OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

October 24, 2002

Agenda

UNIVERSITY BOOKSTORE - WARNER - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - INDUSTRIAL-OFFICE DEVELOPMENT - 4155 SOUTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-35-405-031)

CHIANG - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - USED CAR SALES LOT - 8419 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-405-030)

BETZLER FUNERAL HOME - EXPANSION -SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - 6080 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-26-440-026 AND 3905-26-440-033)

DOUGLAS TREE FARM - CHRISTMAS TREE SALES - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - MAPLE HILL MALL - 5030 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-280-050)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, October 24, 2002, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

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

MEMBER ABSENT: James Turcott

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director; Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; Robert C. Engels, Township Attorney; and nine other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

AGENDA

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

MINUTES

The Planning Commission considered the minutes of the meeting of October 10, 2002. Ms. Garland-Rike suggested a change to page 2 to correct a typographical error.

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

UNIVERSITY BOOKSTORE - WARNER - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - INDUSTRIAL-OFFICE DEVELOPMENT - 4155 SOUTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-35-405-031)

The Planning Commission conducted a special exception use and site plan review of a proposed expansion to the existing University Bookstore warehouse to include a retail element under the Industrial-Office Development provisions of Section 40.301. The subject property is located at 4155 South 9th Street within the "I-R" Industrial District, Restricted and is Parcel No. 3905-35-405-031.

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

Ms. Stefforia stated that the applicant owns two bookstores that serve the students of Western Michigan University and Kalamazoo Valley Community College. The applicant's Oshtemo Charter Township 9th Street facility is used for warehousing and corporate office purposes to serve both stores. The applicant would like to expand the Oshtemo Charter Township facility by increasing the warehouse space and relocating the KVCC bookstore to the site. The existing KVCC bookstore in Texas Township would be closed.

The site predates the 9th Street expansion and the creation of the "I-R" Industrial District, Restricted zone. The property had previously been zoned "I-1" Industrial District. The existing building is grandfathered as to the front setback, and because the proposed addition is in-line with the existing building, a variance is necessary and was obtained at the last meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Retail is not a permitted use in the "I-R" Industrial District, Restricted zone, but Industrial-Office development provisions of Section 40.301(a)4 allow secondary uses complementary to the permitted uses, including retail.

The applicant is seeking Planning Commission review and approval of a proposed Industrial-Office development on the subject property that would involve an expansion to the building size and use, including the addition of a retail store.

Section 40.301 identifies provisions that must be satisfied for a "I-R" Industrial District, Restricted parcel to be considered for approval as an Industrial-Office development. Industrial-Office developments are a special exception use in the "I-R" District.

Ms. Stefforia reminded the Planning Commission that, at the September 26, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project would warrant consideration under the Industrial-Office development criteria. The building presently is 3,200 square feet with a proposed 2,680 square foot addition for warehouse purposes along with conversion of 1,250 square feet of the existing building for the bookstore. The bookstore would encompass approximately 21% of the total floor area of the building.

Ms. Stefforia then reviewed the proposal in the context of Section 40.301. She stated that Industrial-Office developments are designed to accommodate a variety of light industrial, applied technology, research and related offices uses within a subdivision setting. The provision is not intended to exclude the development of individual sites held by a single entity, provided all regulations contained in Section 40.301 are satisfied. Industrial-Office developments are permitted for any permitted use within the "I-R" District as are secondary uses complimentary complementary to the permitted uses.

Ms. Stefforia then reviewed the Section 82 site plan review criteria. Regarding access, she stated that the existing driveway will continue to serve the facility and that no new driveways are proposed. There is adequate parking to accommodate the warehouse, office and store uses as provided on the site plan.

A setback variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at its meeting on October 21, 2002, to allow the addition to be in line with the existing building.

No outdoor storage is being requested or approved as part of the site plan.

A new freestanding sign is proposed near the driveway. Wall signs are shown on two elevations, and it must be noted that the Ordinance limits the building to one 50 square foot wall sign. The applicant could apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a deviation to allow two smaller wall signs.

Instant Interiors' warehouse operation is located to the north of this property, and to the south is a residence and V&V Lumber. A landscaping business and corporate office/warehouse facility is located across 9th Street.

Ms. Stefforia commented regarding landscaping by saying that a Type C greenspace is being provided along 9th Street, and the vegetation at the rear of the site will remain. She also stated that a narrow grass strip exists between the pavement and the southern property line where a six foot tall privacy fence exists adjacent to the residence. She requested that the Planning Commission consider if additional landscaping should be provided along this area, suggesting that perhaps a Type A greenspace be required for the first 100 feet due to the privacy fence. Because of the neighboring uses to the north and south, other than the residence, Ms. Stefforia stated that Township Staff would recommend that additional plantings not be required in those areas.

The Fire Department has reviewed the plans and finds them generally acceptable. She indicated that storm water will continue to be handled naturally without the creation of a retention pond. She indicated that, at one time, there was a storm water concern regarding the Instant Interiors' property, but Instant Interiors has constructed a berm so water trespass is no longer a concern. The Township Engineer will review the plans.

Ms. Stefforia then considered the Section 60.100 special exception use criteria. In determining if the proposed use was compatible with the other uses expressly permitted within the "I-R" Industrial District, Restricted, she pointed out that the use has been operating from the facility for decades, the addition of the bookstore is a secondary use, and the expanded building will encompass only 6.7% of the 1.85 acre parcel. She also stated that parking would not be closer to the street than the building, and that the frontage will be landscaped consistent with the Ordinance.

When determining if the proposed use would be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or to the general public, she commented that uses occurring on abutting properties are more intense than the applicant's proposed use.

Ms. Stefforia commented on, if the proposed use promotes the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the community by noting that the applicant has operated from this location for decades, although without the bookstore, and that no known violations exist at the site.

In considering if the proposed use encourages the use of the land in accordance with its character and adaptability, Ms. Stefforia noted that no new driveway is necessary, less than half of the site will be improved with the addition and parking expansion, and storm water will be managed on site. She also stated that additional plantings will be established along 9th Street which will be consistent with the Township's vision for the corridor.

The Chairperson asked if there had been any change in the site plan since the conceptual review, and Ms. Stefforia responded that there were some information items that had been added at her request. She also indicated that there was a question at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting regarding the canopy and whether that would be subject to the setback requirements, but it was determined from the minutes for the Applebees' hearings that canopies are not subject to setback requirements.

Charlie Etter and the applicant were both present. Mr. Etter stated that there were some changes to the site plan by way of providing additional information requested by Ms. Stefforia. He also stated that grading at the north property line had been re-worked when the addition was put on the adjacent parcel which is the Instant Interiors' property.

He stated that the bookstore business would be open no longer than the office is open, and during peak periods, there would be some evening and Saturday business, but none on Sunday.

Mr. Etter commented on the fencing on the side of the property by stating that it had been placed there when the owner had built on the property, and that the owner wished to leave that fencing in place. Mr. Etter stated that there were no complaints from neighbors regarding the fencing.

There was a question regarding handicap parking, and Ms. Stefforia stated that the Ordinance would have to be satisfied, and she pointed out a handicap space that was shown on the site plan. Mr. Etter stated that the handicap parking space was right outside the primary entrance.

Mr. Ahrens inquired about truck deliveries, with Mr. Warner responding that there were one or two a day during their busy periods, and that no deliveries were made after 5:00 p.m. Mr. Ahrens indicated that he was concerned because of the residence that was located adjacent to the property.

No public comments were offered, and the public hearing was closed.

The Chairperson briefly reviewed the Section 40.301 requirements. The Chairperson then reviewed Section 82 site plan review. He stated that, regarding the setback requirement, a variance had been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Ahrens inquired as to whether there had been any complaints about the property, and Ms. Stefforia stated that there had been none, which included none from the residents next door.

Mr. Rakowski stated that the applicant had originally been the one to put up the fence, and he felt that should be adequate.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell asked about the landscaping, and she believed that Type A was reasonable for the first 100 feet before the fence, and that the fence should be left in place.

Ms. Stefforia stated that the Fire Department wanted a 15-foot clearance, and she asked if Type A would be too much to allow for the 15-foot clearance. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell thought that should be satisfactory. Mr. Etter stated that there was concern about the distance and line of sight as it was a narrow area, and there was concern about people pulling in and out of the property.

Mr. Ahrens questioned how far the fence was from the road right-of-way. Ms. Stefforia indicated that it was 60 feet. Mr. Ahrens inquired as to the basis for the 100-foot figure, and Ms. Stefforia indicated that it was the front-to-rear of the property. Mr. Etter stated that there are evergreens located on the neighbor's property in that area. Mr. Warner stated that he was not certain that anything would grow in that small area. Ms. Bugge inquired as to how far back the fence went, and Mr. Warner indicated that it was to the back of the residential property line.

It was noted that there were few shrubs beyond the 20-foot line, and that it appeared that the fence had been put up by the owner of the residence. Ms. Stefforia stated that a condition of approval could be that, if the fence fell down, it must be replaced with landscaping or another fence.

The Chairperson then reviewed the Section 60.100 special exception use criteria. There were no Commissioner comments.

A motion was made by Mr. Ahrens to approve the special exception use pursuant to the discussion based on the Planning Department Staff Report. Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion. The Chairperson asked for public comment, and there was none. Upon a vote, the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Ahrens made the motion to approve the site plan review, and Ms. Everett seconded it, subject to the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That the existing driveway will continue to serve the facility.

(2) That any new site lighting established or changes to existing exterior lighting must comply with the requirements of Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

(3) That a sign permit must be obtained pursuant to Section 76.000 before any signs are placed upon the subject property.

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

(5) That site plan approval is subject to the applicant satisfying the storm water management provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and other requirements of the Township Engineer.

(6) That the existing fence on the property must be maintained, and if it is taken down, it must be re-erected or the area must be landscaped.

(7) That landscaping shall be established in compliance with the approved site plan before a certificate of occupancy is granted, or a performance guarantee consistent with Section 82.950 must be provided.

There was no public comment, and the motion carried unanimously.

CHIANG - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - USED CAR SALES LOT - 8419 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-405-030)

Next, the Planning Commission conducted a special exception use and site plan review of a proposed used car sales lot to be established at 8419 West Main Street. The subject property is located within the "C" Local Business District, and is Parcel No. 3905-16-405-030.

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

Ms. Stefforia stated that two parcels were being combined to make a buildable parcel. She traced the history of the property, indicating that it had been used for auto-related businesses. She also stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance to allow seven vehicles in the setback area. She also stated that the home on the adjacent property, which is going to be combined with this parcel, is occupied by the applicant's cousin.

Ms. Stefforia was questioned regarding the width of the drive from north to south, and if the rear of the property was to be used for public parking. Ms. Stefforia responded that the back would be used for customer and employee parking.

Ms. Stefforia responded in the affirmative to Mr. Rakowski's question, if a deviation would be needed to put the large pole sign back up on the property if they come down.

The applicant was present, and he stated that he had purchased the property in July, and his brother wants to use the property for car sales.

The Chairperson asked for public comment. There being none, the Chairperson reviewed the Section 31.403 criteria, and he commented that the Planning Director was satisfied that the criteria had been met.

He then reviewed the Section 60.100 special exception uses. It was noted that there was a used car lot and repair shop located across the street from this parcel. It was also noted that the safety of the public would be improved because there is going to be one less driveway on the combined property. Mr. Rakowski also commented that the parcel had been there for years, and there is not much that can be done with it. He speculated that what is proposed will probably improve the appearance of the property.

The Chairperson then reviewed the Section 82.800 site plan criteria. Mr. Ahrens inquired if both properties were going to be served by one driveway. Ms. Stefforia responded that closure would be looked at, on the site plan approval when the house converts to a non-residential use in the future.

A question was raised as to whether more landscaping was needed on the front and northeast corner of the property. Ms. Stefforia responded that there was landscaping in the northeast area, and probably no more landscaping is necessary. Ms. Stefforia indicated that the landscaping was not the same as in front of the Leader's property, as there it is Type C, and they have more frontage. It was pointed out that Type C would eliminate the ability to see the displays. Two canopies in front and six shrubs along the west property line would be desirable.

A motion was made by Mr. Rakowski, and supported by Mr. Ahrens to approve the special exception use based on the discussion and the Staff Report. There being no public comment, a vote was taken, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Rakowski moved to approve the site plan review, and the motion was seconded by Mr. Ahrens, subject to the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That a variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for display parking for up to seven vehicles.

(2) That site lighting shall comply with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the applicant shall submit details of proposed lighting to the Township for review and approval before modifying the existing lighting arrangement on the site.

(3) That all new signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 76.000 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the applicant shall obtain a sign permit before placing any new signs on site.

(4) That site landscaping shall be installed by the applicant pursuant to the plan approved by the Planning Commission within 30 days. There shall be two canopy trees in front and six shrubs along the west property line.

(5) That approval shall be subject to Township Fire Department review/approval.

(6) That approval shall be subject to Township Engineer review/approval.

(7) That the applicant shall connect to public water.

(8) That the proposed development design shall be consistent with the ground water protection standards established by Section 69.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and the applicant stated that an underground hoist has been removed, and the area has been filled in with sand. There was no further public comment. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.

BETZLER FUNERAL HOME - EXPANSION -SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - 6080 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-26-440-026 AND 3905-26-440-033)

The Planning Commission next conducted a special exception use and site plan review of a proposed expansion of the Betzler Funeral Home located at 6080 Stadium Drive within the "C-1" Local Business District. The subject property is comprised of Parcel Nos. 3905-26-440-026 and 3905-26-440-033.

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

The applicant is requesting a special exception use and site plan approval for an 11,461 square foot expansion of an existing funeral home at 6080 Stadium Drive. The subject property contains 2.59 acres and consists of two parcels. The westerly parcel is owned by the applicant and is the site of the existing funeral home, while the vacant easterly property is being purchased under a recorded land contract.

Initial approval was granted on May 23, 1985, for a 6,951 square foot funeral home, which included a 1,400 square foot residential apartment. Administrative approval was granted for expansion of the parking lot in 1993. There is to be no change in the access locations with both the existing driveway from Stadium Drive and the shared drive on Fairgrove Street to be continued. Parking for 128 vehicles is provided. It was estimated that there currently are 100 parking spaces, and there is an informal agreement with the Wiser office to the west for overflow parking, and occasionally, the Phoenix Properties' parking lot is also used. Township Staff is concerned because there is not an expansion area if additional parking is needed.

There is a need to fulfill landscaping requirements, but some relief will be needed due to the existing building and driveways. Ms. Bugge suggested "A" greenspace to the east, "C" along Stadium Drive, no landscaping to the west, and evergreen shrubs along the north parking lot landscaping in accordance with the Ordinance.

Drainage is accommodated under the parking lot.

Parking is a concern because there have been occasions when there has been overflow parking without the expansion, and with the expansion, there will be a need for additional parking spaces. It was pointed out that, for churches, one parking spot is needed for every three seats in the church. Ms. Bugge stated that the seating in the largest room for assembly determines the number of parking spots; and in this case, it is estimated that 126 parking spots would be necessary, but if the other rooms in the expanded building were included, 140 parking spaces would be required.

The applicant/owner, Ray Betzler, was present. He recognized the parking concern and said that sometimes there is more than one funeral on the same day, but not at the same time, and usually not at the same location. He thought that currently they have only 75 parking spaces, but he has a written agreement with Ron Wiser for mutual ingress, egress and parking. He said that overflow parking occurs only two or three times per year, and over 270 funerals are conducted per year. When it is known that there will be large crowds, he encourages the use of a different facility. They have parking lot attendants to help people with parking, and with the parking lot attendants, cars can blanket the property, bumper to bumper, because the people all arriving and departing at the same time. Mr. Rakowski stated that, if one were to anticipate parking like that, the applicant would need another five acres.

Mr. Betzler indicated that the land contract is scheduled to be paid off in one and one-half years, but he will pay it off sooner. He is not sure if the Wiser agreement is recorded.

There was no public comment, and the Chairperson proceeded to review Section 60.100 special exception use criteria. There were no comments from the Planning Commissioners.

The Chairperson then reviewed the Section 82.800 site plan review criteria. It was stated that, for parking, the applicant should not be required to prepare for the worst case scenario. Ms. Stefforia stated that there were no complaints or problems at the site. It was suggested that the Wiser parking agreement should be furnished and recorded. Ms. Bugge wanted a determination if the size of the expansion and the parking provided were compatible. It was pointed out that they had been able to operate with what they have had, and they are adding spaces with the expansion. The Chairperson stated that good efforts were made by the parking attendants.

In considering landscaping, Mr. Rakowski stated that the north side is a questionable area. Ms. Bugge stated that there should be landscaping that would block the cars. The Chairperson said that it would not be desirable to have lights shining from the cars. Ms. Bugge suggested a waiver of the west side landscaping because there was no room and an "A" greenspace on the east and "C" along Stadium Drive east of the driveway. Parking lot landscaping is required.

A motion was made by Mr. Rakowski to approve the special exception use, and the motion was seconded by Ms. Everett. There being no public comments, and the motion carried unanimously.

A motion was offered by Mr. Ahrens on the site plan review approval, with Ms. Everett supporting the motion, subject to the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That details of the interior use breakdown are required to determine if the parking is sufficient, and all parking must conform to Section 68.000. The Wiser mutual parking access agreement must be furnished and must be found acceptable by the Township Staff and the Township Attorney, and the agreement must be recorded. The agreement must contain a permanent easement.

(2) That all lighting shall comply with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specific light fixture details and photometric data shall be provided for Township Staff review and approval for all new lighting.

(3) That a detailed landscaping plan consistent with the Planning Commission's approval shall be submitted for Township Staff review. Landscaping shall be installed before a certificate of occupancy shall be granted, or a performance guarantee, consistent with the provisions of Section 82.950 must be provided.

(4) That site plan approval shall be subject to Township Fire Department review and the applicant satisfying Fire Department requirements pursuant to the adopted codes.

(5) That site engineering and storm water management are subject to review and approval by the Township Engineer.

(6) That an earth change permit from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner's office is required before any earth change activities commence.

(7) That the two parcels need to be combined with a properly recorded document.

A vote was taken, and the motion carried unanimously.

DOUGLAS TREE FARM - CHRISTMAS TREE SALES - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - MAPLE HILL MALL - 5030 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-280-050)

The Planning Commission conducted a special exception use and site plan review of a proposed Christmas tree sales lot to be set up at the former Montgomery Wards' property. The subject property is located within the "C-1" Local Business District, and is Parcel No. 3905-13-280-050.

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

Ms. Bugge stated that the applicant has been trying to find a place to sell Christmas trees for three years, and has finally found this location. The applicant is requesting approval for more than this year, and if approval for more than this year is granted, future years should be subject to Township Staff review because of anticipated changes at the Mall.

The applicant proposes to display and sell Christmas trees, tree wrapping and wreaths in the parking lot directly south of the store. The operation will be from the day after Thanksgiving through December 24th, with hours of operation being Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

The sales office will be a 14-foot x 16-foot trailer, and the size of the sale lot will be approximately 100 feet wide by 200 feet long. Access to the site will be through utilization of existing Mall driveways. There is substantial parking available as the Montgomery Wards' site is unoccupied. In future years, the applicant requires at least ten customer parking spaces. Temporary lighting will be installed and directed so as to prevent glare with 14 fixtures around the perimeter being proposed. The lot will be cordoned off along the perimeter using rope between the lights. A small dumpster will be provided adjacent to the sales lot for trash.

Ms. Bugge then reviewed the Section 60 special exception use criteria. She stated that retail uses are permitted in the District by right, and retail uses with substantial outdoor sales are permitted by special exception. The proposed Christmas tree sales lot should be in keeping with the zoning district. Approval was given for a similar operation by Wahmhoff Farms directly across the street at the West Main Mall.

Ms. Bugge stated that the proposed use would not be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or to the general public as it would have no negative impact on adjacent properties.

Regarding public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the community, she indicated that the proposed use must comply with Fire Department requirements and other Ordinance standards.

Ms. Bugge asked the Planning Commission to consider the dates and hours of operation; lighting and trash disposal as proposed; and the fact that the applicant should not generate noise of an unacceptable nature in considering whether the proposed use encourages the use of the land in accordance with its character and adaptability.

Ms. Bugge then reviewed the Section 31.403 requirements for businesses involving substantial outdoor sales. She notes that there are 14 exterior halogen lights proposed along the lot perimeter for security lighting, and there is parking, display and tree storage proposed in the existing paved parking area south of the Montgomery Wards' store. There is adequate parking for customers as the store is not in operation.

She also stated that all activities associated with the proposed Christmas tree display and sales lot will meet the required setback standards.

Outdoor display and equipment will be located on the existing paved parking area, and the existing Mall driveways and parking aisles will be used for site access. The traffic pattern and loading and unloading activities related to the proposed use do not pose adverse impacts on the vehicular and pedestrian traffic of Maple Hill Mall.

Ms. Bugge then commented on Section 82 site plan review. She said that the proposed access, parking and traffic circulation in the area of the sales lot are adequate. Lighting will be by 14 freestanding lights, with the fixtures being adjustable and angled so that light is directed down away from traffic. Wall signs attached to the trailer would be permitted, but any proposed sign shall be reviewed and approved through the sign permit process. There is also a refuse dumpster indicated on the site layout.

There was discussion regarding the lighting with the thought that 300-watt halogen bulbs seemed to be too bright. Ms. Bugge indicated that bright lighting was desired because the Mall area is very poorly lighted, as it is an area of the Mall that is not being used. Thus, there were safety and visibility considerations. She indicated that the wattage could be lowered if required, but because of the safety concerns, the applicant desires what is proposed. Ms. Stefforia stated that 400-watt fixtures are allowed in the parking lights. Ms. Bugge stated that the lights could be focused so they would be shining into the tree lot.

The applicant was not present, and there was no public comment.

The Chairperson reviewed the Section 60 special exception use, and he commented that the dates and hours of operation seemed reasonable. Mr. Rakowski inquired about a clean-up date, and he was told that the clean-up would be accomplished by December 28.

The Chairperson then reviewed the Section 82 site plan review criteria, and the question was asked if Wahmhoff Farms had to come back each year for approval. The response was that there was Township Staff review each year with the requirement that the same criteria be met. It was suggested that there be a provision that Township Staff could review lighting if it was too bright. There was some discussion regarding whether or not the lights would be turned off after hours, and Ms. Bugge thought that the permanent parking lot lights would stay on, but the other lot lights would not.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell moved to approve the special exception use based on the Planning Commissioners' discussion and a similar use granted in the area, with the condition that the lighting must be reviewed and approved by Township Staff, and yearly operation is subject to Township Staff review. Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

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

(1) That any proposed sign shall be reviewed and approved through the sign permit process.

(2) That lighting approval is subject to Township Staff review when the lights have been installed.

(3) That the site must be cleaned up by December 28.

(4) That the site plan must be reviewed and approved by Township Staff each year of operation.

(5) That refuse must be kept cleared and in the dumpster area.

(6) That lighting shall be reduced after business hours.

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

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

PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

There was a discussion of cluster housing in Texas Charter Township.

Ms. Stefforia reminded the Planning Commissioners that there will be a joint board meeting on Tuesday, November 19, 2002.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION

By:
Stanley Rakowski, Secretary
Minutes prepared:
October 29, 2002
Minutes approved:
, 2002