OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

April 28, 2005

Agenda

AUDREY HOMES (CONCORD PLACE) - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - 1548 CONCORD PLACE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-24-410-010, 3905-24-410-011, 3905-24-410-020 AND 3905-24-410-030)

HALLI'S AUTO SALES, LLC - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - (OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY) - 8688 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-180-059)

EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION - REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING - NORTHERN 3.4 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH 9TH STREET ADJACENT TO 1551 SOUTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-26-208-011 AND 3905-23-455-032)

HILL - SITE CONDOMINIUM - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 10090 WEST H AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-06-480-031)

FLAG POLE HEIGHT, FLAG SIZE AND RELATED ITEMS - TEXT AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING

EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES, INC. - PUD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - WEST SIDE OF SOUTH 9TH STREET, ADJACENT TO FLESHER FIELD PARK - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-35-330-015 AND 3905-35-330-020)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, April 28, 2005, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

MEMBERS PRESENT: James Turcott, Chairman
Deborah L. Everett
Kathleen Garland-Rike
Mike Smith
Fred Gould
Terry Schley
Lee Larson

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director; Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; James W. Porter, Township Attorney; and approximately 35 other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

AGENDA

The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Agenda. Hearing none, he said he would entertain a motion to approve the Agenda. Ms. Everett made a motion to approve the Agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Schley. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

MINUTES

The Chairman asked if the Commission members had had a chance to review the minutes of April 14, 2005. Mr. Schley made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Larson. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

AUDREY HOMES (CONCORD PLACE) - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - 1548 CONCORD PLACE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-24-410-010, 3905-24-410-011, 3905-24-410-020 AND 3905-24-410-030)

Ms. Bugge told the Planning Commission that Concord Place had asked that their matter be tabled until the Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 2005. Therefore, Mr. Larson made a motion to table Audrey Homes' (Concord Place) request for special exception use and site plan review to the Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 2005. Mr. Smith seconded the motion, and upon vote, the motion passed unanimously.

HALLI'S AUTO SALES, LLC - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - (OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY) - 8688 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-180-059)

The Chairman said the next item up for review was consideration of the special exception use for Halli's Auto Sales, LLC for outdoor sales and display at 8688 West Main Street, Parcel No. 3905-16-180-059. The Chairman asked to hear from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia presented her report to the Planning Commission dated April 28, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia explained to the Planning Commission that the special exception use was to allow vehicle sales at 8688 West Main Street in addition to the existing permitted car repair facility. She said the facility currently had cars for sale as an accessory use. However, she said that the State of Michigan had enacted new requirements, requiring an exterior sign to be displayed with the name of the dealership. She said the previous sales had been considered an accessory use because there was no indication to the casual observer that the activity was occurring. She said now since the sign was required, the Planning Department thought it was appropriate for the Commission to review the use under the special use provisions.

Ms. Stefforia then took the Planning Commission through the provisions of Section 31.403, as well as the special exception use provisions of Section 60.100 as set forth in her report.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Stefforia. Mr. Schley asked, if they were given ZBA approval, would they be able to expand their sales to the west. Ms. Stefforia thought, if it was not too extensive, they could handle it administratively, but if it required revision to the site plan, then it would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Stefforia said, if there was any expansion on the proposed special exception use, that it would have to return to the Planning Commission.

The Chairman asked to hear from the applicant. Ms. Grace Borgfjord, on behalf of Halli's Auto Sales, LLC, explained that there had always been limited car sales at their facility, but because of the new State requirements, they were required to install a sign as a licensed used car dealer. She said there were going to be no changes to the site; the only thing that they would have to do is add information either to their existing pole sign or a wall sign to their building. She asked if there were any questions.

Ms. Everett asked how many cars they would have for sale on the premises. Ms. Borgfjord said it would not change from their existing use of the property. She said that they had always considered car sales as an accessory use to their principal business, and nothing would change in that respect. She said sometimes they came across a car in their business that they sold, or occasionally a customer needed to have a car sold on his or her behalf.

Ms. Garland-Rike asked if there would be any changes to the lighting of the facility. Ms. Borgfjord said she did not anticipate any changes unless they were needed for security purposes, at which point they would seek approval from the Township Planning Department for any additional lighting.

The Chairman called for public comment, and hearing none, called for Commission deliberations. The Chairman asked if there were any issues with regard to the application. Hearing none, he said he would entertain a motion. Mr. Schley made a motion to approve the special exception use to allow vehicle sales based on existing conditions and upon the condition that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance for display in the setback area. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. The Chairman asked if there was any further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION - REZONING - PUBLIC HEARING - NORTHERN 3.4 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH 9TH STREET ADJACENT TO 1551 SOUTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-26-208-011 AND 3905-23-455-032)

The Chairman said the next item on the Agenda was the public hearing on a request from the Educational Community Credit Union for the rezoning of certain portions of Parcel Nos. 3905-26-208-011 and 3905-23-455-032 from "R-2" Residence District to "R-3" Residence District. The property is located on the east side of South 9th Street and adjacent to 1551 South 9th Street. The Chairman asked to hear from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge presented her report to the Planning Commission dated April 28, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge explained that the Educational Community Credit Union owns two parcels along South 9th Street near Quail Run Drive. She said that the applicant was requesting that a portion of each of the properties be rezoned from "R-2" to "R-3" Residence District. She said that for Parcel No. 3905-23-455-032, they were requesting the rezoning of .23 acres, and for Parcel No. 3905-26-208-011, they were requesting the rezoning of approximately 3 acres. She said that the applicant had applied for a variance which would allow a redescription of the two properties, resulting in the enlargement of the Credit Union parcel by approximately 3.25 acres and creating a vacant, nonconforming parcel for future development. She said that the Zoning Board of Appeals had granted the request at their meeting of April 26, 2005.

Ms. Bugge then took the Commission through the requirements for consideration of rezoning as set forth in her report. The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant.

Mr. Urbanski introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He explained that they had received their requested variance to allow for the reconfiguration of the property and that they were currently asking for the rezoning of portions of the two properties owed by the Credit Union. He asked the Commission if they had any questions.

The Chairman asked if there were any plans for development of the area and expressed concern that it be handled appropriately, since it was a beautifully wooded parcel. Mr. Urbanski said it was their intent to take the topography and the wooded nature of the parcel into account while developing their plans to expand.

Ms. Garland-Rike asked what property the Credit Union owned. Mr. Urbanski said that they currently own all of the land at issue and that they were simply reconfiguring it for expanded development of the Credit Union. He said that the larger parcel would likely be sold at some point in the future for further development.

The Chairman asked if there was any public comment. Hearing none, he called for Commission deliberations. The Chairman asked if there were issues with the report presented by the Planning Department. Hearing none, he said he would entertain a motion. Ms. Garland-Rike made a motion to recommend the requested rezoning of the subject property, based on the analysis in Staff's report, from "R-2" to "R-3" Residence District classification to the Township Board. The motion was seconded by Ms. Everett. The Chairman called for a discussion on the motion, and hearing none, called for a vote. The motion passed unanimously.

HILL - SITE CONDOMINIUM - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 10090 WEST H AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-06-480-031)

The Chairman said the next item to be considered was the site plan review for a proposed two-unit residential site condominium at 10090 West H Avenue. The Chairman asked to hear from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia presented the Planning Department report to the Planning Commission dated April 28, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia explained to the Planning Commission that the property in question was approximately 12.5 acres with 397 feet of frontage on West H Avenue and 100 feet of frontage on North 2nd Street. She explained that the applicant wanted to subdivide the property under the Condominium Act to create a two-unit site condominium. She said that the southern unit would contain 8.45 acres and the northern unit, 4.1 acres. She said the applicant sought site plan review and approval from the Planning Commission as a necessary step in proceeding with site condominiumizing the property. Ms. Stefforia then took the Planning Commission through the site plan review criteria of Section 82.800.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of the Planning Department. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Charlie Hill introduced himself to the Planning Commission and explained that he wanted to make the division in order to allow for the construction of a home for his daughter. He said he would entertain any questions.

There being no questions of Mr. Hill, the Chairman called for public comment. Mr. Curtis Bell introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Bell said he opposed the proposed development. He pointed out that his home was located directly north of the subject property. He said he did not believe that the proposal conformed to the environment and thought it was inappropriate to allow the development as proposed. He said that he and his neighbor had built their homes deep into the woods, and if this site condominium was established, it would destroy the character of the area.

Mr. Bell said that, if there were permissible splits allowed on the property, he did not have any problem with the proposal. However, he thought site condominiumizing property was a "back door" way to avoid the land division requirements and destroy the environment.

The Chairman asked if there was any further public comment, and hearing none, called for Commission deliberations. The Chairman asked for a clarification regarding Mr. Bell's comments. Ms. Stefforia explained that what Mr. Hill was requesting was in compliance with the site condominium law.

Mr. Gould asked if there had been a split on 5th Street and 2nd Street. Ms. Stefforia questioned whether that was relevant. Mr. Gould said he was asking for information purposes.

Attorney Porter pointed out that what the applicant was requesting was in compliance with State law. He explained that land could either be divided under the Land Division Act, but if there were no additional splits available, then the land could be condominiumized or platted, but that it was in no way a circumvention of the law, but was in fact the law in Michigan.

Mr. Schley said that locating a home on 4.25 acres with 100 feet of frontage was certainly compliant with the Township Ordinance. He said he thought it was unfortunate that people could not be more neighborly toward one another and thought that the concerns expressed were unfounded.

Mr. Larson then made a motion to approve the site plan of the proposed two-unit residential site condominium, provided that a driveway permit be obtained for the northern condominium unit before a building permit was issued, and subject to Township review of the Master Deed and Bylaws and finding them acceptable prior to their recording. Mr. Schley seconded the motion, and the Chairman called for discussion on the motion. Hearing none, he called for a vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

FLAG POLE HEIGHT, FLAG SIZE AND RELATED ITEMS - TEXT AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING

The Chairman said that the next item for consideration was the public hearing on the text amendment for Section 76, addressing flag pole height, flag size and related issues. The Chairman called for a report from Ms. Stefforia. Ms. Stefforia presented her report to the Planning Commission dated April 16, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Stefforia. Hearing none, the Chairman opened the issue for public comment. There being no public comment, the Chairman closed the public portion of the meeting and called for Commissioner deliberations. The Chairman said that he thought they had discussed this issue at length previously, and he said he would entertain a motion. Ms. Garland-Rike made a motion to recommend the proposed text amendment to the Township Board. Mr. Larson seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES, INC. - PUD CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - WEST SIDE OF SOUTH 9TH STREET, ADJACENT TO FLESHER FIELD PARK - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-35-330-015 AND 3905-35-330-020)

The Chairman said the next item was consideration of a planned unit development conceptual review of Edward Rose Properties, Inc. The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia presented her report dated April 28, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia said the applicant was proposing the development of a 30-acre parcel, containing 192 dwelling units on 27.78 acres and 2.22 acres of nonresidential development along 9th Street. She said the subject property was located on the west side of 9th Street, adjacent to Flesher Field, immediately west of the Langeland Funeral Home. She explained that this was an opportunity to conduct a conceptual review by the Planning Commission and that the applicant, based on those comments, would return for a special exception use and site plan review. Ms. Stefforia then presented her analysis as set forth in her report to the Planning Commission.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Stefforia. Mr. Schley asked if the intent of the conceptual plan was to add additional parking for Langeland Funeral Home. Ms. Stefforia said she was not aware of any proposed additional parking and that they would have to address that with Langeland Funeral Home. Mr. Schley then asked, given the deference granted to a funeral procession, whether a shared boulevard would cause traffic problems. Ms. Stefforia said she was not certain that it would, but that they could request the posting of signs to alleviate any potential conflicts.

Mr. David Rice introduced himself to the Planning commission on behalf of Edward Rose Properties, LLC. He also introduced his associate, Mr. Jim Hall, landscape architect for the proposed project. Mr. Rice explained that Edward Rose Properties owned numerous residential developments throughout the Midwest, currently had four offices and managed over 60,000 units. He said that Edward Rose Properties was the developer, general contractor and long-term owner of all of the developments. He explained that they were not seeking any type of tax abatement. Since 1965, they have been active in the West Michigan area, maintaining over 14,000 units within the State of Michigan.

Mr. Rice reviewed the proposed development with the Planning Commission, indicating that they did want to develop 192 units on the "R-4" property, reserving approximately 2.2 acres for commercial development in the future. He said that they had hosted a neighborhood meeting with approximately 18 nearby residents and were working on trying to address the concerns raised by their neighbors.

Mr. Rice reminded the Planning Commission that there had been previous Planning Commission approval to develop a 400-unit apartment building on this property for low-income housing, but that development had fallen through. Mr. Rice explained that the proposed 192-unit facility would be an upper-end, single and two-bedroom development with rents running between $600-$650 for a one-bedroom apartment and $700-$750 for a two-bedroom apartment. He said that all of the apartments would be fully furnished, including washer and dryer, and that garages would be available. In addition, he said other amenities would be provided such as a clubhouse and pool for the residents. Mr. Rice said that they planned to develop the property in stages, but thought that it would all be completed, start to finish, within two years.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Mr. Rice. Mr. Schley asked if there was an intent to expand the parking at Langelands. Mr. Rice said that he was not aware of it, and that they certainly would not be doing it on Langeland's behalf.

Mr. Schley asked about access issues if a funeral were involved. Mr. Rice said he did not think that would be a problem, since most of the residents would generally be exiting and entering the property early in the morning and in the evening, not the typical time for a funeral.

Ms. Garland-Rike asked if there were any photographs of their other developments. She said she would be interested in seeing those when reviewing their site plan. She also asked if they had considered a village concept for their development. She said such a proposal would allow them to cluster their buildings closer together, maintain a village green look, with less destruction of the natural environment. She said the proposed plan spread the buildings out too much and would require extensive cutting and clearing of portions of the wooded property. Mr. Rice said that they were going to maintain 70% open space and that the Zoning Ordinance required low density, and the plans were drawn, in part, to comply with these requirements of the Township Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Schley asked what the neighbors' concerns had been when Edward Rose Properties met with them. Mr. Rice said they were concerned about traffic, lighting and privacy. He said that there were trails on the property to the south which extended onto the Edward Rose's property and that the neighbors of Twelve Oaks had expressed concern about maintaining their privacy.

Mr. Rice asked that Mr. Hall explain the details of the proposed site plan. Mr. Hall introduced himself to the Commission. He explained that he was a landscape architect working for Edward Rose Properties. Mr. Hall then took the Planning Commission through an analysis of their site plan process. He said that the site plan process consisted of an inventory, a site analysis and site planning before arriving at the final site plan. He then proceeded to explain the proposed conceptual plan to the Commission.

Mr. Hall then asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Ms. Garland-Rike said she had some difficulty reading the this topographical map as it was laid out, but wanted to know whether the ponds were located in naturally low-lying areas. Mr. Hall said that the property sloped naturally to the west, but that the ponds would require additional excavating in order to achieve their desired result. He said that the ponds would be lying at a set elevation, above which they would be designed to leach water out into the soils. He explained that the soils in the area were sandy Oshtemo soil, which would accommodate the drainage from the ponds.

Ms. Garland-Rike said, if the drainage is to the west, then she thought the frontage of the property would be more buildable. She asked why the applicant did not move the drainage further to the west and increase the density toward 9th Street, which she believed would allow for preservation of more of the natural features of the land. Mr. Hall said they were also trying to make it livable for the people that were going to be living there. Ms. Garland-Rike said that she thought the whole purpose of having a planned unit development was to promote the preservation of the natural features and open space in a manner superior to that of other types of development, and she said she thought with 30 acres, they could do a better job of addressing her concerns. Mr. Hall again emphasized the fact that they were providing over 70% in open space.

The Chairman asked if there were further questions. Mr. Larson told the applicant that he was initially under the impression that any commercial development in a PUD was there to serve the residents of that development. However, he said he recently discovered that commercial development can serve a larger area of the community, but he was concerned that there did not appear to be any connectivity between the residential development and the commercial development. Mr. Hall indicated that was not the case, and pointed out that there was both pedestrian and vehicular links to the commercial development. Mr. Hall then reviewed the sidewalk layout with the Planning Commission members.

Mr. Larson asked Mr. Hall about the building design and what amount of site disturbance would be required to construct the same. Mr. Hall said there would be quite a bit of excavation, given that the buildings were 45 feet in width, over 200 feet long and required location of the first story in the ground on some buildings. He said that with storm water, along with the necessity of balancing the site, would result in significant site excavation. He said he was reluctant to say which trees they would be saving, but did note, as they went through the site, that there would be particular pockets and large trees which they would try to retain.

Mr. Larson asked if Mr. Hall could give him a sense of the elevation of the property and its visibility from 9th street. After a brief review of the topos, Mr. Hall said, that there was a four to five foot difference in elevation from 9th Street, but given the building peaks of 35 to 37 feet, the buildings would certainly show from 9th Street. Mr. Hall assured Mr. Larson that the developer would build as close to existing elevations as possible in order to minimize, not only the impact on the environment, but to minimize their cost of construction.

Mr. Schley asked if the developer would have any type of recreational facilities other than the pool. Mr. Hall said there would be areas planned for passive recreation.

The Chairman, noting that there were no additional comments or questions from the Planning Commission, opened the meeting to public comment. Ms. Stefforia noted that typically public comment is not taken at conceptual plan review, but that due to the number of concerned residents in the area, she thought it was appropriate.

Ms. Kelly Hicks told the Planning Commission that she and her husband own property immediately to the southwest of the subject development. She did thank the representatives of Edward Rose Properties for meeting with them and the Neighborhood Association. She said obviously most of the residents of Twelve Oaks were not pleased that an apartment complex was being developed. However, she understood the developer's right to use its property in a manner consistent with its needs.

Ms. Hicks then went on to explain that the Twelve Oaks property was heavily wooded and that the woods extended north onto the applicant's property. She said that the residents were very concerned about their privacy and safety. With 300+ additional residents being located immediately to the north and the woodlands being contiguous, she was concerned that Edward Rose Properties had no plan to protect the Twelve Oaks' properties from encroachment by the residents of the development. She said she was not comfortable with there being no delineation between their property and the Edward Rose property, and she thought that issue should be addressed. Lastly, she said she was concerned about lighting in the area and that other residents were concerned about light pollution as well.

Ms. Henrietta Squires introduced herself to the Planning Commission. She said that her property was located southeast of the proposed development and that she, too, was concerned about privacy. She said that Mr. Carver had developed their house, as he had developed many of the other homes in the Twelve Oaks Plat. She said it was typically of a Carver home, as in a Frank Lloyd Wright home, to have glass from floor to ceiling. She said she felt that the developer's comments to them that they would not put any barrier in place between the development and their properties unless there was a "problem," was not reasonable. She noted that the developer's representatives were somewhat harsh in their comments to the neighbors. She said, when she asked why they did not develop their own trails on their property to avoid any conflict, the developer's representative said they could not do it because of ADA requirements.

Mr. Tom Ellor introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He said he was not sure why the property had been rezoned in 1995 and said he would be interested in knowing the reasoning behind it. He went on to say that the designation of his property as Rural Residential was somewhat meaningless if someone could build a residential development for 400 people in his back yard. He said that the proposed development, being 35 feet away from his property, would cause a significant impact on him and his family. He said light pollution and noise would negatively impact them. He also explained to the Commission members that, by the developer's opening up of the property, it would likely cause additional trees on their property to be lost. He said when an area of forest is opened up that trees are often brought down by wind due to the change in the environment.

Mr. Ellor said he was most concerned about the possibility and potential of crime and trespass. He said he asked the developer what incidence of criminal activity they had at their other developments, and he was quite concerned that the representatives for Edward Rose said that they did not know.

Mr. Ward Squires introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He said he was the President of the Twelve Oaks Homeowners Association. He said he did not believe there was any thought behind the proposed design to accommodate the residents' concerns about keeping the development's residents off the Twelve Oaks' property. He said that there were extensive trails, and while he understood that Twelve Oaks had to relocate one of their trails to the north, he was concerned that there needed to be some separation between the properties. He said that the developer's proposal of putting up a sign or providing notice through the mail to their residents was insufficient. He thought that some type of landscaping would go a long ways toward alleviating the problem.

Mr. Tom Kilborne introduced himself to the Planning Commission, and he said he had only been moved to Twelve Oaks about two weeks ago when he heard about the proposed development. He said he was not sure why they called the development "Tall Oaks" since it looked to him that they would have to clear cut everything in order to build the proposed development. He said that there were two primary trails, one north and south and one east and west just off the northern boundary of the property. He said he thought there should be some type of buffer installed between the two properties to address the neighbors' concerns.

Mr. Neil Sikora introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He said that he had recently entered into a purchase agreement for the parcel located on the northeast boundary of Twelve Oaks, immediately abutting the development. He said he thought that he and his family would be the most affected by the development. He thought a very heavy screen or berm or some type of natural fencing should be installed in order to create a division between the two properties. He said he was not only concerned about people entering his property, but he was also concerned that people from Twelve Oaks not encroach on their neighbors to the north. He asked that the Planning Commission take the neighbors' concerns into account when they reviewed the final proposal. He also hoped that the developer would take the residents' comments into account when they revise their conceptual plan.

The Chairman thanked the public for their comments and asked the Commission members to provide their comments to the Applicant.

Ms. Everett asked what the measurement was from the property line to the south side of the garages. Mr. Hall said it was approximately 50 feet. Ms. Stefforia said that the 35 feet previously mentioned was the landscape buffer that had to be installed.

Ms. Everett asked about the location of the houses on the Twelve Oaks' property abutting the proposed development for the Planning Commission's consideration. Mr. Ellor commented from the audience that he could stand on the border of the property and still see his home.

Mr. Larson told the developer that he would like to see walkways or trailways developed on the property, particularly to the west. Mr. Hall said he was concerned that would be nearly impossible because of ADA requirements. He also said that would likely require the cutting of more trees, which he said would be counter-productive.

Mr. Larson asked if the applicant had considered a fence along the border with Twelve Oaks. Mr. Hall said they had discussed the possibilities, but felt that they would not put a fence in unless there were problems. He said that they could install a berm, but that would likely kill existing vegetation and trees. He said they had discussed the possibility of sharing in the cost of a fence with Mr. Carver, and that they had not necessarily ruled that out. He said, at the present time, they did not feel that they had any good solution.

Mr. Larson asked about the difference in elevation between the roads and the properties to the south. A brief discussion ensued, and it was indicated that the parking area would be higher than the property to the south. Mr. Larson said that perhaps barriers could be installed to avoid vehicular headlights shining on the property to the south.

Mr. Larson then told the applicant that he would like to see some definitive boundary for protection of the property owners to the south. He said he thought that was very reasonable. He also said he thought they should review the topography of the area and see whether they could install a trail within the confines of the property and still meet ADA requirements. He said he was also concerned about the elevation of the property in relationship to the property to the south. He suggested the applicant should address vehicular headlights with some type of retaining wall or berm to avoid headlights shining on the property to the south.

The Chairman told the applicant that they had heard about the concerns of the neighbors and that he would certainly encourage that they continue to discuss the proposed development with their neighbors. For his purposes, he thought that the plan needed to address the issues of privacy, pedestrian movement, and he thought there needed to be some definitive boundary between the two properties.

Mr. Schley said he thought that they clearly needed to develop a major solution for the property line and address that before returning with a final proposed plan.

Ms. Bugge asked if they could address the proposed tower. Mr. Urbanski said that Edward Rose Properties supplied their own cable television and that is why they wanted to build the proposed tower. He pointed out the proposed location on the southeast corner of the property, and he said the tower would be approximately 100 feet tall and extend over the trees. Ms. Bugge asked why they could not explore co-locating on the adjacent tower. Mr. Urbanski said that, because of the problems with cross-easements and signal interference, he did not believe that was possible.

The Chairman asked if was clear to the applicant what they needed to do to revise their conceptual plan. Mr. Hall indicated that it was.

Other Business

There was no "other business" to come before the Planning Commission.

Planning Commissioner Comments

There were no Planning Commissioner Comments.

Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting at approximately 9:05 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION

By:

Kathleen Garland-Rike, Secretary

Minutes prepared:
May 5, 2005

Minutes approved:
, 2005