OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

April 26, 2001

Agenda

FRIE & GIBBS PLAT - REZONING/MAP CORRECTION - PUBLIC HEARING - 8401 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-33-402-320)

THE FOUNTAINS OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE/SITE PLAN REVIEW - 1700 BRONSON WAY (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-205-010)

O'BRIEN - REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING - 6000 BLOCK OF PARKVIEW AVENUE - (FORMER AT&T RIGHT-OF-WAY) - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-26-490-013 AND 3905-26-480-081)

ROSEWOOD - PRELIMINARY PLAT (STEP I) REVIEW - 1600 BLOCK OF NORTH 9TH STREET (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-130-013)

SKY KING INDUSTRIAL PARK - STORAGE FACILITY - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE/SITE PLAN REVIEW - 3776 SKY KING BOULEVARD ( PARCEL NO. 3905-34-260-005)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, April 26, 2001, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Neil G. Sikora, Chairperson
Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell
Deborah Everett
Ted Corakis
James Turcott
Kathleen Garland-Rike
Stanley Rakowski

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director; Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney; and 12 other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

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

AGENDA

Mr. Corakis suggested moving Item 8 to Item 4 so that the audience member interested in the item could depart. Mr. Corakis believed that the item would be a short in duration. Mr. Corakis moved to approve the Agenda as amended, and Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

MINUTES

The Planning Commission considered the minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2001. Ms. Garland-Rike moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

FRIE & GIBBS PLAT - REZONING/MAP CORRECTION - PUBLIC HEARING - 8401 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-33-402-320)

The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to correct a zoning description regarding the depth of the commercial zoning on Lot 2 of Block 4 of the Frie & Gibbs Plat. The subject property is located at 8401 Stadium Drive and is Parcel No. 3905-33-402-320. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge noted that the owners of the subject property had approached the Township indicating that they did not believe their property was properly reflected on the zoning map. They were unaware of how a "notch" in the commercial zoning on their property had occurred. The Township Staff investigated the issue. A map of the subject area was attached to the Planning and Zoning Department's Report.

The property in question consisted of approximately 6.3 acres, and 4.7 acres were zoned "AG" and 1.6 acres zoned "C" Local Business. The property had been zoned commercial to a depth of 200 feet for the entire width of the lot since November of 1978 pursuant to Township Ordinance No. 143. Adjacent properties to the west, Lots 3 and 4, were also zoned commercial to a depth of 132 feet, 68 feet less than Lot 2. In 1987, Township Ordinance No. 236 was adopted which reflected commercial zoning to a depth of 200 feet on the subject property. In 1992, Lot 3 was divided into a four-lot plat. In 1996, there was a request to increase the commercial zoning on Lot 3 to a depth of up to 100 feet which was approved. In 1999, the land section use district boundary description was amended to reflect a rezoning unrelated to the subject property, i.e., Township Ordinance No. 379. However, the legal description prepared by the Township Engineer incorrectly stated that the northerly 200 feet of Lot 2 of Block 4 was zoned commercial except the south 68 feet of the west 68 feet thereof. This created a "notch" of .1 acres, which was incorrectly excluded from the commercial zoning. The Township Staff brought its research to the attention of the Township Engineer, and he concurred that this was a mistake. Therefore, the Planning Commission was asked to consider extending the commercial zoning to a depth of 200 feet for the entire width of Lot 2.

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

Ms. Mr. Corakis moved to recommend the rezoning to correct the legal description so as to reflect "C" Local Business District zoning to a depth of 200 feet for the entire width of Lot 2 of Block 4 in the Frie & Gibbs Plat. Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

THE FOUNTAINS OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE/SITE PLAN REVIEW - 1700 BRONSON WAY (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-205-010)

The Planning Commission considered special exception use permit and site plan review of a proposed open space community containing 15 duplex dwellings on 14 acres at The Fountains at Bronson Way. The subject property is located at 1700 Bronson Way in the "R-4" Residence District and is Parcel No. 3905-13-205-010. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia reported that, since conceptual plan review on January 25, 2001, the applicant had eliminated the clubhouse and added a duplex in the area where the clubhouse was formerly located. This allowed for the preservation of an existing stand of trees. Further, a street had been moved to allow a more safely defined intersection. There was discussion of the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant.

Ms. Stefforia noted that the applicant was requesting two deviations: (1) a deviation from Section 66.150 to allow more than two residential buildings on a single parcel. This would be necessary since the applicant did not desire to either plat or site condominiumize the project but have all of the duplexes on one parcel; and (2) a deviation from the 40-foot building separation requirement of Section 66.201. It was noted that the Township Board is in the process of adopting a text amendment to reduce this building separation to 20 feet. The subject buildings would have a 20-foot building separation.

Ms. Stefforia suggested that the question of phasing should be discussed. There was discussion of the uses and zoning in the area. No additional curb-cuts would be added. The applicant would be using the existing Bronson Way Drive. This drive would have to be placed on a private access easement allowing for ingress and egress by adjacent properties. Further, storm water would be off-site, and therefore, a storm water easement would be necessary.

The plantings suggested along Maple Hill Drive were consistent with the Landscaping Ordinance provisions. The applicant was suggesting that the walking paths to be added would utilize crushed stone rather than paving. Ms. Stefforia suggested a discussion of this issue with the applicant given the type of resident to be expected in the project as well as residing on abutting properties.

Chuck Glasner of Gove Associates was present on behalf of the applicant. He noted that Julie Ferguson and others were also present on behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Glasner indicated that he believed the applicant had responded to the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission during conceptual plan review.

There was a discussion of the flooding of the retention pond last year. Mr. Glasner reported that there was a well and pump to keep the retention area full during the summer. The maintenance person had turned these pumps on too early in the spring which had caused a flooding problem. This was the only time in the eight years that the maintenance person had worked there that these ponds had flooded. Nevertheless, the large southerly pond would be connected to a dry pond with sump tubes to prevent flooding.

As to phasing, Mary Schwindt stated that construction may be delayed and would start in approximately six to nine months. It was expected that the project would take 12 to 14 months to construct. The applicant was seeking to occupy each building as completed. The infrastructure for the development would be completely constructed prior to the completion of a building.

Mr. Corakis discussed the pedestrian walkway along Bronson Way which crossed from the east to the west side of the road. He wondered whether the walk could be established entirely on one side of the street. Rod Helmer stated that the crossway had been added to allow for a safe crossing of Bronson Way by pedestrians. The sidewalk being utilized was an existing one.

There was discussion of the plans that additional pedestrian walkways be made of crushed stone rather than pavement. Mr. Helmer stated that crushed stone had been suggested because of prevailing soil conditions. It was felt that the crushed stone would remain in better condition than pavement. If paved, Mr. Helmer felt that the soil conditions would lead to the cracking and breaking up of the paved pedestrian walkways. Mr. Helmer stated, in answer to questions from Ms. Heiny-Cogswell, that it was felt that a flexible base would allow the pedestrian walkway to "last", given the saturated soils.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell suggested that the applicant consider connecting some of the proposed pedestrian walkways to the buildings and expanding them so as to allow for better connection to the pond area. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell presented an illustration of her suggested changes to the pathway system. She felt changes were necessary to make the project more integrated, livable and walkable.

Mr. Helmer stated that he felt that residents would not necessarily utilize the access paths to the ponds. Ms. Garland-Rike expressed some concern about the changes suggested by Ms. Heiny-Cogswell in that some of the paths were too close to the homes.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell felt that changes were important, particularly since there would be access to the site from the assisted living community adjacent.

There was a discussion of the crushed stone material with the applicant indicating that it would be very fine and hard-packed with "soil cement", similar to the Kal-Haven Trail. The applicant indicated that the crushed-stone paths would be wheelchair accessible. Mr. Helmer felt that the crushed sidewalk would be safer for the senior residents in that the cracking and break-up of pavement would cause them more problems in mobility.

In response to questions from the Chairperson, the applicant indicated that approximately 18 similar housing developments had been established by the applicant in the United States. The type of pathway material utilized varied by location.

The Chairperson indicated that he felt that the applicant should work with the Township Staff to re-design the path system slightly so as to make the pond more accessible and connected. Ms. Garland-Rike also felt that the applicant should connect the pedestrian walkway to the existing sidewalk on the adjacent parcel at the northwest corner.

The applicant indicated that there was no objection to bringing the pedestrian area into the west side of Bronson Way and adding some connections to the ponds. However, she did not want to bring the paths closer to the houses.

Ms. Stefforia noted that the subject project would be taking some of the property from the nursing home development, and therefore, she would need to know the precise nursing home location and its height so as to make sure that it would continue to meet setback requirements.

Mr. Rakowski had questions with regard to the guard house, and the applicant indicated that this guard house may be staffed in the future.

There was a question with regard to location from an unidentified member of the public.

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

The Chairperson summarized the application. There was a discussion of the proposed deviations with the Planning Commission concurring that deviation in this case was appropriate to allow more than two dwellings on one parcel. It was noted that the project would continue to meet density limitations and that this design could be achieved through platting or site condominiumizing. Further, a deviation from the 40-foot building separation was appropriate. It was noted that the 20-foot separation proposed by the applicant was consistent with the text change being adopted by the Township.

The Planning Commission considered the requirements of Section 60.100. The Planning Commission discussed whether the project would be compatible with others uses expressly permitted in the "R-4" Residence District. Planning Commissioners agreed that the project would be compatible in that it was proposed to be less dense, at 2.24 dwellings per acre, than the eight units per acre allowed in the "R-4" District.

Planning Commissioners agreed that the project would not be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or to the general neighborhood, considering the nearby land uses. Further, it was felt that there would be no measurable traffic impact from the additional 30 dwelling units.

The Planning Commission considered whether the project would promote the public health, safety and welfare of the community. It was agreed by the Planning Commissioners that, since this development would be far less intense than what could be established in the "R-4" District, there would be no injurious impact on health, safety or welfare. Further, public water and sewer would serve the project. There would be no additional curb-cut onto the public street system. Storm water would be handled using existing ponds in low areas of the property.

There was discussion of whether the project would encourage use of the land in accord with its character and adaptability. It was observed that the layout proposed by the applicant preserved an existing stand of trees in the northwest end of the property and that each dwelling was given a view of a water feature.

As to whether the project would be able to satisfy the standards of the Planning Commission, it was agreed that the designated open space must be set aside through an irrevocable conveyance approved by the Township.

The Planning Commission reviewed the criteria of Section 82.800. Again, it was recognized that there would be no additional access to public streets and that the subject development would be served by an existing drive. It was noted that Bronson Way should be placed within a 66-foot easement accessible to abutting properties. It was noted that the project used a single-loaded street design which was encouraged in open space communities. There was concern that some of the plantings suggested in the right-of-way would need to be "pulled back" so that they would not need to be taken down by the Road Commission in future road projects.

In response to questions from Mr. Rakowski, the applicant indicated that benches would be established along the pedestrian walkways approximately every 300 feet. They would be securely anchored.

The Planning Commission returned to a discussion of the crushed stone material to be used on the pedestrian walkways. Mr. Rakowski observed that occupants would complain if the walkways were not accessible enough. Ms. Everett felt that the crushed stone material would not be a problem if transverable by wheelchairs and walkers. She felt that if the material was similar to that used at the Kal Haven Trail, as indicated by the applicant, it would be accessible. There was discussion with the applicant who indicated that the paths would be a minimum of four feet in width.

Mr. Rakowski moved to approve the special exception use permit, finding that the proposal met the criteria of Section 60.100 pursuant to the discussion of the Planning Commission. The approval was conditioned upon the applicant providing an irrevocable conveyance to set aside the open space to be approved by Township Staff and Township Attorney. Mr. Corakis seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

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

(1) That the development would be served by the existing Bronson Way, and no additional access points to an off-site street were proposed. It was required that Bronson Way be placed within a 66-foot wide easement (ingress/egress easement) allowing access to Croyden Avenue to abutting properties to the north.

(2) That building placement as suggested by the applicant was approved, including deviation from building separation requirements. However, the development involved the shifting of property lines between the nursing home and the project parcel. Therefore, the applicant must provide information as to the location of the nursing home, and it was required that the nursing home property continue to satisfy setback requirements given its location and height. A revised legal description for all parcels affected by the shifting of property lines must be provided by the applicant.

(3) That a legal description for the development site must be provided on the site plan.

(4) That street lighting within the development must comply with the provisions of Section 78.700.

(5) That deviation to allow more than two buildings on one parcel was granted.

(6) That a revised landscaping plan indicating that landscaping would be placed outside of the right-of-way must be provided.

(7) That existing trees to be preserved shall be adequately and physically delineated on the site before earth change activities may begin, with construction fencing or tape/rope to prevent construction vehicles and/or equipment and materials from damaging the trees to be preserved.

(8) That an earth change permit from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner's Office is necessary before earth change activities commence.

(9) That approval is subject to the review and approval of conditions imposed by the Township Fire Department.

(10) That approval is subject to the Township Engineer finding that the proposed site engineering is adequate.

(11) That an easement allowing storm water from other parts of the "campus" to continue to be directed to the existing ponds must be executed.

(12) That it was required that the applicant submit a modified plan with regard to location of pedestrian walkways so as to extend the pedestrian walkway into the northeast corner of the property on the west side of Bronson Way and provide additional connections to the pathway from the buildings. The crushed stone material was approved subject to the requirements that the pedestrian walkways be accessible for wheelchairs and walkers and that the hardness of the surface be as represented by the applicant. It was also required that the pedestrian walkways be no less than four feet in width with benches approximately every 300 feet.

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

O'BRIEN - REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING - 6000 BLOCK OF PARKVIEW AVENUE - (FORMER AT&T RIGHT-OF-WAY) - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-26-490-013 AND 3905-26-480-081)

The Planning Commission considered a rezoning request, as expanded, by Roderick O'Brien to rezone the former AT&T right-of-way from the "R-2" Residence District to the "R-4" Residence District zoning classification. The subject parcels are within the 6000 block of Parkview Avenue and involve Parcel Nos. 3905-26-490-013 and 3905-26-480-081. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge noted that the owner of Parcel No. 3905-26-490-013 had requested that a portion of his property that was previously part of the AT&T right-of-way, i.e., approximately 2.6 acres, be rezoned to the "R-4" Residence District consistent with the balance of his parcel. The Planning Commission had expanded the area under consideration to include the portion of Parcel No. 3905-26-480-081 that was formerly part of the AT&T right-of-way; this area also abutted the balance of a parcel which was zoned "R-4".

It was noted that, in Section 26, "R-2" Residence is the "default" zoning district. The AT&T right-of-way had not been included in the legal description under any other zone, and therefore, it was by default "R-2".

There was a review of the adjacent zoning and uses. It was noted that the Master Land Use Plan classifies this area as Multi-family Residential. Rezoning to the "R-4" District would allow the former AT&T right-of-way area to be consistently zoned with the remainder of the adjacent parcel(s).

The applicant was present, indicating that he felt that the Township Staff had done a good job of describing the proposed rezoning request.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and Gary Sportel, who is on the Board of Parkview Pines, asked how his community could obtain a rezoning of the adjacent AT&T right-of-way. The application process was described.

There was no other public comment, and the public hearing was closed. The rezoning analysis of the Planning and Zoning Department's Report was reviewed. It was agreed that the proposed rezoning was supported by the Master Land Use Plan and would have no negative impact on traffic, public facilities or the natural characteristics of the surrounding area, nor would it significantly change population density. Since the rezoning would be consistent with the remainder of the parcel(s) and adjacent parcels, it would not be a spot zone.

Ms. Garland-Rike moved to recommend rezoning from the "R-2" to the "R-4" Residence District zoning classification. Mr. Turcott supported the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

ROSEWOOD - PRELIMINARY PLAT (STEP I) REVIEW - 1600 BLOCK OF NORTH 9TH STREET (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-130-013)

The Planning Commission conducted a preliminary plat review as part of Step I, tentative approval in the platting process. The proposed property was 10 acres on the east side of the North 9th Street in the "R-2" Residence District and is Parcel No. 3905-14-130-013.

The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. Ms. Bugge stated that the applicant was proposing a 28-lot single-family plat. All the lots complied with the Township's dimensional standards. They would be served by public sewer and water. The streets would be public and would be subject to approval by and dedication to the Kalamazoo County Road Commission. Street lighting was required to comply with Section 78.700. Storm water retention basins would be dedicated to the Drain Commissioner.

Ms. Bugge noted that Lots 12 and 17 are subject to a 40-foot setback from both interior streets since they are corner lots, and therefore, they have building envelopes only 40 feet in width. She felt this should be discussed with the applicant and that it should be made clear that variances from setback requirements would not be favorably considered by the Township.

Ken Patel was present on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that he had completed a project in Oshtemo Township recently and found it was a nice community. His company wished to do another project in the area.

He expressed some concern about the culvert under 9th Street and concern that the parcel across the street would have to hold its water on its own property if developed.

Mr. Patel indicated that he planned that this would be the first plat within Kalamazoo County where the houses would be sprinkled.

He noted that the Township is being asked to deviate from the maximum 1,000-foot length requirement concerning Bela Avenue in that the proposed street was 1,137 feet long. He felt he would have Fire Department support for this length in that it was the plan to have houses sprinkled.

Mr. Doris Chapman spoke concerning the sprinkling and indicated that it would not add much to the cost of each dwelling.

Ms. Bugge indicated that the Fire Department had not expressed concern about the length of the street. Hydrants would be placed pursuant to the requirements of the City of Kalamazoo. Ms. Everett asked whether the cul-de-sacs could be moved so that the length of the street was only 1,000 feet long. The applicant indicated that they would lose two units and might also have to add a third cul-de-sac. It was felt that the Road Commission would have an objection to a third cul-de-sac given the layout.

Ms. Stefforia noted that in another case, such as Wendalyn Woods, the Township had approved a variance from the maximum 1,000-foot length requirement where the road turned, and it was expected that there would be a future connection to other properties. In this case, the proposed plat would be connected in the future to properties to the north and south, if developed.

Ms. Everett suggested that Ms. Bugge provide information for the Township Board on other variances granted in the past from this standard.

Mr. Turcott asked about the sidewalks for the proposed development, and the applicant indicated that, since the lots were narrow, he felt that sidewalks would be a problem. Mr. Patel wanted to give as much yard to the owners as possible.

Mr. Patel indicated that he felt Township Staff was very "pro-development" and very helpful in the development process.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell questioned the applicant concerning the building envelope of Lots 12 and 17, and Mr. Patel indicated that no variances would be sought. He did not believe that any variance would be needed. The applicant indicated, returning to the issue of sidewalks, that he would be receptive to the idea of putting sidewalks along 9th Street if other properties on 9th Street also installed sidewalks.

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

Mr. Rakowski moved to recommend tentative approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That it was noted that the applicant had indicated that he was willing to install sidewalks along 9th Street.

(2) That at the appropriate time, a legal opinion as to ownership and use conditions/easements regarding the subject property be received and on file with the Township.

(3) That a letter of recommendation from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission had been received and was on file with the Township concerning the public roads.

(4) That variance as to the street length of Bela Avenue be granted, subject to Fire Department and Township Engineer approval.

(5) That street lighting comply with Section 78.700.

(6) That it was noted that Lots 12 and 17, with building envelopes of only 40-feet in width, would not be granted setback variance from the zoning requirements applicable thereto.

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

SKY KING INDUSTRIAL PARK - STORAGE FACILITY - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE/SITE PLAN REVIEW - 3776 SKY KING BOULEVARD ( PARCEL NO. 3905-34-260-005)

The Planning Commission considered special exception use and site plan review of a proposed three building, enclosed storage facility for lease to residential and office customers. The subject site is located at 3776 Sky King Boulevard within the "I-1" Industrial District zoning classification, and is Parcel No. 3905-34-260-005.

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

Ms. Stefforia noted that the applicant is requesting the approval for Lot 5 of the Sky King Industrial Park. The site abuts Stadium Drive to the south but receives its access from Sky King Boulevard. To the north and east are other sites within the Industrial Park. Roller World abuts the property to the west. It was proposed that the facility consist of three buildings. No on-site management office was proposed.

Ms. Stefforia noted the receipt of a letter from Lake Michigan Mailers who indicated that they wished to see a provision on site for garbage so that litter would not be a problem. Further, they would like to see the east side fenced with panels so that their view of the site would be screened. Ms. Stefforia expressed concern with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant in that the applicant was proposing only one species of each type of required planting.

Jamie Dyer, on behalf of the applicant, was present. He indicated as to the type of storage that the facility would serve the general public (residential and office). He believed that there would be 48 units + in each of the larger buildings and 11 units in the smaller building. There would be 107 total units, approximately. The buildings would have pitched roofs, not flat roofs, typically found with this type of use.

Management would be off-site, but there would be a phone number on a sign at the site allowing customers to ring the management office and be shown units by appointment.

The site would be fenced entirely. It was planned that there be a timber retaining wall, six feet at its highest point, but an average of three feet.

It was noted that this retaining wall was proposed along the west property line, and Ms. Stefforia questioned whether a deviation to allow reduced green space width would be appropriate.

The applicant noted that the asphalt would be 10 feet from the property line, but the timber retaining wall would be within the 10-foot area.

As to hours of operation, the applicant indicated that planned hours would be 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. The fencing would be along the asphalt, not the property line. As to type of fence, it was planned that along Stadium Drive and a portion of the sidelines there would be decorative fencing with a wrought iron appearance. The rear would be chain-link. There would be security lighting on the buildings.

As to garbage collection, the applicant did not want to establish a dumpster at the site.

The applicant indicated that a berm would be established, possibly along the bend in Sky King Boulevard, and that there would be trees on each side of the entry drive. However, the applicant was uncertain whether the berm could be established, given the location of the utilities underground.

In response to questions from Mr. Corakis, the applicant indicated that the office was approximately five miles away.

Mr. Rakowski had questions about the existing trees on the site, and the applicant indicated that trees in the northeast corner would be saved if possible.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell expressed concern that she had walked the site, and there were some nice oaks, but that buildings had been placed so that these would all have to be removed.

Ms. Everett wondered whether there would be anyone on site during the day. The applicant indicated that, for the most part, a maintenance person would visit the site daily. He felt that debris would be adequately dealt with by maintenance people. Each customer would secure his or her own unit with a padlock.

It was felt that the requirement concerning debris handling could be consistent with the Roberts' approval previously granted by the Planning Commission.

There was discussion of the deviation concerning the 10-foot green area. The Township Attorney expressed that she felt that no deviation was necessary, given that the retaining wall would be made of landscaping timbers.

The Planning Commissioners urged the applicant to vary its landscaping species. Further, Ms. Heiny-Cogswell was concerned that the applicant do a better job of screening the proposed use from Stadium Drive and from Lake Michigan Mailers' site. There was a discussion of re-incorporating landscaping islands that had appeared on an earlier version of the plan. The applicant indicated that these had been eliminated when doors on the ends of the buildings were suggested. However, these doors could be eliminated and the landscaping islands returned.

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

The Planning Commission considered the criteria of Section 60.100. It was agreed that this type of use is compatible with other uses allowed in the "I-1" zone. However, there was concern that the use on the subject site would be detrimental or injurious to the use of adjacent properties and the general public, given its location within the Industrial Park with frontage on Stadium Drive and given the objections of Lake Michigan Mailers. The Planning Commissioners agreed that they needed more detail regarding the possibility of berming and landscaping to determine whether the proposed use would, in fact, be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or the general public. It was felt that the landscaping plans of the applicant were too vague and uncertain at this point. The Planning Commissioners felt that they could not adequately determine compliance with that criterion. Ms. Everett expressed that she felt that this location could be satisfactory if more appropriate screening and landscaping were added by the applicant. Mr. Turcott and Ms. Garland-Rike agreed. The Chairperson also agreed, stating that he, too, felt the applicant should be more definitive as to berming and landscaping.

Tim Van Lier, who was to be a co-owner with Mike Seelye of the proposed use, was present, stating that he would prefer that the item be tabled so as to allow the applicant to provide more detail as to landscaping and screening.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell moved to table the item to the meeting of May 24, 2001. Ms. Everett seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Corakis moved to communicate the opinion of the Planning Commission to the Township Board that the Planning Commission needed the Township Attorney to attend Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission would be opposed to any policy change which would prevent the Township Attorney from attending Planning Commission meetings. Ms. Garland-Rike seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION

By:
Minutes prepared:
May 1, 2001
Minutes approved:
, 2001