OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

April 25, 2002

Agenda

PAUL BROWN - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT - 8410 WEST MAIN STREET (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-255-020)

SPURR - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE: OFFICE BUILDING - 1624 SOUTH DRAKE ROAD (PARCEL NO. 3905-25-230-072)

PLAINIUM LLC - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE: BANK/OFFICE BUILDING - 5787 STADIUM DRIVE (PARCEL NO. 3905-25-324-010

KALAMAZOO CENTER FOR HEALING ARTS - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - 6350 WEST KL AVENUE (PARCEL NO. 3905-23-255-020)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, April 25, 2002, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Neil G. Sikora, Chairperson
Stanley Rakowski
Deborah L. Everett
Kathleen Garland-Rike
James Turcott
Mike Ahrens

MEMBER ABSENT: Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director; Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney; and 17 other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

AGENDA

Ms. Bugge suggested adding a discussion of the Schramm/Frie Gibbs property rezoning under "Other Business" time permitting. Ms. Stefforia indicated that she also had a rezoning item to discuss under "Other Business". Mr. Rakowski moved to approve the Agenda as amended, and Ms. Everett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

MINUTES

The Planning Commission considered the minutes of the meeting of April 11, 2002. Mr. Rakowski suggested a change to page six in the second paragraph to read, "... that there was no logical area to which to expand the "R-5" zoning."

Ms. Garland-Rike suggested a change to the motion on page 5 to state, "... recommend the revised dimensional standards chart, including the amendments made regarding lot and building site expressed above, to the Township Board."

Ms. Everett moved to approve the minutes as amended, and Mr Rakowski seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

PAUL BROWN - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT - 8410 WEST MAIN STREET (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-255-020)

The Planning Commission considered special exception use and site plan review of a proposed automobile sales lot at 8410 West Main Street, which application had been tabled from the meeting of March 28, 2002. The subject property is located in the "C" Local Business District zoning classification and is Parcel No. 3905-16-255-020.

The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia stated that she had met with the applicant and revised his plan to show accurate dimensions. Further, the applicant had obtained information from the County indicating that a septic permit would be issued when the site was connected to public water.

The subject site would need a variance to allow vehicle display in the setback area and for customer parking therein. The applicant would appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning this variance.

Ms. Stefforia reviewed the criteria of Section 31.403. The plan included a proposed sales office within the existing building. Improvements to the office might be necessary to achieve compliance with applicable codes. The building official would determine needed changes following an on-site inspection. For example, the building code would require a bathroom.

As to lighting, there was one outdoor light present, and additional lighting established in compliance with the Township Ordinance might be necessary.

The plan proposed adequate parking. The applicant proposed a dust-free surface for display and parking.

Ms. Stefforia also reviewed the special exception use criteria of Section 60.100. As to whether the proposed use was compatible with other uses expressly permitted with the "C" District, Ms. Stefforia noted that several other sales lots are located in the Township's "C" District. One such business, Leader's Marine, is located adjacent to the property.

Ms. Stefforia also felt that the proposed use would not be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or the general public, noting that Leader's Marine to the west has significant outdoor display. Further, no additional buildings were proposed to the existing site. To the east is a residence, however, it is located in the Commercial zone.

As to whether the proposed use would promote public health, safety and welfare, a septic permit would be issued for the site if connected to public water. Additionally, it was again noted that there might be some improvements necessary to insure code compliance following inspection by the Township building official.

In considering whether the proposed use would encourage use of the land in accord with its character, Ms. Stefforia noted that the site (its size) had "grandfathered" status. Existing buildings on the site would be utilized; no additional buildings were proposed. Further, Ms. Stefforia noted that the applicant had significantly cleaned the site up since the Board's past consideration.

There was discussion of the site plan review criteria of Section 82.800. It was noted that any lighting would have to comply with Ordinance standards. The site plan showed a sign location which did not meet setback standards. The Planning Director stated that the applicant could seek a deviation from the setback from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

As to landscaping, Ms. Stefforia stated that, given the size of the site, a literal application of the landscaping provisions would not result in a useable site area. She stated that the applicant was seeking credit for existing trees and shrubs. In addition, he would add shrubs along the front of the property. Ms. Stefforia suggested that the landscaping proposal be accepted, allowing the applicant to establish additional trees and shrubs in the right-of-way, but that no display be allowed in the right-of-way. Further, she was proposing elimination of the eastern-most parking space and that the eastern line be "grassed".

Mr. Ahrens had questions concerning the location of buildings on the property. Ms. Stefforia confirmed that the front building is probably located on the east property line, and the other building is approximately ten feet from the property line.

The applicant was present, stating that his refuse would be handled by a residential- style Herby-Curby. He indicated that it would be enclosed and that he did not feel the need for a commercial dumpster since he would be recycling most materials. He would have a bin located at the back of the property to store recyclables. They would probably be picked up or taken in monthly. The applicant believed there was approximately 16 feet from the back of the building to the property line. Ms. Bugge noted that storage of such recyclables would have to be at least five feet from the building pursuant to Fire Department requirements. Further, the applicant would need to enclose the recycling area pursuant to dumpster enclosure standards. There were questions about surrounding uses, and it was noted that a large parcel used by Hanley Tree Service wrapped around the back of the property.

In response to a question from Mr. Ahrens, the applicant indicated that he repairs and sells cars at the site. Some minor body work was performed. The parts and salvage would be stored inside the building.

In response to a question from Mr. Turcott, Mr. Brown indicated that he had not yet applied to MDEQ for a permit. He believed that he would not need such a permit. Mr. Ahrens felt that a permit would be needed from MDEQ to address disposal of fluids. The applicant responded that these would be recycled. It was agreed that the applicant would obtain any permits necessary from MDEQ.

In response to a question from Mr. Rakowski, the applicant indicated that he currently has no employees, but plans to hire an employee eventually.

Ms. Garland-Rike had questions concerning storm water run-off, and the applicant indicated the basin used on the plan.

Mr. Rakowski questioned hours of operation, and the applicant indicated that he would operate approximately six days per week from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

The Chairperson questioned the applicant concerning parking, and the applicant indicated no objection to eliminating two parking spaces, one along the east side of the property and the other at the southern corner along West Main Street, and planting grass therein. He would also establish low-growing shrubs.

Mr. Ahrens questioned whether the aisle width in the parking area was a concern for emergency access. Ms. Stefforia stated that the Fire Department has not yet approved the plan or reviewed same. She agreed that the "end parking space" might need to be eliminated to prevent a backing conflict.

No public comment was offered, and the public hearing was closed. The Chairperson summarized the application.

Mr. Rakowski moved to approve the special exception use permit for the proposed use, finding that the use satisfies the standards of Section 60.100. Mr. Rakowski further moved that the following conditions apply to the permit:

(1) That the applicant obtain a septic permit from the Kalamazoo County Environmental Health Division.

(2) That the applicant obtain any permits necessary for the proposed use from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Ms. Everett seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

With regard to site plan, Mr. Ahrens commented that he was concerned that the site did not meet many of the requirements of the Ordinance. Ms. Stefforia pointed out that many of the same variances/deviations had been granted to a similar, but more intense use, i.e., Maple Hill Chrysler.

There was discussion of landscaping with Mr. Ahrens suggesting that the applicant address landscaping along the border with the adjacent residents. Ms. Garland-Rike agreed that the residence should be screened to the extent possible. Ms. Stefforia noted that there are trees on the property on which the residence is located. The applicant indicated that on the east side, he would be establishing an erosion planter, and that he planned evergreen spears for this area. Further, he would agree to put low shrubs on the east line which would screen the property in addition to the large pines located on the residential use site.

Mr. Ahrens expressed concern about setting a precedent for so many variances and deviations. Ms. Stefforia and the Township Attorney emphasized that precedents and deviations had already been set for other similar uses, and that, with an existing "grandfathered" site (with existing building), such variances and deviations were not unusual.

Ms. Garland-Rike indicated that she was not concerned in that there was a lot of outdoor display in this area already given the Leader's Marine site.

There was a discussion of whether a performance guarantee should be required. Ms. Stefforia suggested that, rather than requiring a performance guarantee, that the applicant be given 60 days to come into compliance with the requirements of the motions. The applicant stated that this was agreeable.

Ms. Garland-Rike moved to approve the site plan with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That parking must comply with the requirements of Section 68.000 and Section 31.403(c) unless a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Further as to parking, two spaces on the southeast portion of the site would be eliminated and "grassed". Further, the applicant would establish additional shrubs within the grass area on the east side of the property.

(2) That all site lighting comply with Section 78.700. The applicant must submit the details of a proposed lighting plan to the Township for review and approval prior to modifying the existing lighting arrangement at the site.

(3) That all signs must comply with the provisions of Section 76.000 of the Ordinance. The applicant must obtain a sign permit before placing any signs at the site.

(4) That deviation from the landscaping standards was approved and the applicant's landscaping proposal was satisfactory with the addition of shrubs on the east and west sides and along the frontage and the grassing of the eliminated parking spaces.

(5) That approval is subject to the review and approval of the Township Fire Department.

(6) That a variance for display and customer parking within the setback area is required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

(7) That approval is subject to the review and approval of the Township Engineer.

(8) That written verification from the Environmental Health Division of Kalamazoo County that the site had been approved for on-site septic had been received.

(9) That the applicant must connect to public water.

(10) That written verification from the MDEQ that all necessary permits had been obtained must be provided.

(11) That the location and enclosure of the recycling area is subject to review and approval by Township Staff.

(12) That no performance guarantee would be required for the site if the applicant was in compliance with the conditions of approval within 60 days.

(13) That the site must comply with the requirements of the Township Building Inspector.

(14) That it was confirmed that the site plan approval was that revised by Township Staff.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Turcott. Upon a vote on the motion, the motion carried 5-to-1 with Mr. Ahrens voting in opposition.

SPURR - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE: OFFICE BUILDING - 1624 SOUTH DRAKE ROAD (PARCEL NO.3905-25-230-072)

The Planning Commission considered special exception use and site plan review of a proposed dental office to be established on vacant property within the "C-R" Local Business District zoning classification. The subject property is located at 1624 South Drake Road and is Parcel No. 3905-25-230-072.

The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge noted that the property is approximately .73 acres and is the first to be developed under the design standards of the "C-R" Local Business District, Restricted. It is one of only two pieces of property zoned "C-R" which are both located in the Century-Highfield Focus Area. Based on the Master Plan, "C-R" zoning for the area is anticipated.

The applicant was proposing a 3,127 square foot office building for his dental practice. The property is currently a non-conforming parcel and is undergoing platting in order to be buildable. Currently the surrounding property is within the "R-3" District, which also allows offices as a special exception use.

The Zoning Board of Appeals had granted a variance to the property from the 85-foot supplemental setback requirement. The applicant was requesting that the Planning Commission grant a deviation from the landscaping requirement to allow the use of a "C" 20-foot wide landscape area on the north and south sides of the property. The east and west sides of the property would conform to the required "C" and "A" landscaped areas respectively. Literal application of the Ordinance would require 40-foot wide "G" landscape areas on the south and north sides because the adjacent property is within the "R-3" Residence District. However, complying with such a 40-foot-wide area would render the property basically unusable. Further, Ms. Bugge felt that deviation was appropriate since the property to the north is improved with a 4,800 square foot dental office, and the property to the south is vacant but unlikely to develop for residential use and can currently be developed with a 10,000 square foot office building by special exception use approval.

Ms. Bugge reviewed the criteria of Sections 32.500 and 82.000.

Walter Hansen was present on behalf of the applicant. He complimented Ms. Bugge and the Township Staff for their professionalism.

The Chairperson questioned Mr. Hansen concerning the location of the building and whether consideration had been given to moving the building forward and locating the parking in the rear. Mr. Hansen stated that the location of the building was limited because of the necessity to place the drive entry. The applicant had worked with the City regarding the location of the drive, and the resulting location of fire access and turn-arounds had limited parking and building locations. However, Mr. Hansen, indicated that the building probably could not be seen from the road because of an undulating berm which would be located toward the front of the property. He believed there would be a lot of green space on the site. Further, the storm water retention system established would have a natural appearance.

There were questions concerning the plat review process, and Ms. Bugge indicated that the applicant was currently collecting signatures for final approval prior to obtaining that approval from the Township Board.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and there were questions from unidentified persons concerning the size of the site and the location. It was indicated that the property is just south of the existing dental office. The public hearing was closed.

The Chairperson summarized the application.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use is compatible with other uses expressly permitted within the zoning district. Planning Commissioners agreed that the office use would be compatible with the district which permits hotels, motels, conference center facilities and commercial planned units.

As to whether the proposed use would be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties, it was recognized that the property to the north is currently developed with a dental office which is the same use requested by the applicant. Additionally, other properties in the area are zoned "R-3" and can be developed as office buildings as well. Further, it was anticipated that the area in question would eventually be rezoned to the "C-R" District.

Sewer and municipal water would serve the site, and therefore, it was felt that the proposed use would promote the public health, safety and welfare. Further, the driveway layout would be subject to approval by the City of Kalamazoo, which was the agency responsible for that portion of Drake Road.

Planning Commissioners agreed that the proposed use would encourage use of the land in accord with its character and adaptability, given the size of the property, the topography which was almost level, and the zoning of the area.

There was significant discussion regarding the issue of landscaping. Ms. Garland-Rike expressed concern about deviating from the landscaping provisions without a full landscaping plan to review. Ms. Bugge stated that she felt that deviation was appropriate given the use of the property to the north and the likely use of the property when it developed to the south. She noted that landscaping requirements would require only a 10-foot-wide landscaped area if the building to the north were within a Commercial District. Further, she noted that the dental building to the north does not meet the current requirements for "R-3" development since it was established under a different zoning district.

The Township Attorney indicated that the Planning Commission, if it felt that deviation was appropriate, could require that the applicant obtain review and approval of a full landscaping plan by Township Staff.

The applicant's representative emphasized that, in his opinion, landscaping at the site would be far more attractive than any other in the area.

Ms. Garland-Rike was concerned that a landscaping plan was not prepared prior to Planning Commission consideration. The Chairperson stated that he would feel comfortable deferring to Township Staff for review and approval of a landscaping plan. Mr. Rakowski agreed, stating that this process was not unusual.

Ms. Bugge stated that the requirements for "C" plantings versus "G" plantings is very precise, and therefore, she did not see a reason to require a landscaping plan prior to Planning Commission review.

There was discussion of whether the item should be tabled for the applicant to prepare and submit a landscaping plan showing the proposed landscaping for the site. Mr. Hansen expressed frustration that tabling the item would significantly delay the applicant. Ms. Garland-Rike indicated that she did not wish to delay the application. Mr. Rakowski, Mr. Turcott and Ms. Everett agreed that Township Staff could review and approve a landscaping plan.

After further discussion, Mr. Rakowski moved to approve special exception use, finding, for the reasons stated during the discussion, that the application met the criteria of Section 60.100. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Rakowski moved to approve the site plan with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That driveway placement and design are subject to final approval by the City of Kalamazoo.

(2) That parking lot layout and spaces must be in conformance with Section 68.

(3) That approval is subject to completion of the platting process, i.e., final approval and recording of the plat.

(4) That approval is subject to building setbacks compliance with Section 64.000 and Section 32.000 as applicable.

(5) That approval is subject to submission of a site lighting plan with details of all outside fixtures for review and approval by Township Staff. All site lighting must comply with Section 78.700.

(6) That the applicant must submit sign details for review and approval through the permit process, and all signs must comply with Section 76.000.

(7) That deviation from the landscaping provisions to allow for "C" landscaping on the north and south lines in lieu of "G" landscaping was approved. A full landscaping plan must be submitted to Township Staff for review and approval.

(8) That site plan approval is subject to the review and approval of the Fire Department.

(9) That site engineering is subject to review and a finding by the Township Engineer that it is adequate.

(10) That all utilities must be underground.

(11) That approval is subject to the submission of the Hazardous Substance Reporting Form and the Environmental Permits Checklist.

Mr. Ahrens seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

PLAINIUM LLC - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE: BANK/OFFICE BUILDING - 5787 STADIUM DRIVE (PARCEL NO. 3905-25-324-010

The Planning Commission considered special exception use and site plan review of a proposed bank/office building to be established at 5787 Stadium Drive. The subject site is located in "R-3" Residence District and is Parcel No. 3905-25-324-010.

The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge stated that the property is Lot 1 of the Plainview Plat containing about .9 acres. The owner, Steve Taplin, requested the property be rezoned from "R-2" to the "R-3" District, which the Township Board granted in July of 2001. The adjoining plat is zoned "R-2" and is considered a "protected" neighborhood under the Master Land Use Plan. Ms. Bugge noted that the "R-3" District is considered a transitional zoning classification which is intended to permit residential development together with other facilities that do not generate large volumes of traffic, traffic congestion and parking problems. The proposed uses are to be designed so as to be compatible with surrounding residential uses.

The applicants are proposing a 6,000 square foot office building containing a bank with drive-through window and a 24-hour ATM machine.

Ms. Bugge noted that, at the time of rezoning, it had been pointed out that the site size limited development options. Ms. Bugge stated that the site plan submitted was not in compliance with the Ordinance in that it impinged on setbacks and greenspace areas. There were also concerns about site landscaping.

In response to questions from the Chairperson, Ms. Bugge stated that the parking shown complied with the number required by the Ordinance, but was located within the building setback. Further, the landscaping was not of a width sufficient under Ordinance standards. Further, the parking needed to be redesigned, and the building size altered. The size of the building was too large to be accommodated on the site.

Mr. Ahrens expressed concern that deviations and variances were to be granted to the Brown site, which was discussed earlier at the meeting, and whether this set a precedent for this site. Ms. Stefforia noted that the Township had always distinguished between existing "built sites" and "clean slates". Since this site was vacant, past precedents of the Townships would require compliance with Ordinance development standards.

Steve Taplin, the applicant, stated that he would like to table the item so that a meeting with the residents could be conducted and so the site could be redesigned. Ms. Stefforia noted that June 27 was the next available date for Planning Commission meetings in that the meetings prior to that date were "full" agendas.

Art Bates, architect for the project, expressed concern and questioned whether an earlier meeting could be conducted.

The Chairperson indicated that, since the public had been present, he would like to hear public comment on the item.

Henry Bonnes was concerned about tabling the item. He urged that the Planning Commission reject the proposal without tabling it. Further, he was concerned that all plat owners had not been notified that the rezoning was being considered. He recognized that "zoning law" would not require all such properties to receive notice, but he felt that the Township should adopt a policy allowing for a wider notice to plat owners. He felt that, at the minimum, the Planning Commission should not deviate or allow variance from the standards of the "R-3" District. He believed that Mr. Taplin knew the restrictions when he obtained the zoning in question. Further, he was concerned about the ATM feature of the bank which was located next to a residence. He did not feel that a small office would be objectionable, but felt that a bank with an ATM was not appropriate for this small site in the midst of a plat.

Luivi Valero noted that he had circulated a petition signed by residents of the area who are concerned about the proposed project. He lives next door to the subject site, and he felt that the design of the drive off Plainview was dangerous. In his opinion, it would be safer to locate the drive on Stadium Drive. Further, he felt that a bank would cause congestion at this site. He objected to a 24-hour ATM and drive-through, which he felt would be extremely noisy. He was also concerned about the lack of greenspace and landscaping on the south side of the site. In his opinion, the lighting on the site would spill over onto his property. He was concerned about a possible traffic turning conflict at Venture Drive and Plainview. Further, he felt that the subject site wasn't appropriate for this proposed use because the business hours extended to the weekend. In his opinion, this proposed use did not meet the transitional or buffer intent of "R-3" zoning.

Jean Havercamp had questions as to why the proposed drive was not located on Stadium Drive. Ms. Stefforia noted that Access Management Guidelines required the drive on the less-traveled street for safety reasons. Ms. Havercamp noted that, in her opinion, such a location would provide more impact of a detrimental nature on the neighborhood.

Mike Tenenbaum felt the Planning Commission should remember that this area is a protected residential neighborhood under the Master Plan. In his opinion, the proposed use would cause traffic hazards and congestion.

Ken Hoogerheid was concerned about the number of fatal accidents occurring at the intersection of Plainview and Stadium Drive. Further, he was concerned about a possible storm water run-off problem resulting from the paving of the site.

Marta Carvajal expressed concern that other commercial-zoned properties were for sale and vacant. Therefore, she felt there was no need for this site to be developed commercially. Further, the site plan was not in accord with the "R-3" standards and would have a negative impact on the value of residential property in the plat.

The public hearing was closed, and Mr. Rakowski moved to table the item to the meeting of June 27, 2002. He further moved that a notice of the meeting be sent to all lot owners within the plat. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

KALAMAZOO CENTER FOR HEALING ARTS - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - 6350 WEST KL AVENUE (PARCEL NO. 3905-23-255-020)

The Planning Commission considered the extension of a special exception use permit and site plan approval for a previously-approved 14,686 square foot single-story office building. The approval had expired after one year.

The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

The applicant was requesting extension of a special exception use and site plan approval granted June 22, 2000, and asked for an additional year extension. Ms. Stefforia indicated no changes in circumstances had occurred which would change the previous findings of the Planning Commission. Ms. Stefforia noted Section 60.205 which identifies certain circumstances under which the Planning Commission can extend special exception use permit approval.

Su Bibik, owner of the property, indicated that the circumstances requiring extension was that her husband and partner had died in April of 2001. Financing had now been reactivated, and the project was back on track. It was expected that the project would be completed in the fall of 2002. No changes to the plan had been made.

There was no public comment, and the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Ahrens moved to approve the extension of one year, finding that the application met the requirements of Section 60.205. He further moved that the fee of the applicant be refunded. Ms. Garland-Rike seconded the motion. The motion was defeated 5-to-1 with Mr. Ahrens voting in favor.

Mr. Rakowski moved to grant the one year extension, finding that the application met the requirements of Section 60.205, and Ms. Everett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Bugge noted the previous request of Dick Schramm concerning rezoning of property from the "AG" to the "R-2" District in the Frie and Gibbs Plat. She was suggesting expansion of the possible area under consideration. It was noted that the rezoning would require Master Land Use Plan Amendment. It was decided that the item would be discussed at a subsequent meeting.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

The Chairperson made reference to his "Convening for Action" Memorandum.

Ms. Stefforia noted that a special meeting had been requested for Redstone Farms to discuss the requirements of the County Road Commission for the street network. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a special meeting would take place on May 9, 2002, at 6 p.m. concerning the item.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION

By:
Stanley Rakowski, Secretary

Minutes prepared:
April 30, 2002
Revised at June 13th Meeting
Minutes approved:
, 2002