Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. I didn't know. Okay. So, happy to welcome everyone to the June meeting of the Union Township Planning Commission. Uh we've had pledge of allegiance. Roll call, please. McDonald here. Bradshaw is um excused. Um Pace here. Lab here. Here. Uh shingles here. Tom over. We haven't heard from Brown here. Okay. And there's over. He's here in a pitch. Okay. Thank you. Um, next item is approval of tonight's agenda. You have your agenda in front of you. There are two new business items and one uh old business item carry carried over from last month. Are there any other items that people are aware of that need to be on tonight's agenda? Are there any concerns with tonight's agenda? Move to accept the agenda. Support. Okay. There was a motion by shingles with a second by the to approve tonight's agenda as prepared. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? All right. So, our agenda is approved. We'll go ahead and go through it. Next item is approval of the minutes. This is from our last regular

meeting on May 20th. Are there any corrections to the May 20th minutes? Tara made a minor uh just kind of typographical correction on the second page at the top. If not, we can have a motion to approve those. So moved. Who is this? So moved. I was looking down. Okay. So motion by Olver with a second by Hayes to approve the minutes as prepared. Any further discussion? Not. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay. So, minutes are approved. Uh, next item is correspondence, board reports, presentations. We'll take them in the usual order. First item is Commissioner Thering updates from board of trustees. Thank you. Um, we had well I don't have the my exact dates because I think I I started writing things out based on the date and then I just started writing and I forgot what date went with what. But we had uh two presentations. One from Katie Mora from the she's the president of the Middle Michigan Development Corporation kind of going over uh just there's a a nice magazine. I meant to bring that. There's so much information in that that too much to share. I was going to let

you have that, but apparently I didn't bring it with me and that's I will I will get that and bring that. Um, it was a nice presentation. You can definitely catch it. It's either on our May 28th or our June 11th meeting. We also had a presentation from Alli Barnes from Yo and Yo on the 2024 audit, financial audit, and the township did very well. There was no uh huge deficiencies that were found. Um there's always a little tweak here and there to improve, but uh nothing that was alarming. So that was good. Um we had a citizen come forward to talk about two things. One was um some maybe some bike paths along Lincoln or I think we have some sidewalk starting to happen. But um the big thing that she talked about was uh Lincoln Road at the corner of 20 and Lincoln about having a turn lane. Um because the lanes are offset on Lincoln Road. Uh when you go to turn, you can't typically you can't move unless everybody's out of the way. It's just too dangerous. We've had some discussions about that maybe here and I know we've definitely had some discussions uh in our uh board of trustees meetings. Um I believe the overall consensus uh at the end of our meeting, our last meeting was to maybe um send a letter to MDOT just inquiring about that. Not necessarily a turn light, but possibly um something I think is being put together on that I believe. Um just asking you know what I think things will change when the other side of the road I believe it's the other side of

the road still has some work yet to be done but I believe there's some easements from sidewalks and maybe some other things that are kind of holding us back from finishing that project. So um my guess is is when that's completed um things would maybe line up a little bit better. I don't know, but the board asked to just have some correspondence with MDOT just to see what their thoughts were on that more or less. And outside of that, but I so I appreciate that citizen coming forward and talking about that because it just it helps to hear. Outside of that, I I'm good. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Commissioner Thering on trustee related matters from commissioners? Not we thank you for your report. Look forward to next month. Um let's see. Um next item is Commissioner McDonald updates from ZBA. I don't believe they've met, but I'll nothing to report. No meeting. Okay. And next item is the community and economic development monthly report. Again, this is always in your packet. It is a uh a thorough report of what the township office has done, what's happening with all the boards, um other sorts of things. And we always pause to give commissioners an opportunity to ask questions if they have any on anything they might have seen in the monthly report. So, I've just had a lot of people come

to me and talk to me about the situation on page three at the top. And I don't even know because it's a zoning situation, but I think we just I don't know, maybe some other people have heard about it, too. And I'm kind of surprised they're not here tonight to talk about it. But is Barnuminium something that we need to start talking about in a little bit more detail? because it seems like it's kind of a new development that's there's a lot of interest in and that maybe there's some vague language here and there in our statutes and our so I'm just wondering if that's something we should talk about in the future. Uh well Barnabium is you might say as a nickname really. It it's a it's for a style of residential home construction that looks like a somewhat like a pole barn. uh some more like a bulb bar than others. Uh it some people uh view this as as construction only using pole pole building design that type of foundation but but in reality it's just kind of a architectural character you might say looking like an agricultural building. Um the uh we don't have vague standards we simply have a minimum standard. Uh we have a section that's in our ordinance. It was in our a version of it was in our 1991 ordinance. U it it's a section that is in almost every zoning ordinance in Michigan. Uh ours is called residential design requirements. It goes in a number of different names, but but it basically it it it includes a statement that essentially uh all single family homes, no matter what the style of construction that are on a on an individual lot, uh have have required to have a minimum residential character. Essentially, uh the uh there's some language in there talks about that this is not about architectural style. you not say thou

shalt only do uh mid-century modern or thou shalt only do Bavarian Franken Booth does in their historic district thou shalt only build Bavarian. Uh we don't that's not what this is. It's simply that that design cues character visual character cues related to the exterior of the building uh ultimately need to have a minimum residential character to it. uh the u it is truly a judgment call of our zoning administrator when a project comes in. There are a variety of ways to to meet the requirement. Um we've had a number of these projects come in. They've all all I think now all been approved, haven't we? We have this one that this is referencing that had to go through a second effort. But uh u the as you said there there are multitude of ways to to get to that point. uh simply being similar in character to residential dwellings in the area. I think the language ordinance use this term l neighborhood u since many of these buildings are put are put in the rural area the township uh the zone administrators define neighborhood as basically within a mile. So pretty pretty broad uh brush for that. Uh this one this particular project u as said did have some challenges uh in that the initial plan simply didn't meet the requirements uh and they did ultimately submit the revised plan and and they were approved. So building permits been issued for it. Right. So I just want maybe I'll catch everyone up real quick. Um so I did I did all that research. I looked at section 6.16 so I could make sure I understood what it was said. I obviously know what a barninium is. And then I realized that the discretion um is up to the employee of the township um and that it should, you know, match or be similar in character to the houses and residential buildings around it. So

I then went on Google Earth and kind of did my own little research all around, which is pretty neat. You don't have to go driving around anymore. Um, and there and I also read the letter um, from township staff to the person seeking the permits and there were just some alarming situations in there and I think I'm probably not the only one that you've heard from about this. So, for example, there was like a request I wish I had it with me. Um, for there to be I don't I want to make sure I use the right word, but I think it was grills on the windows or something. It's not a request. If I may, I apologize for interrupting you. No, that's fine. because I I want I want more information heard this be already uh there was not a request for anything there there was discussion that happened before the the gentleman's building permit was applied for uh and certainly we can make this a discussion I if there's a desire to go through this further but I'll give you a quick summary u there was discussion before building permits apply for there was uh in during discussions between the applicant ultimately and the zone administrator uh there looking how do we get where we need to go? Um the uh the applicant suggested several things that the letter that you're talking about which was a what she's talking about is a denial letter which what we provide when we deny a permit provide a letter here's here's the denial here's why here's what you can do about it including going to the zoning board of appeals u and uh anyway so in this case uh the applicant had suggested some things and in fact had some indication that that they were going to head down the direction of putting these elements into the plan. Uh they ultimately did not do that. The letter simply stated if you did put those things you you brought forth in into the plan, the plan would be approved. That would be more enough to meet the requirement. That's all that was saying. It was not demanding anything, was not requesting anything.

It was simply saying the things you suggested would be sufficient. You just simply didn't put them in the plan that you submitted. Uh there as I said though there are many ways these these projects these baruminium style projects essentially require the assistance of an architect because of the the type of foundation calculations and such that are needed for that type of foundation. Um and architects have a whole toolbox full of design tools design cues that can be used for this kind of project. And so we our first recommendation is simply talk to the architect. Share share the in this case share the letter because they have that information but simply share the section of the ordinance and and invite that architect to pull out their toolbox and and and do some some tweaking to the design. Ultimately essentially what happened design was tweaked project was approved and it's building permit has been issued. Right? So, I just want to let everyone know the only reason I brought this up because it is essentially a zoning situation and I wasn't even sure I was going to, but then I saw it in the report and we can talk about those things. So, like I said, not just the people seeking the permits, but several other people knowing that I hold this position had questions about it. And there has been a lot of I guess maybe not a lot of but there has been in the past few months discussion about overreach from some of the employees at the township and we've seen it on social media and it's just kind of a concern of mine that it's something we should keep an eye on because when there's people that feel like the discretion something that's up to the discretion of an employee of the township. It's kind of giving a it's giving a negative light to the township and that we're you know like we've had other commissioners talk about before that we're making it difficult for people to build or succeed with their plans and their their things that they want to do in the township. So that's why I brought it up and I just think it's something that everyone should be aware of and I probably wouldn't have unless several

people hadn't come to me with concerns about it. So that's just the reason and if we want to talk about it more we can or if you want to look into that statute yourself um or section 6.16 and maybe we can talk about it later but that was the only reason I wanted to mention it. So I appreciate the information you gave me also. Thank you Rodney and thank you for giving me the opportunity to visualize a Bavarian barnaminium. Still working on that one. You never know. It could be any minute that someone will come up with that next. Are there other questions on the monthly report? Okay. Well, I appreciate the informative exchange there. Uh if not, then we'll go ahead and move on. Are there any other reports, presentations, correspondence, anything else that commissioners or staff have that we need to be aware of that would fall under this category? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and move on. So, we've reached the first public comment of the meeting. We always have two public comments in our meetings, separate from any public hearings, which we don't have tonight. But, uh, the first public comment is restricted to items that are not on tonight's agenda. So, if there's anyone either present or online who wants to address the planning commission on any item that is not on tonight's agenda, they're welcome to do so at this time. If you're in the room, come to the podium. Give us your name and address for the minutes. If you're online, make your presence known and we'll make sure that you can speak. And we ask you to uh limit your comments to three minutes. Public comment, the first public comment is open at 7:17. No one's online. Okay. We don't have anybody on our in our online boardroom and folks in the audience are presumably here for other purposes. They're not

coming forward. So, we'll assume that there's no uh public comments at this stage of the meeting. So, we'll go ahead and close that also at 7:17. We'll have an extended public comment towards the end of the meeting. Uh so, we're ready to move on to new business. The first item is a final site plan review PFAL uh SPR25-02 for the Thrive Community Church on Bud Street at South Isabella Road. and we'll hear from Rodney and then we'll hear from the applicant and then we will uh do our action. Well, thank you everybody should have a copy of our report dated June the 10th. This is a a final site plan item. Recall we did adopt an amendment last year that allows uh some final site plan items to be administratively approved. This one uh has two items on it that require planning commission judgment call. So that's why it's coming forward tonight. Uh the uh uh the the plan is for is going to do Thrive Community Church. Uh the overall we found the plans to be in very good order. Uh said there there were two items that that require your action. One is uh on bottom of page uh two of our report page 42 of the packet. Uh we note the the applicants requested uh temporary relief from sidewalk construction for a portion of the sidewalk that would be located along south as developer shorter frontage of the apartment property. Uh the section they're asking for relief on uh would be would have been located uh within a state regulated wetland. So uh that's the reason for the request. uh we don't report we don't have objection to find that that's consistent with with our policy for temporary relief and and so if your action uh to to approve the if you choose to approve the final site

plan with this request that would be granting that relief the they will be they will provide an easement and that's also not at the top of page page three of our report they will be providing easement uh for that sidewalk, even that section through there. So, if in the future the council decides to make that connection, we we can do that. It would most likely require a boardwalk to go through that webinar. Uh the uh the second uh item for your attention is on the middle of page three and page 43 of the packet under the number seven, which is the landscaping section. Uh this is a proposed landscaping modification. Uh there we have ordinance requirements for landscaping uh related to the loading area. There's a loading area in front of the building there. Uh and also related to simply the street frontage and certain requirements for for how that night is done. But in this particular case, we also have the circumstance where we have the parking row that's directly facing towards the houses across the across the north side of Bud Street. And so it was important to to uh ensure we have uh best possible screening for headlight from from those cars. Uh and so the applicant did provide a BM, but because of the fairly limited space, the BM could only be a certain height about two feet high. Uh and so they have proposed to uh to adjust some of the shrub uh plantings to create a essentially a solid hedger of shrubs along the top of that burm. And then they're also relocating the the the trees that are required that become a green belt of trees that are required along that that frontage. Uh they're off the burm. It's another on on the down slope of the burn to accommodate putting

that hedge row of shrubs up on top that that will provide the kind of height that's needed to to screen that headlight layer. So it's it's a it is a considered a modification from what our ordinance would otherwise require. Uh but it is a very effective modification for what's needed for this particular site. So I mean staff our perspective is this is a very good change. Uh and and so if you approve the final site plan with the request uh for the modification, you're approving this this alternative design. Uh the uh the other two items on our are our list uh are uh related to the outside agency reviews. These are the housekeeping items. uh in your in your packet on page 40, you have a copy of the the review letter dated June 3rd uh from a public services director. Uh this is simply noting some details that need to be added to the final site plan setting related details. Uh they none of them affect in any way the site design layout. These are truly truly hot details. Uh and uh so normally we wouldn't want these to be addressed. We wouldn't want all the outside agencies to be fully addressed before the final site plan comes to you. This is one where where we felt looking at it and have conversation with public services director that we could bring this one to you and address it as a recommended condition of approval. Uh just so that these things are provided before the project goes forward in the building. uh and we we understand as we note in our report that that Mr. D engineer is already working on on resolving those details. Uh the other item is is storm water management. Our storm water management ordinance uh requires a recorded storm water management plan uh that can recorded on the property. Uh and so we another

housekeep is we'll need a copy of that as reporting document uh prior to issuance of the building. So with that in mind, uh we are pleased to recommend this project to you for approval. Uh subject to a couple of conditions uh basically to receive copies of the of the sidewalk easement and and stormboard management plan as reported the registered deans office and uh and then also to receive the updated site plan sheets the details that the public service. So with that I'm happy to answer questions. Any immediate questions for Rodney? You know, I'd like to start off with um section 142P. Um just talking about the final site plans for wetland and protected area there and how it's going to conform. I know that was something that was a concern for me, kind of why I voted to push this back last time. And I wanted to know, I can see that the uh the Eagle permit was secured, but um do we have results of what the drainage drain water situation is going to be like from there on these updated plans? I know that was a concern from another neighboring business that was there talking about consistent flooding that they have and got assurances from them on their original plan that this was going to drain out to the to the road. there would be no issues with that and Eagle was going to check through to make sure those okay. I just don't know if we could get some more clarity on just what the results of those were and any assurances we can get maybe for myself just that we're not going to be putting in something that's going to be a burden to any of their neighbors or or the surrounding wetlands in there. I I tell you what, Mr. B is here. He is an expert in that area. Uh and I'm pleased to defer to him. Before I before I do though, are there to take from that question are there any other questions for me and then I'll sit down and let Mr.

Okay, I don't see any at this time. So, thank you. So, we'll go ahead and uh turn it over to the applicant here. Good evening. My name is Tim BB Central Michigan Surveying Development here on behalf of Thor Church. My address is 2257 East Broomfield Road here in Union Township. Uh let me handle your your questions first. Um as far as an eagle permit, there is no eagle permit because we are staying out of the wetlands. We are not touching the wetlands. So you do not have to apply for a permit if you have your wetlands delineated by an approved uh consultant from Eagle. Uh, ours happens to be PhD that teaches the classes at Michigan State that the Eagle people take. So, um, I like using him because there's usually never any controversy on what what the boundary is. Uh, so there would be no eagle permitting. We're staying out of that wetland boundary. It's shown on our drawings. Not only do we uh keep our development actions out of that, but we also uh protect it with uh silt fence that's 2 feet outside of the wetland boundary. And that's put in before any construction can can start. As far as the uh drainage, all drainage on the site, all improved surfaces come interior. So therefore, we aren't spilling any water off any hard surfaces out onto areas that are not being collected. It's all going to be underground collection then pumped up. It goes into a storm sewer system which comes down to the south edge of the the property. It runs

um to the west and we have a very large detention area that's shown on the plans that is in the southwest corner. That detentionary not only holds the required 25-year storm, but it holds the 100redyear storm for the site. I I remember going over the reviews on that last time. You guys had put in a very large storm retainer in there in the in the case of that, which is great plan. I have to be careful what I say as far as lowering water tables, but um there isn't going to be an increase in any water table based on the development of this Uh whenever you put a detention basin in that is completely drained, has an outlet that can completely drain it, uh typically the groundwater around the area goes down. I'm not going to guarantee that up on another property that their groundwater is going to to go down. uh Eagle likes to see us not impact those because it impacts wetlands. So that's why we were draining everything to the south and taking it over and trying to get our detention basin as far away from the wetland areas as we could on the site. So also helps that's where our outlet is. So uh does that answer the answer your questions? Yes, I appreciate the clarity on that. Okay, Rodney went through did a review from A to Z on the on his report. So, I'm not going to bother you with another review of the same thing. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Okay. Questions for Mr. BB.

Okay. So you've heard from uh township staff, you've heard from the applicant and so it is with us now. So uh this is our uh deliberation and ultimately action. So, it's open for discussion, comment, uh, concerns from commissioners. And just to remind you, the two specific actions that were mentioned that we need to take into account are the uh requests for temporary relief for the piece of sidewalk that is would go through the wetland and that is on Isabella. And then uh secondly the uh modification to the landscaping on the BM. [Music] You're saying that to comply with the to comply with the future um pathway there might require a race path. Right. Right. Going going through a wet wetland area. Uh we could we could fill the wetland. There's simply not enough space to put a sidewalk in on an area that's outside the wetland boundary that's not in the road itself. So we would either have to

fill the wetland and then we're dealing with issues of mitigating the wetland somewhere else by adding if that would require legal permit uh to alter that wetland uh or u build a boardwalk that would go over the wetland even that would I suspect would probably still require state permit you know but it's much less impact in the wetland it's it's called the very expensive way to build a pathway but it's you know it's something But right now it's not on our on our radar to do. It's something that as our as our network of pedestrian paths and bicycle paths continues to to build out, it's something we may consider doing in the future. There are certainly many communities that done that sort of thing to get get across difficult areas. Just wondering of the what the cost would be accured by the township down the line if as that community continues to grow it becomes necessary. So, so this one uh you consider so this temporary relief from sidewalk construction uh or ordinance uh can allow us to to call in that in the future. Uh there is a reasonleness factor that we have that comes into play. It's not anything in our ordinance but it's certainly a something that we have to have to consider that it is what we're asking for reasonable. Uh is it you might say is it reasonably proportional to what to the benefit and to their to to the cost to their to to uh the developer in this case the church to actually put together this uh project through a reg state regulated wetland whether it's a boardwalk or filling a mitigated wetland is a very high cost and it would probably if if we had to defend it would probably be difficult to defend as a reasonable request of the uh of the church to do in the future.

However, it is certainly something as a public uh amenity that the township can do if if the the board of director board directors board of trustees chooses to at some point down the road. This exemption would just continue in perpetuity or would we have to review this every year? Now, the the temporary relief uh decisions stand until they're called in. We we had a few that that were were were called in back 20 21 something like that, I think 22. Uh uh and uh but but it was at that time was because some other sidewalk pieces have been put in. Uh so it otherwise it it stands as it is until until a decision made to change it to this this level. Thank you. com. Other comments on the sidewalk issue from commissioners or the or the landscaping issue. I don't have a comment on the uh landscaping issue, but I I don't know if we addressed uh the number I don't I don't know that it has a number I guess number nine, but it's on page four where it says can conform. Um was that addressed with the the talk about the uh the storm drainage or or is this something different? Uh uh number nine, this is the outside agency. Yeah, these these are uh they're actually addressed in the in the in the recommended conditions uh for approval. These are those housekeeping items that we talked about. The first one being the need for an as recorded copy of the

storm water management plans, maintenance plans. Um u and then also uh having the updated uh public services department detail sheets added to the to the site plan. Okay. So those if if you look in both in the recommendation and then if you look in the draft set of motions 45 you'll see draft motions that you see a two conditions there in the middle and those cover these the items we talked about. Okay. Thank you. I think it'd be a good idea to uh amend the hedges there so that people driving past aren't getting blinded anything like that to cover up the uh removal. I think the shrubs in order to cause for the to cover for uh glare. It was covered for glare and stuff, right? Like glare. Do we need to as a board verbally approve the change to landscaping and the sidewalk easement or are those assumed if we approve the site plan? Uh be because they have put the request right on the plan. If you approve the plan, you are approving those changes. Okay, good question. I think under draft motion is a second draft motion to approve with final site plan conditions. Right. But those conditions aren't actually those are on the site plan already. These are other ones. I see. I move to approve PF I NAL25-02

final site plan dated June 2nd 2025 for the new 26,356qt Thrive Community Church facility located on the northeast corner of South Isabel Road and Bud Street PID14-12-30-00009-0000 in the south southwest quarter of section 22 and in the B7 retail and highway business zoning district finding that the site plan can comply with the applicable zoning ordinance requirements for final site plan approval including sections 14.2P required site plan information and 14.2 standards for site plan approval subject to the following conditions. The applicant shall provide the zoning administrator copies of the asrecorded sidewalk easements and storm water maintenance agreement prior to issuance of building permits. And two, zoning administrator acceptance of updated site plan sheets with the additional details as requested by the public services department prior to issue of building permits support. Okay. So the motion was made by lap and it was seconded by Olver. discussion. Okay. Hearing none. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Yes. Yes. Brown. Shingles. Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes. Okay. Thank you. So, this one is approved. Good luck. Thank you. We're going to avoid the theme.

I I admit to having abused Franken in my conversations because it has been my go-to example because they actually do require it. All right. So, uh, we'll move on to our second new business item. This is a preliminary site plan review, uh, PEPR25-01 for the proposed Mid Michigan College Event Center at 2600 South Summerton Road. Once again, we'll hear from Rodney first, then the applicant, then we will do our work. You should have a report date June the 11th. U this is uh look on the on the site plan document. It says final site plan on the title but this is actually a preliminary site plan review. We'll talk about why that reviewing the plan that is dated May May 27th. uh if you recall this is the project where you did see an earlier version of this plan uh February March u and uh which we shared with you the the the challenge we had with the the height deficiency that the proposed event center building was taller than the 35t maximum height of the of the business district. uh the uh the amendment to to uh allow this building to have a limited height exception uh did move forward from here. Uh ultimately the board of trustees did adopt it. It went into effect and so that item is now uh addressed. The height hasn't changed in the building. uh but uh because of the type of building it now falls under that limited height exception that allows from additional height as long as the building is pushed further back from the

from the property lines and roads away. Uh so the uh uh the applicant uh did uh submit this plan intending it to be a final site plan. Uh they as I noted in the report initially they they submitted only the plans. uh a few days later they did add the the uh the actual application for final site plan approval and paid a fee for it. Uh the challenge we have though is that uh in order to in order for a final site plan to move forward uh our process the outside agency approvals that are involved need to be uh either in hand permits or approvals are are done or in the language of of the standards for final cycle approval they are assured of approval. uh which essentially means that there's some communication that indicates to us that that uh that essentially there are only housekeeping details left. Kind of like that public services review you saw with the last item where truly those are housekeeping details don't affect the site design don't affect the the use uh of these of the site. So uh that's that's the standard for final site plan approvals is that outside agency permits and approvals are are either done in hand or or assured of approval. In this case uh most of the outside agency permits or approvals are uh in that in that category. We'll talk a little bit more about those but uh the one that is not is our public services department. Although it's a township department it is we treated as an outside agency for the purpose of this process. Uh and so between preliminary that is between preliminary and final all these these agency are dealt with. In this case, the challenge is the unallocated capacity of a pump station down downstream sanitary sewer pump station downstream from this

site and uh and the questions related to uh that the whether the capacity is available the unallocated capacity is available to serve the peak use that coming from the C7. So we we noted that that's that that uh that issue is is not resolved yet. U we actually have a meeting later this week uh with the applicant to uh to work on that further and see where it goes. But uh at this point that that's not resolved. Um so for that reason we have pursued this as a preliminary site plan review and which included on your agenda only for preliminary site approval despite the title on the on the plan. Uh in our report uh just a few things uh the the applicant one of the sheets you'll see in there is a is an analysis of parking need needs for the college and for this new event. uh the the project the event center is going in the existing parking lot. It's actually eliminating uh quite a number of parking spaces. Uh so so the co the college has sent a detailed evaluation of their their needs their use and uh and provided that information in in the uh in the packet u it's on the number sheet number C C 106 uh and in that as part of that they indicate that that the event center the the use of the college uh and the use of event center will be coordinated so that large events the event center would only take place when the college is not operating in session. So, uh they they have provided the information to show that that even with a reduction in the number of parking spaces that that they have more than enough to to provide for their needs uh based on this plan based

on this this specific usage plan. Uh this is truly a limitation on the use of their property. Of course, the college and event center if they had no parking could operate together. no issue with that if they parking structure or additional spaces to meet the minimum requirements of both. U but they're they're proposing to essentially share it share the use share the parking and share the use in terms of uh keeping when one is intensive keep the other one lower in terms of use. And so uh if if this would be modification to our parking standards in addition to landscaping to provision the parking regulations allows you to approve an alternative parking standard and that's essentially what she C 106 is. It's an alternative parking standard. Uh from from staff perspective we're comfortable with recommending uh that we proceed with this. Uh as as you noted on that sheet uh the the college does have additional land available. If they need to develop additional parking they would have to come back to you for a site plan approval to do that. But they do have land available uh if if there is a challenge for parking down the road. Our ordinance also would have has a mechanism already built into it that if if there are are issues with parking, if we're seeing people park on the on the road margins or or in other places they shouldn't be, we can essentially call in the requirement that they address that. So, uh we're comfortable with recommending uh that modification as you see it on C 106. That's that's the main preliminary site plan item. uh always in these reports when uh when when applicants provide more than the just what's required for the plenary site we do comment on those additional things like landscaping and lighting and such that are really final site plan details u and this is where we uh we just noted some some details related to lighting related to landscaping they're minor things they they easily fix the final site plan and

then we get to the outside agency uh approvals on page four of our report one of packet. Uh the uh main thing with storm water management, similar to to what we talked about the last one, uh they they will need to provide an as recorded copy of the maintenance agreement for the storm water system. Uh both to show that it was recorded on the property and so that the county has a copy of it. Uh in this case, uh we're asking them to include that note on the final site plan so that similar to what we just did, that the notes there, we will provide it and you don't need to make it a condition of approval. Uh so that don't just simply need to be added. Uh here at at bottom of page page four wrapping over to page five uh you see some additional comments on the on the storm water uh system evaluation capacity evaluation was done as I'm certainly happy to answer additional questions about that but uh point at this point but the bottom line is that item needs to be resolved because it directly ties to the intensity of the land use that that can operate on that site. the college as you right now the college obviously operates there at times at a very high level system that's in place addresses that uh we're simply asking the applicant to to resolve the concerns about the the available unallocated capacity on that pump station and and the impact on on this from this event center during the peak flow and so that I'm sure that can be addressed that's an engineering and question ultimately and and allocation question on their side but but right now because of that question is there uh we do not have the real ability to approve a final site plan we're saying that that land use is ready to connect into our sanitary services which is again part of the final site

plan approval essentially is so with that in mind um we're we're comfortable with recommending u this item for for preliminary site plan approval. Uh we don't at this point don't recommend any conditions on that because the it the details really are final site plan details. So the uh and the one parking item again if you approve the preliminary site plan with that alternative parking statement you are approved alternative parking statement. So it does not need to be a separate condition. So that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Given the scheduled meeting for later in the week and the timeliness, when might we anticipate a final site plan approval? Well, I that's an engineering question more than anything else. I I would certainly hope very quickly. Um the uh there have been some suggestions from from the public services department on how to resolve it and I think that's probably going to be part of the topic of conversation. Are those sorts of things housekeeping items that can be handled by staff or does it have to come back to us again? Uh in this case uh the uh because this is an outside agency permit essentially public service department uh if they uh if they satisfy that and are given that that approval the final site plan could conceivably simply go through and they meet all the requirements so that Peter can approve it. It could go through administrative approval. if you need to come back. Other questions for Rodney at the moment? Um the uh modification of the provisions for the parking requirements. Would that be similar to the temporary easement of the

of of sidewalks as we were discussed in like the previous thing? Uh where it would be in perpetuity until we called in that uh it was interfering with um like they they like they did not have enough parking because of say future growth. Um, this one's a little different in that what what the reason this language is in the parking section is because we can't anticipate the the minimum parking needs for every land use. U we have and in the ordinance we have a long list of land uses and minimum parking standards for those that are based on national standards. uh uh but but there's really no way to anticipate every single one and in particular things related to college uh this event center which is both a sports facility and and potentially a a venue for commencement and other things a fairly extensive number of people there uh that's not one that's really I mean there's language in our in our parking standard for theaters and auditoriums and things like that uh there's a percentage of a space per per person essentially based on the occupancy. But it doesn't it doesn't do well to uh have flexibility within the within that table of land uses for things like this where you have several things going on the same property and and in particular where you have this kind of idea one one's operating other one's not you know essentially uh shared shared use of the same space but different operating schedules that sort of thing. Uh so we did include this alter ability to propose an alternate parking standard so that the applicant could have the flexibility to say this works better and here's why and they have more than met that requirement. They have provided substantial information. They did substantial research to come up with the information

you have there uh to show that this does work. U so we're comfortable with that. It it would remain in place. There's language in our ordinance uh that uh essentially if if we're seeing violations of our ordinance basically people parking in the grass, people parking along the road margin uh on a regular basis repeatedly uh that that we can we can call that in and require that they deal with that. Okay. Just but that would be really like any other. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Rodney while he's standing? Okay. So, now we can hear from the applicant if there's anything you'd like to say to us. Good evening. I'm Aaron Wenszel. I work for low professional services company serve as a project manager projects throughout the state of Michigan including the event center where they come see event centers in front of you guys today the planning commission is aware of this project from a high level already but just want to provide some background where we are to this point again as your staff indicated uh we started engaging township over six months ago in November of 2024 application meeting sat down the back here and went through the project. Then in late January, we applied for preliminary site approval and it came from the planning commission four weeks later on February 18th, 2025. Overall, I was here. I felt the meeting was positive in nature. We were told our over overall we met the requirements for preliminary approval preliminary site plan approval. We had one significant issue in regards to township ordinances. The building height the planning commission at the recommendation

township staff chosen not to provide preliminary approval at that time. Um, as you're aware, the planning commission chose to make a text amendment to your zoning ordinance with its final adoption on May 14th by board of trustees that did amend that building height situation. After planning commission meeting on February 18th to help streamline the approval process, Mid Michigan College chose to submit a request for sewer capacity study to Union Township in early March. Um we finally received results of that study about six weeks later in late April and we're continuing to work with utility department regarding the downstream sewer capacity that would service this project. We actually have a meeting scheduled with them tomorrow afternoon to discuss this uh study further. Also in late April, Ro on behalf of the team submitted the project for outside agency review to meet the requirements for final site and approval including the three paper fulls size copies of the plans to Union Township Utility Department. all the outside agencies except for Union Township utility department and Union Township's consulting engineers have approved the development and but we can talk more about those items here later. Uh Union Township utility department did provide a letter dated June 3rd sent to our architect via conventional mail to the project team indicating that they received a preliminary site plan and provided comments. We're assuming that based on the contents entitled the letter, but the utility department has not provided outside agency review comments yet. A month and a half later, the letter states that the general layout of the water and sewer is approved, but also references the capacity of the sanitary sewer downstream of the project. Late last week, we received the planning commission's packet and noticed that the Union Charter Township staff is recommending only preliminary site plan approval um to be taken action on. However, project team would request that

the planning commission consider approving the preliminary site plan and the final site plan approval with conditions. Um, adding condition adding additional context to our request, the final site plan approval with conditions. I'd like to discuss the items in the preliminary site plan report that are included in your packet. Before getting to the review comments, I'd like to discuss the comments on the site plan application and outside agency approval. One of the comments indicates that no final site plan approval application or fee was submitted at the time of the application. We find that to be incorrect as all documentation was submitted at one time on May 27th. The township did make us aware they thought there were deficiencies on May 30th or on May 27th. So, the design team made them aware correct documents were in fact submitted and no additional submission was required. No additional correspondence occurred on May 30th as indicated in the write up. You may also notice the application for site plan review on page 46 of your packet dated May 22nd was or has been has both plenary and final site plan checks. Another discrepancy in the statement the final site plan approval action was not requested for this application. That's another discrepancy. and our cover letter to the township that states that we're requesting preliminary and final site plan approval on the June 17th planning commission agenda plan state and final site plan. The application has final site plan checks along with plinary site plan and our email providing electronic documents request sign final site plan review. I state this to show that we were prepared and concise in a request and intent for final site plan approval during this planning commission meeting. If the planning commission felt it was warranted, [Music] Union Township staff feels that this project is warranted for plary site plan approval baseline recommendations in

your packet. So, we would like to move ahead to the look ahead for final site plan approval on page 51 of your packet. We don't disagree that there are a few items that need to be addressed before final site plan approval should be granted and they will be addressed. However, we are asking for approval of our final site plan and preliminary site plan with the conditions of addressing the items listed. The first item list is number eight as a question of the hydro light poles and the location of a light fixture. That is a simple update to the plans to make that information more clear. We do intend to meet the township ordinance. Uh item label number nine is a question of landscaping around the new building. The only landscaping information not provided is is the detailed landscaping immediately adjacent to the building. We have proposed landscaping along the roadway that meets the intent of landscaping provision of improving the appearance of buildings and parking along the public rightways and that's been addressed. Adding details about landscaping immediately adjacent to the building is again a simple plan update that can be provided to the township staff for review. We do intend to meet the township ordinance regarding landscaping around the building with the landscaping being very similar to the existing buildings on the site. Uh the item old number 10 discusses outside agency review. The first outside agency listed is storm water management. We received storm water management review comments one day after the site plan application was submitted to the township. However, based on conversations with between the design team and Union Townships Consulting Engineers, we're able to partially address the only recommendations for a water quality uh device which is shown on the plan sheet that's included in your packet. We do intend to meet the township ordinance and and have fully addressed their recommendations and sent the information back to the consulting engineers forming you. The second item uh under number 10 is

municipal water and sandary sewage utilities outside agency review. As noted in the report and discussed earlier, the design team is working with the utility department regarding the allocated sanitary capacity issue. Again, we have a meeting scheduled tomorrow afternoon with the utility department to discuss this item further. The last the last item listed in question is the need for large diameter water leads to the event center. The design team has not received any correspondence regarding this item to date and we'll address it after receiving the com comments from the township. Um we'll respect that obviously respect the planning conditions request. um if you'd like to review our site plan again for the third time, but we are requesting a final site plan approval with conditions from this commission to address the items listed in the looking ahead to final site plan approval section report. Granting this request, we receive the project a minimum of three weeks of waiting to be placed on the next applicable planning commission agenda. Hopefully you can agree that the issues that township staff are indicating as reasons final site plan approval should not be granted items that are minor in nature or we are currently working on with township staff and do not require another review by the planning commission. If you guys have any questions about this middle or or a request for preliminary and final site plan approval with conditions, I can answer that. Okay. Okay. So, you've heard from the applicant. Um, let me I guess interject first. Um, I thought I Rodney, I thought I heard you say that, uh, if if the commission were to approve the preliminary site plan that if these other points were addressed satisfactorily that you would you could do a staff approval

of the of the final site plan. We actually agree with with Mr. Wenszel's direction that you don't need to review this plan again. That's why we updated our zoning orders last year to uh create this opportunity for an amend uh administrative approval of final site plan that meets all the requirements. U that doesn't need any plan commission action modification of something you anything that requires your judgment code. Uh and so yeah, if if the updated plan uh addresses the these details as Mr. Wel said he would and and if the outside agency details are addressed and we receive the updated uh approvals from those agencies, the the plan that is then submitted uh would go to to to our zone administrator first. He would review it. If in his review he finds that all the ordinance requirements are met, everything conforms, uh, per our ordinance, he can simply take an action to approve it administratively. So there is no delay. But there is a a significant challenge with approving the final site plan. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Wel on this because your approval of a final site plan in a in a circumstance where where at the moment we do not have clarity that that the township sewer system can can support that that significantly expanded use of that that property especially peak flow uh from that from the event center. Uh you you would essentially be approving a site plan for land use that that cannot be supported uh by the by the infrastructure of the township. That is a big problem and simply putting a condition on it saying if they can fix it is not really appropriate. It's it's most appropriate to approve the preliminary site plan because those engineering details are not required for preliminary site plan approval. They're expected to happen after u then Mr. Winsel uh public service department uh

the outside agencies are involved uh can can address the details engineering whatever solution is worked out uh when when we have those outside agency permits when we have the updated plan that addresses the the items we talked about in our report Peter can simply review it and if he finds that it meets all the requirements approve it and the project can move forward to a building permit so that's why preliminary site plan is the appropriate action the other thing I'll say is that the only item on your agenda tonight is preliminary site plan approval. So, it would require you to also amend your agenda uh to add a a final site plan uh if you were to go down that route. Okay. So, I see the applicant wants to speak and then commissioners probably have questions, but let me just to wrap up my piece of this. So it it's your position Rodney that timewise and you know we're not dealing with what the past has been but from now forward timewise there there would be no difference between following your recommendation and approving the preliminary and letting them sort out these other details versus doing a final approval but with all these conditions. That that is correct because if if you essentially uh I'm sorry we're good with the short version. Yes, that's correct. There's no reason to clarify. Okay. But you feel it's bad form or it's not appropriate to do the latter. You're you're it yes it it is not number one. It's not on your agenda tonight and we post our agenda for the open meetings act before the meeting. uh you can amend an agenda at the table, but this is a pretty big amendment to go from preliminary to final project. Uh so uh typically you if you're amending the agenda, you do it at the beginning of the meeting, but most importantly we we have it on the agenda to begin with. I understand I don't disagree with Mr. Wel's comment that that the both

boxes were checked in the application. That was that was my error in my in the report uh that uh that I didn't note that. But just because they asked for combined preliminary final does not mean that it has to be considered. It's simply that they can ask u in this case because that sanitary sewer issue is not addressed and because that directly goes to the land use with without ensuring that there's adequate allocated capacity for this event center. Basically they can't occupy the event center. So there's no reason to approve a final site plan for a building they can't build or occupy. Um but if if you grant the preliminary site site plan approval and then they address those details uh project can simply come back for an administrative site plan a final site plan approval per our ordinance. All right. Um, did you want to speak and then I I I want to open this up to the other commissioners, but did you only to say I I I feel really good about the fact that we probably need Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, we just need to know. We know you, but remind us who you are. Matt Miller uh from Bid Michigan College. Uh address is 2600 South Summer here in Township. Thank you for that reminder. Uh only to say that it's nice to hear that we wouldn't have to come back for a final site plan. We did not understand that. So that that's good because there is uh we've we've been through this process a while and we don't want to delay any further than we need to. Uh I we've talked a little bit if if if people want more information about the sewer stuff. Rodney and I I don't know if you're meeting tomorrow or not, but um so Rodney and I others will meet tomorrow to talk about that. I think we have very different views on the sewer capacity issue. Um Union Township of Engineers had a report out that I think is very helpful in that. So we'll talk about all that tomorrow. If you are comfortable in doing the preliminary site plan approval, um I I think that's great and we can move forward final administratively. If you want more of that information, we can certainly open that up. But Aaron and I talked about not needing to do that if you don't

think you need more of that information because that'll be something we'll talk in detail about tomorrow. But that's so that clarification about the final site will helps a lot. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, let me open this up to the uh commissioners. You've heard from uh staff. You've heard from Did you have any further comments? You've heard from the applicant, questions for the applicant, questions for township staff, from commissioners, it's all open. Uh I wouldn't mind starting. Um so basically it sounds like because of uh scheduling essentially that uh had this uh meeting that's happening tomorrow happened even a couple days earlier that there there could be the possibility of uh what Rodney said was uh asurances that it would be granted versus we we are uncertain at this point um because it sounds like this this meeting might be very influential in determining if if that's the case. So, um, in my opinion, I I think that, uh, yeah, what we were all just discussing with doing the preliminary site plan and then the administrative approval, it doesn't sound like it's going to delay at 3 weeks. Uh, at most it would delay it a day plus however long it would take to make the changes to the site plan, which is up to the, uh, the owners. That's Yeah. Okay. Other comments or questions from anybody any commissioner? I have a comment I guess last question. So seems like a lot of the discussion here has been talking about spaces. How many spaces do we have? How much usage are we going to be able to accommodate at the college? And it sounds like from what I'm hearing we're getting asurances that these facilities will almost be running not concurrently but in opposite times. like

is it right now is the plan to you know deal with the discrepancy in spaces by only housing things in the auditorium or in that convention center while schools out of session. Yeah, I think that's a good clarification to make. When Rodney talk Oh yeah, see you get this. I'm sorry. Uh when Rodney talks about large events, that's what we're talking about. So once a year we hold commencement. We will be holding We're so excited to be holding commencement in our own place on campus. Right now we hold commencement at Clare High School and while Clare High School is great, it's not the best look for a college to have a commencement high school. So once a year we'll be doing that. That capacity we have about,00,000 to 1100 people on site for that event. We anticipate that's the largest event we'll ever have all year um to hold that event and any other event that would be 1100 people. Uh we would not do anything else on campus. Those are Saturday and evenings and all you know summer stuff where everything's closed. I don't envision where that would happen, but if something in someone in the community came to us and said, "You know what? We've got this thing. We expect,00 people showing up for it. We'd like to host it at mid." We'd be certainly open to that. We'd love that as long as it's not on a day when we got other things going on because that would certainly present some parking issues having classes going on and 1100 people in that event center. The parking analysis that's in the site plan though talks about events with 200 people. We expect games to be about 250 people that show up to to a basketball game. Um, it talks about having a speaker on campus and maybe it's three or 4 hundred people. Those kinds of things according to the parking analysis and I did spend a lot of time on that. Um, well, I walked around actually counted cars for a long time. Uh, our parking analysis shows we're we're fine with those things. So, we're really talking about those large events and even when you get to 500 people, we want to be careful about what we're doing. But, um, but the parking analysis shows and we feel confident that those are those are events we'll be able to hold. So the event center will be used during the day and when college is going on it's when we get to those larger events uh where we're really making sure the campus is closed and anything even a little bit larger we're making sure

we're you know block off parking and do those kinds of things to make sure we have capacity. Let's assume things go gang busters for you guys and uh enrollments through the roof. Everybody loves a new building that's come in and you're getting offers to host events at the same time as schools in session. What would be the discrepancy in parking that would be needed versus having a full house? I guess I just kind of I want to get an idea of like because right now we're getting reassurances that won't happen. I don't know if we're getting any, you know, anything like I I don't see it in here like in the building plan that you guys are promising never to host. I do. It says that explicitly. Y part of it's part of part what Ronnie feels good about is that we say that in there explicitly. Okay. Okay. That's that's great to hear. But but to answer your question, I will I will give you some I I'll I'll say a couple things that might make you feel better. Uh for one, when we first opened the building, this would have been 2015 or 14 15 when we opened the Center for Little Arts and Business, our last of the the threetory edition that we did, the last of the big additions. Um we quickly realized that we didn't have enough parking. And so within six months, eight months, something like we added a lot that had 200 and some some spaces uh because we recognize that we're not that type of institution that wants people parking in the grass either. It's just not a good look. It's not good any not good for anyone. So we've done that in the past to address issues. So I feel good about that. Our our campus master plan, which we just updated back in 2023, um has spots, as Rodney indicated, has spots in the in the plan for more additional parking if we think we need it in the future. So I feel comfortable there. Um, and again, I' I've done a lot of this analysis to feel comfortable with where we're at in in the parking situation. And so, um, for those three reasons, I feel good with where we're going to be. And I appreciate Rodney's Rodney's agreement of that, too. I just I just have a quick question. Uh, when we talk about how you're going to ensure that this happens, you said it's

going to be in the plan. Is that going to be by policy that you're not going to have large scale events and Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, u if you look uh on page three of our report, page 80 of the packet, right down the bottom when we're talking about this, the last sentence there u right after we say township staff has no objection to the alternative parking standard. These you these use limitations and page C 106 is really a use limitation. It's also an alternate parking standard, but but they're saying they're going to limit their use of their facilities. So, these use limitations, if approved as part of the final site plan, would be fully enforceable by the township uh based on section 14.2.x uh which is compliance with an approved final site approved site plan. Reason you say that is that the site plan, the state zoning act uh says that an approved site plan essentially becomes part of our ordinance. uh we can enforce it just like any other part of our zoning ordinance. Got so whatever is in there we can enforce and so that yes if there's a problem we go right to that that that page and say you're not doing it. Answers my question. Thank you Matt. If you need a ride to the office I'd be glad to. You can park at my house. Perfect. Thank you for that. Yeah. And and Stan, you know to to elaborate on that a little bit. I hadn't thought about. So, we have policies and procedures around room usage and and we we try to be and I think really are a good member of the community and that you know nonprofits can use our conference rooms for free and um so we invite lots of people to the campus to do things and so we've got policies and procedures around that. Um, adding something like that I think is is a really good idea and and I talk about in the in the parking piece specifically. Not only would it could it be a certainly policy or procedure sort of thing, but just in practice, the college is not equipped to do that kind of stuff. We're just not we're not staffed to do it. U just beyond parking just to have an event that would be that big and

have classes at the same time. I mean, you know, would kill the two maintenance guys on campus. So, you know, that's the kind of things that we Well, and my and my thought around this was I was I was in charge of the event center at CMU when it opened and everything that we said we weren't going to do, we did. Well, we got Rodney Washington. So, so my point was simply enforcement. Who's and Rodney answered the question of how is this going to be enforced? Obviously, another layer could be an internal policy for sure. because then it doesn't get lost in because the last thing we're going to have is the staff out checking to see if there's a major event going on other than commencement because I see all kinds of opportunities because of the size of the facility. It's it's smaller than than uh CMU but it's larger than high school and so there's probably going to be a lot of interest. Yeah, we hope that that comes to I don't see that path right now but if it comes to us that's great but we will not be doing it when college is over. Well, whenever we become revenue starved, we start compromising a lot of things. So, I'm just saying from experience. If you don't see it, the rest of us do. We know that right now desperate space. Yeah. You and I talked. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And we've we've talked to CBB and all those places about this kind of stuff. So, good question. Thank you. Can I ask a question related to um I was going to make a joke, but maybe I won't. This is a sewage question. So if you're limiting the use between the college activities and the events, how does that play into the calculation of waste runoff into the sewer system? And I I think that is a great question. It's one we'll be talking about tomorrow. Okay. I I I think that really is a very valid point as we think about capacity issues. Um, I think there are lots of numbers that tell lots of different stories that we can look at and and talk about what real capacity is versus future capacity and needs of land that might get developed someday and might not get developed. All those things are things to talk about.

Um, that is a really good point though that is as we think about total campus usage and we recognize that when the event center is at its peak, nothing else is going to get flushed, then that I think helps the argument as well. So well I guess my question would also be then what is your highest use number of people versus your events number of people are those similar that's all in that evaluation I will tell you that that's all been as was mentioned it took some time to to review that that study that was done and it's because it's pretty pretty complex u there are numbers I'm sure Mr. Wel can rattle them off faster than I can. Uh, but essentially there's there's kind of a peak average, you might say, uh, flow, but there's also a term called peak instantaneous flow. And I want you to imagine during a halftime or during a break in in that event with those 1100 or however many people maybe in that building when all the toilets are flushing at the exact same time that's peak instantaneous. That's that's one of the areas where questions. But anyway, there's these various numbers as was said and that's all part of that discussion. That was going to be Mike. It's related to what uh Jessica brought up for events. Events obviously basketball sporting events, possibly concerts. It's not built for a concert. I mean, if you've ever tried to I mean, how many of you have gone to a middle school band concert in a gym? It's not the best acoustics, not the best. It's not built for that. It's not an auditorium. It can do a speaker fairly well. commencement will work well in it as speaker, but we would not be able I mean, not that some Yeah. student activity might try to put in a you know, bring in bring in some garage band or something, but it's not built for that. But just for just for sporting events, are you going to sell alcohol? No. Okay. No. We we have a policy on campus that alcohol is not not allowed on campus unless there's board approval. So, a couple times of year like our our holiday party that we throw u we'll get a special approval from the

board to have a party and and have alcohol. But as a general policy, alcohol is not allowed on campus. Okay. Because that would certainly influence flush rates. I had thought about that for sure. That's great. And now I want to know what your joke was. So if you if you feel No, I was trying to do a like backed up traffic joke, but I couldn't really get it to work. That was going too. Well, because I mean honestly, you're doing this traffic analysis and it plays right into the number of people at any given time. Yeah. Usage. Yeah, but we had this discussion several years ago with the um complex of the renovation of the um nursing home with the associated apartments and the apartments couldn't be allowed because of the same situation where they the the sewer simply didn't have capacity for the number of people. Yep. It was the same thing. It was a pump station. In that case, that one was the oldest pump station. Uh but uh yes, it was exactly the same conversation and we and as you said the ultimately we had to to uh let the applicant know they could not pursue the independent senior housing portion of the project. At what point I guess when thinking about the master plan and developing land and things like that, at what plan at what point does the township step in and make further developments of the sewer system? I mean how is that how do you do that in conjun I guess that's a larger issue but how do you do that in conjunction with plans that are coming in for building so uh our our sewer system was designed based on our master plan and based on our existing zoning u and so that that's what it's designed for. Of course, time things change. Uh we have some some bottlenecks. They're just natural in any system. Um and uh and there are ongoing uh capital

improvements to expand and update uh the this particular pump station. Uh the the well is large enough to to have a larger capacity pump as we have additional flow. So the the uh the cost to upgrade to support this facility is not completely rebuilding the entire pump station. It's it's replacing only a portion of the equipment. But there's still a cost. Those are very expensive units. uh and in most of the place in the township we we have had that circumstance where in the past things were built to allow some expansion but many cases that expansion has taken place because of of new new uses often new residential activities. Um but uh so at least in this case it's it's a relatively inexpensive uh upgrade but still has a cost to it. uh the pump station number one that was associated with prestige center, the assisted living facility and the senior independent senior housing. That was a case where the existing pump station had been expanded and updated as much as it possibly could and and we were actually working on a new one at that point, but even the new one did not contemplate this particular activity because it wasn't zoned for. Okay, any other questions from commissioners? All right, I'm going for it. I'm going to move to grant preliminary site plan approval for the proposed 36 39,161qt Mid Michigan College Event Center facility at 2600 South Summerton Road PI14-013-40-001-05

in the southeast quarter of section 13 and in the B4 general business zoning district finding that the Pes 25-01 One site plan dated May 27th, 2025 fully complies with applicable zoning ordinance requirements for preliminary site plan approval including sections 14.2P required site plan information and 14.2 standards for site plan approval. Uh I sec I support that motion. So the motion was made by Olver was seconded by Brown to approve the preliminary site plan. Any further discussion? And again the understanding is that the applicant will work with township staff to satisfy the remaining concerns. And if those can be satisfied that it can be the final approval can be administrative. There's no further discussion. I'll have a roll call, please. Shingles, yes. Brown, yes. Daring, yes. Olver, yes. Lamp, yes. McDonald, yes. Hayes, yes. Squadrio, yes. Motion carries. Okay. Very much. Thank you. Okay. So, we have one more business item. You'll recall that last month we discussed the Mount Pleasant the proposed city of Mount Pleasant master plan and some concerns that uh

township staff had uh identified regarding it. All the local municipalities including us get an opportunity to comment on uh the proposed plan. And so as per our instruction uh they drafted this uh resolution which is on pages 84 and 85 of your packet and it lists the uh concerns that we had and that we discussed and it has some alternative suggestions. So, is there anything you want to say about this or uh the only thing I'll say is that I appreciate the the checking of this. We did get some typo notes about typos before the meeting. So, that's why you have a updated version at your table took out the typos that we we the goal here was to reflect the discussion we had last time. So, you certainly can make changes to this resolution, additions, whatever you'd like to. This is your your statement. The goal was to try to match what we discussed last time we share with Okay. Thank you. So, as Rodney just said, this is our communication to the city of Mount Pleasant regarding their proposed master plan. And so, uh, and as you can see, you're going to go on record as, uh, endorsing it or not endorsing it. And so, uh, we do want it to be appropriate and correct and complete. So, if there are any other things that people have thought of in the intervening month, uh, now would be the time to bring them up. Uh, otherwise, if there aren't any, we would proceed to, uh, a vote on this, uh, resolution. Um, I would just, I mean, I don't have

any changes that I'd like to recommend, but, uh, I was not present last month. Um but does look like from my understanding everything everything looks like stuff that I would also agree with. Um I I just have a question uh a clarification for myself about the uh the part A bluegrass admission intersection. Um am I to understand that the proposal that we're doing um asking them to make that roundabout at the what is it the old mission road is that the one that's uh farther south more towards the exit. Okay. Okay. That's the only question I had. Thank you very much. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the idea being that it shouldn't be as pedestrian centered as the one at uh Broomfield and or Mission in Bluegrass. I'm sorry, one other question. Has there been um in the past uh other uh recommendations from the township to the city of Mount Pleasant for their own master plans? I guess I guess a question for Rodney. So the the last update uh was was in 2020 u the uh it was taking place during co u the the updated plan was available but I don't recall that we made a specific comment on it and it was largely because they what they were doing had no real effect on us. They some of these items we talked about like the extension of Broadway was was on that plan. U the but also I think had an impact on our ability to communicate some of those things. So, do we have uh like any idea how um how much weight our opinion carries for their own master plan, I guess, is what I'm asking. Um

certainly the the city and the township work cooperatively together on many things. We we uh we work with the city on on pro projects like uh pathway project that the city's working on or contributing to part of it's in the township. uh uh that we've worked on previous pathway projects for example uh in one case entirely the city on the south side of the CMU campus but the township contributed to that project uh because it helped connecting to the township uh pathway uh so we certainly worked together they they uh they I think they're very interested in our views on these kinds of things okay thank you very much my perception is that the township and the city, their relationship today is less adversarial than it was say when I first moved to Mount Pleasant, you know, 30 more than 30 years ago. You know, it's it's interesting. I uh nobody commented. I was actually kind of hoping somebody would. Uh in in our report, we talked about history. If you notice the banners that are out here, uh we have we have two new banners of time at Union Township history. Uh we did that for a Isabella County Historical Society event, but we also did it so we could have some historical information here at the hall. Uh and one of the interesting things that that uh as I did this research and I found it completely surprised me is that the township bought its first firetruck for the city's fire department in 1948. That's when the that's when the city and the township agreed to collaborate uh and and the township would fund a fire truck for the city's fire department and the city's fire department provide fire services to the township. 1948 u we bought couple at least several trucks since then but that was the first one and there's information about it in that those banners. So, while there have been bad times and times certainly where the city and township have not gotten

along, uh I think they've actually cooperated, there's there's a longer history of cooperation, you might think. Okay. Will um is this something that we just mail to mail them mail to them or will somebody from the township be there to maybe ask or answer any questions they may have? It it is it is convenient that on Friday I I about once a month we don't get every month but about once a month the city planner and I sit down together just have a conversation on things. Uh but kind of things of mutual interest whatever's going on. She lets me know what the city's doing. I don't know what the township's doing. Uh sometimes that has resulted in projects we've worked together on. uh like uh when the when the the US Census Bureau brought to our attention that the city and the township boundary didn't line up uh there were conflicts in the boundary and we were able to uh work together myself and at that time city planner Jacob Kane worked together to resolve that u and uh so anyway it happens this Friday I have a meeting with Manuel Pabiko the city planner and so I would be pleased if you do adopt this to hand it over to I think we'll even printed that nice heavy duty paper, emboss it, but I'll certainly I will personally deliver so I can answer any questions she might have. Sounds like it's due for timely approval then. Well, it is due for timely approval because we have only certain number of days and I think that time ends, if I recall, the first week of July. So, this really is the time we're going to provide some direction. This is the event. I did have one question again about the rerouting uh proposal for M20. Um you were not aware that they had any discussions with MDOT prior to this proposal though. Well, they the city has been working with MDOT at mission street. So they so I I don't know what if any discussion happened

related to that related to moving in 20 but they MDOT representatives have been at the table for their internal planning related to Mission Street. Okay. Were you talking about the picker issue on the railways? Yeah. Well, the picker issue on the railways, but also the lack of um um any easements basically off the road. [Music] Okay. Well, uh, this document, as you can see, it also has a space for a, uh, for a motion in a second. So, uh, opportunities to get one's name on the on the said document or there are are, uh, does one have to read the whole thing out loud in order to get said credit or can we say so moved? I'm going to say no, you don't have to read. One does not have to read the whole document. What you might want to do up at the top it has the title resolution to recommend additional revisions to propose pleasure master plan. You could do something like motion to adopt the resolution to recommend. I move to adopt the resolution to recommend additional revisions to the proposed city of Mount Pleasant master plan. I will defer to stand on I'm going to show up in no rotary t-shirts next week. Okay. So the motion was made by Olver and uh I think you had a motion earlier. So we'll give this motion to to uh Commissioner Shingles. I think basically simultaneous for support by Shingles. Um any further discussion?

Okay, then roll call please. Hayes I. Quadrumo I. Lap I yes McDonald yes shingles yes brown I motion carries okay thank you um and so it looks like I'm supposed to sign it at the bottom so once you tell me which copy you want to use I will do that but thank you very much for that I think that's a good good feedback to give them if you wouldn't mind maybe sign two that way You can give an original note to them and we can keep an original for ourselves. I'm going to print one out with all of that on there and you can sign that. But if you would, I'll make you copy. Okay. So, if you're going to print it again and under the signature, my name under the signature line. I corrected it. Okay. 1L. Are you a 1L Phillip, too? Yes, I am. Yeah, they were originally two in this. So, that was one of the corrections. I catch that. All right. Um, so, uh, we're almost at the end of our meeting here. We have extended public comment. If there's anybody in the public who would like to address any item, whether it was on tonight's agenda or not, they're invited to do so at this time. If you're in the room, come to the podium, give us your name and address for the minutes. If you're online in the waiting room, let us know. We'll make arrangements for you to speak up. And we ask you to limit your comments to five minutes. Extended public comments open at 8:36. No one's online. Okay, no one's in the electronic room. Uh audience has departed, so we'll go ahead and close extended public comment until next month. Also at 8:36. Uh next item is final board comment. Any comments from board members? Thank you, Rodney, for the work you did on reviewing this master plan and kind of bring it to attention. Some stuff

that I think everybody in the board is in agreement with. You're welcome. Thank you. Yeah, it was very helpful to have that those suggestions as opposed to just turning us loose to to read it on our own. Um, any other comments? I'd just like to hearken back to what Commissioner McDonald um speaking about and the board reports. Um, I've sort of been in the opposite side where neighbors are complaining to me because they know I'm on the planning commission about what other neighbors are doing. And so I've been in communication with township staff several times just asking about clarification for zoning, clarification for ordinances, uh because we are all each other's neighbors and what we do does impact each other and sometimes people are happy with the answers and sometimes they don't like what people are doing. So, I just think it's been interesting for me to be in a position where I feel like I have to respond by asking for assistance from township staff to clarify rules and regulations just in, you know, subdivisions. We're happy to do that. So, the open meetings act, your deliberations should happen in a public meeting, but you individually are welcome to contact staff and ask those questions uh anytime they come up in that way. Feel free to call us. We're happy to help you. uh we're happy to help the person that's talking to you as well if that if they would like make that connection that but we certainly can help you get the answer you need. Well, it's good for me too because it forces me to really read the zoning and you're saying and so we really go back and we learn the material much better because other people are asking us questions about it as well. Okay. I guess I would suggest or maybe I just throw out there, it might be useful for us to know at some point um how often you have situations where somebody comes in with a with a proposed project that's

residential that, you know, gets rejected or or isn't ready to be just approved right away. issue which basically the issues I'm I'm curious how common they are that's what I'm to get a feel for that if it's a rare occurrence it's one thing is it becoming more common you know that sort of thing well it I can certainly say if you're interested we can we can include this section as was suggested on on the upcoming agenda and just have that discussion and we'll provide that information for you yeah or or even in the monthly report or or as a separate thing yeah if you're well if you're comfortable we can certainly put them on the report. Um, so the the answer to your question though is it is exceedingly uncommon that it reached the point that this particular one did for Mr. Piper, the applicant, where he actually received a denial and and then had to respond to that. Ultimately, as I said, he did respond, plans were approved, he's got his permit, but that is exceedingly rare in most cases. Uh, even if if something case there's where the first review or even a because often we we encourage people building a home just as we do for developers come talk to us early we're happy to sit down and informally just look at a napkin sketch look at pictures uh this is what we're thinking will this work uh you know at a at a very early stage where it's easy to make adjustments u and so we we invite people to do that uh and so most of the time those adjustments happen in that very early stage that that didn't happen here. Um it was the applicant chose simply not to include those those things that he's he talked about doing on the plans that they want to be submitted. But uh that that is exceedingly great. I'm happy to give you specifics, but we'll run the number time I put in a

report. Okay. Other comments from commissioners. Okay. If not, then uh enjoy the daylight that we have left. We're almost the longest day of the year. Um and we'll be adjourned until our July meeting