Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

7 p.m. So we're gonna go ahead and call the meeting to order and we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance Okay, so welcome everyone to the August meeting of the Union Township Planning Commission. Roll call, please.

Okay, and over is unable to be here. So

We have a quorum, so we will proceed. Thank you. Next item is approval of the agenda. So you have the agenda before you. There are the usual reports and comments and then three new business items. Is there any other business that anyone is aware of that needs to be on the agenda? Any other concerns with the agenda?

Move to approve as written. Second.

Okay, so there was a motion by Dicken, a second by Bradshaw to approve the agenda as submitted, as prepared. Any further discussion? If not all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? So our agenda is approved. Next item is the minutes we last met on July 21st. So you have the July 21st minutes. Are there any corrections to the July 21st minutes?

wish to approve last meeting minutes as written.

Second that.

Okay, so there was a motion by Hayes with a second by Lapp to approve the July 21st minutes as submitted. Any further discussion? not all in favor please say aye aye aye any opposed okay so minutes are approved um next item is correspondence board reports presentations um first item as always is report from the board of trustees but that is commissioner olver and he's not here tonight any hot news from the board of trustees that we need to be aware of should be aware of nothing this time okay

I know that they did mention at the last meeting that they had gotten an application for vacant board seat here. Okay. They didn't vote on it, but it's on camera. All right.

Okay, so we'll move on. Next item is Commissioner Thompson, updates from ZBA.

We didn't have a meeting. Did not? Did not have a meeting, no.

Okay. Any questions for Commissioner Thompson on ZBA-related matters from Commissioner? on thank you next item is the community and economic development monthly report that's always in your packet and so we always give commissioners an opportunity to ask any questions they might have on anything you might have seen in the report i just had a question on page three underneath the zoning administration activities

The second bullet point, is that 800 square feet, or is that supposed to be 8,000 square feet? There's a comma, but then there's... You're talking about for the hotel, that's... Yes.

With the 8,000, that's a typo.

My question's more informational. The FOIA requests, the building service clerk did. Curious what they are. Not those specifically, but what kind of request would that be for them?

We get actually a variety of requests. Often it's based on a property they'd like to explore in a property they want to know more about. And so it may be as simple as providing the the assessor's record card for that property that gives some basic information about the buildings on it and history of the property. We've had actually some requests this month, not this report, but it'll be in the next one, related to a property that was up for tax foreclosure that several people wanted to know more about that property, and so they asked for records related to that property. There's also a couple of national entities that aggregate building permit data. And so they essentially have a request that comes in every month asking for the past month's data on types of building permits and construction value and that sort of thing.

Any other questions on the monthly report? Okay, if not, we'll move on, thank you. Any other reports or correspondence that anyone is aware of that needs to come to our attention tonight? Okay, hearing none, we'll move on. Next is public comment. This is the first public comment, the early public comment. It's always on items that are not on tonight's agenda. So if there's anyone in the audience here or online who would like to address the Planning Commission, on any non-agenda item, they are 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, make your presence known and we will make sure that you can speak to us. And we ask you to limit your comments to three minutes on any item not on tonight's agenda. Public comments open at 7.07. Okay, no one is online and no one is moving to the podium. So we will assume people are here for other purposes. So we'll go ahead and close this public comment. There'll be an extended one towards the end of the meeting. So we're ready to move on to new business. We have, as I mentioned, three new business items. The first one is a combined preliminary and final site plan application from Konwinski Construction, PRESPR26-05 and PFINALSPR26-05 for the new Mount Pleasant Gentle Dentistry on East Pickard. And so we will have introduction from Rodney, then we will hear from the applicant, then we will review and deliberate and take action.

Chair, can I make a question before we get started? The dental dentistry is actually my dentist. They're a very great dentist. I'm not sure if I could be impartial on this, just regardless of how good a dentist he is and how close I am with him and them. So it came to me like I was like, Before anything was said or done, I'm not sure if I should recuse myself from this vote as I have a long relationship with the dentist, not with the construction company or anything like that, but I was just thinking to myself, I don't know if I could be impartial to the thing where I'm so close to the people that are involved in development. So I think I'm going to rightly step down from this and recuse myself from this.

Well, you know, Certainly, if you had a financial relationship or stood to gain in some way, those are obvious familial relationships. I don't know that we've had, I can't remember one where we've had it where it was simply I'm a customer of so and so. I just don't remember that and it doesn't strike me as getting to that bar, but I'm open. It's open to comment from other commissioners how they would feel.

I think as long as he's not monetarily benefiting from the relationship, I don't see any reason why he would need to recuse himself.

They did give me a certificate once for being such a great patient. Normally, I think it goes out to 10 and 12-year-olds, but I feel a lot of empty spots. But again, I don't have anything to gain. I can keep myself impartial to that, but I did want to bring it up in case there's any hints of that, because I do have a relationship with him.

You haven't had any ex parte communications with them? No.

I didn't know it was on there until I saw this come up tonight. Sweetheart deal on the land, right? I don't know. It's all in the purchase.

okay well hearing hearing no uh hearts of flutter from other commissioners and i'm just going to suggest that you treat it like any other thing before us and you know ask those good questions and if you have any and then you know we should proceed and we'll do okay thank you go ahead all right uh so i actually have a copy of our report uh dated obviously 11.

As noted, this is coming to you as a combined preliminary final site plan application. That is a request from the applicant. They had submitted a preliminary site plan application initially. Working with the applicant, they recognize the need to make significant revisions to that initial plan. They did make those revisions and brought it back in this form with the final site plan application. I understand they've been working with the outside agencies involved. We'll talk to you about that as we go forward. So we did review it. As you'll note in our report, there are some items that do need to be changed or adjusted or added. A couple corrections right on page two of our report related to setbacks and labels. or dimensions. Easily done, but it's something that certainly can be done on a final site plan, a revised final site plan. We did make a note here under vehicle circulation on that same page, some comments that we received from the fire department that had concerns about emergency vehicle maneuvering on the site. This project There's some, I mean, it's not a huge piece of property, but it's bigger property than this particular development needs. You can kind of see the developments really occurring in kind of the southwest corner of the parcel with a single driveway coming in. And if you note, that driveway's fairly wide. Commercial driveways are intended to be fairly wide for two-way traffic and such. The initial plan that staff reviewed had proposed essentially a private road coming in to the site. And it actually showed essentially some proposed divisions to create a couple of additional development sites at least on the site. And that's certainly possible. In fact, a private road would be a useful way of providing frontage to each of those sites and ensuring that this property can be used to the maximum extent in terms of development potential. But they were not in a position this project to do all of that work. They didn't want to put a private road in when they were not developing that area yet. And so what we recommended that they do to kind of simplify this part of this initial project was to treat that not as a private road but as a driveway. It's called a driveway coming in and it turns into their parking lot. So as we've looked at this, we've looked at it both from the perspective of what they proposed, which is a driveway coming in and parking lot and then developing the south corner, but also looking at as anything that might cause trouble down the road if they did want in the future to expand and add some additional buildings or sell the lot or whatever in the back for some other development project. And so we did look at it as what if this were to become a private road, what would the rules be kind of thing, what might be an issue. So as we go along with this, you'll see those comments kind of come up. This is one of the first ones really. The comment essentially from the fire department saying that this design is not, as proposed, is not sufficient to allow for maneuvering of emergency vehicles. One of the ways to solve that problem is actually build a private road and have a cul-de-sac turn around or a T-turn around at the end of it. But there are other ways too. So we just, we look to have the fire department's comments addressed. There's some comments also about the cross-access to the property to the west. Easily take care of some things with the language. Number four in our report on page three, page 40 of your packet, is an interesting one. They're showing a sidewalk across the Pickard Road frontage. And as a note, they're showing it within the 49 and a half foot wide half right of way that's measured from the center line to the north. I was surprised to see that number there because we had been looking for some time to try to put a sidewalk along that side of Pickard Road to connect the township hall to the existing sidewalk further to the east. And our engineers dug into all the locks along the stretch of Pickard Road from Lincoln East. And what they found after a great deal of effort and a great deal of research was that there is no 49 and a half foot wide right of way there. There's a 33-foot wide right-of-way there. At one time, there apparently was a wider right-of-way. Wow, that's hard to do. But that when the road commission, the Isabella County Road Commission, took over jurisdiction of that stretch of road, they gave it back. They gave back the extra right-of-way that apparently the state, when the state had it, had acquired. And so, as far as the As far as the road commission's concerned, all the data that we have says that right of way in front of that property is 33 feet wide. That's what the road commission says that they control. And we've run into this on another site in the township We found our research that the Royal Commission had a wider right-of-way than they say they have. And we want to put a sidewalk in that wider right-of-way. We couldn't get it in the narrower one, but in the wider one we could, but they wouldn't give us a right-of-way permit because they said they don't control that right-of-way. The sidewalk's still not there. We've not been able to resolve that. but ultimately the Road Commission has say over what their right-of-way is. And so for our purpose tonight, no issue with approving the preliminary site plan with the sidewalk shown, but just simply with the, I think we proposed a condition that this issue be addressed and be documented. That wider right-of-way is there. We would like documentation from the Road Commission confirming that because our own civil engineer They say it doesn't exist. So what that means for us is that if it's a narrow right-of-way, it means that sidewalk to be in the right-of-way will likely be right up near the road. If you're looking at the property down the street that's currently being developed, the Hanks site, and the current potential dentistry site. There's a sidewalk that's going in along the road frontage. It's going in right on the curb, and that's because there's seven feet of right-of-way outside of the road pavement to work with, and they're putting a seven-foot-wide sidewalk there. So we'll see what comes, but we'd like to see something addressed on that for the final site plan. And also for the connections to the east and west, because if it's wider here but narrower on the property to the east of this, the sidewalk would need to job the at the point where they join. A couple other details, the next one, trash removal. There's a trash dumpster closure on the site proposed. It's proposed to be right on that drive, what's currently a driveway. If you're looking at the lot and looking at where the front and rear yard are, that is behind the building or it could be considered a rear yard. But we have to look at this site as also looking at future development and that this will not be a driveway, it will be a private road. And that puts that trash enclosure in a place where it can't be. have direct access to the bright road that way, and it also would be then in a front yard. So our zoning administrator, as we know from the report, didn't make the determination that for purposes of this project, of this project, that it's in the front yard, which violates the ordinance requirement that it be in the rear yard. So we're simply asking them to resolve that. There are other areas of the site that are relocated, and they'll need to resolve that on a revised plan. A couple other details. We appreciate the exterior lighting plan and landscape details are some things that are needed there that are easily resolved. The key for preliminary site plan approval, there is no requirement that the outside agency approvals be done. That's expected to happen in between preliminary and final site plan. But it is a requirement in our zombie organs and our standards for final site plan approval that all applicable outside agency permits or approvals there's only some little housekeeping detail that needs to be done, like paying for a permit or something. Typically, that assurative approval is done through an email that we would receive a copy of that says, essentially, everything's good, you just need to pay for the permit, or everything's good, we just need this tweak done that doesn't really affect the site design. That would be an assurance of approval that we'd be comfortable with recommending action on the final set point. At this point, we don't have that. We have multiple outside agencies that are still in the process of review. We've seen the progress that the applicant has working with our stormwater folks. It sounds like that one is pretty close or might be considered very close to the approval. But the other items that are out there, public services and the road commission, that's the other items that could affect the site design. don't have anything that we can hang our hat on to say that they were assured of an approval so with that in mind we are recommending the plan that you have for approval but only for preliminary cycle approval tonight and so you'll see in our recommendations that we've included five conditions and these are all about the things we've just talked about and conditions where we're pretty much with the idea to help the applicant be able to present a final site plan that meets these conditions that could potentially be administratively approved. That's what we've tried to do with these as we're setting these up. It is absolutely possible for this project to have administrative approval. The key is simply meeting the applicable ordinance requirements. So with that in mind, we're happy to recommend this for your actions tonight, but only on the preliminary site plan side. Does Adam have to answer a question?

I have a question on page 5 slash page 42 where you have key findings. Point number 3. Who has the expectation that the larger parcel is expected to be further developed? Is it us? Is it them? Did the developer indicate that in any sort of way?

Oh, certainly. As I said, the initial plan, you didn't see this initial plan. It was submitted last month. initially for preliminary site plan approval. We reviewed that plan at staff level and met with the applicant and out of that meeting they decided essentially to pull that plan back and revise it. And it's substantially different than the plan you see. That initial plan had more of a development plan for the whole site. It had that road going all the way up. It had several lots kind of called out, at least in a conceptual way. And so it was, and quite reasonably so, looking at making maximum use of the site by having some of these sites commercial activity could happen. So yes, right from the beginning, the plan that they had, based on the size of the lot and the size of the need for this particular dentistry office, there's opportunities for more development. And the challenge is that they were not prepared, not ready to go for the whole thing. Understandably so. They wanted to move this project ahead and get it done. And so that's why in our discussions they decided to simplify It still is, and it rightly should be, to fully develop the site for using these other tools on the private road.

So it sounds to me like specifically this driveway slash this road, there's a lot going on with it. I think, I mean, to me, it looks like the most contested thing because there's not adequate turnaround for emergency vehicles. It's currently being classified as a driveway, even though there's every intention of turning it into a road further down the road. um is that a problem at all for like if if uh i guess i don't know what exactly i'm trying to say but the fact that it's it's on a technicality being treated as a driveway when for all intents and purposes it's made clear that this is eventually going to be a a road would we not want to ensure that it has all the adequate uh rules and ordinances applied to it uh well we don't it does

They have designed, essentially, the entrance and the width and all that, I believe, are consistent with a private room. Oh, they are consistent. OK. Didn't look at all the details, but they were in the right ballpark for that. OK, OK. Certainly if they're not, if they want to build that private road later, they would have to make those changes. Okay. What I would say is the vehicle, emergency vehicle maneuvering, that's a relatively simple thing to adjust. Okay. It might require some additional pavement or maybe a key turnaround. Often when you have development projects, you might consider it being phases. You might think of this one, although this is the only phase we're talking about, you might think of it as phase one of something that might involve a couple of additional phases down the road. and often phase projects you'll when you have a road involved that road will be phase one road will have a temporary turnaround uh that this wouldn't exist until phase two is built and then there's a concha yeah okay so essentially they could do that they could have a turnaround for our purposes purposes it's not temporary but in the future when they're ready to build more they could just come back and say okay we don't need that turnaround and take and propose to take it out as they build some sort of turnaround at the end okay thank you very much

Any other specific questions at this point for Rodney before we hear from the applicant? Okay, thank you.

Good evening. My name's Tim Beebe. I'm with Central Michigan Survey and Development. We do have the applicant here. Nick Sponseller is from Konwinski Construction. And so if you have any questions regarding building, We've got the person that can handle that. I need to go through and handle some of the items that were discussed. I had a meeting with the fire department today, and there are no outstanding items, not the turnaround, not the distances, nothing.

But we haven't seen an update.

Okay, because he said the report that he sent over only had max box plate items on it. And that's why I was verifying with him today to make sure that that was covered. Turnaround is not an issue. Turnaround is designed with the same distances that the road commission's T-turnaround would be. Width of the drive is in excess of what your private road would require. So we're not going to have any issues with that. As far as the right-of-way is concerned, the only thing that I can go off from is what is in the deed of the property. And the deed of the property states that it is subject to a 49 1⁄2-foot easement, and that's what they took title to.

This is the problem we had on this other site and on this one. We found the 49 1⁄2, but when we went to the road commission, all they own is 33.

Yeah, they don't actually.

I'm just letting you know that this is not a problem. So we need something from the road commission that says that they control 49 1⁄2.

And on that road, you need it right away. Yeah, exactly.

Oh, my gosh, yes. You can get them to say yes, wonderful.

Well, I think what's, you know, I can reach out to a title company and ask what happens when you have a deed that says one thing, and that's what they took title to, and you've got the road commission that's supposed to be the one that ended up with that easement saying that they don't have it. So I'll see if I can get that worked out, but in the end, That additional right-of-way is needed on that roadway. It's needed on all of those parcels up and down through there.

But it's got to be accepted by the road commission.

All right. We are moving forward assuming that that wider right-of-way that the sidewalk is going to be within the public road right of way and not just granting a sidewalk in order to put it in. So we'll proceed and I'll follow up with Rodney on that. We've been trying to get communication with the road commission. We are actually using the entrance that they installed when they updated the roadway. So the curb cut is the curb cut that they installed. So we're not asking for a new curb cut. We're utilizing what's available. So we don't have comments back from the road commission. And we don't have comments back from water and sewer, but water and sewer, we have water and sewer out front. We are doing private services, a four inch sanitary sewer service, and a one inch water domestic service. We don't need fire protection. So it's no different than any house that you build in a subdivision. Same type of thing. So stormwater, I believe we got the approval back today, which was emailed over to you. Outstanding item is there needs to be a maintenance agreement once final site plan is obtained. But you don't do the maintenance agreement prior to actually getting your plans approved. So that is something that will happen if and when we're able to get the final site plan. So as far as those items, I mean, The right of way, normally it would be a dispute. Well, we're showing 33 and it's supposed to be 49 and a half. And you've got to change your site because you've got to move everything back and your setbacks are moving back. We're actually on the opposite side of that. We have set everything back to honor that. And based on my understanding of real estate law, when you take title, and it was subject to, I think, I don't know that they have the right. So.

Forgive me, I was told that, they were told, they didn't share with me, that the Road Commission abandoned the additional right-of-way. They were not able to get paperwork like that, but that's what they were told by the Road Commission, that that additional right-of-way was abandoned back to the property. That's where we are. One thing I'll mention to you, because it wasn't real clear, and I want to make sure to make it for the Planning Commission. the properties we just want to be able to for that if it's 33 feet on the property to the east we need that sidewalk to be able to come in at 33 feet where it meets that point so that the next person that builds can build it connect to that sidewalk we don't want to just run into the yard of the next door neighbor we're getting ready to do a development on the parcel to the west yeah the west i assume that whatever is because this property is part of a larger parcel so whatever Whatever is right-of-ways on this parcel is I'm sure the same on the property to the west. But it's the east, I want to make sure you check that and verify what that actual road commission right-of-way is.

I found where it deviated from 49 1⁄2 feet in some deeds to 50 feet. But I didn't see anywhere that it was 33.

But definitely check for the east as well. Because if it's shorter to the east, you can bring the... to bring it down and connect it. Yeah, that's a shame.

Okay, so we talked about it right away. We talked about the fire department. We talked about the outside approvals. The only one that I truly do not have any type of statement from is the road commission and we are using their previously built curb deck. So I do not expect any problems with that. As far as the dumpster, the dumpster's probably going to be the biggest item that we should probably have a discussion on because the idea was to try and put it in the rear. I mean, that's what we... other than putting it in a back corner, which makes a vehicle come all the way in and then have to back out. It's just a miserable way to pick up trash. So I think from a functionality standpoint, it is in the best location possible. So our Are your thoughts that it needs to be set back out of a future right of way? Is that what you're thinking?

So Ed, if I may.

I'm trying to figure out how to fix that problem.

So as I noted when I spoke, the dumpster, if you look at this lot, the whole lot, and you look at the building as proposed, the dumpster of course is behind the building and that makes it in the rear of if this was the only thing happening on this property, if this property was done being developed when that happened. And so in that circumstance, it would be appropriate. The problem, as we've discussed, is that there is more development activity planned. Putting the dumpster where it is would actually prevent that driveway from becoming a private road without moving the dumpster on a private road. The private road creates the road frontage, a road frontage. That's the point. So that dumpster would then be in the front yard and, frankly, in the right-of-way of that new private road. And so our zoning administrator, this is one of those cases where, as I said at the beginning, he had to look at it both as what is this southwest corner element and also what is the overall plan. And as I said, they shared that this road would be extended, that there were additional development sites, quite appropriately, should be developed in the future. This site can be used for much more than just the one dentistry office. As pleased as we are that they're coming there. there's more room, and it should be used for more. And so putting that dumpster there, that would be in the front yard, and so that's why I noted in the report that the zoning administrator, the language of the report on page three says the zoning administrator has determined that the currently proposed location is in the non-required east side yard and would be in a front yard if the driveway were to be converted and extended to a future private road to serve the additional office service development. So at this point, we have a zoning administrator determination. We've reviewed the ordinance, reviewed the plan, and made a determination quite appropriately that this is not in a rear yard. And whether we call it the east side yard, or we call it the front yard of this private road, road as part of this development. In either case, the location of the dumpster enclosure doesn't work. It conflicts with any ability to do future development of the center. And so, I recognize that moving the dumpster into the dentistry parking lot to a site, I'd say probably the west side, that does create more of a challenge. It's a little bit more of an effort for that to be emptied. And it probably would require that operator to back that truck out, unless you're coming during off hours when they could use the parking lot to turn around. But that is what the ordinance requires. The ordinance does not allow this site to be inconsistent with the requirements of Section 7.14. So if If the applicant wants to appeal the zoning administrator's determination, that's an action to take to the zoning board of appeals. I don't recommend it because there are other sites. We don't want to go that direction, but we do need that dumpster closure to be relocated.

With the idea that that drive, we're having to grant an easement to do cross-access? So typically you put that at the end of the drive so that if they do have to come in, they pick it up and they have a straight back out. With that being where the cross access is going to be, I can't put it there. Centralized dumpster for development is a very common thing. It can't be at that location. Where is the center of the, you keep saying it's going to be an overall development, which I hope it will be. But if you were looking at centralized would be actually in the center of that site.

This is something that is commonly dealt with, these kinds of projects where details need to be worked out. We had the micro, where we had, actually a similar thing with the dumpster closure, they had to be adjusted. We had conversation, we worked out a location that worked and it was built. This is something easily dealt with in a meeting that we can have, a phone conversation we can have, but it's not something that needs to be addressed tonight. As I said, we're recommending only preliminary site plan approval, granting only preliminary site plan approval will not slow this project down a bit, because we do have the, they have the ability to come back with a final site plan that meets all the ordinance requirements and can be administratively approved. And so that's what we're trying, we've set up here with the recommended conditions, nothing in what they propose that would prevent them from being able to do that. I have no doubt that an appropriate location can be worked out. Meeting with the zoning administrator and myself, and if they would like to do a central dumpster that would serve the whole development, I'm sure it can be worked out. So my suggestion is that the plan, this preliminary site plan be approved. It has the note and one of the conditions that it talks about the dumpster enclosure site and that can be resolved with a staff meeting, internal meeting here with the applicant.

I have a question, Chair, if I may.

um yeah i just want to are you done with your presentation the only thing that i was i was thinking is and i understand from private road there would be a right-of-way with it should be out of that road right-of-way i still argue centralized pickup these type of buildings don't actually need a full dumpster. I mean, this is an office similar to my office. I don't use a dumpster.

If it doesn't need one, it doesn't need to be

I can talk to the client because I think they currently, is there a dumpster at the other location? I'm not even sure that there is.

So it's not needed. Yeah.

It can be removed. Okay, so.

Just what I would do is put notes on the client.

Okay. All right. I was looking at it as a centralized location for not just this, but Okay.

Okay, so we'll open it to questions from commissioners.

Got a question. Talking about orientation, talking about front of yards, back of yards. So looking at the plan as it is now, it's behind the building. What changes that orientation? Is it the road coming in, then creating a front as the road is built, versus the orientation of what building is built behind it? So as soon as that road, comes in, it becomes a front face along that road.

If you look on the cover sheet of the plan, they have a little sketch of the site, and they show the yard setbacks down towards the bottom. And that's one of those details. They show, they label, I think, those are two front yard setbacks.

Front yard, right yard?

But anyway, it's on the cover sheet. So they have that little box down there at the bottom of the cover sheet in the center. And basically the front yard is the yard along Pickard Road. They made an error and they also showed the north lot line as a front yard. That's one of our notes to correct that, easily done. That's up against the farm to the north. But anyway, essentially the front yard is a road adjacent, a yard adjacent to any public or private road, period. And so a corner lot would have two

So I'd be more willing to get rid of it because we're supposed to see this.

I don't know what to do with that. I respect that. You have a zoning ministry determination that says it doesn't work as is. So the zoning ministry has the right to make determinations to interpret the ordinance. This did require a whole lot of interpretation, but he did make that determination. And essentially... That's the determination. Now what he said, I talked about it behind the building so you can look at his rear. What he noted is really the dumpster is the east of the building. It's in the east side yard. It's a non-required side yard. Required side yard is over there on the east property line, the setback area. So he has said that this is part of the east side yard. The ordinance says that the dumpster has to be in the rear yard of the property. Now, in this case, it sounds like the dumpster's going to go away in the final plan. And that's completely reasonable. It's not dated. There's no reason to have another plan. And so my thought is, for our purposes tonight, again, I'd recommend that you simply approve the preliminary site plan subject to a number of conditions that will allow the applicant then to make the changes that need to be made, address the remaining outside agencies. Sounds like we're getting closer. and simply submit a final site plan that could be administratively approved. Verify that those things have all been done.

Tim, out of curiosity, 22 parking spaces, is that an ordinance thing or how did that, that's just what they chose?

It's, I believe, more than what the ordinance requires. He's planning on 11 staff.

Yeah, there's a lot of little office workstations.

So if you have 11 staff, you're going to have to pretty much double that in order to handle the people that are coming and going. So this is what the doctor thought that you needed. Okay.

Thank you. I have one other question for both of them. So this right-of-way thing, if they want more, why is that a concern?

He's saying it needs to be documented so that there's an assurance that it's legal. Oh, okay. Our parcel says it's subject to 49 1⁄2 feet. But the person that... This used to be... State Highway. Okay. So State Highway had 49 and a half feet. When they transferred it to the Road Commission, what he's saying is they said, oh, we only want 66 instead of 99. Horrible mistake if they did that. But if in fact that's the case, there should be a document that releases that right of way. What he's saying is no document.

if they weren't able to find it.

So I'm not 100% certain. I'm surveyor and engineer, but I'm not the title person or the attorney. But if there isn't anything that is real estate related, related has to be in writing. It cannot be thorough evidence. It can't be word of mouth. It has to be in writing. So push comes to shove, if there's no writing that releases it, I'm not sure that it's released.

I have to say this is crazy to have these conversations this way. I have never in all my career, and I suspect that Mr. Beebe has also never in his career dealt with the road commission that acts this way. They're allergic to road right away. I love right-of-way. But I have had this experience directly in our CDA district where we, through the same search, through the same title work, checking every deed on every parcel, every platz involved in one part of it, we found the right-of-way. And that right-of-way was wider than 66 feet. And unfortunately, because of the road that we were working with was not in the center of the right-of-way, it was cheated into one side. The road commission said there was a right-of-way of 66 feet, but if we worked with that 66-foot wide right-of-way, we would not be able to get the sidewalk in, because we'd be cutting part of their asphalt for the road, but if it was a concrete sidewalk, it would be that close in some spots. And so, What we we went to them and handed them the paperwork and said it's all here, but here's the documentation your right-of-ways wider than you see it is and their answer was No, it's not it's 66 feet and they provided a document which was not a survey document It was a sketch essentially you might think of it as a napkin sketch There's a little more than that if somebody drew it, but it was essentially from very simple lines This is our right of way and we're not going to give you a permit to put in the sidewalk in the area of that area that your claim is right away because we don't control it. Our contractor, quite rightly so, is that we're not going to do the work in the right of way if we can't get a permit from the county road commission. It is an amazing classic catch-22. I just don't want this project to have that, and I especially don't want the future connections to the east and west to run into this problem. So whatever we do, we need to make sure it's set up so that for the next project, it's in the right of way the road commission controls. I have no issue If they want to put the sidewalk further back on their property, based on their documentation, I'm mostly concerned with the connections to the east and west. And so it may be it comes back, it comes forward. To the west, as I said, because this was part of a larger lot, it's very likely that it's the same But the east, that's the question. We need to know the answer to that on the east side.

Well, the east side is going to have the same issue that Hans' project had. They got their detention up front. And I hated even drawing Hans' sidewalk in there. I had seven feet to put it in, put a five foot sidewalk in. And when we discussed it, we said, how about if we just go from the back curb back and we'll give you a seven foot sidewalk? Because who's going to take care of the two foot strip? So I would have loved to have put that back behind the right-of-way, put an easement, but unfortunately that ran right through their detention pod. You're going to have the same issue when you get to Brewster. So... I'll do some research. We would like to see the sidewalk set back. We don't want the public sidewalk immediately adjacent to the curb. I think we need to avoid that as much as we can. So I'll work with Rodney and I'll try and work with the road commission. We'll see what we can do.

See what goes.

So I know Rodney has only asked for preliminary. I need to put my pitch in for final. I think we have talked through most all of these. That if the sidewalk were to have to swing down, would it change how you voted? because the sidewalk had to move to a right-of-way line that it has to be in. Would the dumpster being removed off the site plan change how you would vote if they are going to bring roller carts out instead? The fire department I met with And I'm at one today. There is no issues with this plan because the T turnaround is in compliance with the road conditions.

but actually nothing changes if final site plan is granted because it would have to be granted with conditions. And one of those conditions that is not on this list would be a sixth one and that is a review and approval by the zoning administrator before a building permit is issued. And in reality, that's exactly the same problem If these checklist items are addressed on a revised plan, it meets the requirements. There's not gonna be anything new. These are the items. And we have the outside agency approvals in place. That final site plan that comes in then, can be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and if he checks all the boxes, he meets all the requirements, it can be approved by the Zoning Administrator. It doesn't need to come back to the Farm Commission. So it is actually the exact same process that he's asking for you to do with granting final site plan approval subject to grant the final site plan approval. Preliminary site plan approval, as noted in this report back in the first page, it grants approval for the site design. It says, yes, this is good. This is consistent. It's approval of the site layout. And the overall design, final site plan simply, that's the construction plan. That's when all the details are taken care of. This plan is ready to be constructed. And so that's why we are very pleased that the Planning Commission did accept and recommend approval of that amendment 2024. approval process for final site plans, because it does speak the process of it. But here, again, final site plan approval by the Plan Commission would actually not change anything in terms of what would be required as the next step, which would be an administrative review of a revised plan. So my recommendation to you, my suspicion is, it is just suspicion, that there is a desire on the part of the contractor to have a checkbox that says final site plan approval is granted tonight. And that's where I would go back to the first page. I'll just quote it. It says, approval of preliminary site plan by the Planning Commission. It's right out of the ordinance. First paragraph under the title. Approval of preliminary site plan by the Planning Commission, quote, shall indicate its general acceptance as proposed land on buildings, streets, drives, parking areas, and other facilities and areas. So what you're saying by granting preliminary site plan is you're happy with this. Go forth and get the details worked out. And that's exactly what they need to do, regardless of what action you take tonight. If you were to approve it as a final as well, they still would have to go forth and work the details out and come back and have an administrative review of that last plan. So the preliminary site plan says that's the checkbox. And it was always intended to be the checkbox. We're very happy with what you're doing. Go work the details out. So that's my recommendation to you tonight. The action to take is to approve the preliminary site plan subject to the five conditions. And then they can revise it, get the outside agency stuff done, and submit a final site plan that we can look at and very likely approve administratively.

Yeah, I think that's very clear. I'll give Mr. Beebe an opportunity to respond if he wants.

I appreciate that. I agree for the most part. As we saw with the dumpster tonight, there's a single person's interpretation versus a board's interpretation. Once that interpretation is granted, I have a choice. I can live with it and do whatever it takes to get that approval, or I can go to the ZBA which slows the entire process down as you well know. So why am I asking for that final? That's why I'm asking for the final. We saw an example of it tonight.

Okay, but the dumpster issue specifically is off the table more or less.

More or less off the table, but I'd still have to be sure.

Are there any remaining actual pinpointable issues that would fall into that kind of hole that you were just talking about?

The problem is I'm not certain until we get all the way through.

Yeah, but I don't think we're certain either. So then the question becomes, do we give you a blank check or do we let the process play out where the folks that actually know how to do this stuff are the ones talking and working it out?

Well, I have an argument about knowing how to do it when the rear yard is, where else is the rear yard?

Okay, are there other questions from commissioners for either staff or for the applicant? Okay, I don't think they have any right now, so I'll let y'all have a seat and then we are moving to our review and deliberation and action. So this is on the floor, you've heard all the discussion Thoughts, comments, motions, whatever is your pleasure.

I'll echo the whole thing about the sidewalk and the right of way just being an absolute weird mess. I don't know how that affects our vote, if it does, because it does seem very odd that the road commission doesn't want the right of way that they should have. I don't know. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, so.

I say to echo the chair's motion that, you know, we're getting a preliminary site plan in front of us that typically we're trying to nail down what's going on inside the walls, not outside them. And these motions that have been caught up here, what these conditions are to be all external, all as you go through a review process between you guys to kind of get this done and get this done. yourselves with I would support at this point approving the preliminary site plan with the conditions included I feel like that would give us a good say on making sure that these items that are just by that Rodney are taken care of but also making sure we can get this process started for their person and beginning internal development

Any other questions or comments? I guess just looking at the conditions now, the second one is revise the site and driveway design as needed to provide for safe access. Would the words as needed be taken by the zoning administrator as being if there's a letter from the fire commissioner or whoever it is that says everything's fine, that it's not needed?

That's exactly correct, yes. Okay. Exactly.

As you were saying earlier, just waiting to receive maybe a new update, because you've gone to the fire commissioner. I have a question about the fire department.

He pulled up his letter on his computer, and the only thing that he showed me today was Knox Box and building radio.

So we're just going to check in with the fire lieutenant at Knox Box. to verify that he's all set and that item is taken care of. Check that box, that's easily checked. So I would recommend the condition, but as I said, if the fire lieutenant is happy with the design, then the problem is resolved.

I do have one quick question. So you said on the first page here, the front yard setback's 20 feet. That's literally on the back of the property as it sits now. If they were to continue the... road all the way, would that still be a backyard setback at that point, or would it be turned into a side?

That is a great question. I will tell you that, let's say, being theoretical here, let's say that the road goes to the back, to the north, and you create a little square lot back there. It's similar to the sort of square-shaped space that's what the dentistry building is. There's a square lot back there. the question of which one's the side yard and which one's the rear yard, frankly, the first person to answer that question would be the planner that's running the site, the engineer that's drawing the site up. And if he says the north lot is the side yard and the west lot is the rear yard, we'd actually look at that, but that truly could go either way. Okay. And somewhat depends on even which way you were in the building. But really, usually with these projects, the person driving the plan up will provide their preferred arrangement. The main issue here is that no matter what, our ordinance does have a requirement for an additional 20 feet of setback where an office service district is adjacent to either an agricultural district or an active agricultural operation. And so they do need to provide the additional 20 feet. And that wouldn't matter if it was side or rear. The same rule applies.

Okay.

I wasn't gonna wade into this, but now you've raised my curiosity. So I actually have a question for the builder because just, so on this building, It looks like there's an entrance at the northeast corner. It looks like there's two entrances on the west side. It looks like there maybe is an entrance on the southeast corner. Which is the front entrance?

There's two front entrances, both on the east side.

Those ones on the east side are considered the front entrances.

front side, which we had to rearrange the building in order to get what we were in the southeast corner.

What he's talking about is section 7.20, which is titled building composition, form of composition, and it requires a public entrance on the street frontage. We've worked with several projects with this, and we've said just put an entrance there. Essentially, it can be treated like an emergency exit. We just want that The door can, you need to have the public coming in that way, just have the door there and treat it, set it up so it could be a public entrance if that's what they wanted to arrange in there. We had no issue with the front entrance being the parking lot side, but there is a requirement. And it's really about putting a public face on these buildings towards the road, not putting the butt end of the building towards the road.

Well, that's why I guess I, To me, once that becomes a road, the front of the building would be the east side.

It would, yeah. And then they would only need the one entrance. Yeah. But they still, frankly, I don't know they'd need an emergency exit that close, but it is what it is. It's way in there. Yeah.

All right. All right.

The MMR, it's been a while since you've seen it, but the MMR training building over on Corporate Way. That's you, thank you. At Packard Street, they're putting up a pole barn-style training building. They had the same issue. They wanted the entrance to face north into the parking lot, into the interior, and what we said was you need to have an entrance on the south side facing towards Corporate Way, and they have a very utilitarian entrance to this building. And we said just match it, put the same door on the other side and make it an emergency exit. And if it's the same door on the other side, same steps out, so people can actually exit that way, then that would meet the requirement of section 7.20. So that was the design that they were going to do on the final site plan, we haven't seen that.

So this must be a reason why buildings have what looks like a perfectly good door and there's a little sign that says entrance on the other side of the building is because planners in offices have decided that it has to be that. Okay, any other comments from commissioners? Okay, does anyone want to proceed with a motion?

I'd like a motion to approve P-R-E-S-P-R 26-05 preliminary site plan only for the new 2,803 square foot Mount Pleasant Gentle Family Dentistry Medical Office building on the north side of East Pickard Road PID 14-009-30-008-01 east of south lincoln road in the southwest quarter of section 9 in the os office service zoning district finding that the site plan dated july 28 2026 can comply with the applicable zoning ordinance requirements for preliminary site plan approval including sections 14.2.P, required site plan information, and 14.2.S, standards for site plan approval, subject to the following conditions. One, correct the rear yard setback dimensions to a total of 40 feet as required. Two, revise the site and driveway design as needed to provide safe access and maneuvering for emergency vehicles and relocate the dumpster enclosure to the rear yard as required. 3. Provide documentation from the Isabella County Road Commission confirming the width location of East Pickard Road right of way over which they have accepted jurisdiction both of the subject site and for the immediately adjacent lots to the east and west. four resolve the remaining building composition landscaping exterior lighting cross access and right-of-way details and outside agency requirements on the final site plan per applicable township ordinance requirements And five, copies of the stormwater maintenance agreement and cross-access easement as recorded as the Isabella County Register of Deeds Office shall be provided to the zoning administrator prior to insurance of a building permit for this project. Support.

Okay, so the motion was made by Hayes and second was by Bradshaw. Did I hear that? Correct? Yeah.

I would like to amend one thing. They were talking about removing the dumpster, just add, remove or relocate.

I would second that amendment.

Okay, did Amy, did you get that? No. Repeat what you just said, please.

Number two, where it says and relocate the dumpster, just put and remove or relocate.

I would accept that. That's important, that amendment.

Mr. Beebe.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't you say that there was a number six that needed to be added? No. It would need to be added if they approved the final settlement, which would have been number six would have been administrative approval. I just remember you saying that there was a sixth commission. Okay. And there's nothing that has to be

So the motion was made it was amended with one addition addition of one word which we have and it was seconded any further discussion on the motion okay I'll ask for a roll call vote please support support support support support support okay motion carries so preliminary site plan is approved with conditions which hopefully will lead to final administrative approval of the final site plan okay so we'll move on to our next new business item and that is the draft of the new text amendments for the zoning ordinance to update the agricultural and residential zoning district dimensional standards and to expand options for certain detached accessory buildings on large lots. So for this, we're basically looking at it and deciding whether to set up a public hearing, but I'll let Rodney introduce this and then we'll have our discussion.

Thank you, everybody. I have our report dated August the 10th, and a copy of the initial draft amendment also dated August the 10th. It's a council-initiated text amendment covering two areas, the conventional standards and the residential districts. We talked in a previous meeting, the dimensional standards, setbacks, lot area, height, those kinds of dimensional standards, had not been changed from business districts in many, many years. A few years ago, we recognized that there was an opportunity and a value in reducing setbacks in the business districts. We did that. It was approved a number of years ago, and it has proved to be very effective. We've seen much more efficient development of business sites and industrial sites. as a result, and there's recognition that we need to look at the same thing for the residential dimensional standards, which have not been updated since at least the 1981 zoning act, so they've been around a while in their current form. And so with that in mind, we did, internally, we went through the various zoning districts, we looked at those setback standards, and ultimately provided to you, as a previous meeting, a proposal to make those adjustments, I've seen your comments on those, and that has then been incorporated into what you see here. In the document here, the setbacks are in two places in our zoning ordinance. In Section 4, we have a big table, and that's the table you saw the last time, where all the zoning districts are listed together in one table, type, setbacks, all those pieces, lot area, are all in that one big table and make it as easy as possible to find information. But then again, we also have it in section three, which is the section where each zoning district is defined and described. We have those same setbacks in section three separately now for each zoning district. That creates an opportunity and makes it easier for us as we're helping individual folks find information If they're in the R2A district, they really don't want to know what's in the R2B or the R1 or the Ag district. We can hand them the one sheet or the two-page sheet for that specific zoning district. And so that's why the ordinance has it both ways. It's great to administer it, makes it easier. It's not so great when we're amending it because we have to essentially write it twice in the document and cover a good bit of ground. So in the document, first few pages here with all the color, those are the individual zoning districts. And then the same information is then done again in part three of the amendment where we amended the overall table. A couple of details, as we talked last time, I'll mention again. Our current ordinance, what you might call the maximum density of residential units, number of units per acre, currently is set simply by that lot area standard. So if you have a quarter acre lot requirement, that's four units per acre. That's really pretty simple that way. What we're proposing to do here on the lot area side, we're proposing to reduce the minimum required lot area for several of these zoning districts that are in our water and sewer area. Because in the water and sewer area, you don't necessarily need as much acreage as may be listed here. I mean, for example, in the R2A district, One family home requires 14,000 square foot lot area. There's actually a modifier that gets it down, I think, to 12,000. But so 12,000 square feet, that's significant. That's more than a quarter acre of land. And for a lot that's on water and sewer, but it's a lovely lot. It's beautiful. We don't need you. We could function with that district if that lot was smaller and it still could provide, it would provide reasonable home size and meet all those setbacks. And so we're proposing to shrink the lot sizes down in these districts that have water and sewer primarily. But there's a caveat. Normally, shrink the lot size down, it means more dwelling units per acre. Right now, we have our sewer system, in particular, is designed for our existing zoning. It's designed for that zoning that was established in 1981 and really hasn't changed since. And so pipe size, all those, pump station capacity, all those things were designed for this existing capacity, an existing build out. And so for the moment, we don't want to mess with that. But this amendment, what we've done is we've added a separate standard that we just call it maximum residential, maximum number of dwelling units per acre. So we're now setting a residential density standard in one of the dimensional standards. And the numbers that you see here under each zoning district match the existing maximum density based on the current lot sizes. And so, for example, in here, in the R2A, for one family with water and sewer, the density could be 5.8 units per acre. Now for two family in the R2A district, if you have duplexes, it's a little higher. Because obviously a duplex is two units in that building, and it gets a little higher. I'm sorry, I apologize. Single family is 3.7, two family is 5.8. That's the higher part. So 3.7, 5.8, those numbers were calculated based on the current standards, on the modified standards. And as we talked about last time, and as I think we talked about in our report, we're very happy to talk about looking at, as part of the master plan update, looking at where can we actually increase density? Where can we actually build more homes? And so we'll be looking at our system and looking at where there are opportunities to expand. But that's more a master plan, a long-range plan. So that's why, for this purpose, although we're allowing smaller lots, the overall density would change. So there might be, on a big piece property, that might require that some more open space to be set aside if they want to have those smaller lots. So with that in mind, that's the first part. And hopefully, especially with the SECPAC adjustments, the goal is to try to make it more efficient to both make improvements to existing homes, especially the east side of the township where we have the old, what used to be the R5 district. It's now R2B. And a lot of those lots are currently legally non-conforming. They don't need to be. So this adjustment would remove that legal non-conforming status and make it easier to make improvements to those homes. It also would make it easier to develop new homes in the areas that have more . So that's that part. We did make a couple of adjustments to the rural parts of the township, Ag and R1, but they were more modest. We've been reducing setbacks a little bit, reducing minimum lot width for the Ag, but fairly modest changes, just to be consistent. The other part of this actually comes to us courtesy of Mr. Dede's comments at our previous meeting. It's something that was on our mind as well, but we definitely appreciate his comments. And your comments in response to his recommendation that we look again at the accessory structure provisions. And so that part, part six that is covering proposed amendments to the dimensional standards of the plaza, pole barn, sheds, garages, and other accessory structures. And here, we are essentially extending the sliding scale, you might say. We have kind of a sliding scale based on lot size. The bigger the lot, the bigger the accessory structure can be. The taller it can be, And also, in some cases, the more accessory structures can be built on the larger lots. We're proposing simply to extend that scale both for the rural lots in the Ag and the R1 to add larger sizes for larger lots above 20 acres. and 40 acres and above, suspension, two new categories. And then also doing the same for the R2A and R2B districts, which are the more urban single-family zoning districts. Doing the same thing there, in this case, adding, where there are larger lots, 10 acres or 20 acres, adding categories for that and additional . With those, that's kind of a quick summary, quick walk-through. I'm happy to answer your questions about the details, or as you said, if there's any additional changes or adjustments to this, we're happy to make those for you.

Okay, so it's open for questions. Robert?

Yeah. So on both the R2A and B, there's maximum number of dwellings, single and multifamily dwellings. Why the differentiation between them? I would assume that you're thinking a single family is like four people, but a two-family home, wouldn't that be eight people normally? Or is there something different?

So a lot of zoning ordinances have have single family zoning districts. Thou shalt only have single family homes there. And they have multiple family districts. Thou shalt only have duplexes or apartment buildings there. I'm actually pretty proud of the fact that our single family zoning districts are really single and two family. They allow both single family homes and duplexes Or mix, we'd love to see a mix. We have a lot of neighborhoods that are a mix of both. In the same zoning district, you don't need any special approval for the duplex. You just have to meet the standard that applies. But because duplexes are a little different from a single family home, both how they function and frankly how they're usually set up a lot, So dimensional standards apply. So that's all. But the idea is to maximize the opportunity for both types of housing.

Right. I get that part. It's the maximum number that you can have on the lot. Why are there?

The density standard? Yeah. That's actually just that language. The standard is maximum number of dwelling units per acre. Right. So in a two family home, there's two dwelling units in that one building. And when we ran the numbers currently, what's currently allowed with water and sewer, What we found was if we count dwelling units per acre, the number is higher if you have two family dwellings and lower if you have single family dwellings. So we just wanted those numbers to match the existing conditions that our ordinance set because those conditions were what were used to develop our sewer system. So if somebody wants, if you would develop a site that's 50 lots and you would develop all duplexes, then you can do that in the R2B at eight units an acre, eight duplex units an acre. If you wanna take those same lots and develop them with single family homes, then you'd be doing it at 5.2 units an acre, that's all.

Yeah, and that's why I'm questioning, like, there's more people in a duplex usually than there is in a single-family home, so why can't you have more duplexes if your sewer can't?

But it's not about people. This is about a unit, the dwelling unit. And occupancy is a whole other conversation. Yeah. But it's not about people. It's really about the unit. And duplexes are typically smaller. The building might actually be a little larger because there's two units in it. The actual unit itself is probably going to be smaller than a single-family home. And there are different... different common And this ordinance, current ordinance and our proposed one, try to address those in the most efficient way possible. Try to minimize conflicts there.

Does, when it says two family dwelling units, is the unit one duplex or is the unit one half of the duplex? One half. Okay.

Interesting. Yeah, it's a two family building. But it's a two unit.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Two units of two.

So it might be better to reword that so it's a little more clear then.

Well, there's only so much room they have on there. I mean, you can't really get so specific in these things. People don't want you writing a book in these things. They just want you to be as brief as possible and get the point across. Yeah.

So Mr. Beebe just said that he had something he could offer on this topic. Is that right for you? Sure.

The reason that your density changes like that Think of a lot. You've got your setbacks all the way around. So, what you're doing with a duplex is getting two units, and avoiding two side-eared setbacks. So, therefore, you can actually fit, within the setbacks, more units. That's how you end up I understand that it was the sewage part of it because we don't have places that can have the sewage so why are there more people in there that use more sewage I see I apologize for missing

engineer here would have gotten it much faster than I did. I will say this, that I'm not going to question how they came to the sizes that they, all I can tell you is that they used our existing zoning to make the determinations of how big the pipes should be, how big the capacity should be for the pump stations, and in doing that, they recognized that this could have duplexes or single family in the zoning district. How they calculated it, which is a bit of an art to run those numbers, but how they calculated it, that was a long time ago. But they did it based on our existence. So that's why we, that's the only reason for that new item, that new standard for density, is to make sure that any new development that actually happens right now would be consistent with those that exist in sewer capacity. And as I said, this is worth revisiting because there are opportunities to expand that capacity. But we want to do that in a more structured environment and in conversation with public services to make sure we identify those areas that could most easily be upgraded.

And Rodney, you feel like these new yard, the setbacks, especially for the front yard, the minimums, will meet some of the questions that you've had from residents about the opportunities to rebuild front porches and things like that?

They will, yes. They will provide much more flexibility to be able to make changes, whether it's front porch or addition, even just making cosmetic changes to existing homes can sometimes be trouble when they're a legal non-conforming structure. So this will make it much, much easier to...

I had a question on Part 3 under the amendment to Section 7.5, and I think it goes back to a point that Mr. Beebe had brought up last news here, and I guess the question that I expected it to be higher was looking at, let's look at AGR1 districts. Say you have 40 acres or greater, you can do a 5,400 square foot external building if you want. The max height is only 18 feet. We were talking about that sloping and the arching and how can an 18 foot height really accept a pitch that's going to allow snow or anything else to come on?

Great question. And this gets to how height is defined in the ordinance. That's not part of this amendment. I should have addressed it in my report so I appreciate you bringing it up. Height in the zoning ordinance for any kind of sloped roof building is an average height. So it's essentially the height of the wall plus half the distance from the top of the wall to the peak of the roof, half the distance. So the actual peak will be far higher than 18 feet. It's the midpoint that has to be no more than 18 feet. And so that would allow, 18 feet allows That allows the flexibility to put up a building that has a 412 pitch or even in some cases more. It just depends on how big the building is. But easily a 412 pitch, even on the largest, could work with that kind of dimension.

When it hits, say, 5,400 square foot and you have a much higher one, do they have to come back in for us for a waiver over 35 feet? I know this.

If somebody wants to, first of all, one thing to keep in mind is that these standards apply to residential accessory structures. They do not apply to agricultural buildings. And so you could have a farm that would have a barn that's far taller than these limits. Their standard is different. So this is residential accessory structures. But if somebody were to apply for a permit to build one that was larger than these standards, they would have to be denied. by the zoning administrator. He cannot approve it. And that denial would give that person the right, if they wished, to seek a variance from the zoning board of appeals. And then the board of appeals would have to decide if they meet the criteria for that variance.

So you're saying there could be an act, someone's doing private residency, not farm, but they have 40 acres, building something that's 5,400 square feet, need to go over 3,500, need to go over 35 feet, which is our exodants max, and that could get rejected.

If they don't meet our requirements. Now, as I said, this residential section, 40 plus acres, 5,400 square feet total. They come in at 5,500 for one building.

Oh, no, not over the square footage.

But over the height, not the height of 18 feet.

Only the height, only the height of 18 feet. I'm wondering if someone can build up to the max that's allowable to them. for accessory building. Could they get denied because the resulting height is over 35 feet, which is what our zoning limit is?

We had a project that came in that person built, unfortunately, without permits. He hired a company that came in and didn't quite get a permit. They were out of state company. Didn't quite get it. And during COVID, it wasn't caught immediately. They were ahead of COVID, which I think was somewhat intentional. But it was eventually caught, and he was cited. It was noted that it was obviously taller. I say obviously. It actually turned out to be just under a foot taller than it should have been. But it was still... You could see that it was taller than it should have been. And we did have the opportunity to work with the gentleman. We got the measurements. And we told him it was also too big. It was also bigger than the maximum standard in this ordinance. We worked with the gentleman, tried to get him to resolve it. We said, take the building down, or you can modify it. If you modify it, you get a building permit to modify it, but it has to be modified to get into the square footage, and you have to deal with height as well. And what he said, well, I can modify the square footage, because it was sort of a, it has sections, so you can take off a couple sections and get down below the square footage. But of course, it was much harder to modify the height. And so ultimately he applied for variance for that height, and he got it. It was granted to him after the fact, variance for that foot of height. But he had to go get it, and that would be the case for any project. Any project, yeah. If it exceeds 18 feet, based on that average height requirement, they'd have to ask for a variance for the zoning board of appeals, and they'd have to meet the criteria for that. This case, the board of appeals found that he met the criteria for it.

Can I ask another question, sort of a follow-up on that? So we have a tornado. It takes down this building that's got a variance for the height. If the person wants to rebuild that building, do they have to go back? Does the variance stay with it, or does the variance disappear?

The variance runs for that property. The variance is an interesting creature. It's a license to break the law, essentially. But it is also, you might say, a key to that that is part of the law. Because when it goes into the judicial body, it's essentially, you might say, ZVA case law, you know, that that site, that that height was a reasonable variance to grant. And so if the building's damaged, it's basically... Because there's a variance, the building is not a legal non-conforming structure. It is a conforming structure to both the ordinance and to the, and by the way, they did modify the area. So it's a conforming building. And as a building conforms to the ordinance and conforms to that approved variance, absolutely to be rebuilt. It was flattened.

I just wondered if the variance would stay with the building regardless of what happened.

okay just going to remind people that our job tonight is to determine whether this is ready to go out to the public and to schedule if so to schedule a public hearing any other questions or comments from commissioners thank you guys for your work appreciate it

Like I said, I do appreciate Mr. Beattie's comments.

Yeah, thank you again for your guidance, and I appreciate it.

I'm going to put some examples together when it comes to can you actually build what you want to build? If you were looking at a 40 foot wide and trying to get a 14 foot door in so that you can get your, you can't put a 16 foot wall to get the 14 foot door and have a building that's 43 wide.

So, I appreciate you.

looking at that right away. And that's, I think I'll put some examples together just so that for this many acres, you could do something this big.

It stuck with me when you brought it up. We had a conversation here a couple, a few months ago about those heights and it just sat in my head again, like how much is this going to get flexed out and how much does that really allow people to build versus what the numbers say based on our ordinance.

I would just ask you to consider costing some examples of

No, I figured I'd kind of show you the typical barn size, typical widths, and if you go this wide, you can go this tall type. But yeah, unfortunately, a lot of the fifth wheels right now are like 12 foot six, and it's causing problems with the air conditioners and everything else. That's what we ran into

Okay, so once again, if you think it's ready to proceed to the public hearing, we can have a motion to schedule a public hearing.

Is that literally I motion to have a public hearing on these ordinance changes?

There's actually language in the report. Is it page six? There's the last page. You can see some bold language there if you want to use that.

The only thing I would say is that motion is a noun, so I would say I move. But that's just me being me.

Wait, so page six.

Actually, page four of our report, page 49 of the packet, it's the very end.

I move to set a public hearing date for our next regular meeting on September 15, 2026.

Second. OK. So maybe we want to set a public hearing date for the make some reference to what it is, the text amendments. yeah so the motion was made by bradshaw was seconded by hayes any further discussion good work thanks really appreciate the hard work you did on that okay let's have a roll call vote please no hayes yes brown yes

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Forgot me.

She still didn't call you.

Do you need to call me officially?

Oh, you did. Okay. Did you say? Oh, you did. Okay. All right. So I believe that was six to one. Is that correct? Okay, so motion did carry. So we will assume that that public hearing will be on our September agenda, which means that it will be in the newspaper and that sort of thing.

We texted crowded room next month. clarification. Did you say six to one? Yes. Isn't it five to one?

Do I not know how to count? No, we're seven this time. Oh, sorry. I forgot you.

When you came in, you were the seven. You count two, Nathan. I'm done. I'm done.

So with text amendments, there's no property owners to mail it to, so it's just the newspaper? Then in terms of notification, is it just the newspaper? it's a newspaper on our website on the front door yeah okay so it's it's general broadcasting it's to everyone okay all right so then we have one more new business item it hopefully won't take long but it is something that happens occasionally so we had a we have a site plan that was approved that is coming up against the one year deadline and they have requested an extension. This is the Isabella County Material Recovery Facility addition over on River Road. And so you had in your packet a letter from the director explaining the situation and making the request. I'll let Rodney briefly speak to this and then we'll take our action.

Thank you. Everybody should have our report dated August the 7th. There's also a explaining their request. This, as I said, this is improvements and additions to the material recovery facility over in River Road, our recycling facility. They're very excited about those improvements and expanding the capacity of that site, but they haven't gotten started yet. They're still working out some of the details and for reasons that were noted in the letter, the construction has been delayed. Our process for approval, final site plan, when approved, is enforced and effective for 545 calendar days, a year and a half. And then if nothing is done, basically, The idea is that within that 545 days, the building permit is pulled, construction is started. And once that act is, the construction has been initiated, then at that point, that site plan is valid, ongoing. At that point, it's the complete construction. But it's valid for 545 days with nothing happening. And what we have is that 545 day period is coming to a conclusion next month for this site, and as they note, they're not going to be ready to start construction before that time. And so our ordinance does accommodate that, and it provides for an option for the plan commission upon written request and good cause shown to grant an extension of final site plan approval for up to an additional 365 days of one year. There's nothing in the ordinance that prevents you from granting more than one extension. So that's up to you as to how many extensions you might grant, but they can only be granted for up to a year at a time. So that's what they've asked for, is 365 days. That'll take them to September of 2027. And they certainly are hopeful that they, as they note their letter, that they'll be underway by then. They have the option to request a second extension if they need it. As a public project, public funding, in this case also involving coordination with several other counties, it's understandable that this is taking longer than it might have been anticipated to get done. So with that in mind, we're happy to recommend this to you for your action tonight. Certainly from a planning perspective, there's no objection to the extension. There have been no changes in the requirements that applied to the project when it was approved. that would require any kind of change to the site plan. And we do not anticipate any changes or requirements that would apply to the project. So we're pleased to recommend it to you. We did in our memo there, under the recommendation, include some bold text language that if you want

Questions for Rodney.

What would be considered starting construction? Just getting a backhoe to dig a hole and now you started and it's in her duty so they don't even need this.

What do you consider? So what we're looking for is issuance of a building permit. That's our marker. That's an easy marker in our system to say, yep, look, they got a building permit. Building permits are good for 180 days. If they don't use it, it also expires. If it expires, then we'd say, look, We're happy to work with folks, and we want them to be successful. And so frankly, even if, for example, if this 545 day period, if we caught it, we happen to meet with them at the right time to talk about kind of recycling services, And we had that conversation and said, you know what, we're coming close. And we looked it up and discovered we are coming close. But even if they come in October after the deadline, after the expiration, we would provide you the exact same report. And we would have had the same proposed extension date because we would still have extended it from September 15th of this year to September 15th of next year in the same way, even if they come in later. It just would have So we want people to be successful. I happen to grant an extension if they need it. If somebody comes in and they're on their fifth extension, or maybe fourth or third, that's up to you, not up to me. But if they're asking for multiple extensions, then it would be time to start having those hard questions. Are you really going to build this? Is this a dream and not a project? Because even if it expires, the rules haven't changed. Even if the set plan expires, they can simply come back. They have to pay the fee and apply again. But they can submit the same site plan. It would receive the same review. It would have the same answer, which is, yep, it meets all the requirements. It should be approved. So even if it is approved,

I'd say I know that this is a small piece in a much larger project that has been running for a long time. The Isabella County Commission has been working on trying to get us on board with the neighboring recycling plants that this is a part of. It's also a big part in us being able to keep our recycling plant that we have now is being able to update to the requirements that are going to come out from this. Multiple layers, governments, funding throughout. I personally am happy to propose a Having an extension for a project of this magnitude that can serve the public in such a big way that it does. Make sure that we have recycling. We have a place to go to drop yard waste off, public waste, tires, oil. There's so much that goes into this. This way they can understand how extensions would be needed on a project this vast.

Be my guest.

I move to approve a 365 calendar day extension to September 15, 2027 for the approved PFIN ALSPR25-01 final site plan dated August 22, 2024 for additions to the Isabella County Material Recover Facility at 4208 East River Road in the northwest corner. of Section 11 and in the I-2 General Industrial District. Support.

Okay, so the motion was made by Lapp. I heard a second by Hayes. Any further discussion? Okay, one more roll call, please.

Bradshaw? Yes. Hayes? Yes. Partrito? Yes. Bikin?

Yes.

Lapp? Yes. Brown?

Yes.

yes all yeses okay thank you so that carried so those were our new business items uh we didn't have any other business so now is the extended public comment this is the portion of the meeting where individuals are invited to address the planning commission on any item whether it was on tonight's agenda or not If you want to address the Planning Commission, if you're in the room, come to the podium. Give us your name and address for the minutes. Limit your comments to five minutes on any issue. If you're online, let us know, and we will make arrangements for you to speak. Extended public comments open at 8.48. Do you know him?

No, I was just waiting. He's been there all day. I figured he had something to say.

We do sometimes have mystery guests. I think Robert was a mystery guest at one meeting. I didn't know who he was either.

There's no one in the room.

Okay. Final call for public comment. Okay. We'll go ahead and close that back up at 848 until next month. Any final board comments?

I had one. So I really appreciated Rodney's presentation at the last Board of Trustees meeting about data centers in the township. So I learned quite a bit. I really thought a data center physically had to be a building and it does not. It can be a server in a room. So I really appreciated that. Thank you for doing that. Is there a copy of that that I can read somewhere?

If I may, I can share the details?

Yeah, Rodney and I have had a conversation about this, but go ahead.

Okay, so this was, So it was the second meeting in July, I don't recall the date now, but it was the later meeting in July, for the Board of Trustees. So if you go on our website, and you go to Board, the main website, across the top there's some menus, one is Boards and Commissions, it's got a highlight on that, just put the cursor on it, you'll pull down a menu, one of the choices is Board of Trustees, if you click on it, there's still a choice for Board of Trustees, but anyway, these are just ways to highlight, click on Board of Trustees, it will open up, I'll show you who the Board of Trustees are. Down below it, it provides all the agendas and minutes for each of the meetings. So look on that later July meeting. I think it's got a little arrow there. Click on the arrow to open it up. You'll see the agenda, and you'll see the minutes, and you'll see data center presentation. That's a PDF file of the slides for the presentation that I did. So you can see all the slides there. You can also watch the video and that's on, if you go on the Township YouTube channel and just look up that same meeting, that late July meeting and go in, I think about three minutes or so. It started pretty early. You'll have my presentation there and it's about a 35 minute presentation.

Would you be interested in doing it again for us?

If you'd like me to do it again, I can. I did talk with the chair, and he said if we have a quiet agenda, that we have approval to put it on the agenda. So if we have a quiet agenda, I'll put it on there.

In the meantime, if you'd like to see it. I'll go watch it, but I'd definitely like to see it in person.

We may just have a chance to ask questions back and forth.

Yeah, there were some questions at the end, about five minutes worth from the board members.

And to hear you talk about ludicrous speed. Yes, I did. There are some privileges you get when you're a public speaker.

You get to talk about Little Crispy.

Yeah, so I told him that I just want us, you know, some meeting where it won't have us here until 10 p.m. if at all possible. Although, in the good old days, we used to be here until 10 p.m. and later.

We can still do that.

We might have to do it again. You never know. I mean, if it happens, it happens.

It's what we're here for. Tom's already about to fall asleep. Let's not do it tonight. No.

Come on. Any other comments from board members? Commissioners, I should say. Okay, if not, then we'll close final board comment, and we've completed our agenda, so we stand adjourned until September 15th.

I think so.