OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)



January 24, 2002



REDSTONE FARMS - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 49 ACRES AT END OF GREEN MEADOW DRIVE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-24-205-021, 3905-24-205-012, 3905-24-205-005, 3905-24-255-022 AND 3905-24-255-030)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, January 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
James Turcott
Mike Ahrens


Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director; Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney; and approximately 58 other interested persons.


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


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


The Planning Commission considered the minutes of the meeting of January 10, 2002. Ms. Garland-Rike moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Ms. Everett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.


The Planning Commission reviewed a request for a special exception use and site plan review of a proposed gas regulator station on the Western Michigan University parcel located at the northwest corner of Drake Road and Parkview Avenue. The subject property is within the "R-2" Residence District zoning classification, and is Parcel No. 3905-25-430-010.

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

Ms. Bugge noted that buildings and regulator stations for essential services are special exception uses in the "R-2" Residence District pursuant to Section 22.402. This facility would replace an existing station farther east on Parkview Avenue. Ms. Bugge stated that the proposed site is within the southern most 2.5-acre portion of a 54-acre parcel owned by Western Michigan University. The regulator station would consist of underground pipes and two small above-grade aluminum enclosures. Access would be from Drake Road via a gravel driveway, and a turnaround had been provided. Most of the existing vegetation at the site had been removed, and the overall site was very visible from Highway U.S. 131. Ms. Bugge felt that additional landscaping was appropriate. The regulator station would serve the industrial park developing on Parkview Avenue. Ms. Bugge presented photographs of the proposed aluminum enclosures. As to landscaping, Ms. Bugge indicated that the proposal would need to take into account the need for "clear area" around the regulator station and the overhead wires.

In response to questions from Mr. Ahrens, it was stated that the proposed driveway would serve all of the "three stations" proposed for the property. The gas regulator station, which was the subject of the application, would be located next to the Western Michigan University electrical substation on the site. Subsequently, the Planning Commission would review a Consumers Energy electrical substation planned for the site.

Joe Herdus was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the project was joint with Western Michigan University. He confirmed that the substation would serve the industrial park buildings under construction. He also confirmed that the gas regulator system on the south side of Parkview Avenue would be replaced, and the structures above ground would be removed.

The aluminum enclosures were low profile (about four feet in height).

As to landscaping, he stated that the site was "peculiar" in that there were safety factors to consider in conjunction with the use. He stated that trees should be avoided due to lightning strikes. However, the applicant would work with the Township regarding appropriate landscaping.

Mr. Rakowski questioned whether there would be fencing at the site. The applicant indicated that there would not be fencing, but that the cabinets would be locked.

The site would be accessed probably approximately once per month. There would be gravel around the area of the station to allow for a turnaround.

No public comment was offered on the item, and the public hearing was closed.

The Chairperson summarized the application. He suggested that the Planning Commission consider the special exception use criteria of Section 60.

As to whether the proposed use was compatible with other uses expressly permitted within the zoning district, Mr. Rakowski commented that he believed that the use would be compatible due to its relative isolation from residential uses and its proximity to U.S. 131. The Chairperson concurred, indicating that there was no housing in the immediate area.

As to whether the use would be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or to the general public, Mr. Ahrens commented that he felt that the future development across the street should be taken into consideration. Ms. Bugge reminded the Planning Commission that this property is also owned by Western Michigan University.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell was concerned about the view of the property from the Parkview bridge. However, she felt that the location was appropriate and recognized that the applicant could work with the Township regarding screening and landscaping.

As to whether the proposed use would promote public health, safety and welfare, Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that she felt that the use would satisfy this criterion, in that the use was for essential services to provide energy needs. Further, the location was relatively isolated.

Planning Commissioners also felt that the proposed use would encourage use of the land in accord with its character and adaptability, given that the location was already used for an electrical substation by Western Michigan University.

The Chairperson suggested review of Section 82.800 concerning site plan review.

Planning Commissioners agreed that the access by way of gravel drive would be appropriate given the minimal amount of traffic to the site. Further, it was felt that the access was appropriate since one drive would serve all three stations.

Planning Commissioners were also satisfied concerning parking; although parking was not specifically indicated on the plan, there was sufficient space for parking during the infrequent visits to the site.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell expressed concern about the amount of gravel at the site. The applicant responded that the graveled area had been designed to take into account the need to access the site on occasion with semi-trucks and the need for a turnaround. On occasion, a temporary substation might need to be brought to the site. Therefore, the gravel in the area would accommodate equipment needs.

It was recognized that the site met setback standards, and it was noted that there would be no outdoor storage. No lighting, dumpster or signs were proposed.

As to the landscaping plan, Mr. Rakowski stated that he recognized the need to avoid possible lightning strikes, and he was comfortable with the applicant working with Township Staff on a satisfactory landscaping plan. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell agreed, stating that as much screening as possible, however, should be established. Screening along Parkview Avenue and U.S. 131 in particular should be attempted.

It was recognized that the Township Fire Department had reviewed and was satisfied with the site. The site would also undergo Township Engineer review.

After further discussion, Mr. Rakowski moved to approve the special exception use permit based upon the analysis of the criteria of Section 60.000 and a finding that the criteria had been satisfied. Mr. Ahrens seconded the motion.

There was a comment and question from the audience as to whether this site was near the trailer park, and it was noted that this community is located at the intersection of Stadium Drive and Drake Road, and that the subject site was at Parkview Avenue and Drake.

Upon a vote on the motion, the motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell moved to approve the site plan for the proposed project with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That as to access, the site be served by a gravel driveway from Drake Road as proposed.

(2) That the parking as proposed was satisfactory.

(3) That any site lighting comply with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

(4) That a sign permit be required before any signage could be placed on the property pursuant to Section 76.000.

(5) That a landscaping plan be submitted to the Township Staff for review and approval, and landscaping be installed consistent with the approved plan.

(6) That no variance had been requested.

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

(8) That approval was subject to the Township Engineer finding that the site engineering was adequate.

(9) That the applicant has submitted an Environmental Permits Checklist and Hazardous Substance Reporting Form.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Garland-Rike.

Mr. Rakowski suggested adding a notation that no dumpster was proposed or approved. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell and Ms. Garland-Rike agreed to add this item as subpart (10) of the motion.

Upon a vote on the motion, the motion carried unanimously.

REDSTONE FARMS - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 49 ACRES AT END OF GREEN MEADOW DRIVE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-24-205-021, 3905-24-205-012, 3905-24-205-005, 3905-24-255-022 AND 3905-24-255-030).

The Planning Commission resumed review of a proposed residential development consisting of 101 condominium units and 192 apartments on 49 acres at the end of Green Meadow Drive. The subject application had been tabled from the meeting of November 15, 2001. The property was located within the "R-4" Residence District zoning classification, and is Parcel Nos. 3905-24-205-021, 3905-24-205-012, 3905-24-205-005, 3905-24-255-022 and 3905-24-255-030.

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

Ms. Stefforia reported that no change had been made to the site plan since the previous meeting. She stated that the property in question was one of the "last tracts of 'R-4' zoned property in the Township".

She reminded the Planning Commission that the Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study (KATS) had been asked to prepare a traffic impact study. The item was tabled from the preceding meeting to await the Study. She stated that the KATS Traffic Impact Study had been completed and had been provided to Planning Commissioners. David Krueger of KATS was present to answer questions.

The Report of KATS is incorporated herein by reference.

KATS had considered two layout scenarios -one with two access points (Skyridge Avenue and Green Meadow Drive) and the other with only one access (Green Meadow Drive). The Report indicated that 2,134 new trips would be generated by the development in a 24-hour period at full build-out. KATS Staff believed that only 29% of the traffic generated by the development would use the Skyridge Avenue access. During the morning peak hour, it was anticipated that the development would generate only 57 additional trips on Skyridge Avenue. During the afternoon peak period, 61 new trips were estimated. Approximately 71% of the new trips would be utilizing Green Meadow Drive. During the morning peak hour, this resulted in 129 new trips, and during the afternoon peak hour, an estimated 159 new trips would occur. KATS had concluded that no mitigation was necessary for the development as proposed with two access points. However, the layout with only the Green Meadow Drive access would result in an "unacceptable" result from a traffic delay standpoint at the intersection of Green Meadow Drive with Drake Road.

Reviewing the criteria of Section 24.207, Ms. Stefforia stated that the overall density for the property would be six dwelling units per acre. The Ordinance allowed for up to eight dwelling units per acre. Ms. Stefforia noted that the Ordinance requires two access points to a public road. However, the Zoning Board of Appeals had granted a variance from this provision recently with regard to Jefferson Commons.

Further, Section 24.207(c) required that, when an interior drive would serve as the connecting link between different land ownerships, the road was to be constructed in accordance with public road specifications and located upon a reserved right-of-way of not less than 66 feet in width. The applicant was requesting that the road not be public but private on a public right-of-way.

Dave Krueger and Jon Start of KATS were present. Mr. Krueger stated that the most critical period was the p.m. peak period, and therefore, he would address most comments thereto. He presented several schematics showing the number of trip generations anticipated for the proposed development. Table 10 presented an analysis of how the intersections would operate as determined by the highway capacity model. He stated, at the current time, the intersections operate at Level D. He felt there would be minor impact from development at peak hours. He recommended mitigation by the addition of a right turn lane at Green Meadow to reduce the average delay to 41 seconds. However, Figure 5 represented the model obtained with use of only the Green Meadow access point. This model indicated that the level of service would degrade to an unacceptable point. This scenario was not recommended. He encouraged use of both Green Meadow and Skyridge so as to minimize delays.

Mr. Krueger stated that he advised that the Township encourage the developer to provide a potential for access in the future to the north or west side of the property for the possibility of an eventual connection of a road, possibly through the MDOT property, to West Main. Also, the Township might consider the possibility of an eventual connection to KL Avenue through the Concord site.

He felt that the traffic volumes at Green Meadow intersection with Drake Road and at Skyridge intersection with Drake Road would not merit a traffic signal at this time. Ms. Everett inquired as to how Mr. Krueger arrived at the trip generation figures offered. He stated that a trip generation manual, which computes volume depending upon type of development, had been utilized. Further, he increased the average trip generation by 25%. Ms. Everett indicated that the number of trips generated seemed low to her.

Mr. Rakowski had questions with regard to the amount of traffic volume on KL Avenue and West Main at peak hours. Mr. Krueger stated that, during the peak p.m. hour, there were approximately 1,071 cars moving southbound and 1,158 cars moving northbound.

There was a discussion of the possible connection to KL through the Concord property at this time. Ms. Stefforia stated that, from her research, there was no easement existing, and that this was private property. It would also be impossible to force the connection to West Main Street in that the road would have to cross the golf course to get to the MDOT property in order to connect to West Main.

Doris Johnson, a member of the public, asked why the volumes had been sufficient to put a light at Stonebrook. Mr. Krueger stated that he did not know about the Stonebrook example, indicating that the Kalamazoo County Road Commission controls street lights.

Guy Gizzi stated that he believed that another traffic study done in the past by Mr. Krueger had recommended no connection to Skyridge. He felt that Drake Road was a "nightmare", and that no connection should be made for the project to Drake Road.

The Chairperson called upon the applicant to comment on the proposal.

Mark Buddy stated that, since the last meeting, a market study, an engineer's report, and the traffic study had been conducted. All three had indicated no compelling changes were necessary to the site plan.

As to the target customer, he stated that students were not "their market". He indicated that the applicant was in agreement with making a provision for a possible connection to West Main to the north. However, he was not in favor of connecting to Concord in that he was concerned that traffic would cut through the development from Drake in order to reach KL Avenue or vice versa.

He emphasized that his use was a permitted use under the Zoning Ordinance and was being developed at a lower density than was allowed by the Ordinance.

He recognized that Section 24.207 might require a public road but would like the Township to consider Autumn View and allowing a situation similar to that development. This would allow the interior streets to be private. The applicant stated that he would not be opposed to closing Skyridge and making it an access for emergency only. As an alternative, he would consider segregating two areas of the site with the condos exiting through Skyridge and the apartments exiting through Green Meadow.

The Chairperson and the Township Attorney reminded the public that the use proposed by the applicant was a permitted use in the "R-4" District zoning classification, and therefore, the Planning Commission did not have the discretion to deny the use in question but was engaged in reviewing the site plan for its compliance with Ordinance standards.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and Guy Gizzi again commented, stating that he was concerned about the additional traffic which would be generated on Skyridge, and he felt that this would be a hazard for the children who walk down the plat's streets. He asked whether there would be any appeal to the Township Board from the decision of the Planning Commission. It was noted that the Planning Commission made the final decision on this kind of application.

Judy Gurley had a question about the status of Green Meadow, and it was indicated that Green Meadow is a public street.

Eunice Koster presented an overhead schematic, stating that she wondered if the traffic study had considered the proximity of the intersections to the entrance with Drake's Pond. She was concerned about increasing the number of left turns onto Skyridge from Drake Road, indicating that she felt this would increase the possibility of head-on accidents. She urged that the developer be required to make changes to the proposed site plan to require a connection to the property to the north. She felt that it would be impossible to require an exclusive left turn lane from Drake Road in that the property across the street is developed.

Joan Sharda stated that she had lived in the neighborhood for ten years and was concerned about the apartments. She did not believe that the term "upscaled apartments" would indicate a very favorable character. She did not feel that the traffic study accurately accounted for student traffic because traffic counts were taken prior to the return of Western Michigan University students to the area. She was further concerned that the traffic study did not take into account the effects of inclement weather. She felt that delay would be magnified by bad weather.

Gary Schripsema stated that he had recently observed a resident of the plat cleaning the intersection with his own snow blower. He suggested that Skyridge not be accessed except in emergencies. He felt that the character of the two streets were different because Skyridge was built with driveways directly accessing it.

Joan Young commented that, as the secretary of the Leisure Time Board, she understood the desire of the Skyridge Plat not to be utilized for traffic, but she was concerned about all traffic exiting down Green Meadow. She stated that Leisure Time is a senior community and that many senior citizens walk on the street. There were no sidewalks in the development.

Jim Bauhof commented, stating that he had sent a petition to the Clerk, Chairperson and Supervisor signed by the residents of Burgundy Manor and Skyridge plats. He stated that all people contacted had signed the petition. He indicated that, when another project had been proposed, he recalled that another developer had proposed a connection to the Concord property. He felt a connection to Concord could be arranged. In his opinion, the best traffic arrangement was an emergency access only on Skyridge. He felt that this would be similar to the Beach Street emergency access point.

He was critical of the traffic study as not being "real world". He felt that the trip generation from the development would be higher. He was also concerned about the character of the plat as a single-family home environment. He did not believe that the traffic study took this into account.

Joan Boyd had questions with regard to the size of the apartments, and the applicant indicated that they would be three stories high. In response to further questions by Ms. Boyd, it was clarified that any right hand turn lane on Green Meadow could be accomplished within the existing right-of-way.

Paul Burtz stated that he felt that the KATS study was flawed because it failed to include traffic data from uses across the street, such as the soccer fields and church. He also felt that the traffic study did not take into account traffic from Calvary Church on the west side of Drake. He felt that the developer should pay for a light at the intersection of Green Meadow and Drake Road. He was concerned about weather causing a problem for traffic. Moreover, he stated that there was a legally blind individual living in the area who walked the streets of the plat.

Bill Richter also had concerns about traffic.

Loy Haw stated that she had toured condo facilities in Grand Rapids being constructed by the developer. She felt that they were beautiful condos, but noted that none went through neighborhoods for access. She was concerned about the safety of the children within the plat due to the increased traffic. She stated that she had waited at least ten minutes to get out onto Drake Road on one occasion.

Tom Stanek was also critical of the traffic study, stating that students made several trips per day. He felt that the trips should be reviewed when Western was in session. He was also concerned about the apartments being subsidized housing. The applicant indicated that the housing would not be subsidized.

Melanie James stated that she felt that the character of her plat was being changed from single-family to multi-family because of the connection of this development to her roadway. She felt that the connection would decrease her property values. She was also concerned about the location of the trash compactor near Crimson. She returned to her comments concerning access, stating that she felt it would change the character of the community.

The Chairperson reminded the public that the owner has the right to develop his property in accord with Ordinance provisions. He stated that the goal of the Planning Commission was to balance the rights of development with the concerns of neighboring property owners.

James Rowland asked who would be paid to maintain the road. It was noted that the road is within the jurisdiction of the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.

Herb Taborn had comments critical of the proposed development.

Joan Young stated that she felt, if the development were being placed on this site, the burden should be shared by both the Leisure Time and Skyridge communities. She was concerned about all traffic being routed through Green Meadow.

Marshal James was also concerned about the trash compactor, and the developer indicated its location, which was not adjacent to Crimson as assumed.

Ms. Bugge discussed density, stating that, in her opinion, this project was no more dense than if developed with single-family homes.

Matt Wolf had comments regarding traffic, stating that the Planning Commission should determine the access arrangement which would be most safe. He felt this would be one access to Green Meadow.

Bob Mosley stated that he felt that traffic was bad now, and it would only get worse.

Sally Stevens wondered when a light could be placed at Green Meadow.

Lara Meeuwse, Chairperson of the Kalamazoo County Road Commission, stated that the Road Commission is evaluating a traffic light at the Green Meadow intersection, and would notify the Township of the results of its study. She advised the residents of the Skyridge Plat that they might be limiting their ability to access the light and make left turns onto Drake Road if there was no Skyridge access to the proposed development. She stated that she would be taking the comments and concerns of the public back to the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.

There was no other public comment, and the Chairperson closed the public hearing. The Chairperson called for a break at 10:10 p.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 10:15 p.m.

The Chairperson reviewed the criteria of Section 24.207, noting that density was below Ordinance limitations. As to parking, the parking suggested by the applicant for the apartment area was less than the Ordinance requires. However, the applicant was suggesting 77 future sites which would satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance.

As to access, there was discussion of the provisions of Subpart C which would require that the inter-connecting road be public. The Chairperson felt that the road system should be continued to the north property line. There was discussion of the merits of a public road or placing a private road on a public right-of-way. There was concern in that the property would be linked to two public roads so the roads therein should be public. It was felt that there would be maintenance and other problems if the road system within the subject were private but inter-connecting to public road areas. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell noted that the Autumn View site involves more minimal access by public traffic. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell suggested connecting the public road from Green Meadow to the west property line in a relatively straight manner. She felt that this would allow the condominium interior drives to be private. It was noted that the use of a public street as an inter-connecting road would require redesign of the site plan.

The Chairperson commented that he was not concerned about winding a public road through the project in that the Master Land Use Plan called for a curvilinear road system. This would minimize traffic cutting through from West Main to Drake Road. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the inter-connecting road for the development be public and extended to a property line adjacent to the north or west.

Ms. Everett commented that the Planning Commission had inherited this situation and had the obligation not to make the problems in the area more complicated. She felt that public roads would eliminate some possible problems. Ms. Garland-Rike agreed, stating that she felt it would be problematic to impose maintenance obligations on the condominium owners for a roadway used by the public. It was noted that all streets within the project did not need to be public, just the inter-linking street.

As to access points, Ms. Everett stated that she felt that the trip numbers were low in the traffic study. Traffic was a big concern. In her opinion, it was necessary to place a light at Green Meadow. She felt the Township should encourage the Kalamazoo County Road Commission to place a light in that location. Given that the trip generation numbers might be low, it was even more important that both the Green Meadow and the Skyridge access points were utilized; concentrating all trips onto Green Meadow would be even more of a traffic problem.

In considering whether it might be viable to allow only the Green Meadow connection and accommodating a possible connection to West Main Street in the future, Mr. Krueger noted that it might be ten years or more before a connection to West Main was made. This would mean that Green Meadow would be operating at a low level during that entire time. He encouraged use of both Green Meadow and Skyridge was as access points. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the development be allowed to access both roads. The Planning Commissioners felt that there would be problems generated by concentrating all traffic on one road.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell commented that she felt that Skyridge and Green Meadow should be added to the sidewalk plan being worked on.

It was recognized that the setbacks for the buildings at this development would have to be altered for those buildings along the public road.

As to landscaping, the applicant planned to preserve the vegetation along the perimeter and, for the most part, comply with Ordinance standards. However, where the property was adjacent to the golf course, the applicant was seeking to eliminate landscaping requirements so that there could be a view of the golf course from the development. Further, the developer wished the Board to require less screening along the east side because of the lower density than allowed.

After discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that deviation from landscaping provisions along the golf course was appropriate. However, Planning Commissioners felt that the more intense plantings required by Ordinance standards along the east side were appropriate to screen the development from the neighborhoods.

There was discussion of the trash compactor location and the fact that it was partially underground. It was the consensus of Planning Commissioners that the trash compactor location was not problematic.

The Chairperson noted the letters received from members of the public, as well as the petition signed by plat residents. Letters from Jean Grimes, Ann Lauver, James Bauhof, and Virginia Simmons were noted. Board members had received copies of these letters and the petition.

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

(1) That as to access, the development would be provided access from the two existing public streets, i.e., Green Meadow and Skyridge. A public road interior in the development was required to inter-link from one of the existing public streets to the north or west property line of the site. The access arrangement is subject to the review and approval of the Kalamazoo County Road Commission consistent with the Township's Access Management Guidelines.

(2) That parking as proposed by the applicant was satisfactory with the reservation of 77 future spaces. The Township retained the right to require the establishment of additional parking spaces if a parking shortage was observed.

(3) That all buildings must meet setback requirements of the Ordinance.

(4) That a landscaping plan satisfying the requirements of the landscaping provisions of the Ordinance was required, except with regard to that area abutting the golf course on the north and west sides. Deviation along those lines was allowed in that the applicant would not be required to provide additional plantings along those property lines. The remainder of the site must meet all Ordinance requirements. The plan must be submitted to the Township Staff for review and approval prior to construction commencement.

(5) That site lighting must comply with the requirements of Section 78.700.

(6) That details as to the enclosure of the trash compactor must be provided and approved by Township Staff.

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

(8) That approval is subject to the review and finding by the Township Engineer that site engineering was adequate.

(9) That an earth change permit from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner was required before any earth work began at the property.

(10) That all signage must meet Ordinance standards except for any deviation granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

(11) That a revised site plan complying with the approval of the Planning Commission must be submitted to Township Staff for review and approval.

Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and Jim Bauhof stated his unhappiness with the proposed motion, noting that the plat had been in its location for 30 years and Leisure Time for only 15 years. He was concerned that the Planning Commission was requiring both access to Green Meadow and Skyridge because of the comment of the public concerning the "unfairness" of burdening only the Leisure Time development. The Township Attorney stated that the Planning Commissioners had expressed their reliance on the opinions and study of KATS in determining that the two access points were necessary to achieve the most safe traffic situation for the development. The Chairperson and Mr. Turcott agreed with the Attorney's comment. Mr. Bauhof commented that the traffic study was a joke because the numbers for trip generation were too low. The Township Attorney commented in response that, if more traffic was generated than had been estimated by KATS, then their conclusion that both access points would be the safest access arrangement was even more true. The Chairperson and Mr. Turcott agreed.

Upon a vote on the motion, the motion carried unanimously.


Ms. Stefforia stated that she had provided copies of the proposed letter to Dale Shugars and asked for comments from Planning Commissioners within the next two days.


Ms. Garland-Rike stated that she felt that the Planning Commission and Township should pursue its work on sidewalks. She felt that this would allow for safer streets. She was also concerned that the Master Land Use Plan was not compatible with the "R-4" zoning in this location. It was noted that it was problematic to change existing zoning relied upon by an owner or purchaser. It had been the Township's policy not to change zoning over the objection of the owner. However, it was recognized that the Redstone development and its lower density was more in keeping with the Master Land Use Plan and its policies for this area than some other possible developments at the site.


There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.


Stanley Rakowski, Secretary
Minutes prepared:
January 29, 2002

Minutes approved:
, 2002