh he's looking at a table. We're looking at this

[34:34] Right here.

[34:37] So it's this, sorry, almost there.

[34:42] 4, 5, 6.

[34:49] I'll try to zoom in a little bit. Sorry.

[34:55] So it's these standards we pulled, some of these are from

[34:58] that existing form-based code section.

[35:01] Some of 'em are just things that we've found work well in

[35:03] similar kind of developing townships like amo certainly not

[35:08] as detailed right as those architectural standards

[35:10] that exist today, but still requiring high quality building

[35:13] materials, ensuring we aren't ending up with things

[35:16] that are, you know, aluminum, vinyl siding,

[35:19] but not providing near the, the level of sort of detail and,

[35:23] and adding the level of cost that comes along with some

[35:25] of those requirements that exist in the overlay today.

[35:29] Okay. Just editorial comment.

[35:33] That form-based code was something, the planning commission

[35:37] that was in place at the time, which I was on then

[35:41] it was such a, a large project

[35:43] and we went, it took a long time to get to it

[35:47] and it took, I mean we went through it line

[35:49] by line like we are the other things we see today.

[35:52] And it was just such a, a hope.

[35:54] I mean to me it was a vision of what we would really like

[35:56] to see happen and it just kind of sad

[36:01] that it's not turning out that way.

[36:02] Yeah, And that was why like the parking for instance,

[36:08] if you put the parking in the back,

[36:09] even though you still have a busy road, you could still have

[36:13] that pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks.

[36:19] I think about Mike's example was Frankenmuth, you know,

[36:23] it's, it's very walkable

[36:25] and it's a busy main street through there,

[36:27] but all their parking or their parking is all behind those,

[36:29] those buildings there.

[36:31] So that was kind of the what I was seeing,

[36:34] but hoping that would fit here, but I don't know if it does.

[36:38] Well and and so I think the, the balance on this right is

[36:43] the what you, the sort

[36:46] of gradual progression on change in development.

[36:48] So you have one building there that's a single story

[36:50] that's set at the street, right?

[36:53] It's the only one.

[36:55] Everything else has a parking lot in front.

[36:57] I think there might be one more. Everything else has

[36:59] a parking lot in front of it.

[37:01] It's pretty far set back.

[37:02] And so the issue is like somebody's gotta go first

[37:05] and there's a gradual transition there that needs to happen.

[37:08] The other challenge that you have there is

[37:12] you have a really large wide roadway that is really busy

[37:17] and loud and it's hard to make

[37:18] that be a welcoming place for pedestrians.

[37:21] So if you can sort of allow some of that same development

[37:24] to happen but have the focus be not necessarily on the road

[37:27] but on side streets

[37:28] or areas adjacent to it, there's that opportunity.

[37:32] I think the recognition here from staff

[37:35] and in working through it was just we haven't seen

[37:36] that development occur there

[37:38] and there's some sense that some

[37:39] of those requirements could be a barrier.

[37:42] And so trying to strike that balance, I think

[37:44] as planning commission, if you all really feel like we don't

[37:46] want to go so far as to allow parking in the front,

[37:49] we can strike that, right?

[37:51] We could adjust that, we could keep that minimum,

[37:53] that maximum setback at 40

[37:55] but not allow any parking in the front of a building

[37:58] and require that space to be landscaped

[38:00] or you know, other things to be done with it.

[38:11] Does anybody else have, have thoughts on that issue of,

[38:13] you know, parking in the front, in

[38:14] that neighborhood mixed use area?

[38:18] I mean personally I like just from seeing other

[38:23] municipalities have that and, and the walkability and access

[38:26] and what it's doing to these evolving communities

[38:29] and it also, depending on what type of business too,

[38:33] it could be extremely attractive.

[38:37] You know, I'm gonna say something here

[38:38] that maybe I shouldn't say,

[38:40] but I, I've never thought that the Oshtemo Village

[38:44] was going to be a walkable area that you take your life

[38:48] and your hands just trying to get across Stadium drive

[38:52] and until we deal with that issue, we,

[38:56] we may have the best intentions

[38:58] but I just don't see the area developing

[39:01] with the traffic flow through there.

[39:04] Am I, am I wrong on that?

[39:06] No, you're probably right.

[39:08] But I could also see issues with having parking so close

[39:12] to the street in those front yards

[39:13] because you're gonna have to somehow get off of

[39:17] that busy road to park there

[39:18] and then you're gonna have to figure out how to get back on

[39:20] that busy road where if if you have your parking in the

[39:23] back, you've got a longer access to use.

[39:29] I mean you, you have some parking there now that's,

[39:31] that's probably closer than 40 feet

[39:33] to the right of way I would guess.

[39:34] There's a pretty big right of way there.

[39:37] So I mean I, I think what we were trying

[39:41] to do is really sort of simplify these requirements,

[39:44] strip them down to allow for new investment in that area.

[39:46] 'cause there hasn't been much in a really long time

[39:48] and it's kind of starting to show it.

[39:52] We can certainly, if, if the sort of pleasure

[39:55] of the planning commission is still keep parking in the back

[39:57] with none of that in the front, I think that's fine.

[40:00] I would say you do need to,

[40:02] I would caution you against not allowing any vehicle

[40:04] circulation in front of a a business just

[40:08] because what ends up happening with that is

[40:10] if a business can't get a car around front, you end up

[40:13] with extra driveways that are problematic as well.

[40:18] So giving some flexibility if there's space for a car

[40:21] to still move around the front of a business,

[40:23] they can have one driveway

[40:24] and still get access all the way around if you had a sort

[40:28] of pickup window kind of use there, right?

[40:31] But we could prohibit parking

[40:33] and then that maximum setback could still stay at 40.

[40:36] We just aren't allowing parking in the front yard.

[40:43] I mean, but what, what's the, what's the flag that,

[40:46] Say That again?

[40:47] What's the concern of having it in the front?

[40:49] One of the major concerns

[40:51] that differentiate from having it in the back,

[40:53] The whole idea of the village form-based code was

[40:56] to create this walkable, pedestrian friendly

[41:02] area like the village, if you will.

[41:06] So when we were writing that, it was that to have

[41:09] that walkability you need to get the cars away from there.

[41:14] So if you've got parking in the back

[41:17] then plus if you have a parking lot in the back,

[41:20] you could walk to several different places without,

[41:23] you know, that's, that's just my thought.

[41:28] If I went to that district to shop,

[41:31] I'd rather turn the building around, put the parking

[41:34] and the entrance in the back

[41:36] and stay away from Stadium drive.

[41:38] 'cause it is such a,

[41:40] it's not a neighborhood, it's a thoroughfare.

[41:46] We do allow some parking in front right now once you get

[41:49] out of the core area of ninth and stadium.

[41:51] And as you make your way east

[41:54] and west on Stadium Dry, we allow limited parking

[41:56] between the building and the street.

[41:58] And it also depends on what's happening

[41:59] on adjacent properties.

[42:01] And this neighborhood mixed use won't just

[42:03] be at ninth and stadium.

[42:04] We have areas on KL West Main and seventh and then north

[42:09] and south of West Maine by Drake Road are areas designated

[42:12] for neighborhood mixed use

[42:13] to keep in mind about the parking.

[42:15] Although we could distinguish neighborhood mixed use A

[42:19] and neighborhood mixed use B or

[42:21] Yeah, we, I mean today the,

[42:23] the village form based code has different areas

[42:25] that are designated and treated differently, right?

[42:27] So if we really felt like we wanted to reserve that

[42:30] key intersection or place as the location where we're trying

[42:34] to shift parking to the back, we can designate an area

[42:37] and on the plan or define it based on cross streets or

[42:41] however we want to do that so that we're still achieving

[42:43] that goal while giving greater flexibility

[42:45] in the rest of the area.

[42:47] Isn't that exactly what we're trying

[42:49] to avoid by doing this?

[42:51] We, we've got so many classifications that we,

[42:54] we don't wanna have a lot of special exemptions.

[42:57] We're, we're trying to get one

[42:59] simplified classification, right?

[43:02] I I would say that let's not make,

[43:04] let a perfect be the enemy of the good, right?

[43:08] And in this case we're going from a bunch

[43:10] of different special classifications down to one

[43:14] and that's a win, right?

[43:15] We're going from three to one

[43:18] and again, like we can come back to you with some revisions

[43:20] to this next time that you can look at that kind of helps

[43:23] to get into this issue you've identified on how do we deal

[43:26] with parking and we'll, we'll mock up a couple

[43:28] of really simple examples that you could look at

[43:30] to see how that might work.

[43:34] Anything else on these edits to village commercial

[43:37] or neighborhood mixed use that stuck out to anyone?

[43:41] I was just gonna say some visuals I think of, of some

[43:44] of the things you're talking about in this document would

[43:46] really help if, especially if you're trying

[43:48] to paint a vision for development.

[43:50] I think that's maybe what was missing from all the work

[43:52] that you have in here to help people kind of envision it

[43:56] and, and want to buy into it.

[44:00] The one other thing that the Frankenmuth example

[44:04] is going through a downtown area where

[44:07] if the traffic is going 25, 35 miles an hour,

[44:11] they're going fast.

[44:13] And this, unless we change

[44:16] or can get that changed, it,

[44:18] it will always feel like

[44:21] this little space that you're zooming by

[44:26] not the neighborhood that you're enjoying personally.

[44:30] Well, and I, I always, I caution anybody,

[44:33] but it's using against using Frankenmuth as an example

[44:36] for anything, right?

[44:38] Just because there's however many millions of people that go

[44:40] to Frankenmuth every year because it's Frankenmuth, right?

[44:43] And, and so you know,

[44:45] you're gonna get a certain level of foot traffic.

[44:46] Like that is a very unique case.

[44:49] It's like comparing somewhere else in,

[44:51] it's not New York City,

[44:52] but it's like comparing yourself to a place that just

[44:55] is incredibly unique, right?

[44:58] The thing that zoning doesn't do is create a market, right?

[45:02] So we, we control what you can do.

[45:04] We, we set the sort of the framework

[45:06] and the groundwork for what can be developed,

[45:08] but we can't create a market for development.

[45:10] And so that the challenge you have is with stadium drive.

[45:14] The stadium drive area being what it is, the market

[45:16] for development there is gonna be sort of auto oriented.

[45:19] And so what we're trying to do is shift

[45:20] that building development to be sort of

[45:24] focused a little more and being more friendlier

[45:27] and creating options for pedestrians

[45:29] and use while still understanding that the predominant sort

[45:32] of way folks are gonna get there is gonna be via the car.

[45:35] Because that's just how that area of the Township functions.

[45:40] Yeah, I don't disagree. It's just that, you know,

[45:42] we started working on on that.

[45:44] It's like what do we want this to look like? Yeah.

[45:47] And that was where the Franken Ruth reference came up

[45:49] because that's what we'd like it to look like.

[45:52] Yeah, I understand.

[45:56] Okay. So the next set of changes are to that,

[45:58] that mixed use district.

[46:01] So this one there's a fair amount of changes, again,

[46:03] really focused on simplification.

[46:07] So revised location criteria.

[46:09] As we mentioned earlier, the mixed use district now is

[46:12] eligible to use in anywhere in the previous master plan

[46:15] where there was a sub area plan.

[46:18] So we've changed that to align with some of the,

[46:20] the sub area plans and, and,

[46:22] and locations identified in the current comprehensive plan.

[46:27] We clarified the approval and review process

[46:30] and I have that outlined on the next slide.

[46:32] We'll step through that together, simplified the,

[46:36] the standards around mobility, how you get around

[46:39] and traffic studies to just be focused on encouraging

[46:43] non vehicular modes of transportation versus regulating

[46:47] how many trips are generated internally or externally.

[46:52] We remove the requirements for the mixed use district

[46:55] to have its own or a mixed use district to adopt its own set

[46:58] of design standards.

[47:00] So when we talk next week,

[47:02] we'll be talking about some basic design standards similar

[47:04] to those that we talked about in the neighborhood, mixed use

[47:06] for this regional commercial and other developments.

[47:09] And instead asking developers to show how they'd like

[47:12] to modify or add

[47:13] to those standards in their proposal versus coming up

[47:16] with a whole new set of design requirements.

[47:19] The reason for that is depending on the sophistication

[47:21] of developer you have,

[47:22] you might get some design requirements that leave a lot

[47:25] to be desired and then you're sort of negotiating back

[47:27] and forth on a set of design standards that they started

[47:30] with that are maybe nowhere

[47:32] close to what you're looking for.

[47:33] And this way we're at least starting closer to

[47:35] where you'd wanted them to begin.

[47:39] We've also simplified the density bonus calculation to align

[47:42] with the high residential density classification in the

[47:45] current mixed use and just clarified some

[47:48] of those things you can get a bonus for.

[47:51] And then remove duplication with other, other articles.

[47:53] There are things here that are replicated in landscaping

[47:56] and signs and parking that will address in those articles.

[48:00] So there's not conflicting standards depending on the

[48:02] different zoning district that

[48:06] clarified review process.

[48:08] We, we've taken out the reference to a schematic design plan

[48:12] 'cause it was a little confusing about

[48:14] what the schematic design plan did relative

[48:16] to the conceptual design plan.

[48:19] And so we just have focused on the conceptual plan.

[48:22] So the, the review processes that exist now starts

[48:26] with an optional pre-application meeting

[48:27] with Township ship staff.

[48:29] It's the same as it is today.

[48:31] A planning commission conceptual plan review

[48:33] that's non-binding.

[48:35] So the pla there's a public,

[48:36] a required public hearing for that.

[48:38] The conceptual plan would come here to planning commission.

[48:40] It could be presented, there could be

[48:42] a public hearing on it.

[48:43] Planning commission can give comments

[48:45] and then the developer comes back

[48:47] with an actual application for a rezoning.

[48:49] So there's a formal way to give comment and feedback

[48:52] before there's a decision

[48:53] or a recommendation that needs to be made.

[48:55] Developer then comes back to the rezoning with

[48:58] that revised conceptual plan based on step number two,

[49:01] another public hearing that rezoning goes

[49:03] to the Township board.

[49:04] Then for final action, we did add some clear definitions

[49:09] for minor amendments that can be approved by staff so

[49:13] that any change to that conceptual plan doesn't have

[49:16] to come back to you all or to the Township board.

[49:18] So if small changes to parking, landscaping, things

[49:21] that don't significantly impact building

[49:23] or layout happen, those things can improve by staff.

[49:26] We don't have to go back through that review process

[49:34] In our screen right now.

[49:38] The simplified density bonus calculation.

[49:42] I just wanted to bring up one item.

[49:44] The we're giving a bonus for

[49:47] good construction leads.

[49:50] Silver, this platinum mat. Yeah.

[49:53] And I, and these developments are gonna be done

[49:57] by a developer who

[49:59] will have a vested interest in the quality of the building,

[50:04] in the insulation, in the, the way it's constructed.

[50:08] And I, I don't understand why we should incent them

[50:12] to do something they already are incented to do

[50:15] by their own need.

[50:18] Help me,

[50:22] I wish all developers approach the development project

[50:25] with the idea that I want to build something

[50:27] that lasts for a hundred years.

[50:29] They do not. So those standards exist in your current

[50:34] mixed use district.

[50:36] They're density bonuses you give today.

[50:38] We didn't edit those. The reason

[50:40] to have those standards is you're incentivizing higher

[50:43] quality development.

[50:44] So yes, there's some incentive there

[50:47] for long term building operation,

[50:48] but short term it's more expensive.

[50:51] So if you're allowing higher density,

[50:54] I can get a greater return on development in this site

[50:57] if I do those things.

[50:58] Otherwise, it's just an expense

[51:00] and I'm less likely to do it as a developer.

[51:05] So if I'm adding more insulation

[51:06] to my building than I would normally be required

[51:08] to under building code to meet this lead green energy

[51:11] certification, that's great.

[51:15] And my building may last longer

[51:16] and be more energy efficient,

[51:18] but it doesn't necessarily mean I can, I can sell that,

[51:20] I can lease that square footage

[51:22] for more on day one than I could otherwise.

[51:25] So the incentive here is to do that at a density bonus.

[51:28] So there's the a, there's more potential profit,

[51:32] I can get more units out of the same site if I do

[51:35] that thing via the Township.

[51:37] And that's consistent with goals for sort of sustainability

[51:39] and environmental protection that the Township has.

[51:41] Yes,

[51:47] Thank you.

[51:49] Not something you have to keep is not a requirement.

[51:52] As I mentioned it exists in your current ordinance.

[51:55] And so if if that's not a priority anymore, I would say

[51:57] that lead certification is something

[52:00] that is still a priority.

[52:01] It's less of an interest now just

[52:03] because construction costs are so stinking high.

[52:07] You see fewer buildings

[52:08] that are being certified than they were five

[52:10] or 10 years ago just

[52:11] because of the cost of construction has gone up so much.

[52:18] Jason, if development gets the ben density bonus, is

[52:22] that for lead?

[52:24] Is that for the building official to monitor

[52:27] as building permits are pulled?

[52:30] Yeah, so there'd have to be a commitment from

[52:32] that developer that they're gonna follow through on

[52:35] that at the time of site plan review

[52:36] and then you would all would have to coordinate

[52:38] with your building official to be sure that that is done.

[52:42] So there's a, a somewhat challenging bit

[52:45] of administration there where you all would have to confirm

[52:47] that essentially that standard's been met

[52:49] before you granted an occupancy

[52:51] permit, which is tricky.

[52:56] Again, it's a current standard.

[52:57] We kept it because we're trying to stick

[52:59] with current standards, but if you all are uncomfortable

[53:01] with that, we can certainly remove that bonus.

[53:10] I don't think it's a good look to remove it.

[53:12] Yeah, I just think we will bring in

[53:14] outside help if the building official wants a third party

[53:17] review of the plans to yeah. Verify.

[53:20] Yep.

[53:26] Any other questions on the mixed use changes?

[53:31] Again, lots of procedural things

[53:33] and clarifications overall does shorten the section up quite

[53:38] a bit, but hopefully makes it easier to use

[53:40] and more likely that you get that kind

[53:41] of mixed use development.

[53:44] It's a great start in terms of a,

[53:46] a district just making some changes to try

[53:48] to make it a little more functional development friendly,

[53:52] but while still being sure you have some really clear checks

[53:55] and balances and opportunities for public hearings.

[53:58] Clarifying that there's,

[53:59] there's two different public hearings

[54:00] where you've got one public hearing

[54:01] that's just on the concept so people can come

[54:04] and give their feedback before there's any

[54:06] final decision being made.

[54:07] We think in talking with staff,

[54:08] that's a really important opportunity.

[54:19] All right. Hearing none, sorry, I lost my cursor.

[54:28] So that covers what we wanted to go over tonight.

[54:31] So we will park both

[54:33] or we'll park that neighborhood mixed use parking

[54:36] issue in our parking lot.

[54:38] We'll come back to that next time with some examples.

[54:41] I hear you about additional graphics.

[54:42] We'll add some graphics and illustrations to show

[54:46] we're focused on in that section.

[54:48] So we'll bring you back a a, a draft number two of

[54:51] that, one for next time.

[54:53] Next time we meet together.

[54:54] The things on our list is a, a preliminary zoning map,

[54:57] so not final but draft

[54:59] with those natural areas in green space

[55:01] identified on it per our parking lot.

[55:04] We'll come back to you with articles for parking,

[55:08] landscaping and lighting in marked up drafts like just

[55:10] you have in front of you tonight.

[55:12] And those conditions and standards

[55:13] for the commercial uses in districts

[55:15] that we talked about tonight as well.

[55:17] So you've got all of those things to review.

[55:18] You have lots of those standards in conditions today,

[55:22] so we'll just be tweaking some of those

[55:23] for consistency being sure we aren't,

[55:25] we don't have duplication, we shouldn't be making a ton

[55:27] of significant changes to those,

[55:28] but just sort of cleaning things up

[55:33] And if your schedule allows Jason, we could do

[55:36] that on October 22nd.

[55:37] October 22nd you said. Yeah, that sounds great.

[55:45] Well thank you for all the work you've

[55:47] obviously put into this.

[55:48] Yes, it always amazes me

[55:49] how my head always spins every time you give me a

[55:52] presentation, but it's, it's well thought out in well

[55:55] Prepared.

[55:56] Thank you. We're, we're making progress.

[55:56] Can I I I'm gonna put one caveat on the 22nd.

[55:58] There's a chance my son has varsity district

[56:01] soccer game that day.

[56:03] If he finds out he does, we might have to bump it.

[56:07] No problem. Okay, thank you. Well, when will, you know,

[56:09] Hopefully they lose beforehand and it doesn't matter.

[56:11] Oh, no, no, you just reminded me.

[56:14] I had one question in this table

[56:16] and it was about outdoor recreation not being

[56:20] allowed in innovation and industry or mixed use.

[56:23] So I was just thinking maybe we would reconsider that with

[56:27] things like soccer and baseball.

[56:29] I don't know if those are only indoor outdoor.

[56:32] We had a long talk about that Jodi, Leanna, Colton

[56:36] and I, about how to kind of address that issue around sort

[56:40] of outdoor recreational uses

[56:42] because they are more of a thing now,

[56:45] Right?

[56:50] I think we landed on, we didn't want our limited

[56:51] industrial land occupied by acres

[56:55] and acres of soccer fields,

[56:56] Right?

[56:57] Yeah. When we could accommodate

[56:59] that in some other zoning districts,

[57:01] But it, it could just be a special use.

[57:03] Then you still discuss case by case if you're

[57:08] So like, I think the trick on that one right, is

[57:12] so oftentimes those uses do end up in sort

[57:15] of semi-industrial places,

[57:18] but we could allow for, the challenge is, I don't know

[57:22] that you have a lot of land that actually works for that

[57:24] outside of rural residential,

[57:25] and we probably don't want it in rural residential.

[57:29] You don't have a lot of parcels

[57:30] that are large enough in your neighborhood residential

[57:32] that would support it and your commercial

[57:34] and you don't have any big vacant commercial properties.

[57:36] And again, you wouldn't necessarily want a commercial

[57:39] property going to large soccer field uses.

[57:44] So I, I think it's also a question of, so that, that one is

[57:48] for private outdoor recreation versus public space.

[57:51] So certainly public parks are

[57:52] permitted in all of those places,

[57:55] But I'm thinking like, yes,

[57:57] I would agree with what you just said.

[57:58] If you're thinking only of a large complex application,

[58:01] but if you're thinking of like a single turf field,

[58:03] like I think there's more of that.

[58:06] So you're thinking indoor versus outdoor,

[58:08] No outdoor turf, but like one, like a one stadium kind

[58:11] of application, right?

[58:12] Like what are we excluding that ever from happening

[58:18] if we, if we don't even grant it

[58:20] as a special use that we'll consider.

[58:25] Yeah. So we can revisit that.

[58:27] I think the key then is that we've gotta think about

[58:29] how we define that use differently from

[58:32] eight soccer fields all stacked next to each other, right?

[58:35] Right. So if something small

[58:37] or a single use, we could work on a

[58:38] definition that allows for that.

[58:40] That's different from big, you know,

[58:43] 20 acre complex kind of thing.

[58:49] So consider that one.

[58:50] We will come back with some options for that next time too.

[58:53] I'm thinking like Topgolf

[58:54] and things like that too, like I don't know that the,

[58:58] the big wide open space is the only way these things are

[59:01] gonna exist going forward, right?

[59:08] Yeah. So I I think that the, the challenge in both

[59:10] of those is to Jodi's point about

[59:11] how you use really limited space, right?

[59:13] So, so 85% of the Township is rural residential

[59:18] and neighborhood residential and ag.

[59:20] So you're got a really small amount of space to work with.

[59:24] So the, the question is on those like large space intensive

[59:28] uses like that, do you want to allow those to take up

[59:32] that really sort of valuable space that could go

[59:34] to the mixed use development you're looking for.

[59:37] That's kind of the, the, the balance

[59:38] that you've gotta wrestle with, with those things.

[59:43] But I mean also if we, if we just are saying that no,

[59:46] there's nowhere we can put soccer fields in the

[59:48] Township, that's not okay either.

[59:50] No. That, that's not what we're saying.

[59:52] So there, there were options for outdoor recreation.

[59:54] Those public spaces in all

[59:57] of your re rec residential

[59:59] districts, they just aren't private.

[1:00:00] But those are pretty small area of the Township. Right.

[1:00:04] That don't have open area

[1:00:06] where you could build something like that.

[1:00:09] So like the public parks is a permitted use,

[1:00:12] I think in our rural residential.

[1:00:14] Right. So that's, you know, 60% of the Township

[1:00:18] where those things could be added.

[1:00:20] If it's a public use versus a private one.

[1:00:23] I think that the public use

[1:00:24] Is, but why would we wanna prohibit private sports in

[1:00:27] our Township?

[1:00:30] They just tend to create more traffic. Right?

[1:00:33] So you get, there's, you have more sort of external

[1:00:37] traffic impacts and issues that, that come off of those

[1:00:40] because they tend to be super intensive weekend events

[1:00:43] or nights and there's just more of that happening.

[1:00:46] Whereas if it's a public complex, it's a little, they tend

[1:00:50] to be less focused on, you know,

[1:00:52] maximizing usage and profit.

[1:00:57] Is that new sports development on Drake Road

[1:01:00] that's under construction right now, is

[1:01:02] that gonna be public or private?

[1:01:04] I think it's private. It's a non-profit owned

[1:01:07] by the authority.

[1:01:09] Okay. So we, we can dig into

[1:01:14] that a little further and look at some examples

[1:01:15] for you next time and think about what are some options

[1:01:18] for us to permit that, that, that is a really tricky one.

[1:01:20] 'cause it's evolving all the time.

[1:01:22] There are these different uses that are popping up,

[1:01:24] right? Pickleball,

[1:01:25] Right, That, that pop up all the time.

[1:01:28] That I think the, the, the downside on those that we want

[1:01:33] to be cautious of is they also have a tendency

[1:01:37] to be sort of a flash in the pan.

[1:01:40] And so if they are gonna be, if we are gonna have land go

[1:01:43] that way, can it be repurposed

[1:01:44] or easily reused is one of the questions.

[1:01:49] Now pickleball may be here to live, stay who, who knows?

[1:01:52] I mean, I guess I'd rather have, you know,

[1:01:54] 30 soccer fields than a, a battery storage facility.

[1:01:57] Right? So like, but if we make it completely prohibited

[1:02:00] for one and not the other, like, I don't know.

[1:02:03] Yeah. I mean, I'm not saying we're,

[1:02:04] It feels icky.

[1:02:06] Yeah. So I, no,

[1:02:07] There's not enough soccer fields,

[1:02:08] there's not enough hockey ice, there's not enough.

[1:02:10] All these things in our area for the number of kids

[1:02:12] that are doing it, but then we don't want it here.

[1:02:15] Yeah, that's fair.

[1:02:19] We can look at some options for you.

[1:02:25] Alright, thank you all very much.

[1:02:27] We appreciate your time tonight.

[1:02:28] We'll look forward to seeing you on the 22nd.

[1:02:31] Thank you. Alright, moving on.

[1:02:35] Item number six,

[1:02:36] another work item on environmental Protection

[1:02:38] Ordinance amendments.

[1:02:41] Who's leading the charge on this one?

[1:02:45] Yours truly. Oh boy.

[1:03:15] All right, good evening. We're gonna continue the

[1:03:18] conversation about the Environmental Protection ordinances

[1:03:23] and some of the, all the pieces we've pulled together

[1:03:27] as part of this project.

[1:03:30] We were here about two months ago talking through this,

[1:03:33] introducing it to the planning commission.

[1:03:35] So this is again, just another

[1:03:37] piece we're giving you guys since you're working on so much

[1:03:40] and we're trying to make it digestible.

[1:03:43] So this is coming from a few different places.

[1:03:46] The townships in the city of Kalamazoo entered,

[1:03:49] entered into a new waste

[1:03:51] or a new water service contract a few years ago.

[1:03:54] And one of those requirements was

[1:03:56] that we adopt wellhead protection ordinances

[1:03:59] and performance standards similar to the zoning ordinance.

[1:04:02] We realized there was a lot of opportunities

[1:04:06] between both our zoning ordinance

[1:04:07] and our general ordinance to review them, consolidate them,

[1:04:13] and make sure they were clear about where you were headed.

[1:04:16] Kind of to, to the point earlier about sometimes you go

[1:04:19] to one section, it leads you to another section,

[1:04:21] then it leads you to another section.

[1:04:23] And some of the way in particular the environmental

[1:04:26] ordinances were set up was

[1:04:28] that they could apply depending on

[1:04:31] what development tool you were using or zoning.

[1:04:34] And then the zoning next door might have been the same,

[1:04:38] but they weren't using the same tool

[1:04:41] or it was a different zoning

[1:04:42] and then the standards didn't apply.

[1:04:45] So again, we're trying

[1:04:47] to make this much more unified across the Township.

[1:04:51] And a lot of the, the great information and work that was

[1:04:54] provided through the Wellhead Protection Ordinance

[1:04:57] and performance standards really get at the core

[1:04:59] of protecting the groundwater so we could apply them

[1:05:03] to stormwater management

[1:05:04] and groundwater protection, again,

[1:05:06] across the entire Township.

[1:05:09] And these goals, this theme, this value

[1:05:13] of environmental protection stewardship has been a theme

[1:05:18] through multiple plans for many, many years

[1:05:21] and many of the projects that the Township does.

[1:05:23] So it's kind of a legacy goal that we wanna make sure

[1:05:26] that we continue to leverage and incorporate as we can.

[1:05:32] We explained it last time,

[1:05:33] but just to reiterate that a lot

[1:05:35] of these are in existing zoning ordinances.

[1:05:38] We are going to move them to the general ordinance.

[1:05:41] So again, they're applied across the entire Township

[1:05:45] and less focused just on the zoning

[1:05:47] type and more on the risk.

[1:05:50] However, there's a few people up here who have been a part

[1:05:54] of these, this body for a while,

[1:05:56] and you probably remember when they were put into the,

[1:05:58] the zoning ordinance.

[1:06:00] And so we wanna still have these discussions

[1:06:04] with the planning commission because they are still a part

[1:06:06] of the site plan, review process

[1:06:08] and the development process.

[1:06:09] So you will see a lot of these

[1:06:13] requirements and standards come back through staff reports

[1:06:17] and make sure they, you know, compliment

[1:06:20] and work with the other zoning changes we're making.

[1:06:23] So this will go to the Township board for adoption,

[1:06:27] but we are starting with the planning commission.

[1:06:31] Our hope is that you guys can give us a lens of making sure

[1:06:34] that we're incorporating the comprehensive plan

[1:06:37] and that it's still clear enough as you're going

[1:06:40] through the development process.

[1:06:42] You know, some of the examples you can draw on from,

[1:06:44] from sitting up there and reviewing projects that it's,

[1:06:47] you know, clear to somebody who has to implement it

[1:06:50] and review it and decide if it meets the intent.

[1:06:53] And then still, again, I'm struggling with the word

[1:06:57] flexible lately because I don't want that to seem as,

[1:07:00] you know, somebody's being, you know,

[1:07:03] course to do something different.

[1:07:04] There's has to be in the ordinance how

[1:07:06] that flexibility is allowed.

[1:07:09] But what flexibility does is it gives us the ability

[1:07:12] to look at different areas of the Township, different sites

[1:07:16] where topography might be challenging,

[1:07:18] where soils might be challenging

[1:07:21] and still apply these standards than in a different way.

[1:07:24] So still meet that same standard,

[1:07:26] but how can we do it depending on the conditions.

[1:07:30] And last time when I was here, we went

[1:07:32] through Article one 60, which was the intent in the packet.

[1:07:36] There's a version two of that already.

[1:07:39] So we took the feedback we got, we have met

[1:07:41] with a few more partners, you know,

[1:07:44] to just keep refining some of these things.

[1:07:47] And again, some of this is derived from outside partners

[1:07:51] where we have to take the time

[1:07:56] to explain to them how

[1:07:58] a Township might be different than a city

[1:08:00] in particular the performance standards.

[1:08:03] So there's still some work on that that we're doing.

[1:08:07] As I mentioned at the very beginning, this water contract

[1:08:10] that we're a part of now, it has a body to

[1:08:15] administer and oversee that contract called the UPC.

[1:08:20] They have initiated a user group,

[1:08:23] technical staff from the city,

[1:08:25] technical staff from the Township so that we can continue

[1:08:29] to work through these, the Wellhead Protection Ordinance

[1:08:33] and the performance standards, again to make sure

[1:08:35] that it's applicable to both agents, both types of agencies.

[1:08:39] So that work is about to start in October.

[1:08:45] So based on how it's set up in the packet,

[1:08:48] I'm actually gonna jump to Article one 60 and 1 62

[1:08:51] and we'll get back to articles 2 53

[1:08:56] and 56, just

[1:08:57] because a lot of that will explain

[1:08:59] itself as we go through this.

[1:09:01] A lot of it's moving it again from those zoning ordinances

[1:09:06] to these general ordinances of environmental protection.

[1:09:10] So some things I wanted to highlight,

[1:09:13] I think Leanna did a great job of all her color coding

[1:09:17] and explaining what all that meant.

[1:09:19] So again, what it really shows is that a lot

[1:09:22] of this is in our existing ordinances.

[1:09:24] Everything that's in black text is all existing.

[1:09:28] We're just moving it to a different place.

[1:09:31] The purple-ish is kind of from the first version

[1:09:36] and then the red is new stuff, which really only applies

[1:09:39] to one 60 at this point,

[1:09:41] but will be the same methodology we use as we go forward.

[1:09:44] So 1 61 starts

[1:09:49] on packet, page 60,

[1:09:56] I'm not gonna go through line by line,

[1:09:59] but there are some things I wanted to highlight mostly

[1:10:02] because it came up a little bit from the last time we went

[1:10:04] through this about administrative departures

[1:10:08] and how much authority

[1:10:11] or latitude staff has versus a governing body.

[1:10:15] So the administrative departures

[1:10:20] would occur through the site plan development process,

[1:10:23] but it is not an, you know, get out a free jail,

[1:10:27] get outta jail free card that, you know, Jodi

[1:10:29] and I have in our back pocket we can give to somebody

[1:10:31] that still comes to the planning commission.

[1:10:34] It's just meant to make the process not as cumbersome

[1:10:37] or iterative so that we can work through that as we get

[1:10:40] through the entire site

[1:10:41] and we're looking at all these different standards

[1:10:44] and then come to whatever the appropriate body is,

[1:10:47] the zoning board of appeals, the planning commission

[1:10:49] or the Township board for their

[1:10:51] actual approval of a site plan.

[1:10:53] So just wanted to clarify that.

[1:10:57] In the case of stormwater management, it works well

[1:11:01] because we're, we're working

[1:11:03] with very mathematical things here, so we have to set,

[1:11:08] we have the same standard for everybody.

[1:11:10] But again, how you add

[1:11:11] that up might be different based on each project.

[1:11:15] So I'm gonna use the example

[1:11:19] of the design event

[1:11:20] and capacity, which is on packet page 61.

[1:11:26] And

[1:11:34] There's not many places in Michigan

[1:11:36] that require a hundred year storm event

[1:11:38] to be accommodated on your site.

[1:11:39] But lucky us, we are one of them.

[1:11:43] It does work in some cases very well, some parts

[1:11:47] of Omo have very sandy soils, so it's not as challenging,

[1:11:53] but it does get cha more challenging if you have

[1:11:56] less favorable soils

[1:11:57] or if you're the last site in an area to develop,

[1:12:00] because then you're really landlocked on either side of,

[1:12:03] of all your boundaries, you can't do a lot of grading,

[1:12:07] you know, it's, it's a lot more challenging to do.

[1:12:09] So the thought process here with this,

[1:12:13] an administrative departure here is that

[1:12:17] you would still have to meet the same requirements

[1:12:19] for a hundred year storm.

[1:12:21] It's mostly in a volume sense,

[1:12:24] but we could start to give credits for people

[1:12:26] who meet the other goals of our master plan

[1:12:28] and our community's vision.

[1:12:30] So if you do some low impact development,

[1:12:34] you might know them as rain gardens

[1:12:36] or bioswales where there is a benefit

[1:12:38] because you're improving the water quality, then

[1:12:42] that could work towards how much you have

[1:12:46] to retain in a pond.

[1:12:50] The example that I was thinking of earlier is we used

[1:12:53] to do this with some of our parking

[1:12:56] and our access management.

[1:12:57] So if you provided a single access point

[1:12:59] or shared parking, then you could have reductions in

[1:13:04] or you could be allowed more parking spaces.

[1:13:06] That's when we had parking maximum or yeah, maximums.

[1:13:12] So it's that same kind of thing, you know,

[1:13:13] but we still again, have to meet the same, we have

[1:13:15] to have a measurable way to get to the same criteria.

[1:13:21] And we do have to work on that language

[1:13:23] because we did talk through this with Attorney Porter about

[1:13:28] how we wanna make sure it's very clear that we can point

[1:13:31] to a spot and say, these were the outlines criteria, this is

[1:13:34] how it maths out.

[1:13:36] And so that we know we're treating everybody fairly.

[1:13:39] And I just have one quick, it's kind of a clerical

[1:13:43] question, I guess it refers to Township engineer.

[1:13:47] Is that you?

[1:13:49] I am an engineer at the Township.

[1:13:51] Our Township engineer is technically Sharon Loam,

[1:13:54] and she is the one doing all the site plan

[1:13:57] reviews for public works now.

[1:13:58] So it was a position that started about two years ago. Okay.

[1:14:02] So that is a specific position we have.

[1:14:05] Thanks.

[1:14:12] All right, well that was one section I felt like

[1:14:17] again could really help.

[1:14:18] There's a little bit more of an example

[1:14:20] that you could apply it to and understand.

[1:14:23] We have sites right now that, you know,

[1:14:27] on West Main Street you're buying 10 acres,

[1:14:29] which is very expensive land

[1:14:32] and half of it has to go to a storm water pond.

[1:14:36] And if we could incorporate some other,

[1:14:39] like was mentioned earlier, incentives for people

[1:14:42] to do green roofs

[1:14:43] or, you know, make sure

[1:14:45] that they have green throughout their big, big parking lot.

[1:14:49] Again, it meets a lot of the community's goals for

[1:14:52] how we want things to look, how we want them to be,

[1:14:56] you know, environmentally sensitive

[1:14:58] and good for the cleaning the air

[1:15:01] and protecting our groundwater.

[1:15:03] So we have to provide a balance for everybody to do that.

[1:15:08] And so this is one way we can do that. But

[1:15:12] Anna, we,

[1:15:14] we are growing into a very sophisticated

[1:15:18] Township operation.

[1:15:20] We have professionals, we have professionals that we're,

[1:15:25] we're it's time to grow into trust to those professionals.

[1:15:31] Not, not to send you off to be at risk,

[1:15:34] but to be able to get these pieces of work done.

[1:15:40] And if somebody doesn't like your response

[1:15:44] or the the committee's response

[1:15:47] that in some cases is being created, then there, there needs

[1:15:51] to be maybe a way to proceed beyond that.

[1:15:54] But to have to have everything come here

[1:15:59] just isn't realistic.

[1:16:00] I don't think

[1:16:02] So.

[1:16:03] Well, have you ever looked at a hydro CAD model?

[1:16:05] Because it's really interesting.

[1:16:07] That's what we do and,

[1:16:08] and again, it is some of this just like very technical

[1:16:11] things that again, if the planning commission's,

[1:16:13] setting the policy around what you want the community

[1:16:16] to look like, you know,

[1:16:18] and we have these conversations about what the,

[1:16:20] the goalposts are, you know, we can make sure that we,

[1:16:23] we fit in between those from a engineering standpoint.

[1:16:29] So yeah, there's, I to your point, Scott,

[1:16:33] that's why I don't want flexibility to be kind

[1:16:35] of a dirty word because again, it's within these guardrails

[1:16:38] that, you know, the different bodies have set in the

[1:16:41] priorities that the community has shared with us.

[1:16:43] So that is our charge then to make sure

[1:16:47] that we do that.

[1:16:49] And it, yeah, and we do that

[1:16:54] and we sometimes have developers that don't love that we do

[1:16:57] that, but we, we got the ordinances,

[1:17:01] we got the plans, we're gonna follow him.

[1:17:04] So, all right.

[1:17:09] The other thing that I wanted to highlight was so

[1:17:14] that I went through that one administrative departure.

[1:17:17] The same can be applied

[1:17:18] for the different sections they're in.

[1:17:19] Each one of 'em, I think there's five total.

[1:17:22] So that's really what we mean by some of that.

[1:17:27] There are again, still some things that we've been having

[1:17:30] to talk through and staff with staff.

[1:17:33] One example is that we require basins

[1:17:36] and four bases to not be geometric and we say square

[1:17:40] or rectangular, but even a circle is technically a shape.

[1:17:43] So like what else are you supposed

[1:17:44] to make it look like, you know?

[1:17:46] So anyway, those are some things

[1:17:50] that we gotta think about.

[1:17:52] But I think one of the other big changes

[1:17:56] that I'll mention under the storm water section is

[1:18:00] that we currently don't have a great tool

[1:18:03] or method for following up on ponds

[1:18:06] that are clearly not functioning.

[1:18:08] So when you look at a Google Earth image,

[1:18:11] you could probably pick out which ones those are.

[1:18:13] And so there's no way, we're not a,

[1:18:16] a stormwater regulatory agency.

[1:18:18] That's not what townships do.

[1:18:21] But we do have to make sure

[1:18:23] that people meet their site plan requirements, even if

[1:18:25] that's 50 years down the road.

[1:18:28] And so we talk about providing an agreement of

[1:18:30] what your maintenance plan is gonna be for somebody

[1:18:33] who just has a small pond, you know,

[1:18:35] and that's just a, you know, little office building

[1:18:38] that's probably not as

[1:18:45] long or crazy or complicated of a maintenance plan.

[1:18:49] But for somebody who has underground storage, for somebody

[1:18:51] who has a very big pond next to

[1:18:56] you know something that if it overflows could

[1:18:58] be catastrophic.

[1:19:00] Those are the types of things where we need to have a,

[1:19:03] you know, those agreements reflect what the system is.

[1:19:07] And so that will be something new.

[1:19:10] We haven't required that before as part of our development.

[1:19:18] Does anybody have any questions about anything in one 60?

[1:19:21] Otherwise

[1:19:29] I have a general question.

[1:19:31] It it has to do with wellhead protection.

[1:19:34] I don't know if it's our responsibility

[1:19:37] or the water provider's responsibility,

[1:19:39] but do we have a, a backflow prevention

[1:19:44] requirement, even at residential level, A hose bib,

[1:19:48] if you lay that hose out

[1:19:49] and the water shuts down,

[1:19:52] you're gonna pollute the water system.

[1:19:56] Yeah, the, the thing about the water system is it,

[1:19:59] you know, it's at all times usually

[1:20:05] providing a CAPA pressure that would not warrant that.

[1:20:09] It's situations where that

[1:20:13] capacity might change that would induce those opportunities

[1:20:17] for it to exchange, you know, something

[1:20:21] that's usually pushing out water out your faucet

[1:20:23] for it to come back in.

[1:20:25] So hydrant flushing is an example of one of those times

[1:20:29] a water main break, another one of those times.

[1:20:33] So it doesn't happen on the residential side very often

[1:20:37] and it, when it does, it's in a very

[1:20:39] controlled regulated way.

[1:20:41] So when there is a water main break they have to do,

[1:20:45] there's a certain process for notifying people,

[1:20:48] testing the water, getting it back online

[1:20:50] to prevent the system from being affected.

[1:20:54] Commercial type settings mostly, especially those ones

[1:20:58] with sprinklers, they all are required

[1:21:00] to have backflow preventers a,

[1:21:02] a service over a certain size is required

[1:21:04] to have a backflow preventer

[1:21:06] and you're required to get that tested annually

[1:21:09] and submit those to the city water system.

[1:21:13] So there are definitely layers of how we protect that.

[1:21:17] But yeah, services over a certain size are required

[1:21:21] to have backflow preventers.

[1:21:35] Okay, then I'm gonna go on to 1 62,

[1:21:40] which is groundwater and wellhead protection.

[1:21:47] I also happened to be the wellhead protection administrator.

[1:21:52] I Not sure that I realized or that,

[1:21:57] and even in the water agreement that we realized

[1:21:59] how technical or advanced of a position that was gonna be

[1:22:02] and what kind of risk it would carry.

[1:22:05] So that is part of that.

[1:22:06] I mentioned there's a group meeting between some

[1:22:08] of the city staff and the Township staff out of the UPC

[1:22:13] because the city has a wellhead administrator

[1:22:15] that does this all day long.

[1:22:18] And this is, she's very knowledgeable about all these

[1:22:21] different things, all the different regulated substances,

[1:22:24] all the per prevention measures.

[1:22:27] So I think that is an opportunity that we could actually,

[1:22:31] with our partners, just maybe think about it being one

[1:22:33] person and not each individual Township having

[1:22:36] to have their own wellhead administrator.

[1:22:37] I think it would help with a lot of that consistency

[1:22:40] and accuracy of implementing those performance standards.

[1:22:45] But currently TMO has one and here I am.

[1:22:50] And so the other big piece of this that we had to add,

[1:22:54] I'm on page 67 of the packet, is again, that

[1:22:59] it was very clear when we were just saying it's in these

[1:23:02] time of concentration zones by our public wells.

[1:23:05] We are trying to apply that Township wide.

[1:23:08] So we really have had to go through this

[1:23:09] and understand how we're gonna apply it that way.

[1:23:12] And so we came up with this risk assessment

[1:23:18] and tried

[1:23:23] to make some charts to make it

[1:23:24] a little bit easier to go through.

[1:23:25] But essentially everybody's gonna have

[1:23:27] to use the ordinances if they wanna develop in the Township.

[1:23:30] If you're in a wellhead zone, pretty straightforward,

[1:23:32] you gotta follow all the performance

[1:23:35] standards in our ordinances.

[1:23:37] If you're not in a wellhead capture zone, then

[1:23:42] you can start to look at your type

[1:23:44] of risk and your type of use.

[1:23:46] And then whether you would just have to follow the,

[1:23:49] the ordinances or if you will also have

[1:23:51] to follow the performance standards.

[1:23:54] So you might be in a low risk zoning,

[1:24:00] but you get a special use

[1:24:01] and you're doing kind of a higher risk use.

[1:24:04] And so then that leads you, those are these,

[1:24:07] these are the three tables we're using.

[1:24:09] So you might be in a low risk zoning,

[1:24:11] but you're doing a high risk activity or land use.

[1:24:15] And so then that would trigger that

[1:24:17] even though you're not in the wellhead capture zones,

[1:24:19] you still have to follow the performance standards

[1:24:21] because that's protecting groundwater

[1:24:25] and it leads to a lot of

[1:24:26] how you're gonna manage your storm water

[1:24:28] and your other chemicals on site.

[1:24:32] So in part of this table two, again,

[1:24:35] we're getting this from the city,

[1:24:37] they have a little bit different zone.

[1:24:38] Like we had whatever, 20 categories, they have 40

[1:24:42] and they are really not used to new developments.

[1:24:46] I am learning. So they're very used to things being built up

[1:24:51] or just built more in one solid area.

[1:24:54] So that is some of why we have to work with them so

[1:24:56] that it's applicable to different types of agencies,

[1:25:01] different size agencies.

[1:25:04] So for example, transportation under manufacturing.

[1:25:08] I need some clarification on what they're trying to have

[1:25:12] that be as a a use.

[1:25:15] Again, in some cities you might have somebody who's doing

[1:25:18] more like transportation, manufacturing,

[1:25:20] are they building car engines?

[1:25:22] I don't know that we're gonna have that in tmo,

[1:25:24] but again, we just wanna understand what some of those are.

[1:25:27] So we're still working through that with them.

[1:25:30] But I think this methodology is the important part

[1:25:32] that we want the planning commission to be aware of is

[1:25:35] how we're trying to apply this

[1:25:38] in various parts of the Township.

[1:25:39] It's not just about zoning anymore,

[1:25:41] it's really about the use as well and the activity.

[1:25:46] When I looked through that in, just in light of

[1:25:49] what you're saying, I, I questioned

[1:25:52] ag being a low risk just

[1:25:55] because of the amount of chemicals

[1:25:57] that can be put on the ground.

[1:25:59] And I know there's not a lot of wells yet in some

[1:26:02] of these areas, but as we develop, there will need

[1:26:07] to be more wells

[1:26:09] and then they'll become right in that district where

[1:26:13] whatever is in the ground

[1:26:16] is bringing risk to the water.

[1:26:19] The same thing, the same question I have is

[1:26:22] for rural residential right now.

[1:26:25] There are some cases where it's the wild west out there

[1:26:29] and applying petroleum products to the ground

[1:26:33] and using chemicals is, well I'm

[1:26:38] a long ways from my neighbors, so what's the difference?

[1:26:42] And and that also is more of a medium risk I think than,

[1:26:48] than some of the other spaces where people are seeing

[1:26:52] what is happening, you know?

[1:26:55] Yeah. I think maybe Jodi or Jim could speak to this too,

[1:26:59] but some of the protections that come with that type

[1:27:03] of land use or zoning.

[1:27:05] Yeah, there's already quite a, there's quite a lot

[1:27:09] of regulations that would prohibit.

[1:27:11] In other words, if somebody's dumping oil on their driveway

[1:27:14] to keep the dust down, okay,

[1:27:15] that's something my dad might have done 50 years ago today,

[1:27:17] that's against the law.

[1:27:19] So I think there are a lot of

[1:27:21] regulations already in existence

[1:27:23] that would hopefully tamp down that what they're trying

[1:27:26] to do is at least segment out those that would be of

[1:27:30] higher degree of risk to allow them to determine when

[1:27:35] to impose a higher standard for for development.

[1:27:39] So yeah, there's always that, trust me,

[1:27:43] we had somebody that was

[1:27:45] burying 50 gallon drums on their private property, storing

[1:27:52] those type of activities.

[1:27:54] You can't control through planning zoning

[1:27:57] or even a, a, a well-regulated ordinance

[1:28:01] because if people are literally, you know,

[1:28:05] breaking the law to that degree, you,

[1:28:10] you can't prepare for that.

[1:28:11] You just have to be vigilant

[1:28:12] and keep your eye on what's going on around out there.

[1:28:19] Is that true of the ag applications as well?

[1:28:23] Yeah, I'm not, given what I've read over the years,

[1:28:25] I'm not concerned about most ag

[1:28:29] o ag operations from this standpoint.

[1:28:32] Farmers are, have a very hard time right

[1:28:34] now making a living.

[1:28:36] They are some of the most cautious

[1:28:40] and frugal users of any type of fertilizer

[1:28:44] or anything they use simply because of the cost.

[1:28:47] And studies have shown that they're

[1:28:49] typically very good stewards of the use of their property.

[1:28:54] So Right. Typically it's maybe the thing I'm, and

[1:28:56] You can't, the, the one offs, I don't know how to,

[1:28:59] I don't know how to plan for that.

[1:29:00] It is just like the guy that was burying 50 gallon drums.

[1:29:03] I mean, how do you regulate against that?

[1:29:05] If you just say that every residential use is a high risk?

[1:29:09] Well, that's only true on the one-offs.

[1:29:12] It's not true generally.

[1:29:14] So you've gotta plan

[1:29:15] and develop an ordinance based upon

[1:29:18] what should be happening, recognizing that

[1:29:23] the law already regulates a lot of activity

[1:29:27] that you can't do.

[1:29:28] And so you should be able to anticipate

[1:29:31] and work that into your ordinance and,

[1:29:33] and rely on that compliance that currently exists.

[1:29:38] Otherwise you're trying to regulate against every

[1:29:42] potential activity

[1:29:43] and you can't, that's, that's what zoning's all about.

[1:29:46] That's why zoning Euclid and zoning doesn't try to regulate

[1:29:50] or specify every permitted use

[1:29:54] or excuse, excuse me, every prohibited use.

[1:29:57] It simply tells you what you can do

[1:29:59] and that anything that's not permitted is prohibited.

[1:30:02] That's how zoning works.

[1:30:04] I have a hard time explaining that to the public sometimes

[1:30:06] because they'll say, show me the ordinance

[1:30:08] where it says I can't have, you know,

[1:30:10] a corn picker in my front yard in R one zone.

[1:30:14] Well it doesn't say that.

[1:30:17] It says what you can do

[1:30:18] and what you can do is all you can do

[1:30:20] and what anything else is prohibited.

[1:30:22] So we have to rely on that, that process.

[1:30:26] Thank you. Yeah.

[1:30:29] Would you consider adding like let's say

[1:30:33] battery or data center or any kind of cool cycled cooling?

[1:30:39] I didn't see that on your table.

[1:30:41] Anywhere from nuclear power, whatever, any kind

[1:30:45] of cooling cycling water activity of the high use,

[1:30:50] high risk land use.

[1:30:52] Well, we did add the principal use energy systems under

[1:30:56] manufacturing as a high risk land use activity.

[1:31:03] And then there is some in the definitions you'll see

[1:31:07] 'cause this came up with the city on just

[1:31:11] a new development that has air conditioners on its roof.

[1:31:15] Yeah. And just the amount of cooling in those triggered it

[1:31:18] to be needing review and needing.

[1:31:21] Right. A plan. So

[1:31:23] that is much more defined in the performance standards.

[1:31:26] If you read through that document,

[1:31:27] it talks about those amounts.

[1:31:29] So it's not gonna be your household air conditioner,

[1:31:33] but it's over a certain amount that when those cooling

[1:31:37] the, the chemicals that are added get to a certain amount.

[1:31:40] Yeah. And that's all comes from like a manufacturer spec.

[1:31:43] It'll say right in there how much it has to have.

[1:31:47] So that's what I mean

[1:31:48] by this is a very technical thing to get into.

[1:31:50] Right. So having the city's, I don't know her title,

[1:31:54] but their wellhead administrator doing some of this,

[1:31:57] I think would be, yeah, she, she does it all the time.

[1:31:59] She knows she will catch

[1:32:01] that stuff more than I would know about

[1:32:05] roof AC units.

[1:32:07] I didn't, I would not have caught that if she didn't say it.

[1:32:10] I will add, frankly,

[1:32:12] that is why there's the reserves section

[1:32:14] under manufacturing.

[1:32:15] That was the intent with that one there.

[1:32:17] But just because, you know,

[1:32:19] we don't have the ordinance on the books yet.

[1:32:22] That was the intention of leaving

[1:32:23] that reserved at this time.

[1:32:25] Okay.

[1:32:27] Yeah, I think the other thing about your question,

[1:32:29] Scott too is that, you know,

[1:32:33] there's the land application of some of the chemicals,

[1:32:35] but then again the storage still re is required

[1:32:40] even if you're an ag parcel,

[1:32:41] but you're storing a certain amount of gasoline

[1:32:44] or you know, so there's still some applicability I guess.

[1:32:48] But I think kind of to Jim's point is like, you know,

[1:32:52] people are gonna use what they need to use on their fields

[1:32:56] and we're not going in to regulate whether it's, you know,

[1:33:01] some dangerous chemical.

[1:33:04] A lot of other regulatory agencies have banned those types

[1:33:07] of things, you know, where you can't use a chemical

[1:33:10] that's been considered a, we call 'em VOCs,

[1:33:14] but you know, so there is other layers of protection

[1:33:19] too, not just our ordinances I guess is what I'm getting at.

[1:33:34] Just flipping through to see if I had any other pieces

[1:33:38] of 1 62 to

[1:33:43] talk through

[1:33:48] This portion of the ordinance is where some

[1:33:52] of like the reporting and documentation comes in.

[1:33:55] So on page 71, if you are considered

[1:34:00] to be high risk

[1:34:01] or medium risk, there are some forms

[1:34:04] that we want filled out and have on file.

[1:34:07] Some of these are similar to the firefighter right to know.

[1:34:10] So it's already kind of being collected.

[1:34:11] We can, we're trying to coordinate with them

[1:34:13] so we get it all at once.

[1:34:14] If they're already going out there to ask some

[1:34:17] of these questions, can we toss in a few of ours?

[1:34:21] And then again, some of those

[1:34:26] routine maintenance

[1:34:27] and exp inspection requirements too, so

[1:34:30] that it's not just at the site plan approval

[1:34:32] and then three years later, you know, we don't know

[1:34:35] what they're doing on site or they have a new chemical

[1:34:37] that they're using because they're, you know,

[1:34:39] just got invented or something.

[1:34:41] So we're gonna keep up with it.

[1:34:50] All right then with that 1 63

[1:34:54] and 1 64 are

[1:34:58] heavily from our existing ordinances.

[1:35:03] The big change for clear cutting is

[1:35:06] that there's also selective cutting being added.

[1:35:09] And we've seen this on a few parcels that are not,

[1:35:14] you know, actively under development,

[1:35:16] but they know they're trying to be good stewards

[1:35:18] of the what's existing there, the vegetation.

[1:35:20] And so my understanding is that there's certain species

[1:35:24] that do better if they're not overcrowded.

[1:35:26] And so you can do some of this

[1:35:28] to actually do good land management.

[1:35:31] They also probably do it a little bit

[1:35:32] to maybe sell some good wood.

[1:35:34] So while they're waiting for development,

[1:35:36] there's some income.

[1:35:42] So that was the thought behind that.

[1:35:56] And then in 1 64, the soil erosion

[1:35:58] and sedimentation control,

[1:36:03] this is mostly already regulated by part 91,

[1:36:09] however, we have found that occasionally when the

[1:36:15] developer, again, depending on which tool they're using,

[1:36:17] if they no longer hit the criteria to par to fall

[1:36:21] under part 91, which is within 500 feet

[1:36:26] of a acre stream

[1:36:27] and over an acre, that they can still have a lot

[1:36:32] of soil erosion happen.

[1:36:34] So that is a little bit of what we're

[1:36:40] trying to

[1:36:45] be a part of here because we've

[1:36:46] seen it happen in a few places.

[1:36:47] And so again, it's a little bit driven

[1:36:50] by the different development tools.

[1:36:52] For example, if a a plat or a site condo went in

[1:36:56] and they're, you know, it's big

[1:36:58] and they're working on one side of, they do all the

[1:37:01] utilities, they get the roads in

[1:37:03] and everything else has been cut and filled

[1:37:07] and moved around by equipment and it no longer has grass

[1:37:09] or trees on it, then what are they doing with

[1:37:12] that while they go to get the rest?

[1:37:13] You know, as they start to slowly build homes.

[1:37:18] So again, that's where we've seen it,

[1:37:19] where the individual parcels might be smaller,

[1:37:22] but when you put all those together, it can be pretty,

[1:37:27] it can cause a lot of damage to be honest.

[1:37:31] So that's where some of that's coming from.

[1:37:33] We are requiring a soil erosion control plan.

[1:37:37] You know, again, we're not the permitting agency,

[1:37:39] but we do wanna see that they have these measures in place

[1:37:42] and that they're following them.

[1:37:50] Is there a reason why the minimum is an acre?

[1:37:53] Like if it's just under an acre?

[1:37:56] Yeah, But it's a hundred percent of the site. Like,

[1:37:59] Yeah, again, that's just kind of following the part 91.

[1:38:02] I actually have a note on that of like,

[1:38:05] not only making it an acre but an acre within a certain area

[1:38:08] because again, I'm fearful that somebody's gonna just do,

[1:38:11] you know, they have a two acre site

[1:38:13] and they do the opposite ends of it

[1:38:15] and it's only equals, you know, 0.99 of an acre,

[1:38:18] but they're still flooding the middle of their parcel

[1:38:21] or you know, it's all running onto a road.

[1:38:23] So I think there is some opportunity to,

[1:38:27] Or if the parcel isn't quite an acre,

[1:38:30] but then they're doing the whole parcel.

[1:38:32] Yeah. Like it's still a problem.

[1:38:34] I dunno. Yeah, I think we could relate it to just some

[1:38:36] of the amount of earth change

[1:38:38] or again, if you're, as we get into the next article,

[1:38:41] which is 1 65, if you're in one of these areas

[1:38:44] where it might have steep slopes

[1:38:47] and so if you're at the, you know, the top of the slope

[1:38:49] and you're doing less than an acre,

[1:38:51] but then you're, it's all running down to somebody.

[1:38:54] So I think there are some ways we could try

[1:38:57] to not just make it that one value,

[1:39:00] but have some other pieces from our ordinance that

[1:39:06] help regulate that.

[1:39:08] But yeah, it, it, that's again, just coming from the

[1:39:14] part 91 says the same thing again,

[1:39:16] the whole 500 feet if somebody was at four 90,

[1:39:20] super frustrating.

[1:39:21] But we have had that happen before.

[1:39:23] But again, we can, if we have the soil erosion plan,

[1:39:25] we can still require them, you know,

[1:39:30] to do some of these things.

[1:39:35] At least, at least require them better than we are

[1:39:37] doing now, I'll say.

[1:39:39] But,

[1:39:50] so those were the ones that I wanted to go through.

[1:39:54] There's like I said, some that then kind of follow

[1:39:59] from two 90 and 53, 56

[1:40:05] and two.

[1:40:07] So if there's specific questions on those, I might have to

[1:40:11] defer to Leanna,

[1:40:12] but I definitely wanted to get through those.

[1:40:15] Our plan moving forward is again, get

[1:40:17] through the last article 1 65,

[1:40:21] another one where it's already in our ordinance,

[1:40:24] but we wanted to apply

[1:40:28] everywhere in the Township.

[1:40:30] After we get through those with the planning commission,

[1:40:32] again, there'll be a version two.

[1:40:33] We have, once we see the amount of changes for version two

[1:40:37] of all these we haven't really discussed if we'll take 'em

[1:40:39] back to planning commission or go right

[1:40:43] to the Township board,

[1:40:44] but we will have to go through the Township board

[1:40:46] and have public hearings.

[1:40:49] Ideally, we would be able

[1:40:50] to get this all done by the end of the year.

[1:40:53] So, and again, I think a lot of it is either existing

[1:40:57] or it's a step in the right direction.

[1:40:59] So I think it would be good to try

[1:41:02] and get some of this codified so we can start applying it

[1:41:04] to projects and then we can continue refining it as we go.

[1:41:09] But it's part of that requirement of that

[1:41:13] Water services agreement too.

[1:41:15] So we have some pressure that way too,

[1:41:17] that we have to meet that commitment.

[1:41:19] And then there will still be a lot of work where,

[1:41:21] like I mentioned, we're gonna have these different forms

[1:41:23] and inventories and agreements that we gotta

[1:41:28] draft so that we can provide.

[1:41:29] Sometimes that's easier, sometimes it's more work upfront

[1:41:33] and we don't have the capacity to do that,

[1:41:35] but we are trying to make it very user friendly.

[1:41:40] So fillable forms,

[1:41:43] links on the website to everything you need.

[1:41:45] Use the the interactive GIS map

[1:41:48] and then again long term just continue to add to some

[1:41:51] of these reserve sections

[1:41:52] and some of the ideas as development gets more

[1:41:57] creative too, that's where some

[1:42:00] of this lead comes from and all that kind of stuff.

[1:42:02] So we'll continue to make it better.

[1:42:09] Are there any questions on the environmental ordinances

[1:42:11] or the other ones?

[1:42:16] The landscaping?

[1:42:20] What else is in there?

[1:42:26] Two 90 subdivisions.

[1:42:30] 53 is, oh,

[1:42:34] 53 is landscaping, 56 is site plan.

[1:42:36] Oh no, that's 64. I don't know what 56 is.

[1:42:39] You guys are better at that game.

[1:42:40] I don't do that one. Environmental

[1:42:42] Protections they're currently in.

[1:42:44] Oh, so basically we're all just removing those. Okay.

[1:42:46] So landscaping would probably be the only one

[1:42:49] that I didn't go through in much detail

[1:42:51] that there's some changes to, but

[1:42:55] I have a general issue, I guess I like the fact

[1:43:00] that in the beginning we've got a definition

[1:43:02] that says master plan and comprehensive plan are equal.

[1:43:08] However, in light of the fact that it,

[1:43:10] it's a clerical thing.

[1:43:12] Anytime we touch a document like this to get it consistent,

[1:43:17] we made a choice to make the, the name comprehensive plan

[1:43:23] and I think we ought to follow through

[1:43:25] for everybody's sake 20 years from now, they won't

[1:43:29] like me an old guy reading through there

[1:43:32] and say, whoa, what's master plan?

[1:43:35] You know? So just do the clerical work,

[1:43:39] wipe it out, the master plan doesn't exist.

[1:43:42] Keep the definition, that's great as a safety factor,

[1:43:45] but make the comprehensive plan consistent

[1:43:50] as much as possible.

[1:43:51] It just simplifies everybody's thoughts.

[1:43:55] Yeah, I agree. I I try

[1:43:57] to correct myself just like the fruit belt rail trail.

[1:43:59] I try to get that one right too.

[1:44:03] But again, some of this is coming from other agencies where,

[1:44:05] so they're just calling them master plans

[1:44:07] and so it's just taking the time to go

[1:44:12] through it and do it ourselves.

[1:44:13] But the, the Wellhead Protection Ordinance was

[1:44:18] modified from the cities by a consultant

[1:44:20] to just meet all the townships.

[1:44:22] And so I think that's why they use the generic term.

[1:44:24] So we're taking it upon ourselves to make it our own.

[1:44:29] And so we have to look for those things.

[1:44:31] I understand. And yeah, and that helps

[1:44:34] to have the definition there, the

[1:44:38] consistency in our own documents is what I'm looking at

[1:44:41] and not documents we're not touching.

[1:44:43] That would be crazy to send those to the trustees

[1:44:46] for a change that is like this.

[1:44:49] But as we make changes, yeah, just deal

[1:44:51] With it.

[1:44:52] It's how we did for EGLE is in there and it says,

[1:44:54] or future names

[1:44:56] because the DEQ just changed to EGLE a few years ago

[1:44:59] and everybody has DEQ in so many places, so

[1:45:05] I don't know why we do that to ourselves, but here we are.

[1:45:08] So, all right, well thank you very much.

[1:45:11] Thank you Anna. You guys were my third meeting

[1:45:13] of the week this week in the evening, so

[1:45:18] hope it wasn't, my brain wasn't too fried.

[1:45:25] Alright, moving on to item number seven,

[1:45:28] which is the public comment section of our meeting.

[1:45:32] If anyone has a public comment they wish to make,

[1:45:35] please come up to the podium

[1:45:37] and you've got four minutes to state your case.

[1:45:47] Okay. Seeing no one coming up, I'm going

[1:45:50] to declare the public comment section over.

[1:45:53] I can't believe we got through that

[1:45:56] planning Commissioner comments, anything anybody wants

[1:45:58] to say based upon what we've done tonight?

[1:46:01] I, I'm not a planning commission member,

[1:46:02] but I did want to let you know I'm the one

[1:46:04] that gave you the article on Moss Landing.

[1:46:07] I just wanted you to be aware of it.

[1:46:08] Obviously the citizens are concerned about it.

[1:46:11] I think it is a concern,

[1:46:12] but I did want you to be aware that in researching it,

[1:46:15] it came to my attention that

[1:46:18] this was a flare up against a wall of an existing building

[1:46:21] that had burned in 2025

[1:46:24] and it was 1200 inaccessible battery modules

[1:46:28] that were still charged

[1:46:29] and they spontaneously ignited and caused a fire.

[1:46:34] But it still stands according to this article

[1:46:37] that this facility was built in an enclosed aging building

[1:46:41] with older battery technologies crammed together,

[1:46:44] allowing fires to spread quickly.

[1:46:46] So it's, I know there have been changes in California law,

[1:46:50] but it doesn't change the fact

[1:46:51] that the Moss landing site was really very poorly designed.

[1:46:56] Doesn't mean it's not a concern, but take it in in context.

[1:47:01] Thank you Jim. Alright, Mr. Chair.

[1:47:04] Yep. Scott,

[1:47:06] I just, I've mentioned traffic calming in our neighborhood

[1:47:10] in the past and I just want to publicly commend Anna

[1:47:15] and her department for the work

[1:47:17] that they did over the past four

[1:47:19] and one half years working with the Road Commission

[1:47:22] to the traffic.

[1:47:24] Calming pieces are in place.

[1:47:26] There's some signage

[1:47:28] and a little bit of markings that need to be done,

[1:47:30] but as of today, it's

[1:47:33] calming the traffic on Green Meadow Road

[1:47:35] and we're so grateful.

[1:47:37] Thank you. Very

[1:47:38] Good.

[1:47:40] Alright. It is now, let's see, what is it?

[1:47:43] 7:47 PM The agenda being completed.

[1:47:47] I declare the meeting at a conclusion. Thank you very much.

Oshtemo Township - Planning Commission - September 24, 2026 Meeting

Agenda

Transcript