Board of Zoning Appeals Regular Meeting

Development Center Board of Zoning Appeals 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 May 19, 2022 Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor I. 12:00 - 12:30 p.m. Commissioner's lunch - Room 303 II. Roll Call PRESENT: Rabaut, Zeiser, Schaffer, Kilpatrick, Montgomery, Stella, Perkins ABSENT: Castanon, Swanson, McCoy, Lewis, Alexander Staff Present: Assistant Planning Director Tyler Kent, Dale Fitz, Assistant City Attorney Amber Beebe, and recording secretary Carol Gornowich Ms. Rabaut provided a brief outline of the hearing process. III. Approval of Minutes 1. Approval of Minutes from April 21, 2022 RESULT: ACCEPTED [6 TO 0] MOVER: Ryan Kilpatrick SECONDER: Traci Montgomery YEAS: Rabaut, Zeiser, Schaffer, Kilpatrick, Montgomery, Perkins ABSTAIN: Fred Stella ABSENT: Castanon, Swanson, McCoy, Lewis, Alexander IV. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in the Public Hearing Room, 2nd Floor A. 1:00 PM - P-BZA-2022-0002 - Dimensional Variance Address: 3100 Ken-O-Sha Park Industrial Ct SE Case Number: P-BZA-2022-0002 Applicant/Owner: Fassbender Properties LLC (Michael Fassbender) Variance Type: Dimensional Requesting: To construct an approximate 15,000 sq. ft building with a parking area and a loading zone located in the front yard. In the Special District – Industrial Transportation (SD-IT) zone district parking and loading zones are not permitted in the front yard. Permitted: Side & Rear Yard Parking Side & Rear Yard Loading Zones Requesting: Front Yard Parking Generated 5/25/2022 10:16 AM Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 2 May 19, 2022 Front Yard Loading Zone Variance Needed For: Front Yard Parking Front Yard Loading Zone Lot Size: Frontage: Depth: Area: Zoning: SD-IT Inspection: Schaffer Ordinance 5.10.03.E.1.a. 5.10.06.B. Previous Appeals and N/A Disposition: Mr. Fitz introduced the request to construct an approximate 15,000 sq. ft. building with a parking area and a loading zone located in the front yard. He explained that in the Special District - Industrial Transportation (SD-IT) zone district parking and loading zones are not permitted in the front yard. Ms. Schaffer provided the inspection report relating that the site is located within an industrial park comprised of industrial buildings. The lot in question is the only open lot in the area. There is an existing easement that allows access to another business. A number of the other businesses have some combination of parking or loading in the front. Her understanding is those buildings were developed when that was permitted. The subject lot is irregularly shaped; triangular. The narrowest portion fronts a cul de sac, which several other businesses use to access their sites. Mr. Fitz explained that this area was developed as a Planned Industrial District approximately 40 years ago and there were no requirements that forbid parking or loading in front yards. John Tenpas, Driesenga & Associates, was present on behalf of the applicant, Mike Fassbender, who is also present. Mr. Tenpas summarized the project and how they feel it meets the standards for granting the variance. The intent is to develop the property with an industrial building that has an overhead door and a dock for truck access. Because of the irregular shape of the property, and the size of the property, there really is only one viable location for the truck access to the building and that is on the west/front side. The parcel is located at the end of a cul de sac and tucked back in the corner of the industrial development. There are three other businesses located on the cul de sac, all of whom do have loading areas, loading dock, and parking facing the cul de sac. Therefore, the proposed would be consistent with the other properties on the cul de sac and elsewhere in the industrial park. They feel the extraordinary conditions that apply are the size, shape, and location of the property. With respect to substantial property right, this is an industrial property within an industrial park. Developing the parcel with a building that doesn’t have truck access doesn’t afford industrial use for that property. They are simply trying to develop the property consistent with others in the area and maintain that industrial use. Mr. Tenpas stated Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 3 May 19, 2022 that the industrial park was developed in 1984. The subject property had the easement established in 1986, which provides access to the cul de sac from the property to the east. The City took ownership of the subject property due to delinquent taxes and Mr. Fassbender bought the property from the City in 1999, well after creation of the property and establishment of the easement. The easement and shape of the property was in existence long before the current owner was involved in the use and development of the property. With respect to substantial detriment, Mr. Tenpas related that they received several letters of support from neighboring property owners, which were included in the application. They concur with the position that this development with truck docks and parking in the front yard will not cause substantial detriment to any of the neighbors. Mr. Tenpas stated that they feel the development of this property will be very consistent with others in the area. The truck access is intended to serve large trucks that would come in 2 - 3 times per week. They don’t see any impact from a traffic or safety standpoint with access to the building coming off of the cul de sac. There is a visual aspect to having parking and truck access at the front. However, they are proposing to develop this property in a way that is very consistent with those in the area. Visually they don’t see any adverse impact, nor do any of the neighbors. Finally, with respect to the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, this is an industrially zoned property and without being able to provide truck access to the building they aren’t able to develop the property in an industrial way. They are trying to adhere to what is intended and zoned in the area. There is ready access to utilities, roads and infrastructure. Mr. Tenpas again stated that trucks would come to the site 2 - 3 times a week and are coming from other local businesses. They’d like to keep their development here locally and being able to develop the last vacant site within the industrial park is definitely preferable to trying to find an alternative location elsewhere. Mr. Tenpas distributed exhibits demonstrating how trucks would access the building on the west side. Mr. Fitz noted that Traffic Safety generally reviews this information before the meeting but staff didn’t have the plans prior to this meeting. Mr. Tenpas explained the exhibits. One exhibit shows a truck backing up to the truck dock and the second shows a truck accessing the overhead door. The predominant use for the building will be access via the overhead door. Large trucks come in with dies. The truck will pull into the building and a crane within the building will lift the die off the trailer and the truck will leave. Ms. Rabaut asked why they aren’t using the easement vs. the cul de sac. Mr. Tenpas distributed exhibits depicting access using the easement. Basically, access on the north side of the building doesn’t work without encroaching on adjacent properties. The property in question is actually the triangular wedge from the easement and south. The portion of the property north of the easement is not owned by the applicant. Mr. Fitz stated that it is all one parcel. Mr. Tenpas related that that portion was sold. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 4 May 19, 2022 Mr. Fitz understands that there was a split requested but he was not aware that it went through. In order to sell that portion, they would need to split it off. Mr. Tenpas explained that he wasn’t sure how that process transpired. Perhaps the sale of that piece of the property wasn’t recorded. Ms. Rabaut asked when the split was requested. She was considering use of that portion of the property for potentially being able to split the parking from the loading dock. Mr. Fitz replied he believes it was requested within the last six months but the request was not approved. Ms. Schaffer asked staff if they should consider this with that portion that the applicant is saying was sold or without it. Mr. Fitz left the meeting room to check with staff on the property split. Mr. Tenpas stated that one exhibit distributed, C-108, also shows the trucks having to encroach on the property to the east as well if accessing the building on the north side. He clarified that both the property to the east and to the north would be encroached upon if they were to access the building via the easement on the north. Ms. Montgomery also noted that the building would have a different orientation. Mr. Tenpas agreed. Ms. Rabaut clarified that if the portion hadn’t been sold they would have been able to construct the building and meet code because the docks would have been on the north and they would have had the turnaround, per C-106. Mr. Tenpas stated that the C-106 exhibit would work if they owned that property but the other exhibit showing the truck encroaching on the property to the east would not have worked. Mr. Perkins asked if sheet C-106 shows a 53’ trailer being able to access it using the property that may or may not be sold. Mr. Tenpas replied affirmatively. He responded to Ms. Montgomery stating that in that scenario it would be similar for both the loading dock and overhead door. Mr. Kent asked if they currently have access across that easement. Mr. Tenpas replied affirmatively. The easement is for vehicular access from the cul de sac to the property to the east. Chris Becker, Pioneer Construction, added that the purpose of the easement is essentially a rear access to the property to the north. It is functionally a road and regularly has trailers parked on it for the beneficiary of the easement. He doesn’t believe that whether the ownership of that small Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 5 May 19, 2022 corner has been recorded or not is relevant because it isn’t functionally accessible to the balance of the property and that easement was put in place prior to the City’s foreclosure on the property. The hindrance on the property was not created by the applicant and they don’t have functional access to that whether or not they have ownership. Ms. Rabaut asked why they don’t have functional access. It is an easement. Why can’t everyone use it. Mr. Becker replied because the easement can effectively block their access to the other portion of the property. It is written like an access road easement and there are trailers regularly parked along the shoulder of the access. The beneficiary of the easement is the property on the other side. Ms. Rabaut clarified that the beneficiary on the other side is able to block that road and no one else is able to use it. Mr. Becker clarified that it doesn’t block the road. If they park along one side, they can still maintain access and they are the only ones that need to get through. Ms. Rabaut asked if anyone has talked to them about closing that easement as they have two other access points. Mike Fassbender, property owner, related that Carl Brosenbeck is the neighbor and owns Split Rock and JB Hunt. He wanted the small wedge piece because he stages things in and out of there because he has the two truck depots. That is an access road that he periodically uses when they come in and out with a trailer if they don’t use the main entrance. It is used minimally but Mr. Fassbender doesn’t see an advantage for anyone to block it off. Mr. Brosenbeck’s truck depot area is the largest lot in the park and he has a lot of trucks in and around there. There is occasion, if they are in that area, that it is easier to exit on that end. Mr. Fassbender isn’t sure whether he would be opposed to closing it off but he doesn’t see any advantage or reason to. Ms. Rabaut explained that the Board has to consider whether the building being requested can be built legally without a variance. Mr. Fassbender related that he and his brother bought the lot approximately 20 years ago. They own the business in front and bought it as a precaution if they ever needed to expand. They were looking at doing an addition and then the recession came in 2008/2009 so that project never came to fruition. They now have another opportunity to do business with Lacks and they have bigger dies so they need a bigger crane. It is low volume and trucks will only be in and out 2 - 3 times a week. There won’t be a lot of extra traffic. It is just for the occasional big die that they have. Mr. Brosenbeck has been an excellent neighbor. He bought the terminal where JB Hunt is when they went bankrupt. It was a mess and he went in and cleaned it up. He came to Mr. Fassbender and said that if they would sell him the small wedge, he could use it for staging. Ms. Rabaut stated that it is great that everyone gets along and is doing well. However, there were ways to use the property that met code if the property hadn’t been sold off. Usually, an easement is something that can be used by multiple people if they needed to turn around, etc. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 6 May 19, 2022 Mr. Kilpatrick clarified that it depends on who the easement is granted to and who the beneficiaries are. An easement doesn’t mean it is public, it is by and between the parties who are assigned rights to the easement. Mr. Fassbender related that he has five properties in the industrial park. When they first built the park, the buildings were all on the north side and Parker Motor was in there. They went bankrupt during the recession. When trucks were coming out of there and there were no buildings on the south side, the lights would shine where the homes were. Parker put the easement in so they could avoid shining the lights at night where the homes were. Subsequent to that, the opposite side of the park was developed and the light issue was irrelevant. Parker later went out of business and Split Rock/Everfresh went in. Everfresh doesn’t use the lot because the whole light issue is gone. Mr. Fassbender recalled he had petitioned years ago to put no parking signs in there because Pierson Foods has a lot of people that get off the bus and walk to work and people were parking their cars and trucks on the street and it became a hazard. His understanding is the City has approved to put a sidewalk in, which is a wonderful idea, because Pierson Foods still has a lot of pedestrian traffic. Ms. Schaffer recognized that if the variance is granted the truck dock and parking will be in the front in the same area. She asked how they will ensure the safety of people with the mix of passenger vehicles and large trucks. Mr. Becker replied that it is important to note that the purpose for constructing this building is to have a crane large enough to lift a die off of a trailer. The trucks will always have to pull into the building in order for the crane inside to lift those deliveries off of the truck. It is one truck that goes back and forth to customers and it is the same driver every time. There will never be queueing of trucks for deliveries here because it is a dedicated truck for this building and for this crane to deliver the specific dies for the local customers. It is a highly customized building, project and operation centered around infrequent deliveries. If they were able to access the side, the way the building is laid out structurally, the crane can’t work inside the building. It is a structural engineering exercise and they looked closely at whether they could do that and couldn’t figure out how to crane it off of a delivery coming in that way even if they could resolve the easement issue. There are a number of reasons other than the easement and access that that doesn’t work for the building layout. Mr. Stella asked if the single driver, infrequent deliveries, is anticipated to change any time soon. Mr. Fassbender replied that this is primarily for two customers. Ms. Rabaut reminded the Board that the variance goes with the property and not with the applicant or business that will be using the building. Whatever they are permitted to do will be the same for everyone going forward with that property. Mr. Fitz added that 40 years from now if someone else comes in, there won’t be limits on the number of deliveries they have. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 7 May 19, 2022 Mr. Becker wished to point out that this is a particularly unique circumstance. It is a 50-ton capacity crane being built on the inside of the building. Normally a large factory with an overhead crane might be 3 - 10 tons, if it’s a big factory. The crane in this facility will be five times as large as the overhead cranes you would see in a large factory. If the applicant is not the occupant of this building in the future, that piece of equipment will be what is sought after and not the building and it will be for someone else that can use that. They are really building a receiving dock for dies. If isn’t the applicant utilizing the facility, it will likely be someone else with a very similar use. Mr. Perkins asked why the orientation of the building makes it difficult to operate the crane. Mr. Becker replied that his understanding from the planning meetings he was involved in is that it relates to the way they are peaking the roof for drainage and storm water management and the column spacing, combined with the way that they need to get the crane wide enough that it could get the dies off of the truck but also close enough to get it into the production queue. His understanding is that it a based on their production flow and how the crane can be configured. Mr. Fitz returned to the meeting relating that he checked with his colleague who also does the lot split and lot combination approvals and there is nothing that has been submitted for this lot that would split off that portion previously discussed. Mr. Fitz also looked to Kent County’s website to double check and it is still the same lot size as shown on the drawing. Therefore, the portion northwest of the easement is not owned by anyone other than the applicant, per the records. Ms. Rabaut invited public comment. Gary Smith related that he is a neighbor and the City would be proud of how the neighbors get along. His business is directly across from the subject site at 3121 Ken-O-Sha Industrial Ct. Mr. Smith related that they have parking in front on their site. They operate ten injection molding machines across the street and have parking for approximately 15-20 and only use 5-6 spaces currently. When the neighbor asked if they could borrow some parking during the construction period the answer was yes. They have that type of relationship in the industrial park. Mr. Smith stated that there are three buildings with an address on this cul de sac. Mr. Smith stated that they don’t object to the proposed construction or layout. Ms. Rabaut asked if his employee parking is in the same lot as the loading docks/semi truck traffic. Mr. Smith replied that they have loading docks that face Ken-O-Sha Industrial Ct. and they have parking at both ends of the building, which is in the same area. It is a large cemented area and they don’t experience any overlap. Mr. Zeiser recalled from Mr. Becker’s testimony that this is a receiving area for the dies, meaning the trucks have to back in for the crane to unload them from the trucks. Mr. Tenpas clarified that they can either back in and pull out forward or pull in forward and back out. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 8 May 19, 2022 Mr. Zeiser asked the purpose of the truck dock. Mr. Tenpas replied that the applicant doesn’t anticipate using the truck dock much. The truck dock is there in case they need it. Mr. Becker added that they would be willing to eliminate the dock altogether if that was a hang up on the proposal based on the infrequency of use of the dock. The building is being built for the large grade level door and the crane that will service it. Mr. Tenpas commented further on the north side access. He explained that if they were to arrange the site to allow for that they would have to obtain easements from the property to the northeast to access the docks. He referred to exhibit C-108. Access on the north side really isn’t feasible. Mr. Fitz referred to sheet C-106 which shows that they can meet the turning radius requirements. Ms. Montgomery clarified that on sheets C-106 and C-108 it appears those are paths to the dock and not the overhead door. Mr. Tenpas agreed. However, it would essentially be the same whether going to the dock or door. Ms. Schaffer recalled from testimony that even if they were able to get to the dock or door from the north that the whole reason for building this building is the crane and they wouldn’t be able to use the crane if the loading dock was in that area. Mr. Tenpas agreed. There are two factors, one is the building and one is the vehicular access that shows the truck having to extend beyond the end of the easement into the adjacent property to the east. Mr. Perkins expressed his understanding being that the process that they are using here depends on the orientation of the building that has been requested. Mr. Tenpas agreed. The site exhibits that were distributed flip the rectangle but there are a lot of things that disrupt the operation of the facility by flipping that rectangle that they can’t illustrate on the exhibits. The point of the exhibits was to illustrate the various options for truck access. They have shown two scenarios with access to the north that show the trucks having to go beyond the limits of the easement, one to the north to the wedge and then one to the property to the northeast. Mr. Fitz understood the point about the building. However, his point is that the building doesn’t change, it is just the orientation that changes and it is showing that the turn movement is being made. The building is the same building but access is from the west instead of the south. Mr. Kilpatrick doesn’t believe it is the same. As he understands it, this is a three-dimensional puzzle being solved not a two-dimensional puzzle. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 9 May 19, 2022 Mr. Tenpas agreed. Mr. Kilpatrick continued stating that in addition to what they can see in plan view, what they also have to recognize is that there is column spacings, building heights, site grading factors that have to be considered, where storm water detention is located and how the roof will shed water into the detention, column heights and where the building height needs to be the greatest to support the crane, all of those things are factors that influence the orientation of the building and the ability to get a truck in and out to be serviced by the crane. He isn’t sure it is a matter of just turning the building 90 degrees. Mr. Tenpas again agreed. Mr. Fitz stated that he isn’t convinced they couldn’t build the same style building without a difference in the storm water detention basin, which could be addressed with the Storm Water Engineer. Mr. Becker indicated that he was not in disagreement on that point. One thing to note on that is that this plan was presented for a predevelopment application and there was no red flag brought up about the orientation. They didn’t assume it to be a problem because every other building does the exact same thing on this court. They are now completely done with engineering not only on the building but on all of the interior equipment and process equipment and everything else. If the building orientation changes, the building doesn’t happen here; the building that is already engineered gets built somewhere else. Mr. Kilpatrick felt it was important to acknowledge that there is a lot of debate about whether or not something else is feasible in an environment where at least a majority of the properties are also non-conforming as it relates to the location of the parking. Mr. Kilpatrick isn’t sure it is worth having a significant debate about the orientation of the building when what they are talking about is a variance for something that is already happening on the majority of properties in this area. Motion by Mr. Kilpatrick, supported by Ms. Schaffer, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Ms. Rabaut pointed out that it is the Board’s job to see that things are built to code if possible, which is what the discussion was about. Mr. Fitz expressed his understanding of what Mr. Becker last stated; that it could be done but the building has been engineered the way they’ve shown on the plans. Mr. Kilpatrick recalled that they also heard testimony from the applicant that the existing function of the easement includes parking of vehicles and storage of trailers and the agreement between this property owner and the property owner behind encumbers that easement which would make the turning radius difficult on some days and impossible on others. Mr. Fitz noted that he missed that part of the discussion and does not disagree with what was stated. However, he wished to point out that there could be a way of switching the orientation of Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 10 May 19, 2022 the building and still access the docks and the process function. He understands that there are other considerations. Ms. Rabaut asked, if granted, whether this would go through the LUDS process and whether that would include review by Traffic Safety since they are using the cul de sac for the turning movements. Mr. Fitz replied that if the Board is considering granting what has been submitted it would need to include a condition that Traffic Safety review and approve because those are big turning movements that are outside of the Board’s approvals that can be granted. Ms. Schaffer addressed the points: 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances or Conditions. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same Zone District or in the general vicinity. In this particular case, Ms. Schaffer noted the irregular shape of the property; it is triangular with the narrow edge at the cul de sac, widening as it goes out to the property line. In addition, the use or development of the property immediately adjacent to the subject property prohibits a literal enforcement of the requirement of this Chapter. Ms. Schaffer noted that it isn’t just the drive area but also parking of rather large trucks, per testimony of the applicant and also represented on page 14 of the application, which makes turning around and accessing the loading dock very challenging from the north. 2. Substantial Property Right. That the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that possessed by other properties in the same Zone District and in the neighboring area. As it was noted several times on the record by the applicant, as well as recognized during the Board Member site visit, this is an industrial park that was created 40 years ago. Many, if not all, of the buildings have either or; they either have parking in the front or they have a loading dock in the front, or they have both. Therefore, it would encroach on their substantial property right to not permit it in this case. 3. Not Self-Created. That the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the Variance was not created by an action or inaction by the applicant or the applicant’s predecessors in title. In this particular case the applicant is hindered by different things. They bought the property with an existing easement that cuts a third of the property off and leaves them with the grass covered property shown on page 14. The easement was in place when the applicant purchased the property. In addition, the shape of the property was existing at the time of purchase. 4. No Substantial Detriment. The Variance, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. This is an industrial park. Its very purpose is to have industrial activities including truck deliveries, as well as parking for the employees. This is a right that is enjoyed by other properties within the immediate vicinity. In addition, Ms. Schaffer recognized 9 letters submitted with the application from surrounding neighbors. Mr. Smith was also present today to offer support for this application. 5. Master Plan/Zoning Ordinance. The Variance, if granted, is consistent with, and not materially impair, the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and the provisions of the Zoning Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 11 May 19, 2022 Ordinance and District under consideration. Ms. Schaffer finds that this variance would be consistent and not materially impair the Master Plan as, in this particular case, it is an industrial area. It was developed as an industrial park and this use will be consistent with that use. Ms. Schaffer MOVED TO GRANT, per plans and testimony, with the condition of Traffic Safety review and approval as well as LUDS review and approval. SUPPORTED by Mr. Kilpatrick. Ms. Beebe asked if Ms. Schaffer included that the immediate practical difficulty causing the need for the Variance was not created by an action or inaction of the applicant’s predecessors in title. Ms. Schaffer AMENDED point 3; in this case the shape of the lot was not self-created by the applicant or the applicant’s predecessors in title. SUPPORTED by Mr. Kilpatrick. Ms. Gornowich repeated the extraordinary circumstances at Ms. Rabaut’s request. Ms. Rabaut asked Ms. Beebe if her comment related to the applicant’s predecessors in title was covered. The easement was created by the party prior to the City’s ownership. She asked if they are just considering what occurred while owned by the City or prior. Ms. Beebe replied that it states “predecessors in title”. It doesn’t say the immediate predecessor. Ms. Schaffer clarified that the mention of the easement was primarily under exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. When talking about predecessors in title and not being self-created, she was considering the shape of the lot. Ms. Rabaut suggested that because it was included as part of point one it would also be part of point three. Ms. Schaffer asked then if the easement was created by a predecessor in title that it shouldn’t be considered for point three. Mr. Kilpatrick suggested there may be some nuance here. He believes they have definitely decided cases before based on past actions of prior property owners who created the problem and they’ve said now you’ve inherited this problem and have to do something about it so a variance is granted. If part of the extraordinary circumstance was created by a predecessor in title does that negate the opportunity for it to be an extraordinary circumstance or do they just need to acknowledge that it was created by a predecessor in title? Ms. Beebe responded regarding predecessor in title. She recalled that the applicant mentioned the easement was created by someone prior to their ownership. If the easement is a consideration in the determination, it doesn’t only attach to the applicant but also predecessors in title. Ms. Montgomery asked if they can still consider the easement for the purpose of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances? It doesn’t say anything about predecessors in title in point one. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Full Page 12 May 19, 2022 Ms. Schaffer clarified that she mentioned that under 1C. Mr. Kilpatrick suggested eliminating the easement from the findings in point three but leave it in point one. Ms. Schaffer AMENDED point 3: In this particular case the applicant is hindered by different things. They bought the property with an existing easement that cuts a third of the property off and leaves them with the grass covered property shown on page 14. The easement was in place when the applicant purchased the property. In addition, the size and shape of the property was created as part of the original development. SUPPORTED by Mr. Kilpatrick. YEAS: 6. NAYS: 1 (Rabaut). MOTION CARRIED. RESULT: GRANTED [6 TO 1] MOVER: Cortney Schaffer SECONDER: Ryan Kilpatrick YEAS: Zeiser, Schaffer, Kilpatrick, Montgomery, Stella, Perkins NAYS: Lynn Rabaut ABSENT: Castanon, Swanson, McCoy, Lewis, Alexander V. Discussion  Ms. Rabaut provided an update on the Master Plan process. The Steering Committee has not been meeting during the consultant selection process. Mr. Kent added that interviews take place next week and the hope is that they have made a consultant selection in the next couple of weeks with the intent of kicking off the process late summer or early fall.  Mr. Kilpatrick stated that he is sure they have made decisions in the past without consideration of predecessors in title. He would like to have advice on that Standard to ensure they are fully aware of their obligation to consider that for any future decisions. Ms. Rabaut expressed that her understanding was that anything included as a special condition in point one had to be justified in point three. She agreed it would be helpful to receive a clarification. VI. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 2:06 pm