OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
August 23, 2001
WEST PORT TRAILS NO. 2 (VISSER) - STEP I PLAT REVIEW - 23A EAST SIDE OF 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-02-330-015)
INDOOR RECREATION (PESHL) - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - 8608 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-180-042)
A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, August 23, 2001, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Neil G. Sikora, Chairperson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director; Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; Robert C. Engels, Township Attorney; and ten other interested persons.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.
Ms. Stefforia noted a change in the Agenda to introduce a rezoning request under the "Other Business" category. There were no other changes. Ms. Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell moved to approve the Agenda as revised. Ms. Everett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission Members considered the minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2001. Mr. Turcott stated that there should be a change in the third paragraph of "Planning Commissioner Comments". The paragraph should read:
"Mr. Turcott indicated that he would be inviting Planning Commissioners to attend a manure management seminar for which he had received an invitation."
Mr. Rakowski moved to approve the minutes, as amended, and Mr. Corakis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
WEST PORT TRAILS NO. 2 (VISSER) - STEP 1 PLAT REVIEW - 23A EAST SIDE OF 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-02-330-015)
The Planning Commission considered the layout of the proposed subdivision to be known as West Port Trails No. 2 as requested by Visser Construction L.L.C. The subject property is located north of H Avenue, between 10th Street and 9th Street in the "AG" Agricultural-Rural District zoning classification and is Parcel No. 3905-02-330-015. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.
Ms. Bugge stated that the applicant is proposing Phase 2 for the West Port Trails Plat. It will consist of 24 single-family lots served by public water and individual septic systems. All lots will comply with Township dimensional requirements for single-family residences, but the lots will be subject to the Kalamazoo County Human Services Department finding them adequate for individual septic systems. All streets are public and will be subject to approval by and dedication to the Kalamazoo County Road Commission. No lot will be permitted direct access to 9th Street. Street names are subject to submission to and approval by Kalamazoo County. Street lights are required and subject to Section 78.700. The storm water basin will be subject to approval by and dedication to the Kalamazoo County Drain Commission.
Ms. Bugge reviewed Section 290.201 regarding platting procedures. It was concluded that the proposed Plat is in compliance with paragraphs A through J. A legal opinion of ownership and use conditions/easements must be furnished. A letter of recommendation from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission has been received.
Ms. Bugge next considered Section 290.202 and stated that the proposed street arrangement provides access to Phase 2 from H Avenue, and connection to the existing Hollison Drive in Phase 1. Trayburne Trail will terminate in a temporary cul-de-sac, but will be extended into the remaining property owned by the developer when Phase 3 is developed. Lot 59 shall not be permitted direct access to North 9th Street. All streets are public and shall be approved by and dedicated to the Kalamazoo County Road Commission. The street names have been submitted for approval. Kelfrey Cove exceeds the permitted 1,000 foot length at 1,041 feet. Approval would be subject to receiving a variance from the Township Board. It is not unusual for this to happen, but it is up to the Township Board to grant a variance. The Plat is in compliance with the required 50-foot right-of-way on 9th Street. Treyburne Trail exceeds the permitted length of 660 feet for a temporary cul-de-sac by 82 feet. A variance will be needed from the Township Board.
All the proposed lots in Phase 2 shall comply with the minimum required width at building setback and area requirements for single-family lots with public water and individual septic. However, the lots are subject to the Kalamazoo County Human Services Department finding them adequate for individual septic systems.
Mr. Sikora stated that the Zoning Map shows double hash lines on adjacent property and inquired as to what that depicted. Ms. Bugge stated that it was a private easement, and there would be no requirement that the easement be connected to this project.
A question was asked regarding the cul-de-sac of Oak Harbor Street indicated for Phase 3. Ms. Bugge stated that future street layout would be subject to review when expansion plans are submitted.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell asked if there was any concern about that, and Ms. Stefforia stated that the Road Commission does not like to approve cul-de-sacs.
Dan Visser was present for the applicant, and stated that he was Steve Visser's partner. They are presently looking for Phase 2 approval.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell inquired as to the construction timetable for the road work and utilities. Mr. Visser stated that there is a good possibility that they would start this fall. He said that the lots in Phase 1 are selling well, and as lots sell, there is increased demand for the second phase.
There being no public comment, the Commission started its deliberations.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that a sanitary sewer line was currently being engineered for H Avenue. She inquired about the timetable for the extension. Ms. Stefforia said that Township Engineer, Robert Snell, was studying the situation, but it did not appear that it was going to be something that would be done in the near future. Mr. Visser stated that H Avenue was going to be a major trunkline in that area, and the engineers were working on how to accomplish the routing of the sewer gravity system through lift stations. He stated that U.S. 131 was the key to what will happen, and he believed that it would be another five years before the trunkline was in.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat consisting of 24 single-family lots based on Section 290.200. A legal opinion of ownership and use conditions/easements must be received. The recommendation is also subject to all streets being public and street names being approved. Variances from the Township Board must be secured for road lengths. Street lighting must comply with Section 78.700. All dimensional requirements must be met, and approval for septic systems must be obtained from the Kalamazoo County Human Services Department. Lot 59 shall not have direct access to North 9th Street. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion.
The matter was opened to public comment.
Tom Wheat stated that the septic approval is not usually done until Step 2. Ms. Bugge stated that the applicant was here for Step 1 consideration, and that the recommendation is conditioned on the Human Services Department finding the layout adequate for septic systems.
A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.
INDOOR RECREATION (PESHL) - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - 8608 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-180-042)
The Planning Commission considered an application requesting special exception use and site plan approval for a commercial building containing an indoor recreation facility and two tenant spaces. Ms. Stefforia stated that Gary Peshl, the owner of Athletes Corner, is seeking approval from the Township to relocate Athletes Corner from its existing location in the Oshtemo Business Park to 8608 West Main Street. The subject property is Parcel No. 3905-16-180-042. Ms. Stefforia said that the applicant is proposing to construct a 19,800 square foot building and 99 parking spaces on a five-acre parcel zoned "C" Local Business District.
The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.
Ms. Stefforia stated that the applicable Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1999, making indoor recreation a special exception use in this District. Formerly, this use was a permitted use. The Ordinance amendment was done because of the nature of indoor recreation, and the buildings are typically made of steel with long, solid walls.
The proposed facility would have a 9,900 square foot indoor recreation facility and two 4,950 square foot suites on either side. The applicant's business will occupy one of the suites, with the other available for another tenant.
Section 60.100 must be considered for the special exception use. The first item to be considered is if the proposed use is compatible with the other uses expressly permitted within the Zoning District. The Planning Commissioners concluded that use of the subject property for indoor recreation is compatible with other uses found in this commercial area of the Township.
The second consideration is if the proposed use is detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or to the general public. This area is not a typical commercial area, as abutting to the west is Haley's Auto Care and to the east is Leader's Marine, which has significant outdoor display. There is a mix of uses across West Main Street. Ms. Stefforia stated that the applicant should be questioned as to the materials proposed for the exterior of the building.
The Planning Commission must also consider if the proposed use promotes the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the community. Ms. Stefforia stated that access would be from West Main Street, and the access is subject to the approval of the Michigan Department of Transportation. No freestanding lights are proposed within the parking lot. Security and the hours of operation for the indoor recreation use should be discussed with the applicant. It was determined that an enclosed building to house indoor recreation is not detrimental to health, safety, morals and welfare of the community.
The Planning Commission must also consider if the proposed use encourages the use of the land in accordance with its character and adaptability. Ms. Stefforia stated that the facility, including future expansion, will encompass nearly the entire five-acre parcel. She said that significant grading will have to be done, but that is a site plan issue which must be addressed, whether a special or permitted use is established on the site.
Ms. Stefforia next considered Section 82.800 dealing with the criteria for review of the site plan.
The first item was access, with access being a driveway onto West Main Street (M-43). The Access Management Guidelines require that a driveway be at least 350 feet from any other driveway due to the 55 m.p.h. posted speed limit on West Main Street. The distance can be accomplished from Leader's Marine, but not from Haley's, as the driveway to Haley's to the west is only 130 feet from the proposed driveway. There is a residence directly across from this site on West Main Street, with a horseshoe driveway serving as access. That area is zoned commercial, and if that property is redeveloped, its access will have to comply with the requirements of the Access Management Guidelines, which makes it doubtful that two curb cuts will be allowed.
The driveway for the subject property satisfies the design requirements for an additional egress lane. Improvements or modifications to West Main Street, such as a deceleration lane, are under the jurisdiction of MDOT. Ms. Stefforia stated that access is subject to review and approval by the Michigan Department of Transportation.
A potential problem was noted by Ms. Stefforia, as the building as proposed only has a 20-foot setback to the east property line, which is the minimum required by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has been informed that building setback is measured from the leading edge of the building and not the foundation, and that setback inspections will be performed by the Building Department after the building permit is released and building placement staked.
Parking for the proposed building will be in front, with a future building and parking area indicated behind the proposed building on the site plan. Site plan approval is not being considered for the future building at this time.
Significant grade changes are necessary to create a level building site and to manage storm water. No catch basins or storm sewers are being proposed. The site plan shows that the site will be graded so storm water will flow over land to the southwest corner of the site. The Township Engineer will review the plans following Planning Commission action. There is a retaining wall shown on the site plan along the east property line, but the applicant has indicated that the land will be graded to match existing topography, and no retaining wall will be installed.
Landscaping should be installed consistent with the landscaping plan approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or a performance guarantee in an amount to be determined based upon the value of required landscaping should be provided. Along the west line of the property, the first 185 feet require a Type A greenspace. The remaining length of the west line requires a Type F greenspace. The applicant is requesting a deviation to allow Type A along the entire west property line. The applicant is also proposing a Type A greenspace along the north property line. The Ordinance requires Type F. Staff suggests that reduced plantings be allowed in those areas, but that the Township reserve the right to require additional plantings if and when the second building is erected.
No parking lot light fixtures are proposed, and instead, there are wall-mounted fixtures which are shown on the site plan. Details of the fixtures must be provided for Township review and approval to insure compliance with Section 78.700.
Ms. Stefforia stated that public water serves the site, but there will be a private septic system.
The applicant, Gary Peshl, was in attendance, but when asked if he had any comments, he stated that he had none.
Mr. Rakowski asked about the distance of the driveway from Leader's Marine. Ms. Stefforia stated that it was 224 feet to the east property line of the subject property, and there were an additional 270 feet to the proposed driveway. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell asked what was required, and Ms. Stefforia stated that 350 feet was necessary where there was a posted speed of 55 m.p.h. Mr. Rakowski asked if shared access was feasible.
Ms. Garland-Rike stated that the Zoning Ordinance was amended two years ago because of the type of building that could be constructed, that being a large steel construction. That type of building was not appropriate on all commercial properties.
Mr. Peshl was asked what materials were going to be used for the exterior of the building, and he responded that either steel or brick would be used. He is working with a designer now on bids. The athletic facility is going to have 10,000 square feet, and his sporting goods store will encompass 5,000 square feet. The remaining space is 5,000 square feet, which he hopes to be a sporting goods business of some type. He thinks that these are good complimentary complementary businesses.
Mr. Peshl also stated that there was an eight to ten-foot overhang in front of the building. Ms. Garland-Rike inquired if there was going to be one building, and Mr. Peshl responded that there would be with three facilities in that building. Ms. Garland-Rike stated that Leader's Marine was of that type of construction that led to the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that it was desired to limit the number of steel, long-walled buildings. Ms. Stefforia stated that the amendment was not done to limit, but rather to evaluate where that type of building was located in the Township. Mr. Rakowski asked when he would know if it would be constructed with steel or brick, and Mr. Peshl thought he would know within the next two days. If brick, however, only the front would be brick.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell asked if the applicant intended to grade all five acres now, and he responded that he did. She stated that she was concerned about erosion, but there appears to be a seeding blanket that should help with erosion. Mr. Turcott stated that he was also concerned about erosion, and especially so after the recent rains.
Mr. Rakowski asked if the driveway could be placed in another location, and Mr. Peshl responded that the engineers had looked at that question and had placed the driveway in what was considered to be the safest place. He also indicated that Haley's would not share a driveway. Ms. Stefforia asked the applicant if he had heard anything from MDOT concerning the driveway, and the applicant stated that he had not.
Mr. Rakowski inquired about the hours of operation and was told that the sporting goods store would be open from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., but the applicant is hoping that what is now a wholesale business will become more retail, and if that happens, he projects his hours to be from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. He believes that the athletic facility will have the same hours. He stated that the people using the athletic facility are generally between the ages of 12 and 21. The facility is mainly used for baseball, softball, speed and agility training. There is work with the customers on a one-to-one basis on fundamentals. He believes that there will only be 10 to 12 people at a time doing that training. The hours now are from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays and from 9 a.m. to either 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, with the hours depending on demand. Mr. Rakowski asked if it was private tutoring that was being done, and the applicant responded that 99 percent of his business is private tutoring.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell asked about the type of trees that were going to be cleared. The applicant responded that those trees being cleared were mainly no greater than 12 to 13 inches in diameter, and were scrub trees. He did not believe there were any trees of much value on the site.
Ms. Garland-Rike stated that there were some large many mature trees in a the proposed drainage area. but not very many. However, the applicant felt that there were not many large trees; a large tree to as defined by the applicant is one that is more than 12 to 13 inches in diameter. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell asked where the larger trees were located, and Mr. Peshl indicated that they were on the west side by the drainage basin, which was in the southwest corner of the property. Mr. Turcott inquired as to if the trees would remain on the property, and Mr. Peshl said that he would like them to stay if possible.
Mr. Sikora referred to woods being shown as remaining in the northwest area on the site plan. Mr. Peshl said that was a small area. Mr. Sikora said that there were no trees showing in that area other than those that were to be planted. The applicant stated he wants as many trees to remain as possible, but the engineers are telling him what must be taken out in order to have proper draining and grading.
The applicant was reminded of the east side proximity of the building and was asked if he would be willing to move the building to the west. The applicant responded that the engineer has stated that it is located where it must be.
Mr. Sikora inquired of Ms. Stefforia what she would suggest regarding the setback issue. She stated that she would like it noted how close the building is to the setback and that the Zoning Board of Appeals not grant a variance if there is a violation of the setback line because that issue had been brought to the applicant's attention. Mr. Sikora indicated that, in the past, applicants have come back seeking a variance under similar circumstances.
Ms. Stefforia stated that the landscaping needed to be diversified, and the applicant should not plant all the same kind of trees.
Ms. Garland-Rike asked if the applicant had considered putting the parking lot behind the building and having the building closer to the street. The applicant stated he did not want it that way as he wants people driving on M-43 to see cars in the parking lot, and by seeing the cars, know that activity is taking place at that site.
Mr. Sikora commented that there did not appear to be landscaping between the building on the east side and Leader's Marine. Ms. Stefforia indicated that a certain amount of landscaping was required, that it was not necessary to have it in a line, and it was better to have groups of trees. She indicated that Leader's Marine has storage in that area.
Ms. Bugge asked if storm water retention was considered in the present site plan for the future building. The applicant responded that it was, and that the septic system also was being done to accommodate the future building.
The meeting was opened to public comment.
Grace Borgfjord owns the property to the west. She stated that she has been there for eight years and has spent a great deal of money for erosion control by putting in spillways and underground retention ponds. She wants to be sure that water on the proposed site is retained on that property. She has worked extensively with MDOT over the years, and the State has cut the grass back so that water doesn't flow down the first driveway it comes to.
There was no other public comment, and the public hearing was closed, and the matter was open for deliberation by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Garland-Rike observed that the proposed hours were going to be from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. which brought into question lighting. The applicant stated that the lights that were going to be installed on the building would comply with the Ordinance. He stated that they could put lights in islands if necessary, but that the site is going to be well lighted. Ms. Stefforia indicated that the information on the fixtures must be provided so it could be determined that the site lighting would comply.
After Mr. Sikora's summarization, Mr. Rakowski stated that it will be nice to see another business in that area, and Ms. Garland-Rike said that the Planning Department needs information on the materials to be used to construct the building. Ms. Garland-Rike was concerned about access.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that the clearing of woodlands in the Township is a concern. The applicant expressed freely that he would like to save some of the mature species, and had communicated to the engineers that he would like to save as much as possible.
Mr. Sikora attempted to determine from the applicant if there had been any discussion with the Township over what would be required before the site plan was developed. The applicant stated that he thought that the Township should make realtors aware of fundamental facts. He stated that he walked the property in the winter and in the snow and did not realize the grading problems he was going to have. Ms. Stefforia stated that there are a handful of engineering firms that do the site plans, and the Township needs to get through to them the concerns that they have with the site plans that are being presented. Mr. Sikora asked the applicant to go back to his engineers and express the concerns of the Planning Commission. Mr. Sikora also suggested that aerial photos of sites be made available to the Planning Commission by Staff.
The access issue was addressed again. The property is not big enough to meet the access criteria. Mr. Corakis asked if the driveway could be placed next to Haley's driveway but on the applicant's property. Ms. Stefforia stated that could be more confusing to people trying to enter one business but entering in the wrong driveway. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that the Planning Commission needs to weigh carefully compliance with the Township's own Access Management Guidelines. She stated that MDOT approval was not always what the Planning Commission would want, and cited Menard's as an example. Mr. Sikora suggested having the driveway centrally located, but noted that, if that was done, it would place it in the middle of the septic field so that possibility should have been explored before the site plan was drafted. Ms. Stefforia also indicated that the septic system needs separation from the retention pond.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell inquired about the number of parking spaces. Ms. Stefforia stated that there was room to expand and that it was nice to see commercial property being used instead of agricultural property with a request for a rezoning.
Mr. Rakowski stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals should not approve a variance from the 20-foot setback if that issue comes in after the building is constructed.
Mr. Sikora noted that the applicant is required to keep storm water on his property.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell commented on the landscaping and wanted to be sure that the species would be varied and an invasive species not used such as the Norway maple. She pointed out that shrubs were not listed on the site plan and that the landscaping should be grouped and varied.
Lynn Sonneveil, who lives at 8613 West Main, stated that he lives directly across the street from the applicant's site. He was at the meeting to see what effect there would be on his property. He said that he is concerned about drainage and that there was too much drainage off M-43 going into the sump. He also said that the State Highway Department was not properly supporting the properties in that area.
Grace Borgfjord stated that the proposed site is a very difficult piece of property and that the applicant must have cooperation in order to properly develop the site.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that the reason for deviating from Type F landscaping should be specified. Ms. Stefforia stated that it was being recommended because the issue would be revisited with Phase 2 development to determine if new screening is required.
Ms. Borgfjord stated that the property to the north was heavily wooded, and there was good screening for the people living behind the subject property. She stated that the residents are located about two football fields away from the subject property.
Mr. Rakowski moved to grant the requested special exception use. Mr. Rakowski stated that the use of the subject property for indoor recreation was compatible with other uses. He also stated that the proposed use would not be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or to the general public, and that the proposed use would promote the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the community. He also stated that the proposed use encourages the use of the land in accordance with its character and adaptability. He further stated that surface water is to remain on the subject property. The building will be constructed of brick or steel, and the choice of material must be presented to the Planning Department, and if there is concern by the Planning Department over the material, that issue must be brought back before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Corakis seconded the motion.
The motion was open to public comment. There being none, a vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Garland-Rike moved to approve the site plan, subject to the following conditions, limitations and notations:
(1) Review and approval of the Michigan Department of Transportation.
(2) A minimum side setback on the east side of 20 feet with no variance being recommended by the Planning Commission if there is a setback violation.
(3) Diversified landscaping of varied species with group planting and no invasive species. The reviewing body reserves the right to approve the plantings on the north and west sides of the building at the time of Phase 2 development. The landscaping shall be installed consistent with the landscaping plan approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or a performance guarantee in an amount to be determined based upon the value of required landscaping.
(4) Light fixture details shall be provided for Township review and approval prior to placement of outdoor lighting at the site and must comply with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(5) A sign permit consistent with Section 76.000 must be secured before any signs may be placed upon the property.
(6) The site plan is subject to review and approval by the Fire Department.
(7) The site plan is subject to review and acceptance by the Township Engineer of the grading and storm water flow.
(8) An Earth Change Permit must be obtained from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner before earth moving activities begin.
(9) A Septic Permit from the Kalamazoo County Environmental Health Division must be obtained before a building permit may be issued.
Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion. Ms. Stefforia reminded the applicant that the Earth Change Permit must be obtained before any earth can be moved on the site. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Stefforia stated that the owner of the property located at 2632 South 11th Street wants a rezoning from "R-2" to "R-3" to allow the home located at that address to be razed and an office to be built. The area on the Master Land Use Plan is planned for "R-4". There are three rental properties in that area now and three owner-occupied homes. Mr. Turcott stated that there were offices across the street. Ms. Stefforia said that consideration should be given to rezoning all of the "R-2" to "R-3". Ms. Bugge stated that the rezoning would allow rental houses to be turned into offices. Mr. Sikora commented that the general area is pretty run down. Mr. Corakis moved to schedule this matter for public hearing on September 27, 2001. Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion. Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Mr. Rakowski stated that the City of Kalamazoo is considering control on Western Michigan University rentals. He asked if the Township was considering doing anything similar. Ms. Stefforia stated that to do so would require additional staff for enforcement.
Mr. Rakowski also asked if anything was planned to limit the ability of people to bring guns into the Township meetings. Ms. Everett stated that the Supervisor was working on an ordinance, and that MTA had submitted a sample ordinance. Mr. Rakowski stated that would not stop people from bringing guns into meetings.
Mr. Sikora suggested that guidelines be developed to send to firms outlining Planning Commission concerns about landscaping issues. He wondered if a letter or meeting would be good to send to engineering firms about Planning Commission concerns.
Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that she had asked before for a requirement that certain size trees be shown on the site plans and that was not being done. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell asked if the Engineer working on the Athletes Corner project met with Ms. Stefforia about access deviation. Ms. Stefforia stated that the Engineer had not met with her or talked with her. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that it was difficult after all the work had been done to say "no" to proposed plans. She stated that there should be discussion and analysis with the Township before the plan is put into final form. Ms. Stefforia stated that there was no way to achieve compliance on that particular site so it would have been difficult to do anything else.
Mr. Turcott stated that he supports the general feeling of frustration with the engineers. Ms. Stefforia stated that tree preservation could be pursued as the opinion survey that has been returned supports tree preservation.
Mr. Sikora asked if the Planning Commission could have an update on the Lowe's outdoor display situation. Mr. Rakowski volunteered to make a report.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
August 28, 2001