OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

February 22, 2001

Agenda

EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - PUD - WEST SIDE OF SOUTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NUMBERS 3905-35-185-020, 35-305-010 AND 35-330-011)

MC DONALD'S - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST MAIN AND 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-14-155-026 AND 14-155-062)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, February 22, 2001, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Neil Sikora, Chairperson
James Turcott
Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell
Deborah Everett
Ted Corakis

MEMBER ABSENT: Kathleen Garland-Rike
Stanley Rakowski

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

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

AGENDA

Mr. Corakis moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, and Ms. Heiny-Cogswell seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

MINUTES

The Planning Commission considered the minutes of the meeting of February 8, 2001. Ms. Everett moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Corakis seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

EDWARD ROSE PROPERTIES - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - PUD - WEST SIDE OF SOUTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NUMBERS 3905-35-185-020, 35-305-010 AND 35-330-011)

The Planning Commission considered special exception use/site plan approval for a proposed mixed use planned unit development. The proposed 30-acre PUD would consist of a 210-unit apartment complex on 27 acres and a commercial component on three acres. The subject property is on the west side of South 9th Street, south of Flesher Field, and consists of Parcel Numbers 3905-35-185-020, 35-305-010 and 35-330-011. The property is located in the "R-4" Residence District zoning classification.

Mr. Corakis indicated that he would abstain with regard to the item in that he owns property bordering the subject site.

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

Ms. Stefforia reminded the Planning Commission that it had conducted a conceptual plan review of this project in December of 2000. The applicant is proposing use of the planned unit development provisions of Section 60.400 to develop a multi-family and limited commercial land use project as a special exception use. Ms. Stefforia reminded the Planning Commission that the conceptual plan review had been for 204 units, and the plan now calls for 210 multi-family units on the 27 acres. The subject property involves three separate parcels. The parcels would be combined. However, a six-acre portion of the northernmost parcel would not be part of the 30-acre PUD.

Ms. Stefforia suggested that the Planning Commission and applicant discuss the proposed commercial area and whether any conditions should be imposed upon the commercial uses to insure their compatibility. She noted that the easement for the private boulevard was shown only at 60 feet in width. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the easement would need to be 66 feet wide.

There was discussion of natural features and screening. During conceptual plan review, the Planning Commission suggested that the plan indicate existing natural features and proposed screening. Pursuant to the new landscaping requirements of the Ordinance, a Type F greenspace would be required along the property lines abutting the "AG" Agricultural-Rural District zoning classification. Credit would be provided for preserved trees. It was noted that a plan which indicates the boundaries of the earth change activities that will take place on the property must be provided. This would allow the Township Staff to determine to what extent plantings along the perimeter would remain undisturbed.

The proposed PUD would involve four deviations from Zoning Ordinance provisions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 60.540, the permitted density for the project is computed separately for that part of the development that is within 200 feet of "AG" zoned property. For that area, density would be limited to six dwelling units per acre. The density permitted for the balance of the site was eight dwelling units per acre. Therefore, for this property, 210 dwelling units would be permitted. The applicant was proposing overall density in keeping with the 210 units allowed, which units would be contained in eight buildings. However, placement of the buildings around the site would require a deviation in that the applicant would be exceeding the six dwelling units per acre in areas within 200 feet of the north and south property lines.

The applicant was also seeking a deviation from Section 64.750(a) which requires a 50-foot setback for buildings within the "R-4" District when abutting a higher district. The setback is increased by one foot for each foot in height in excess of 25 feet. Ms. Stefforia noted that Building 1 is 37.5 feet tall, and is therefore required to be 62.5 feet from the north property line. Building 1 as well as the storage building and garages were 50 feet from that property line.

As to access, the site would be served by only one access point. One access point is consistent with the Access Management Guidelines. However, Section 24.200(d) requires multi-family developments to be served by two access points.

As to parking, the applicant sought a deviation, noting that the project involves 137 one-bedroom apartments and 73 two-bedroom apartments. Therefore, 525 parking spaces would be required. A total of 485 parking spaces was proposed. However, Township Staff counted 492 spaces on the plan. There were areas on the plan which could be used for future parking, and therefore, 68 additional spaces could be established in the future if needed. The Township Staff was comfortable with allowing deferred parking at this time.

David Rice of Edward Rose Properties and Jim Hall, landscape architect, were present on behalf of the applicant. David Rice indicated that Jerry Speedy, a vice president of Edward Rose, was also present.

Mr. Rice referenced a summary of facts handout, which had been submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Rice reviewed a history of Edward Rose activities in the area since 1963. Mr. Rice discussed the 210 units, noting the range of apartment size and providing a description. He indicated that the construction period for the project would be approximately two years. The commercial portion of the site would be developed at a later time.

Mr. Rice discussed the adjoining land uses, i.e., to the north, Flesher Field; to the northwest, the AT&T right-of-way; to the west, agricultural zoning; to the south, the Twelve Oaks Subdivision development; and to the southwest, industrial zoning. He noted that there was "R-3" zoning along 9th Street to the south. The subject property had been rezoned to the "R-4" District in 1995. Mr. Rice indicated that the project would be a traditional multi-family development and not subsidized.

Ms. Stefforia had questions with regard to a marking on the plan in the middle of the site. Mr. Hall noted that this marking denoted a retaining wall constructed around an area of existing trees. This wall would allow for retention of the trees on the site. Mr. Hall stated that the landscaping plan would more clearly show existing natural features, i.e., those which could be saved.

Mr. Hall noted that, since conceptual plan review, the applicant had added six units. Moreover, the garages and storage buildings had been moved away from the north property line. The building had been left in position, 50 feet from the property line as proposed previously. It was felt by the applicant that this would have no impact on the property to the north and would allow conservation of open space and existing trees.

Additionally, a leeching pond had been eliminated to preserve some natural features. Parking proposed at the site had been reduced.

Mr. Hall stated that the ponds were "stacked" in order to hold water. However, they would be used as part of the stormwater retention system. Mr. Hall noted that the open space had been moved to the west, and he recognized the need to link the open space to the residential areas. He suggested that perhaps steps on the south and/or north side could be used as a link.

In response to questions from the Chairperson, Mr. Hall stated that the areas represented in green on the site plan would include those areas in which existing vegetation would be saved. In addition, the applicant would augment with additional landscaping.

The applicant indicated a willingness to increase the right-of-way/easement width to 66 feet.

There was a discussion of the uses proposed for the open space area. The applicant suggested a walking trail, benches and a lookout. The Chairperson suggested connection to this open space with a ramp and not just steps.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and Dale Patterson asked the Planning Commission to consider the impact of 200 units on the schools and on Flesher Field. He was also concerned about the access point and whether traffic would be impacted.

Joe Mills, a Twelve Oaks resident, recognized that the property was already zoned to "R-4". However, he felt that the disruptive effect of the development should be minimized. He was concerned about the traffic impact and wanted the Planning Commission to consider preservation of the woods. He was also concerned about the proposed lighting and potential glare into the Twelve Oaks Subdivision.

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

The Chairperson made reference to Section 60.400 and the purposes of a PUD. He noted that PUD's are allowed as a special use in the "R-4" District and that this property is already zoned "R-4".

The Planning Commission considered whether the criteria of Section 60.450 were met. The Planning Commission discussed whether the overall design and land uses proposed in connection with the PUD would be consistent with the intent of the PUD concept and the standards set forth therein. The Planning Commissioners concluded that these criteria had been met, in that the applicant was apparently seeking to preserve many of the natural features and the existing landscaping as designed.

Planning Commissioners concluded that, since the proposed planned unit development would be served by public water and sewer, it met the second criteria and insured public health, safety and welfare of residents and users of the development.

The Planning Commission discussed whether the proposed PUD would be designed to minimize the impact of traffic generated on the surrounding land uses and the road network. It was recognized that the multi-family portion of the site and the commercial portion would share access along with the commercial site to the north. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that she felt that this single access point was designed to minimize traffic impact and was satisfied with the street as proposed as long as the Fire Department had no concerns regarding emergency access. The Chairperson and other Planning Commissioners agreed. It was felt that it did not make any sense to have additional access points, given the adjacent land uses. Further, the fact that it was consistent with the Access Management Guidelines requirement of one access point was considered.

There was discussion of whether the proposed PUD was designed to be in character with the surrounding conditions. There was discussion of the placement of Building 1, 50 feet from the north line, and whether there should be a deviation from the supplemental setback. The Chairperson questioned the applicant as to why this building could not be moved farther from the north line. Mr. Hall responded that the building could be moved to be in keeping with the supplemental setback. However, moving the building to the south would require moving the parking lot further south, and thereby eliminate a row of existing trees. The applicant had preferred to preserve green space in the area and to have that green space divide the parking lot from the interior road network.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that, given the goal of preserving the existing trees, she felt that the deviation would be warranted. Ms. Everett agreed, noting particularly that the area to the north was heavily wooded, and that this would provide a buffer.

Planning Commissioners agreed that there would be a need for better access to the open space, and Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that she felt there should be a pedestrian walkway connecting the open space to the remainder of the site and to adjacent property. The Chairperson agreed, noting that there could be a connection to the AT&T right-of-way.

The Planning Commission continued a discussion of whether the proposed PUD would be designed and constructed so as to preserve the integrity of the existing on and off site sensitive and natural environments. Again, the goal of preserving natural features was discussed.

It was noted that the open space would be functional and preserve the "natural" screening. The trails would be made with wood chips, and the only structures would be benches.

The need to comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulations was recognized.

The criteria of Section 60.470 D were reviewed. Specifically, the documentation relating to the open space and to the establishment of the proposed condominium was discussed. The Township Attorney indicated that this project could be approved subject to the review and approval of this documentation by Township Staff and Township Attorney in the future.

Jerry Speedy spoke on behalf of the applicant, stating that the project would not necessarily be developed as a condominium. It was recognized that if the project was not developed as a condominium, the applicant would need to provide for the preservation in perpetuity of the open space. It was recognized that however developed, the commercial portion of the site would need to come back for an amendment of the special use permit and site plan approval when a particular use and layout had been determined.

The Planning Commission reviewed Section 60.100. As to whether the project would be compatible with other uses permitted in the "R-4" District, Planning Commissioners recognized that the 210 dwelling units on 27 acres would be consistent with the "R-4" District and its density provisions of up to eight dwelling units per acre. It was recognized that the nonresidential portion could not be built or established prior to completion of construction of 60 percent of the dwelling units in the PUD. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell commented that she felt that the proposed use would be compatible, given adjacent uses and the design of the site.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed project would be detrimental or injurious to use or development of adjacent properties. The Chairperson recognized that the adjacent property to the north and west is public and semi-public land. The areas are wooded. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell discussed the placement of Building 5, which is the closest building to the south property line. To the south were parcels located in the Twelve Oaks neighborhood. Building 5 is about 100 feet from the south property line. Building 4 was approximately 63 feet from the line, meeting the supplemental setback requirement. In the opinion of Planning Commissioners, the setbacks were sufficient so as to have no detrimental impact on the adjacent neighborhood.

The Planning Commission discussed whether the proposed use would promote the public health, safety and welfare. It was recognized that public water and sewer would serve the project. Further, the proposed use was consistent with the PUD provisions, and the stormwater management system would be handled on site using naturally low areas.

The Planning Commission considered whether the PUD would encourage use of the land in accord with its character and adaptability. The Chairperson stated that, in his opinion, the applicant was maintaining the character of the area given the design which was intended to preserve many of the natural features at the site. The Planning Commission recognized that the designated open space should be set aside through an irrevocable conveyance approved by the Planning Commission and be protected from all forms of development except as shown and approved on the site plan. Further, there was a discussion of whether the nonresidential area of the PUD would be consistent with the standards set by the Planning Commission and the Ordinance. It was felt it would be appropriate to condition approval on the requirement that any future commercial use require amendment of the special exception use permit and site plan review. The applicant indicated that this would be acceptable.

The Planning Commission considered that criteria of Section 82.800.

As to access, it was noted that no site within the PUD would have direct access to 9th Street. The ingress/egress boulevard would serve up to four different land ownerships and be placed on a 66-foot easement. The ingress/egress would be used by the multi-family portion of the site, the commercial portion and the commercial site owned by Langeland to the north.

The applicant would not be phasing the multi-family development. The order of building was discussed. It was recognized that no grading plan had been submitted as yet. However, the applicant indicated intent to provide a grading and landscaping plan.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell commended the applicant on its efforts to preserve existing trees. The applicant indicated that the trees to be preserved would be roped off with surveying ribbon. Ms. Stefforia suggested that the applicant add notes to its construction plan indicating no storage of equipment or materials in preserved areas.

It was noted for the applicant that, if the parcel were kept as one site, it would be allowed only one sign. If the site was site condominiumized, each unit would be entitled to a sign under the Ordinance.

The Planning Commission discussed the deviations being requested. As to density, Planning Commissioners concluded that deviation would be appropriate and that the overall density of the site met the limitations of the Ordinance. The placement of buildings in the northern and southern areas would be appropriate to preserve existing on-site features and vegetation. It was recognized that, if the area to be used for a nonresidential or commercial use were developed as "R-4", 22 or more additional multi-family units could be established.

Planning Commissioners also agreed that setback deviation would be appropriate in order to preserve natural features at the site. Planning Commissioners were satisfied with one access point, given that the proposed access would meet Access Management Guidelines. As to parking, deviation would be appropriate in that there would sufficient parking deferred if a parking problem at the site were to arise. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell commented that she was satisfied, given that the majority of the units would be one bedroom. Further, deferring parking would allow the preservation of open space. It was recognized that 1.6 spaces per bedroom is more than needed according to the census data submitted by the applicant.

It was recognized that the Township Fire Department had reviewed the development layout and found it acceptable.

There was discussion of the stormwater management system. The applicant indicated that runoff from the parking lot would go into a manhole system established in the parking lot which would clear out the solids through use of sump pump and splash guards in the pipe. Further, the retention ponds would be aerated. The ponds would be treated for algae if necessary.

There was discussion of the concern regarding light spillover into the Twelve Oaks Subdivision. Planning Commissioners concluded that, since the south border is preserved with existing trees, lighting would not be a problem. The applicant stated also that lighting would be directed and shielded pursuant to the Ordinance.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell moved to approve the special exception use permit based on the discussion of the Planning Commission, concluding that the PUD criteria of Sections 60.450 and 60.470, as well as the special exception use criteria of Section 60.100 had been met. The motion was conditioned upon the following:

(1) That 60 percent of the residential portion of the PUD be completed prior to commencement of the development of the nonresidential use at the site.

(2) That the designated open space be set aside for use only as indicated on the approved site plan by irrevocable conveyance such as land trust or other method and reviewed and approved by Township Staff and Township Attorney.

(3) That the private boulevard be placed within a 66-foot wide easement and that the access for all portions of the subject site to 9th Street by way of this boulevard; no direct access was allowed. The easement would be executed and recorded allowing all portions of the subject site to utilize the private boulevard as well as the "Langeland" site immediately adjacent to the north.

(4) That all legal documentation including the easement, Master Deed and Bylaws (if any), land trust or other open space preservation vehicle be reviewed and approved by the Township Staff and Township Attorney.

(5) That natural features be preserved as indicated upon the plan and that a note be placed on the plan indicating that no storage of materials or equipment take place in preserved areas. Further, that the preserved areas be roped off so as to prevent damage during construction.

(6) That the future development of the "commercial" portion of the site would not take place without amendment of the special use permit and site plan review.

Ms. Everett seconded the motion. There was no public comment on the motion, and upon a vote, the motion carried with four members voting in favor and one abstention by Mr. Corakis.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell moved to approve the site plan of the subject site with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That access to the development be provided through a private boulevard located on a 66-foot easement. There would be no direct access for any site within the PUD to 9th Street. Access would be via the private boulevard. The easement would be executed and recorded and on file with the Township and allow all portions of the PUD to utilize the easement as well as the "Langeland" property to the north.

(2) That no phasing of the multi-family portion of the site had been proposed; a time table of approximately two years was approved.

(3) That the landscaping plan indicates the preservation of hundreds of trees along the south, north and west property lines. A grading plan that accurately depicts the extent of earth changes in those areas must be provided for Township Staff review and approval.

(4) That landscaping must be installed consistent with the plan as submitted.

(5) That a sign permit must be obtained before any signage is placed on the subject property.

(6) That deviations from density, setback, access and parking standards as requested by the applicant are approved. The Township may require deferred parking to be established if Township Staff finds that a parking problem exists at the subject site.

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

(8) That approval is subject to the review of the Township Engineer and a finding that stormwater management meets Township requirements.

(9) That all site lighting be provided consistent with Ordinance provisions.

(10) That the open spaces as proposed by the applicant be approved with a revision to make same more accessible to the remainder of the site, Flesher Field, and the AT&T right-of-way.

(11) That all three parcels be combined into one, with the exception of the six-acre portion identified as the "Langeland" parcel.

Mr. Turcott seconded the motion. There was no public comment on the motion, and upon a vote, the motion carried with four members voting in favor of the motion and one abstention.

MC DONALD'S - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST MAIN AND 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-14-155-026 AND 14-155-062)

The Planning Commission considered the application of Gene Oberlander on behalf of McDonald's Corporation for special exception use and site plan review of a proposed 2,845 square foot restaurant, to be located on the northwest corner of West Main Street and 9th Street. The subject property is located on the "C" Local Business District and is part of Parcel Nos. 3905-14-155-026 and 14-155-062.

The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. Ms. Bugge stated that the applicant's request would allow for a quick-serve restaurant with a drive-through window. Section 30.407 establishes drive-through services as a special use in the "C" District. The project would be located on an outparcel south of the Menards store. This site is at 6820 West Main Street. Access to the site would be from a service drive used by Menards and the other outparcels. There would be no direct access to M-43.

The proposed public entrance to the building would face the Menards parking lot to facilitate site circulation and the drive-through windows. There was discussion of the proposed dumpster location and the likelihood that access would be through certain parking spaces. The applicant suggested that the dumpster would be accessed in off-hours and the parking spaces would be used for staff who could move cars in order to allow trucks to access the dumpster area.

Ms. Bugge discussed the proposed lighting plan of the site. The applicant suggested 17 lighted "translucent cap roof beams" to be located on the mansard roof. It was recognized that Section 78.720(c) provides that building-mounted lighting fixtures not exceed a 15-foot mounting height. Since these fixtures would extend to nearly 17 feet in height, the applicant would need to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variance.

The applicant had proposed one free-standing sign and three wall signs along with two directional signs and a window sign. Additionally, a menu board, speaker and pre-sell board are proposed in the drive-through lane. Ms. Bugge stated some screening of the signage or positioning alterations should be made in order to prevent the "readability" of these signs from off-site and thus render them incidental signs.

Further, there were questions with regard to the site engineering and the adequacy of the Menards retention pond for use in the discharge of stormwater from the subject site. If the Menards pond were to be utilized, an easement for discharge would be necessary.

June Machala and Gene Oberlander were present on behalf of the applicant.

Ms. Machala discussed parking at the site, noting that two spaces did not conform to the size requirement of 10 by 20 feet. These spaces would be revised to conform to Ordinance standards. Thirty-eight spaces were required at the site, and 43 had been provided.

Ms. Machala noted that setbacks would meet Ordinance requirements. The applicant would make sure that the overhang would comply with setback standards. She stated that the lighting plan was being revised to show building lights, parking lot lights and fixture details. She stated that signage would conform with Ordinance requirements.

The landscaping plan had been completed, but some minor changes were necessary.

The applicant would be seeking a variance with regard to the roof beams. She felt that the lighted roof beams were part of the roof and that McDonalds would lose its identity without these beams. Mr. Oberlander stated that the roof beams cast a glow but are not directly glaring. It was noted that the beams do not go over the top of the roof, but would be on all four sides.

Ms. Bugge stated that she had inspected other McDonalds sites and that some roof beams were not lighted all the way to the top of the building roof.

There was discussion of the parking spaces adjacent to the dumpster. Ms. Stefforia was concerned about the interference with these spaces due to the placement of the dumpster. Tim Timmons noted that McDonalds would have a cross parking agreement with Menards. Ms. Stefforia suggested, therefore, that the spaces in front of the dumpster be eliminated.

Mr. Oberlander suggested that the dumpster be moved to the other side of the site.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and Sue Ellsman of Wild Birds Unlimited spoke, stating that the Menards construction project had caused a lot of dust. She felt that this was inconvenient and uncomfortable for the neighbors of the site. She was hoping that construction on this site would be conducted in a manner so as to not cause so much dust on her site. Further, she was concerned about the water run-off from the Menards site to her property. She did not feel that the Menards ponds would be able to handle the run-off from the subject site. Ms. Stefforia stated that the Township Engineer had observed problems with the site drainage at the Menards property and was contacting the excavator of the Menards site regarding the problem.

The Chairperson reported that a member of the public, who had attended the meeting but who had exited, had expressed concern about littering at the site.

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

The Chairperson made reference to Section 60.100 of the Ordinance and considered whether the proposed use was compatible with other uses expressly permitted in the District. Planning Commissioners felt that the proposed use would be compatible, particularly given other adjacent uses in the area, many of which involved outdoor display and sales activities.

Planning Commissioners considered whether the proposed use would be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or the general public. Again, adjacent land uses were referenced in the Planning Commission's conclusion that the use would not be detrimental.

The Planning Commission considered whether the public health, safety and welfare would be served by the proposed use. It was recognized that there would be no direct access from the site to West Main. The site would share access with the drives serving Menards and the other outparcels. However, Mr. Corakis expressed concern about the West Main easterly access point for the Menards site. He urged that the driveway design be altered.

It was recognized that the site would be served by public water and sewer. Further, there was recognition that the stormwater would need to be handled by the Menards retention pond. The Township Engineer would need to determine the adequacy of the retention pond, and an easement document would need to be submitted.

The hours of operation were addressed, and the applicant indicated that they would be 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. As to the translucent cap roof, Ms. Everett stated that she had no problem with that proposed roof design if in conformance with the Ordinance, given the character of the area. It was recognized that the lighting would be turned off when the store was closed. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell expressed concern about visual clutter in the area in question. Mr. Corakis stated that he had no problem with the proposed cap roof beams, since they would not be glaring.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use would encourage use of the land in accord with its character and adaptability. It was recognized that the site had been zoned in the "C" Commercial District for an extended period of time. It was felt that the proposed use would be in character with the area, given the adjacent land uses.

Reference was made to the site plan review criteria of Section 82.800. There was specific discussion on the dumpster arrangement, with the Planning Commission expressing a preference that the gates for the dumpster face to the north. It was believed that the specific dumpster location and layout could be left to staff review and approval.

Mr. Corakis moved to approve the special exception use, finding that the criteria of Section 60.100 had been met pursuant to discussion of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Turcott. There was no public comment on the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

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

(1) That access to the site is through a shared drive serving Menards and the other outparcels. No direct access is approved to either the east driveway or West Main Street.

(2) That all parking spaces must be dimensioned at 10 feet by 20 feet, and the proposed stacking space for ten cars awaiting drive-through service is approved.

(3) That all building setbacks, including overhangs, must comply with the requirements of Section 64.000.

(4) That approval is subject to the submission of a site lighting plan and details of all outside fixtures for Township Staff review and approval. Lighting must comply with Section 78.700 or a variance must be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

(5) That approval is subject to the submission of sign details for review and approval through the permit process. All signage must comply with Section 76.000.

(6) The dumpster location is subject to the review and approval of the Township Staff.

(7) Approval is subject to the review and approval by the Township Staff of a landscaping plan. All landscaping must comply with Section 75.000.

(8) The approval is subject to the review and approval and conditions imposed by the Township Fire Department.

(9) Approval is subject to the review and the finding of the Township Engineer that site engineering is adequate and the submission of an executed and recorded drainage easement.

(10) The applicant must submit proof of ownership of the subject site.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Everett, and it carried unanimously.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

Ms. Everett stated that she, along with Jim Turcott, Supervisor VanDyke, Kathleen Garland-Rike and Nancy Culp had attended Planning and Zoning Training, which she considered very informative and valuable. She complimented the Planning Department Staff on its excellence.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION

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