OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)



May 11, 2000








A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, 
May 11, 2000, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township.

Wilfred Dennie, Chairman
Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell
Ted Corakis
Ken Heisig
Neil Sikora
Stanley Rakowski
Marvin Block


Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director, Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner, 
and Robert C. Engels, Township Attorney, and approximately 16 other interested persons.

The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.

Mr. Corakis moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, with the possible addition of two items 
if time permitted.  Mr. Block seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

The Commission considered the minutes of the meeting of April 27, 2000.  Ms. Heiny-Cogswell 
asked that the minutes be corrected to reflect the change of the word "than" to "in lieu of" 
on page 10, in the paragraph beginning with "The developer expressed".  Thus, the sentence 
would read as follows: "Ms. Heiny Cogswell stated that she would be more in favor of such a 
deviation in lieu of making the roads private." Mr. Rakowski moved to approve the minutes as 
corrected, and Mr. Heisig seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

The Planning Commission resumed the public hearing on the rezoning request of several property 
owners, encompassing 12 parcels located in Sections 34 and 35 on the south side of Stadium Drive.  
The applicants have requested that the rear of the properties be rezoned from "AG" 
Agricultural-Rural District zoning classification to "C" Local Business District.  The request 
is to extend the commercial zoning to the AT&T right-of-way, which is the rear property line for 
the parcels under consideration.  The parcel numbers are as follows: 3905-35-115-010, 35-115-020, 
35-115-050, 35-115-066, 35-115-070, 35-135-090, 35-115-031, 34-280-032, 34-280-011, 34-280-016, 
34-281-010 and 34-280-040.  The Planning Commission expanded the area under consideration to 
include the three remaining parcels in Section 35 with split zoning of "AG" and Commercial, 
as well as one parcel on the west side of Chime Street that is surrounded by "C" zoned 
properties, but is zoned "AG".  The matter was tabled on February 24, 2000, as it was believed 
by the Planning Commission that the request was premature given the progress that was being made 
on the Village Commercial District.  Seven of the twelve properties in the request are 
within the Village Focus Area.

The applicant is requesting at this time that the Planning Commission take action on the western 
five properties of the rezoning request.  The applicant is willing to leave the seven eastern 
most parcels on the table for now, pending conclusion of the Village Commercial text amendment 
and district establishment.  These five properties were originally part of the Village Focus 
Area boundaries, but when the area was studied and the development plan established, the western 
five properties were removed from the Village Focus Area and reclassified to Rural-Residential.  
The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Mr. Corakis revealed a possible conflict as the result of his ownership of property near the 
subject properties.  He had previously made this same disclosure, and it was determined by legal 
counsel that there was no conflict, and the same determination was made at this time.

Ms. Stefforia provided history of Stadium Drive rezoning requests, beginning with the Geresy 
property which was rezoned in 1990 from Agricultural to Commercial.  In that situation, the 
AT&T right-of-way made for a good transition area.  The Corakis property was rezoned in 1997, 
with the rezoning being consistent with some of the goals of the Land Use Plan.  The Schramm 
rezoning request was denied last year because it was not supported by the Master Land Use Plan.  
The last rezoning, involving two properties, was a request for either Commercial or "R-3", and 
"R-3" was granted.

Ms. Stefforia stated that the five properties are currently classified as Rural Residential.  
A Commercial classification has been requested, but other possible reclassifications include 
Transitional, Village Focus Area, Multiple Family Residential or Industrial.  The rear of the 
properties is currently zoned "AG" Agricultural-Rural District, with the request being for "C" 
Local Business District, consistent with the frontage.  Other possible zoning would be "R-3" 
Residential District with possible future rezoning being "VC" Village Commercial District.  
Other possible zoning would include "R-4" Residential District or "I-R" Industrial District 

The five parcels were reclassified to Rural Residential when the Village Focus Area boundaries 
were narrowed, although properties to the west are Industrially-zoned and Commercial zoning can 
be found to the east and north of the properties, with the frontage of the properties already 
being zoned Commercial.  The property to the west is zoned "I-1" Industrial on the northern 
acreage, and "AG" Agricultural-Rural on the southern parcel.  The recently-completed update to 
the Industrial Land Use Policies in the Master Land Use Plan indicate that existing Industrial 
areas should neither be expanded nor reduced. 

The five properties encompass approximately 50 acres, with 33 acres being zoned "AG", and the 
remaining 17 acres being within the "C" Local Business District.

The "C" Local Business District is designed to permit retail sales and commercial service uses 
catering to the general public as distinguished from industry or general business customers.  
There are no design criteria applied to development within the Commercial District.

The purpose behind the proposed "VC" Village Commercial text is to promote a village atmosphere 
providing for retail convenience needs of residents residing in nearby residential areas. 
The "AG" Agricultural-Rural District is classified as rural in character and is designed to 
permit the lowest density residential as well as other rural types of activities.  

Chairperson Dennie stated that the Industrial area is important and must be retained.  There are 
brownfields within the Industrial area, and the Township is taking steps to put the brownfield 
areas back into use.

The applicant was represented by Charles Hill. Mr. Hill stated that the rezoning would allow 
orderly development of the property and would cause the properties to be a buffer rather than 
running the Village Focus Area boundaries to the Industrial area.  He also pointed out that 
earlier plans had the property zoned Commercial but were withdrawn because the Board at that 
time did not want to rezone on its own initiative.  

The meeting was opened to public comment.

Terry Schley, who resides at 1266 Wickford, stated that he had been looking in the Township for 
an acquisition.  He believed that the Village Focus Area should extend all the way west to the 
Industrial area.

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

Chairperson Dennie stated that the Planning Commission must look at what is allowed by the 
Ordinance in that area.  All permitted uses under the "C" District should be examined with an 
eye to how the rezoning would impact on the Master Land Use Plan and on the Village Focus Area.

Mr. Rakowski commented that he was concerned with the infrastructure for roads.  He did not 
think that the lots would be sold individually, but rather would be bought as one development.

Chairperson Dennie stated that it was a concern of the Board in the past to put in place a 
mechanism by which the Township could work with a developer or land owner to put in effect 
what the developer or land owner desired while respecting the goals of the Village Focus Area.

Mr. Corakis did not think that one person could buy all the parcels for development because 
it would be difficult to convince all the land owners to sell.

Mr. Block was concerned that moving the Village Focus Area to the Industrial boundary changes 
the effect of what the Planning Commission is trying to accomplish through the Village Focus 

Chairperson Dennie stated there were very difficult issues for the Planning Commission.  The 
Planning Commission had to consider how to accomplish its plan.  If the property is zoned 
Commercial, there is the risk that a sizable commercial entity would come in, and that would 
defeat the purpose of what is planned for that area.

Mr. Rakowski stated that there would be a problem with the streets as the AT&T right-of-way 
could not be used.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell was concerned about not knowing what the Commercial scale would be, and that 
it might not fit what the Planning Commission wanted to do in that area.  She is not opposed to 
Commercial in that area but is concerned about the scale of the buildings and how they are 
designed.  She thought that it might make more sense to move the boundary of the Village Focus 

Mr. Corakis stated that he thought it would be better to have the property zoned Commercial 
back to the AT&T right-of-way.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell said that she would rule out Industrial as there are better areas in the 
Township for Industrial zoning.  She felt that multi-family could fit that area.

Mr. Corakis disagreed with multi-family being a good fit for the area.

Mr. Heisig stated that he believed there were two choices for the property, one being Commercial 
and the other being an expansion of the Village Focus Area.  He wants to maintain the Industrial 
area and believes that there now exists a patchwork quilt in that area, and it would be more so 
if there is "R-3" zoning.  The only access to the property is off Stadium Drive so access to the 
property would have to be through the Commercial area.  He stated that he was leaning toward the 
applicant's request.

Mr. Sikora stated that he would like to see the Village Focus Area expanded.  Mr. Corakis 
pointed out that the Village Focus Area originally did extend to include the properties but 
was cut back.

Chairperson Dennie stated that scale is a concern and asked Ms. Stefforia for mechanisms that 
the Township has to work with a developer to impact scale or compatibility with what is planned 
for the Village Focus Area.  Ms. Stefforia stated that there was nothing in the Commercial zone 
that would require any mechanism in working with a developer.

Mr. Block did not believe that the Village Focus Area should be made any bigger.  Any access 
would be from Stadium Drive.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that the Planning Commission has recently denied Commercial rezoning 
in light of there being no pressure to rezone for Commercial through lack of Commercial property.  
She asked Ms. Stefforia about a Commercial PUD.  Ms. Stefforia said that the objective for the 
Commercial PUD would probably be similar to the objectives of the Village Focus Area.  A new 
district could be added for PUD Commercial.  Ms. Heiny-Cogswell thought that the Village Focus 
Area boundary should be moved back to where it had been originally set.

Chairperson Dennie summarized by stating that some Commissioners were talking about either 
expanding Commercial to include the parcels or expanding the Village Focus Area with the concern 
being about scale.  Others were talking about a step-down approach where the Commercial zone 
would be between the Industrial and Village Focus Area.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed rezoning was supported by the adopted 
Master Land Use Plan, and concluded that it is not as the Master Land Use Plan now calls for 
the property to be classified as Rural Residential and would have to be amended to support the 

The Planning Commission next considered whether the proposed rezonings would severely impact 
traffic, public facilities, and the natural characteristics of the surrounding area, or 
significantly change the population density, and concluded that rezoning to Commercial should 
not negatively impact traffic, public facilities, population density or the surrounding area.  

The Planning Commission then considered if the proposed rezoning constituted a spot zone granting
special privilege to one land owner not available to others, and concluded that it did not as 
the properties are already partially zoned Commercial, and the extension of the AT&T right-of-way 
is a natural boundary for the District.

The Planning Commission next considered if the proposed rezoning was contrary to the established 
Land Use pattern, and it was determined that there really was no established Land Use pattern in 
that area.

The Planning Commission next discussed the probable effect if the proposed rezoning is approved 
on stimulating similar rezoning requests in the vicinity.  It was believed that there would not 
be similar requests as this is landlocked between Industrial and the Village Focus Area.  Mr. 
Heisig stated that other Commercial rezoning requests have been denied, but believes that this 
property is distinguishable as there is an existing Commercial zone directly north and the AT&T 
right-of-way serves as a natural dividing line for Commercial zoning to the south.  There is 
also a significantly sized Industrial area immediately adjacent to the property.  This all 
combines to make this a unique circumstance.

The Planning Commission then considered if there has been a change in conditions in the 
surrounding area which would support the proposed rezoning.  The Village Focus Area and Village 
Commercial District were discussed, and it was determined that cautious steps were being taken.

The Planning Commission considered whether adequate sites properly zoned were available elsewhere
to accommodate the proposed use, and it was determined that they were, but that the location and 
circumstances of this property distinguish this site from the other available sites.

There was discussion about tabling the request to see what develops with the Village Focus Area.

Mr. Rakowski moved to table the request until June 22, 2000.  Ms. Heiny-Cogswell supported the 

Public comment was sought, and Mr. Hill believed that if the request is tabled, the owners would 
feel like they are getting their chains jerked around.  He said the Village Focus Area discussion
borders would remain where they are now located. 

Ms. Stefforia commented that it might be good to put these properties back into the Village Focus 

There being no more speakers, the public comment was closed.

Mr. Heisig stated that he would vote to support the motion only because there was a specific 
time-table.  He was sympathetic with the property owners.

The motion carried with "Aye" votes by Ms. Heiny-Cogswell, Chairperson Dennie, Mr. Block Rakowski, 
Mr. Heisig and Mr. Sikora.  Mr. Rakowski Block and Mr. Corakis voted "No".


The Planning Commission considered the request for a special exception use and site plan approval 
for an 88-unit site condominium open space community for 105 dwelling units on 60 acres on the 
north side of West H Avenue, west of 9th Street (Parcel No. 3905-03-480-024).  The Report of the 
Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Chairperson Dennie stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 24, 2000, 
had requested that the developer go to the Township Board and discuss the community sewer system.  
Mr. Block stated that it had been done on April 12, 2000.

Ms. Bugge stated that the proposed open space site condominium development, Savannah, will 
consist of 71 single-family residences and 17 duplex patio homes, for a total of 88 site and 
105 dwelling units.  The development will be located on 60 acres on the north side of West H 
Avenue between 6th and 9th Street.  Construction is proposed in three phases, with Phase I being 
19 single-family and 17 duplex patio homes, Phase II being 26 single-family homes, and Phase III 
being 26 single-family homes.  Approximately 24.2 acres or 40 percent of the land will be held 
as common open space.  There will be walking trails for passive recreation, storm water retention 
basins, and green space over the community sand-filtered septic system which will be contained in 
the open space.  The site plan indicates that the community building will be constructed in 
Phase II, and additionally, a tennis court and pool are indicated, although no construction 
time-line is stated.

Access will be from West H Avenue and consists of a public loop road with a temporary cul-de-sac 
to the north.  Five private cul-de-sacs are proposed.  The design will permit public road 
connections to adjacent property to the north, east and west.

City water will serve the site, and the developer is proposing a community sand-filtered septic 

The site plan design is dependent upon the approval of the community septic system by the 
Department of Environmental Quality and the Township.  If the system is not approved, redesign 
of the project may be necessary to accommodate larger lot sizes needed for individual septic 

The current design has been modified reflecting comments made by the Planning Commission in 
February.  The east/west walking trail has been extended to the west property line, providing a 
continuous walking path through the center of the development.  Additionally, other modifications 
may be necessary as the design of the community septic system proceeds.  Its placement as related 
to the road, storm water recharge area, and building sites may require some adjustments.

The site plan indicates that Phase I will consist of 28.45 acres of land, of which 11.5 acres, 
or 40.35 percent, will be open space.  Phases I and II combined will contain 44.5 acres, of which 
18.3 acres, or 41.1 percent, will be dedicated to open space.  At the time of completion, all 
three Phases will consist of 59.4 acres, of which 23.8 acres, or 40.1 percent will be dedicated 
open space.

Open space will consist of wooded and steep slope areas not committed to sites, the unpaved 
easements of private streets, storm recharge areas, and the green area over the sand-filtered 
drain fields.  It does not include public street rights-of-way, paved areas of private roads, 
built or paved areas within the open space areas, or the gravel area of the sand-filtered system.  
No parking will be permitted on the private streets, therefore, driveways will need to be built 
to accommodate both residential and guest use.  

Sites 34, 35 and 67 have limited building envelopes, being only 42, 45 and 50 feet wide 
respectively after the dual front setbacks are applied.  Rear and side setbacks will also apply.  
Site 17 also has a limited building envelope for the duplex use indicated.  The following sites 
have very limited or no direct access to open space, 1,2, 32, 40, 45, 59, 75-81, and 86.

At this time, any Planning Commission approval would be conditioned upon receiving the necessary 
review and approval of the Township Attorney, Township Engineer, state permits, Township Board, 
and Kalamazoo County Road Commission, as applicable.

Harry Wierenga appeared for the applicant, Dominion Group, LC.  Mr. Wierenga said that there are 
approximately 13 different floor plans for the houses that will be built, with prices ranging 
between $140,000 and $275,000, which includes the price of the lot.

He also stated that he is holding space for a rebuild of the drain field in the event that a 
rebuild is necessary and cannot be located in the same area where the first drain field will be 

The Road Commission has required minor improvements to H Avenue.  The preliminary plan has not 
yet been approved by the Road Commission because there was insufficient detail.

The lots in the project are larger than the minimum required.

Mr. Block asked if all the waste water treatment pipes will be installed at the same time.  
Mr. Wierenga indicated that each phase will be done separately, but the treatment system itself 
will be fully completed at the beginning of the project.

Mr. Wierenga said that they would not build the road stubs until it was necessary, as the asphalt
could break down, and people might use the areas for boat storage.  The right-of-ways will be 
dedicated at the beginning of the project.

Chairperson Dennie stated that Lots 34, 35, 67 and 17 had a limited building envelope, and it 
would be difficult to site the homes.  Mr. Wierenga indicated that they have homes that will 
meet the criteria.  He also indicated that they might ask for some relief on those lots.  
Mr. Dennie responded that it was a self-imposed hardship, and Mr. Wierenga agreed.

Mr. Heisig inquired about the modification that was to be made to H Avenue, and was told that 
work had to be done to the road in order to improve the line of sight.  There is presently a 
bump in the road that must come down approximately 18 inches.

There was a discussion started by Ms. Stefforia concerning the driveways on Units 4-12 which 
are duplexes.  Those driveways are to be flared.  They are not 48 feet wide.  If those driveways 
are not counted as open space, it would possibly affect the 40 percent open space figure, and 
there might be repercussions on Phase III of the project as there would be at least 40 percent 
open space until then.

Ms. Stefforia pointed out that the driveways at Quail Meadows were flared, but have now been 
filled in so the flares are no longer there.  Ms. Bugge stated that with private roads, the paved 
areas are not counted as open space, but the area beside the paving is counted as open space.  
In this case, it may not be appropriate to do so if it was covered by paved driveways.

Mr. Sikora was concerned about some of the house plans showing garages on either end.  He was 
disappointed that private drives were being used rather than public roads.  He did not think it 
was right that the residents would have to deal with maintenance.  He was also concerned about 
parking, as people are going to have to park in the driveways rather than on the roads.  
Mr. Wierenga stated that there would be some parking at the Community Center and that, because 
of the length of the driveways, there should be room in the driveways.

The meeting was opened up to public comment.

Deborah Robinson owns a duplex to the east of the entrance to the project and asked if her 
driveway could connect to the entrance street instead of H Avenue.  Mr. Wierenga stated that it 
could be done. Ms. Bugge indicated that the person to the west would also like to be connected 
to the entrance street.  Mr. Wierenga said that also could be done.

The next public comment was had by Marvin Darling, who lives at 7210 H Avenue.  He inquired 
about the location of the Community Building and if there would be lighting.  Mr. Wierenga stated
that street lighting is planned.

The next public speaker was Brian Taylor, who lives at 7074 H Avenue, which is two lots down 
from Deborah Robinson's property.  He was concerned about the community septic system and the 
effect of a failure of that system on his property as he believed that his property would become 
the receptacle for waste.  He inquired about maintenance provisions and contingencies for cost 
and maintenance of the system. 

Mr. Block stated that was a concern of the Township Board, and there was a long process to 
approve the project with licensing required and monitoring.  Mr. Block believed that there would 
be full protection for the septic system.

Mr. Taylor also felt that the project seemed to be very high density for an open space community.  
Chairperson Dennie stated that there were fewer lots under this plan than if a standard 
Subdivision Control Act project was proposed. There was a difference of 115 units compared to 
the 105 units in this project.

The next public comment was by Brian Molony, who owns the Roller World Skating Rink.  He said 
that he had a concern about Phase III being located at the back of the development as trucks 
would have to go through Phases I and II during construction of Phase III.

Marvin Darling spoke again and wanted to know why Lot 4 was located as shown.  He was told that 
it permitted a turnaround in the area and provided for more open space.  He was concerned because
it was in his back yard.

There being no more speakers, the public hearing was closed.

Chairperson Dennie summarized the public comments and stated that the roads and septic system had 
not yet been approved.  He then looked at the special exception use permit criteria.

(A)	The project is compatible with other uses expressly permitted within the "AG" 
Agricultural-Rural Zoning District.

(B)	The project provides for a low density residential development, and it is not detrimental 
or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties.  Forty percent of the development 
will be open space.

(C)	The project will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 
The septic system is a new concept, but it is a step in the right direction.  Traffic will be 
minimal, and the bump being removed on H Avenue will add to public safety.

(D)	The project will encourage the use of land in accordance with its character and 
adaptability as the project will preserve 40 percent of the area for open space.

(E)	There is now a question as to whether or not the project will satisfy the standards set 
by the Planning Commission in having 40 percent open space.  There is concern regarding the 
driveways being counted as open space, and if not, there being less than 40 percent open space.

Mr. Corakis asked if there had been approval by the Fire Department, and Ms. Bugge said that it 
had not yet been approved, and is now pending Fire Department review.  Ms. Bugge indicated that 
driveways should not be included in the open space calculation.  The drain field is a part of the
open space calculation, and the pool, tennis courts, Community Building, if not greater than one 
percent, can be included in open space.  Ms. Bugge stated that only the pool and tennis courts 
will be included in the open space calculations.

Chairperson Dennie then dealt with the open space community review criteria.

(A)	The proposal provides for 88 sites and 105 dwelling units with open space consisting of 
40 percent of the area. 

(B)	The municipal water will be provided, and a community sand-filtered septic system is 
proposed, although it is subject to obtaining state permits and Township Board approval.

(C)	Traffic impact will be minimized by the use of one access point to H Avenue, and the 
repair being made to H Avenue will help traffic flow.  No site will exit directly onto H Avenue, 
and neighbors to the east and west will be able to use the project street for ingress and egress 
rather than having to use H Avenue.  The public street and access point are subject to County 
Road Commission review and approval. Private streets are subject to review and approval of the 
Township Engineer.

(D)	The open space community should be consistent with the residential character of the area.  
Landscaping plans should be submitted, and the public street system should be completed in Phase 
II of the project.

(E)	The steeper topography of the property is contained in the open space area.

(F)	The retention of the existing steeper topography should provide opportunities for 
wildlife habitat, woodland preservation, recreation, visual impact and access.

Ms. Stefforia expressed concern that two weeks ago the Planning Commission did not allow 
cul-de-sacs.  The Planning Commission discussed that issue and determined that, in that case, 
the entire street system was private, while in the subject case there is a deliberate attempt 
to put public streets in to allow access.  There is minimal development on the private drives.

Chairperson Dennie then looked at the site plan review requirements and determined that a revised
site plan for the development was provided.  The Master Deed and Bylaws detailing the protection 
of, and Township approved uses for, the open space must be subject to the review and approval of 
the Township Attorney.  The Township Attorney must also review and approve the Master Deed and 
Bylaws of the condominium.  The engineering plans must be submitted and are subject to approval 
by the appropriate party.  The street lighting plan must also be submitted to the Planning 
Department for review.

Mr. Wierenga stated that special fixtures will probably be used for lighting. 

Chairperson Dennie then looked at the site plan criteria for review.

(A)	Access will be provided by a new public street from H Avenue.  All building sites will 
access either the new public street or a private cul-de-sac.  No residential driveway will 
directly access H Avenue.  All roads shall be subject to the approval of the Kalamazoo County 
Road Commission or the Township Engineer as appropriate.

(B)	The building site layout is satisfactory.  However, sites 34, 35, 67, and 17 have limited 
building envelopes.  Chairperson Dennie wanted it brought to the attention of the developer that 
it would be recommended that no variances be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.  Ms. 
Stefforia stated that there might be relief for lots 34 and 35 if the cul-de-sac is eliminated.

(C)	Open space will buffer the perimeter of most of the project from other properties.  The 
steepest topography will remain.  Storm water will be retained on site.  The developer should 
address retention of the natural landscape.

(D)	Landscaping plans must be given to the Planning Department for review.

Mr. Corakis moved that the special exception use permit be approved subject to the following:

(A)	The project consists of 88 single-family and duplex residential building sites resulting 
in 105 dwelling units.

(B)	The project provides for low density residential development, consistent with the purpose 
of the Agricultural-Rural Zoning District with open space making at least 40 percent of the 

(C)	The use of the property for single-family and duplex residential sites is consistent with
 the purpose of the Agricultural-Rural Zoning District.  The property will be served by municipal
 water.  A community sand-filtered septic system is proposed and subject to obtaining the 
required permits and approval by the Township Engineer, Attorney and by the Township Board.  
There will be one access point from H Avenue to the public road.  Access and the public road are 
subject to the approval of the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.  No site will directly access 
H Avenue.  The private cul-de-sacs are subject to approval by the Township Engineer.  Traffic 
impact will be minimal.  Storm water management will be subject to being found adequate by the 
Township Engineer.  The site plan is subject to the approval of the Township Engineer and the 
Township Fire Department.

(D)	The project will preserve at least 40 percent of the area for open space with the balance 
being used for residential purposes.  Designated open space shall be set aside through an 
irrevocable conveyance approved by the Planning Commission and be protected from all forms of 
development, except as shown on the approved site plan, and shall not be changed to another use 
without Township approval.

Mr. Block supported the motion.

Public commented was solicited, but there was none, so public comment was closed.

The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Rakowski moved to approve the site plan with the following stipulations and conditions:

(1)	Access will be provided by a new public street from H Avenue, no residential driveways 
having direct access to H Avenue.  The road system will consist of a public loop road and 
temporary cul-de-sac to the north and five private cul-de-sacs.  Rights-of-way for public road 
extensions to the east and west are provided.  All roads are subject to the approval of the 
Kalamazoo County Road Commission and the Township Engineer as applicable.  The public roads will 
be fully constructed at the beginning of Phase II of the project.

(2)	Driveway cuts for Parcels 03-480-020 and 029 will be provided to the new public road by 
the developer if the owners of said properties request the same, and agree to close their access 
to West H Avenue, subject to approval by the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.

(3)	Pursuant to Section 60.540D, a deviation from the required setback from the right-of-way 
of the cul-de-sacs for sites 34 and 35 will be permitted.  The setback will be determined by 
splitting the difference between the setback from the cul-de-sac right-of-way and the setback 
from the right-of-way when the cul-de-sac is removed.

(4)	The developer is aware that sites 67 and 17 have limited building envelopes, and it is 
recommended by the Planning Commission that no variances be granted by the Zoning Board of 

(5)	Open space calculations must be revised to eliminate any area to be paved, including 
driveways and private road easements. At least 40 percent open space is required in each phase.

(6)	Street lighting must comply with Section 78.700, and details must be submitted to the 
Township Staff for approval.

(7)	The Master Deed and Bylaws must be submitted to the Township and are subject to review 
and approval by the Township Attorney, including provisions for the preservation of open space 
and its protection from all forms of development, except as approved on the site plan.

(8)	Open space use is limited to low impact recreation including walking trails.

(9)	A landscaping plan of the open space area over the proposed sand-filtered system and for 
the system's fenced gravel area shall be submitted to the Township for review and approval.

(10)	Approval is subject to the review and approval of the Township Fire Department and 
compliance with any requirements imposed.

(11)	Approval is subject to the review and approval of the Township Engineer.

(12)	Approval is subject to the Township Engineer determining that the storm water management 
is adequate.

(13)	All utilities shall be underground.

(14)	Approval of the project is conditioned upon the review and approval of the community 
septic system and an Agreement regarding same by the Township Board, Township Attorney and 
Township Engineer.

(15)	Approval is subject to the applicant obtaining all necessary permits from State, County 
and Township.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Corakis.

Public input was solicited, and Mr. Wierenga stated that he believed that if areas around the 
private drives streets are included in open space, then all private driveways areas should be 
included.  There was no further public comment, and the public comment was closed.

The motion carried unanimously.


The Planning Commission next dealt with proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance affecting four 
zoning districts:  "I-R", "I-1", "C" and "C-1".  The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department
is incorporated herein by reference.

Chairperson Dennie summarized what had been determined by the Planning Commission in the past 
concerning "I-R" and "I-1"  Districts.  Proposed changes to the"I-R" District will allow office 
buildings of 10,000 square feet or more, while those in the "I-1" District may be less than 
10,000 feet.

Mr. Heisig did not believe that it should matter if the building at issue was an existing 
structure or if someone wanted to build a new structure.  The criteria is either greater or 
less than 10,000 feet, and should apply to both new and existing structures.

Chairperson Dennie said that no exceptions should be made, because if exceptions are made, there 
is no reason to have both "I-R" and "I-1" Districts.  The distinctions need to be kept.

The floor was open to public comment. 

Terry Schley stated that it appeared that the Districts should be reversed, as "I-R" would 
generally be by residential properties, and "I-1" would be by Industrial properties.  Large scale
offices should be in the "I-1" District rather than the "I-R" District.

David Ash, a local realtor, stated that he agreed with Mr. Schley.  He thought that a PUD 
Commercial would be a good idea in several areas in the Township.  There was no further public 
comment, and the public comment was closed.

Chairperson Dennie stated that an "I-R" District requires ten acres, while the "I-1" has a 
30,000 square foot minimum requirement for parcel size.

Township Staff recommended changes to Section 40.301 paragraph 5.g) to maintain consistency in 
the Industrial Districts.  Reference to Section 64.000 should be changed to Section 40.401, and 
the second paragraph in sub-paragraph g) should be eliminated.

Mr. Heisig moved to recommend approval of the text changes attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Mr. Rakowski supported the motion.  Public comment was solicited.  There being none, public 
comment was closed.  Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.


The Planning Commission next dealt with the Master Land Use Plan Amendments on Industrial Land 
Use Policies. 

Mr. Corakis moved to recommend adoption of the proposed Industrial Land Use Amendments to the 
Master Land Use Plan as contained in the attached Exhibit 2 and in the Report of the Planning 
and Zoning Department which is incorporated herein by reference.  Mr. Block seconded the motion.  

The hearing was open to public comment, but there was none, and the public hearing was closed. 

Upon vote, the motion passed unanimously.


The Planning Commission next considered the adoption of text amendments which would make 
businesses with a drive-up or drive-through use a special exception use in the "C" and "C-1" 
Local Business.  The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by 

The hearing was opened to public comment.

Mr. Brian Maloney asked if the amendment would be enforced only going forward rather than 
retroactively.  He was assured that was true.

Mr. Corakis moved to recommend the adoption of the text amendment that would be an amendment of 
Section 30.407 (formerly section for mini-warehouse facilities) and a new Section 31.408:

"Drive-in service window or drive-through services for businesses."

Public comment was solicited.  There being none, public comment was closed.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Heisig.  Upon vote, the motion carried unanimously.  


The Planning Commission determined that its first meeting in June will be June 1st.


There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned 
at 10:35 p.m.

Minutes prepared:
May 18, 2000

Minutes approved:
May 25, 2000

I-R Industrial District, Restricted - Special Exception Use

Section 40.301   

Industrial-Office Developments, designed to accommodate a variety of light industrial, applied 
technology, research, and related office uses within a subdivision setting.  This provision is 
not intended to exclude the development of individual sites held by a single entity, provided 
all regulations contained herein are satisfied.

a)	Industrial-Office Developments shall be permitted one or more of the following uses:

	1. 	Any permitted use within the I-R District;

	2. 	Corporate headquarters, administrative, business or professional offices 
                located in a building with a minimum gross floor area of not less than 
                10,000 square feet;

	3. 	Scientific or medical laboratories, engineering, testing or design facilities, 
                or other theoretical or applied research facilities;

	4. 	Secondary uses complementary to the foregoing.

		aa.	Retail and/or service establishments, including 
                        restaurants are permitted provided that such uses shall 
                        not be permitted as a principal use of a building and 
                        shall have at least one customer entrance off an interior 
                        hallway or atrium.  Under no circumstances shall 
                        drive-thru windows be permitted.

	5.     Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to the foregoing.

	       b)	The development may consist of one or more parcels under single 
                        ownership or owned separately but developed jointly according to 
                        a common development plan.

Under these provisions, sites within the development may be created either through the platting 
procedures of the Land Division Act or through the Condominium Act.  One or more principal 
buildings may be placed on an individual site.

               c)	Any industrial-office development with more than one building 
                        site shall be serviced by an internal public road.	

Access for an industrial-office development onto the existing public road and access to 
individual sites shall be designed in compliance with Section 67.000, the Master Land Use Plan 
and Access Management Policies.

	      d)	Sidewalks shall be provided along all internal public streets and
                        to each site and principal building within the development.

	      e)	Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 68.000.

Parking layouts designed to accommodate cross-access and/or cross-parking arrangements and 
facilitate pedestrian travel will be encouraged.

             f)		Loading areas may be located in side or rear yards; however, side yard 
                        loading areas shall not face public streets outside of the development 
                        and shall be screened from front yard view where practical.

Loading areas shall be designed so as not to interfere with parking and circulation, and to 
prevent the backing of trucks or other vehicles onto a public street or general circulation 

             g)		Buildings shall be located in compliance with building setback standards 
                        established by Section 40.401.

             h)		Total ground coverage shall not exceed 50 percent of the individual site.

             i)		To create a park-like atmosphere, property within the development shall 
                        be developed in an attractive manner, visually compatible with adjacent 
                        uses.  Buildings and site improvements shall be developed in compliance 
                        with the following standards:

        			1.    The design and siting of buildings and other improvements 
                                      shall follow the contours of the area and respect existing 
                                      natural features.

       				2.    The design of buildings and exterior improvements on each 
                                      individual site shall be complementary and compatible to 
                                      create a unified development image.

				3.    All improved areas of an individual site shall be 
                                      landscaped with a variety of trees, shrubbery, and ground 
                                      cover to create attractive natural buffers between adjacent
                                      uses and properties.

				4.    The placement of sculpture, fountains, and similar yard 
                                      area improvements is encouraged and will not be subject to 
                                      setback requirements.

             j)		The design of stormwater management systems shall respond to the natural 
                        drainage patterns of the area and be in coordination with the groundwater 
                        protection standards of Section 69.000 and the groundwater protection 
                        policies set forth in the Master Land Use Plan.

             k)		The industrial-office development shall be designed to incorporate and/or 
                        promote the preservation of the site’s natural features and unique 
                        physical characteristics.  A natural features preservation plan shall be 
                        submitted.  Greenspace enhancement plans for land area along public roads
                        abutting and serving the development shall also be required.

             l)		Signs shall be permitted in compliance with the provisions of 
                        Section 76.000.
             m)		Exterior site lighting shall be designed in compliance with the lighting 
                        objectives and standards set forth in Section 78.700.

             n)		Public water and sanitary sewer shall be provided as part of the site 

All utilities, including telephone, electric and cable television, shall be placed underground.

             o)		Application for approval of an industrial-office development shall be 
                        made according to the procedures for Site Plan Review set forth in 
                        Section 82.600 and  the procedures for Special Exception Uses set forth 
                        in Section 60.200.

add the following language:
Section 41.405    
Fully enclosed storage buildings and mini warehouses for separate enclosed storage primarily for 
but not limited to residential and office customers. The distance between buildings shall not be 
less than 30 feet. Outdoor storage will require prior approval by the Planning Commission.

eliminate the following sections
Section 30.407
Section 31.207

rewrite as follows:
Section 41.403
currently reads -- Office buildings for executive and professional occupations traditionally 
related to building trades, including, but not limited to, architects, engineers and surveyors.  
add -- subject to the regulations contained in Section 40.301(c) through (n), where applicable 
as determined by the Planning Commission in the Special Exception Use review/approval process.


Proposed Amendments - Industrial Land Use Classification
Pgs. 58/59

General Land Use Policies
Development in Oshtemo Township will be encouraged to accomplish the following:

	4.	Encourage industrial development which is compatible with the essential rural 
	        and residential character of the Township. Industrial park concepts and 
                industrial-office developments will be directed to large industrial properties 
                with adequate public services available.
	12.	Protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Township, and 
                residential and commercial property values by directing adult businesses to 
                industrially-zoned areas. 

	13.	Encourage industrial and large-scale office type developments in a harmonious 
                park setting in the South 9th Street and 6th Street/Stadium Drive industrial 

	14.	Recognize that, due to their nature, it is appropriate to direct some 
                non-industrial land uses to the industrially-zoned areas.

Pgs. 62/63

Industrial Land Use Policies

!	Industrial land use objectives will reflect the role of Oshtemo Township in regional 
        growth directives, specifically recognizing Oshtemo as a ‘player’ in consideration of 
        planned regional transportation and infrastructure improvements.

!	Population projections for Oshtemo Township indicate a potential increase of 2-3,000 new 
        residents by the year 2000, most of whom will likely work in the service sector of the 
        labor market. Suitable areas for industrial land use, located in recognition of the 
        Township Plan’s objective to protect community character and encourage redevelopment of 
        former industrial sites, must be preserved to develop employment opportunities and foster 
        the growth of light manufacturing and service industries within the Township.

!	Four general locations of varying size have been established for industrial development:

The 6th Street/Stadium Drive, KL Avenue/8th Street, and West Michigan/U.S. 131 areas contain 
existing industrial development and provide land area to support growth of light industry.
!	The South 9th Street corridor, and extending east to the east line of Section 35, 
        provides the necessary amenities and is earmarked for restricted industrial development, 
        including industrial parks and industrial-office developments.  Development of the 
        9th Street corridor will be considered in recognition of Texas Township’s area 
        corridor/highway land use policies.

!	Restricted industrial land use, including industrial-office developments in industrial 
        park settings will be used to buffer residential areas from intense industrial 
        development through use and site design standards.

!	Of the nearly 1,000 acres in Oshtemo Township which have been zoned for industrial use, 
        about 65 percent is in use. Of the industrial acreage, 33 percent is being used for 
        industrial purposes and 32 percent is occupied by non-industrial uses. While the four 
        established industrial locations are considered acceptable, concentration of future 
        industrial development within the 6th Street/Stadium Drive and the KL Avenue/8th Street 
        industrial areas, in part through redevelopment of former industrial sites, will be 
        encouraged.  Development within existing industrial areas and redevelopment of 
        non-industrial properties within the industrial districts will be encouraged.

!	As in most communities, over a period of time small industrial uses have developed at 
        random locations in Oshtemo Township. Even though current zoning practices allow such 
        activities to continue in their present location, future rezoning decisions will not 
        support an expansion of these areas inconsistent with Plan policies.

!	In concert with natural resource protection policies and industrial locational policies, 
        industrial development will be directed to areas currently served by adequate public 

!	In order to preserve the carrying capacity of the existing street system and provide for 
        safe and efficient site access, access management techniques will be applied in the 
        Township’s industrial areas in accordance with the Oshtemo Township Access Management 

Pg. 70

Industrial: Activities concerned with the manufacturing, treatment, processing, or bulk storage 
of goods or materials, as well as contracting services, warehousing and other limited uses 
typically operating in large buildings comparable to warehouses.  Industrial uses may primarily 
be found in the 6th Street/Stadium Drive area, the KL Avenue/8th Street area, and the South 9th 
Street corridor.

Pg. 79	

Industrial Land Use Standards

Industrial areas should meet the following locational standards:

:	Have convenient and adequate access to transportation systems, especially highways.

:	Have adequate land, free from natural resource limitations, such as drainage problems, 
        wetland or woodland encroachment, or excessive slopes, with sufficient reserve for 

:	Be served by adequate and reliable utilities and services, including fire protection.

:	Recognize the visibility and orientation needs of service industries.

:	Be located and designed so as to minimize adverse effects on non-industrial uses.

:	Utilize access management techniques in accordance with the Oshtemo Township Access 
        Management Plan.

Pg. 83


This land use classification may be found in four areas of the Township, each served by public 
utilities and in close proximity to main transportation arteries. These areas recognize existing 
industrial development and are concentrated to reflect land use trends and natural resource 
protection objectives.