OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

July 11, 2002

Agenda

DEFINITION OF FAMILY - TEXT AMENDMENT - DRAFT #1

OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS - TEXT AMENDMENT - DRAFT 1

DISCUSSION OUTLINE - TEXT AMENDMENT - TIME/TEMPERATURE ELEMENTS

DISCUSSION OUTLINE - TEXT AMENDMENT - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, July 11, 2002, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

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

MEMBER ABSENT: Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell

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

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 7:04 p.m.

AGENDA

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

MINUTES

The Planning Commission considered the minutes of the meeting of June 27, 2002. Ms. Everett moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Mr. Turcott seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

DEFINITION OF FAMILY - TEXT AMENDMENT - DRAFT #1

The Planning Commission considered the first draft of a proposed text amendment to define "family" and related amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Master Land Use Plan. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. The Board discussed the proposed addition to the definition section, i.e., Section 11.302 to define "family".

Ms. Bugge directed the Planning Commission's attention to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. One of these Alternatives would define "family"as subpart (a). Additionally, the term "functional family" would be defined in subpart (b). Planning Commissioners agreed that Alternative 2 was preferable in that it would define the category of those persons who would be considered part of the family.

After further discussion, it was agreed that "family" would be defined in subpart (a) to mean "up to two related or unrelated persons; where more than two persons reside in a dwelling unit, persons classified constituting a Family shall be limited to husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, aunt, uncle, stepchildren, legally-adopted children, foster children, legal wards, or any combination of the above persons living together in a single dwelling unit. Anyone seeking the rights and privileges afforded a member of a Family by this Ordinance shall have the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence of their family relationship.

The Board next discussed the definition of "Functional Family". It was agreed that the paragraph which identified those groups which would be excluded from the definition of "Functional Family" should be altered in its format to list each category by number.

There was some discussion as to whether the definition of "Family" should be altered to allow up to three unrelated people. The Chairperson felt strongly that this should be limited to two unrelated persons. He noted an example in his own neighborhood which he felt changed its character as a single-family home neighborhood. As to "Functional Family", Planning Commissioners agreed that religious orders should be considered a "Functional Family". It was further agreed, pursuant to the suggestion of the Township Attorney, that a provision be added to Section 66 of the Ordinance limiting use of a dwelling unit to one family or one functional family.

There was consideration of the definition of the term "roomer", and whether a roomer would be allowed in addition to the family. Planning Commissioners agreed that this would be discussed at the next meeting. However, the proposed definition of the term "roomer" was amended to indicate any person who occupies a portion of a dwelling of another in exchange for consideration.

It was agreed that Ms. Bugge would create Draft 2 and bring the item to a future meeting.

OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS - TEXT AMENDMENT - DRAFT 1

The Planning Commission considered the first draft of proposed amendments to the Open Space Community provisions consistent with recent legislation adopted by the State of Michigan. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia noted that the Michigan Legislature had approved, and the Governor had signed, Act No. 177 which required that an open space preservation development be allowed as a permitted use in qualified townships. Oshtemo Charter Township is one such Township affected by the new legislation. She pointed out that the Township's Ordinance must be amended to reflect the new law by December 15, 2002. The primary provisions of an open space preservation development, as required by the Legislature, were that 50% of the gross acreage must be set aside and that the use must be permitted rather than a special exception use. She reminded the Planning Commission that the Township has an open space community option in its Zoning Ordinance which requires 40% open space as a special exception use.

Planning Commissioners and the Township Attorney agreed that Ms. Stefforia's suggestion that current Ordinance provisions be retained and that a new section, Section 51.000, be added to comply with the legislative mandate. This would allow for an open space preservation residential development option as a permitted use if 50% of the gross area were set aside as open space, and would allow a developer to pursue, as a special exception use, the open space community where only 40% was required.

Mr. Ahrens had questions regarding the proposed Section 51.200, subparts D and I.

Ms. Stefforia indicated that she would draft some minor changes to the current open space community provisions and bring the open space community revisions, as well as the new open space preservation residential development option, to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. It was noted that she was seeking to have a public hearing on these sections in September.

DISCUSSION OUTLINE - TEXT AMENDMENT - TIME/TEMPERATURE ELEMENTS

The outline presented by the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of adding provisions within its sign regulations to allow for a changeable copy sign which would display current time and/or temperature.

Mr. Rakowski expressed concern that the time/temperature changeable copy sign would be opening the door to "flashing" signs. Ms. Garland-Rike was concerned about traffic safety. Ms. Bugge agreed, stating that flashing time and temperature might be used by businesses to draw attention to the site. Ms. Stefforia suggested a change to the proposed language to provide that such signage could only display time and temperature.

Mr. Sikora suggested that there be some provision to address the maximum brightness of such signs.

In response to questions from Mr. Rakowski, Ms. Stefforia stated that such signage would be limited to 25% of the site's permitted freestanding sign.

Ms. Stefforia stated that she would draft proposed language and bring the item to the Planning Commission in August.

DISCUSSION OUTLINE - TEXT AMENDMENT - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS

The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of providing regulations as to size and uses of accessory buildings. Ms. Stefforia reminded the Planning Commission that there had been sentiment at the joint meeting with the Township Board that additional regulation was needed to avoid having such buildings misused for non-residential purposes.

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

There was discussion of the proposed height limit, with Mr. Rakowski expressing concern that the 14-foot height proposed would not allow for a pole building which would accommodate a recreational vehicle. Mr. Rakowski and Mr. Ahrens agreed that a height of at least 20 feet was needed to accommodate an RV. There was a discussion about the possibility of allowing 20 feet on a lot or building site and 25 in height on a parcel.

Ms. Stefforia stated that she would draft revisions to the proposed language and bring the item back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting.

OTHER BUSINESS

There was a discussion of the special meeting of July 18, the regular meeting of July 25 and the joint meeting with the Township Board on July 30.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

There was a discussion of the need for the Township to proceed with a sidewalk ordinance.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION

By:
Stanley Rakowski, Secretary

Minutes prepared:
July 15, 2002

Minutes approved:
, 2002