OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
October 13, 2005
JACOBSON - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - HOME OCCUPATION UTILIZING AN ACCESSORY BUILDING - 515 SOUTH 4TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-21-155-021)
ROCHE - SITE PLAN REVIEW - NORTHEAST CORNER OF 8TH STREET AND STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-35-105-010)
A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, October 13, 2005, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.
MEMBERS PRESENT: James Turcott, Chairman
Deborah L. Everett
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director; Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; James W. Porter, Township Attorney; and approximately 15 other interested persons.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
The Chairman said that the first item of business was the Agenda, and he asked if there were any revisions. Mr. Schley made a motion to approve the Agenda, as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the next item was the minutes of September 22, 2005. Mr. Gould made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, and Ms. Everett seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
JACOBSON - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - HOME OCCUPATION UTILIZING AN ACCESSORY BUILDING - 515 SOUTH 4TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-21-155-021)
The Chairman said the next item on the Agenda was consideration of a special exception use for a home occupation for Vern Jacobson. He said the home occupation, utilizing a portion of an accessory building, is located at 515 South 4th Street, Parcel No. 3905-21-155-021. The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge submitted a report to the Planning Commission dated October 13, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.
Ms. Bugge explained that special exception use and site plan review approval is required for a home occupation utilizing an accessory building. She said the applicant operates a sign business known as PI Sign and & Awning from his residence. She said, while the office was in the home, the applicant was proposing to use a portion of an accessory building for related activities of his home occupation. She noted that the proposed building was being constructed to replace one that was destroyed by fire. She stated that the applicant indicated that a portion of the building would be used to store aluminum extrusions. She pointed out that the Planning Commission should address two key issues - first, whether there were going to be any nonresident employees on site, and second, the amount of the space to be used in the accessory building for any business-related storage or activities.
Ms. Bugge stated that this request also included approval of the accessory building as with its construction, the aggregate area of accessory buildings on site would exceed the ground floor area of the dwelling.
Ms. Bugge then took the Planning Commission through the dimensions of the proposed structure, as well as the special exception provisions of Section 60.100, and the criteria of Sections 78.920 and 78.800.
The Chairman asked the Commission members if they had any questions of Ms. Bugge. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Vern Jacobson introduced himself to the Planning Commission and asked the members if they had any questions.
The Chairman began by asking, if Mr. Jacobson would have any nonresident employees coming to the site. Mr. Jacobson said he would have one part-time person coming to his home located on 4th Street. He said any larger projects for which he needed additional help would be done on the customer's site and that he never had any more than one part-time person helping him at his home.
Ms. Garland-Rike asked what the part-time person did. Mr. Jacobson said he assisted in covering awnings, and on occasion, doing some pre-assembly on site. Ms. Garland-Rike asked if all assembling was done at the 4th Street location. Mr. Jacobson said some of it was, but that for the most part, the awnings were assembled on the job site. Ms. Garland-Rike asked if the limited assembly done on site was all done indoors. Mr. Jacobson said that it was. Mr. Jacobson noted that there was no manufacturing done on site, just some limited assembly. Ms. Garland-Rike asked if there was any noise associated with assembly of the awnings. Mr. Jacobson said that there was some noise associated with the use of a chop-saw and a pneumatic hammer, but it was not anything in comparison to other environmental noises.
Mr. Schley asked if the fire associated with Mr. Jacobson's previous accessory building was related to his business activities. Mr. Jacobson said it was not. Mr. Schley asked if there were any hazardous materials that might have prompted the previous fire. Mr. Jacobson said no, and they were not certain, to this day, what had caused the fire. He said that they were not even on-site at the time the fire destroyed the accessory building.
The Chairman asked what the volume of orders Mr. Jacobson might fill in a week's time. Mr. Jacobson said, in the winter, it was very slow, but that in mid-summer, he might fill three to five jobs per week. The Chairman asked how most of his materials were delivered. Mr. Jacobson said generally he used UPS to obtain delivery. He said, on occasion when things were shipped in by truck, he would go with his own vehicle to the truck terminal and pick up any large items and return them to his property on 4th Street.
Mr. Smith asked if there was any paint or chemicals used in his business operation. Mr. Jacobson said he had no more chemicals on his property than any handyman might have in his shop for his own personal use.
Mr. Schley asked what the total amount of space that Mr. Jacobson might use within the accessory building. Mr. Jacobson was uncertain as to how to answer, and Mr. Schley responded by asking him if he would use all of the accessory building for his business purposes. Mr. Jacobson said absolutely not. He said as far as storage goes, he would use an area approximately one foot wide x 24 foot long for the storage of the aluminum extrusions. All the rest of the accessory building would be used for his personal use except for those times when they assemble an awning within the accessory building. Mr. Jacobson then indicated that he may store the aluminum extrusions outside.
Ms. Bugge stated that outside storage was not permitted for home occupations and requested that the extrusions be stored in the accessory building. Mr. Jacobson agreed to do so.
Ms. Garland-Rike asked what kind of equipment Mr. Jacobson had on-site. Mr. Jacobson said he had a chop-saw, a pneumatic hammer, and some clamps. He added that his business was not a dedicated manufacturing facility and that most of his tools were hand tools which could be used for personal use. He said he had no presses, no brakes, no punch press, and no heavy equipment whatsoever. Ms. Garland-Rike asked how often he used equipment to assemble the awnings on-site. Mr. Jacobson said 90 percent of the time all the work was done off-site, and therefore, only ten percent of the time were the awnings assembled at his home.
Mr. Gould asked if he knew of any neighbors who opposed his business operation. Mr. Jacobson said he was not aware of any.
Ms. Everett asked if he had been running this business at this location for approximately 12 years. Mr. Jacobson said that was correct, and he believed he had a good relationship with all of his neighbors.
The Chairman called for public comment. Hearing none, he called for Commission deliberations. The Chairman said he thought most of the questions which had been raised by the Planning Department had been addressed by Mr. Jacobson.
Mr. Schley made a motion to approve the special exception use, accessory building and site plan based upon the representations of the applicant, and approval of the special exception use and site plan should be subject to the discussions and representations of the applicant and the Commission. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
ROCHE - SITE PLAN REVIEW - NORTHEAST CORNER OF 8TH STREET AND STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-35-105-010)
The Chairman said the next item on the Agenda was site plan review for a proposed commercial development at the northeast corner of 8th Street and Stadium Drive, Parcel No. 3905-35-105-010. The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Commission. Ms. Stefforia submitted her report to the Planning Commission dated October 13, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.
Ms. Stefforia told the Planning Commission that they had previously reviewed the site plan on September 8, 2005, and they had tabled the matter in order to allow the developer to address the concerns expressed at the previous meeting.
Ms. Stefforia said, since September, two of the three retail buildings were moved to satisfy the 20-foot maximum setback, with no parking in front. She noted that the applicant was still seeking a deviation to allow the retail building in the southwest corner to utilize the 70-foot maximum setback, with 30 percent of the parking in front of the building. She said the office building had also been moved and was setback 20 feet from the right-of-way, in compliance with the Ordinance. In addition, she said the inter-connectivity of the sidewalks had been improved, including stamped concrete detail on driveway crossings within the development. She said the building facades had also been revised to not only change their architectural appearance, but to bring the building components in compliance with the Township Zoning Ordinance provisions.
Ms. Stefforia then took the Planning Commission through a review of the Village Commercial District criteria set forth in Section 33.400, as well as site plan review as provided for under Section 82.800 of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Stefforia stressed the need for the Planning Commission to address the requested setback deviation, as well as the deviation from the parking provisions for Building # 2. At the conclusion of Ms. Stefforia's report, the Chairman asked the Commission members if they had any questions. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant.
Ms. Brenda Ryan of Continental Companies, as Agent for the owner, introduced herself to the Planning Commission. Ms. Ryan told the Planning Commission that they had worked diligently in response to the concerns raised previously. She asked that the Commission take note of the fact that they had relocated Buildings #1 and #3, in total in compliance with the Ordinance. She also said that, while they wished to locate retail Building #2 further back from Stadium Drive, they had done it in conjunction with an enhanced pedestrian walkway plan in order to encourage pedestrian traffic throughout the entire development. Ms. Ryan said, in addition to the improved pedestrian plan, they had added additional green area in the center, along with patios surrounding Buildings #1 and #2, to encourage outdoor seating and attract those businesses which would enhance the Village Commercial area. Also, the developer had added covered walkways at all of the buildings to make them more pedestrian-friendly and to encourage pedestrian use throughout the development. She noted that they had moved the office building from the eastern portion of the property to the northwest portion of the property. Ms. Ryan pointed out that they changed the orientation of the building due to topography and a desire to minimize the impact on the surrounding community.
Ms. Ryan stated that they also changed the building materials to make sure that they were all brick, block or wood with a natural appearance. She added that they had changed the configuration of all the retail buildings to break up the lineal appearance of the structures and make them appear more like separate-attached structures. At the conclusion of Ms. Ryan's report, she asked if the Planning Commission had any questions.
Mr. Larson asked why they had changed the orientation of the office building toward 8th Street. Ms. Ryan said it was due, in part, to the topography in the area, as well as a desire to minimize the impact that it would have on the properties across the street. Mr. Larson expressed a concern about the parking in front of the building. Ms. Stefforia said that only a portion of that parking was actually in front of the building, since frontage was defined by the leading edge of the building.
Ms. Garland-Rike asked what they would do with the vacant space labeled "future office site." Ms. Ryan said it would be left in a natural state, but to the extent it was disturbed by the construction, it would be regraded and planted until such time as it was developed. Ms. Garland-Rike asked when they would start building and what buildings would be built first. Ms. Ryan said they would likely begin construction this fall and initially develop retail Building #2, and Mr. Roche's office building.
The Chairman asked if there were further questions of Ms. Ryan, and hearing none, he opened the meeting for public comment.
Mr. Jim Ross said that last time he had been in favor of the proposal, but he did not like the relocation of the office building along 8th Street. He asked what had been proposed for this location at the previous meeting. Ms. Stefforia said it was listed as future office development at the previous meeting. Mr. Ross said that, due to the changes, he had some concerns about how the office building would be screened from the residences along 8th Street. He also said he thought they should keep the commercial development further to the south, rather than moving it toward the northern portion of the property.
Mary Marion Hill told the Planning Commission she would like to express her concerns regarding the proposed development. She said she thought the proposal was not "villagy" enough. She said she also thought that the parking was excessive and that she opposed the development in the form that it currently exists. She also asked that the Commissioners take note of the letter that was submitted by Earl and Virginia Hill in opposition to the proposed development.
Mr. Chuck Soles Sowles introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He asked whether the residential portion and the commercial portion of the development were one single proposal or two. Ms. Stefforia said that there were two separate proposals and would be considered separately. Mr. Soles Sowles asked the Commission to determine whether this fit within the Master Land Use Plan and questioned whether this would actually encourage the small retail shops that he thought they wanted in the Village Commercial area. Mr. Soles Sowles then expressed concern regarding the traffic issues and the need for a traffic light. The Chairman explained, as they had at the previous meeting, that traffic lights and the traffic, in general, were under the jurisdiction of the County Road Commission. However, he noted that the Township will talk to the Road Commission and had express concerns to the Road Commission on behalf of the residents of the Township.
Mr. George Harvey asked to address the Planning Commission. He noted that he had brought up the issue of the traffic light and was still concerned about that issue. He said he was even more concerned because the commercial nature of the development was moving further north. He said he thought it should be kept further to the south. However, he noted that it was Mr. Roche's property, and he had the right to develop his property, but he had hoped that the commercial development would be further to the south.
The Chairman asked if there was any further public comment, and hearing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting. The Chairman called for discussion by the Planning Commission. Ms. Stefforia pointed out to the Planning Commission that the office located along 8th Street was still within the Village Commercial area, and therefore, the proposed building was in compliance with current zoning.
Ms. Everett asked what the parking requirements for the site were. Ms. Stefforia said the development could have four less parking spaces than currently proposed, but noted that, if they wanted to compute off-peak hours, they might actually be able to reduce their parking further. Ms. Everett asked if she had computed parking based upon the total size of the development. Ms. Stefforia indicated that she had. Ms. Everett asked if she had computed the amount of parking as it related to the office structure. Ms. Stefforia said she had not had an opportunity to calculate the parking for that building separately from the rest of the development.
The Chairman said he thought that the applicant had returned to the Commission with a proposal which addressed many of the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission at its earlier meeting. Mr. Schley said that he agreed. Mr. Schley also said that the 8th Street office created somewhat of a dilemma and that there needed to be a compromise with regard to its orientation to 8th Street. He noted that, if the building was made to comply with the Village Commercial, it would actually require the office building to come much closer to 8th Street, thereby having a negative impact on the neighbors across the street. He said he thought that the twist in the building orientation actually helped mitigate the impact on the neighbors. He suggested the Commission allow the building to remain in its proposed location, but additional buffers be added in order to soften the impact on the properties across 8th Street. He said if they did that, he thought it would be a good compromise. Ms. Garland-Rike said she had thoughts similar to those expressed by Mr. Schley. She said she thought that the Planning Commission could address the concerns of the neighboring property owners with additional landscaping and screening. Mr. Schley asked the Planning Department if the Commission would have to allow a deviation to permit the office building to remain in its current location. Ms. Stefforia indicated that was correct due to its orientation.
Ms. Garland-Rike asked why there was parking in front of the office building. Mr. Roche said that he could not move the parking to the rear of the building because of topography. He said he would be more than willing to put in additional trees to screen the property from 8th Street. However, he needed to maintain the parking spaces because he had 38 employees. Ms. Stefforia said, if the office was evaluated separately, they had 16 more parking spaces than were needed. Attorney Porter asked if the Commission did not typically look at these sites as a whole. It was a general consensus of the Planning Commission that they did.
Mr. Larson said that he agreed that the orientation of the office building helped to soften its impact, but thought that the parking in front of the building took away from that, and he thought at least four of the spaces should be moved elsewhere. Ms. Garland-Rike said she thought that landscaping could be added to the large triangle between the building and 8th Street to minimize the impact that the parking would have. Mr. Roche said that would not be a problem, but he did need some parking left in front. Mr. Larson said that he understood the nature of his request, but that parking in front of the building was not allowed in the Village Commercial District. Ms. Stefforia said she believed that there was only one barrier-free space which was actually in front of the building based upon the front being defined by the leading edge of the structure. Ms. Bugge pointed out that, in the Village, parking was allowed on the streets, so it was not totally inconsistent to allow some parking in front of the building.
The Chairman said he believed the concerns about the parking could be addressed through screening or a minor reduction in the amount of parking permitted in front of the proposed office.
Mr. Schley noted, since they were requesting a deviation, that the Commission did have the authority to make changes with regard to the parking, as well the screening. Mr. Larson said he could agree with a minor reduction of parking, if there was enhanced screening.
Mr. Schley said, with regard to Building #2, the developer had created a reasonable segue from the property to the west to the Village Commercial District. He said that the Ordinance did allow modification to provide for 30 percent of the parking in front of the building, as well as additional setbacks. He said that two of the buildings had been relocated totally in compliance with the Ordinance, and that allowing this one building, a deviation was reasonable, given the other nearby structures and the fact that it was the first building located on the west side of the Village Commercial District.
Ms. Garland-Rike said that she thought the applicant had provided a very nice development. She complimented them on the increased pedestrian walkways and the covered walkways, as well as the reconfiguration of the buildings. She said she thought the applicant had done a good job listening to the Planning Commission and had tried to address the issues which had been raised.
Mr. Smith said that he thought the plan was better, but he thought that the building facades could have been better designed. Mr. Larson said he also thought there needed to be some additional adjustments to the parking for Building #2 to break up the linear parking in front of the building.
Ms. Everett said she wanted to see Building #2 closer to the road, since she thought it was the main focal point of the development. She also noted that she did not believe the building design met the spirit and intent of the Village Commercial District. Mr. Roche pointed out that he had eliminated parking from the front of Buildings #1 and #3, and that he simply could not eliminate parking in front of Building #2 and still allow for a small retail commercial. He said the only developers likely to buy space in Buildings #1 and #3 would be the larger retailers which could occupy an entire section of the building, front to back. He said that, by eliminating the parking in front of Building #2, they would actually be hurting the smaller commercial retailers which they want to attract to the Village Commercial District.
Ms. Bugge pointed out that the applicant was only requesting 27 parking spaces in front of Building #2, which was less than 10 percent of the total parking within the development.
Mr. Schley said he was satisfied with the proposed location of Building #2 and thought that the development had come a long way. He thought perhaps screening with hedges would go a long way in addressing the concerns over the parking in front of the building. Mr. Larson said not only should hedges be added, but the parking should be further broken up by landscape islands.
Ms. Everett expressed a concern about the development in its current configuration. She said there were other large parcels within the Village Commercial District, and she was concerned about setting a precedent in this case for future Village Commercial development. Ms. Stefforia pointed out that the Commission was not granting any variances but only minor deviations. She said, since they were deviations which were site specific, she did not believe they would set an improper precedent.
Ms. Ryan pointed out that pedestrian traffic patterns had not been fully developed within the Village Commercial District, and until they were developed, they needed to have a certain amount of vehicular traffic to keep the development growing. She thought this was a good compromise, which would achieve that result.
Ms. Garland-Rike suggested taking a couple of the spaces from the parking in front of Building #2 and installing landscaping islands. Ms. Ryan said they could reduce the main parking island located in the center of the parking lot and relocate a couple of other smaller islands within the front parking area to break up the parking as requested. Ms. Garland-Rike asked if they would be keeping the same number of parking spaces, but simply reconfiguring them. Ms. Ryan said that was correct.
Mr. Schley said he thought that the applicant was willing to discuss breaking up the parking and wondered if Ms. Everett would consider the placement of Building #2 as proposed, if that was done. Ms. Everett said she did not think that the proposal met the spirit of the Ordinance. She asked the applicant why they had pushed Building #2 back from Stadium Drive. Ms. Ryan said it was done in order to allow the division of the building to accommodate smaller retailers with entrances on the front side of the building. She said currently no one walked Stadium Drive and that their attempt to put smaller retailers in that building was an attempt to create smaller retail shops consistent with the spirit and intent of the Village Commercial District. She stated this could not be done without a deviation for parking in front of the building.
Ms. Garland-Rike said she looked at it differently from the way that Ms. Everett viewed the development. Ms. Garland-Rike said she thought that it was best to have the first building along Stadium Drive further back and more in line with the buildings to the west, and that the buildings further to the east be brought closer to the road to be more compatible with the development within the core Village area. She said she also thought that the location of Building #3 along 8th Street achieved the same result. She said she supported the concept of the first building being a transition point on the western edge of the Village Commercial area. She thought adding landscaping to screen the vehicles would be appropriate.
Mr. Schley said, if the parking was broken up in front of Building #2 and if the other buildings were built in strict compliance with the Ordinance, he thought it was consistent with general zoning principles, and that is, to go from less conforming to more conforming, especially when you abut adjacent properties whose design and appearance are not consistent with the particular zone. Ms. Stefforia agreed that was a common planning principle, as did Attorney Porter.
Mr. Schley said he could make a motion if he was able to get clarification on a couple of issues. He asked if a couple of parking spaces in front of the office building were moved and additional screening was required, if that would that satisfy the Commission. Mr. Larson said he thought that would soften the proposal and create enough flexibility to get him to agree to the proposal. However, he asked Mr. Schley how that would appear from Stadium Drive. Mr. Schley said Mr. Larson's comments made him wonder what the signage would look like on the buildings, and inquired as to why sign requirements had not been incorporated into the building design. Ms. Stefforia said that they would get wall signs as provided for under the Ordinance. Mr. Schley said he thought that should be part of the building design. Attorney Porter noted that he did not read Section 33.409 as requiring signs to be considered as part of the architectural review of the buildings. Mr. Schley said, while it was not provided for under the Ordinance as drafted, perhaps the issue should be looked at in the future. Attorney Porter agreed.
Mr. Schley suggested that they focus on what most of the Commission members would agree to be a reasonable compromise regarding the change in parking near the office building, as well as appropriate screening for the office building and Building #2. It was the general consensus of the Commission to enhance the landscaping in the triangular area immediately west of the office building, as well as north of the building, and to remove two of the parking spaces in order to make sure that there was no parking within the 20-foot setback area. In addition, there needed to be additional hedges to screen the vehicles in front of Building #2 along Stadium Drive. In addition, the parking in front of Building #2 needed to be broken up with additional landscape islands, in consultation with the Staff. Mr. Larson said he would agree with that, but wanted it understood that the vehicles needed to be less visible along Stadium Drive and the building made more prominent. Mr. Schley asked if the Planning Commission was comfortable with having Staff review the additional screening to be placed west of the office building and the hedges around the parking area of Building #2. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave final review to the Planning Department.
Mr. Schley then made a motion to approve the site plan, as submitted, with the following conditions:
(1) That the developer add enhanced screening of the vehicles in the triangle area opposite Glendora Lane and in the triangle northwest of the office building in order to soften the impact of the building and vehicular parking on properties to the west, subject to Staff review and approval.
(2) That parking be eliminated or reconfigured near the office building so that all spaces are at a 20-foot setback minimum.
(3) That the applicant be required to break up the linear parking for Building #2 along Stadium Drive with additional landscaped islands and screen the parking on Stadium Drive with shrubs or a hedge so that the cars are less visible, subject to Staff review and approval.
(4) That landscaping shall be installed as reflected on the site plan, and as discussed and amended by the Planning Commission before a Certificate of Occupancy is granted, or a Performance Guarantee consistent with Section 82.950 provided to the Township.
(5) That all driveways are subject to review and approval by the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.
(6) That a private street providing access to the open space community must be built to Township standards, and a private street easement must be provided for Township review and approval before recording.
(7) That a draft of the Master Deed and Bylaws establishing the commercial condominium must be provided for Township review and approval before recording.
(8) That a deviation be granted to allow a setback of up to 70 feet for Building #2, and to allow parking between the building and the street. Grant of the deviations are based upon the location of the building and parking on adjacent properties on 8th Street, which have greater building setbacks, and which have parking in front of the buildings, thereby creating a segue from the west into the Village Commercial area.
(9) That the dumpster enclosures be required as provided on the landscaping plan.
(10) That loading areas be reviewed and approved by Township Staff.
(11) That a lighting plan and details of all exterior light fixtures shall be provided for Staff review and approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
(12) That a Sign Permit, in compliance with Section 76.000 and Section 33.410 of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be applied for and granted by the Township prior to the placement of any signs on the property.
(13) That site plan approval is subject to Fire Department approval.
(14) That site plan approval is subject to Township Engineer review and acceptance of site engineering as adequate.
(15) That an Environmental Permits Checklist, pursuant to Section 69.000 of the Ordinance, must be submitted before a Building Permit may be issued.
(16) That a Hazardous Substances Reporting form must be completed and submitted for each tenant.
The Chairman asked if there was support for the motion. Mr. Larson supported the motion. The Chairman called for additional comments, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Stefforia indicated that Consumers Credit Union had asked to defer the construction of the bike paths at 6699 West Main Street until such time as West Main Street was reconstructed by the State of Michigan. There was a brief discussion of the Planning Commission members. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission members that the bike paths should proceed as approved, since the reconstruction of West Main Street was not certain at this point in time.
Mr. Schley expressed some concern over the landscaping of the drainage area at Sky King. He also said that the issue of signs and their effect on development within the Village Commercial area might require review and a change in the Ordinance. Attorney Porter agreed. Ms. Everett also expressed a concern about needing additional architectural standards for the Village Commercial area.
The Chairman asked if there were any further comments, and hearing none, he adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
October 20, 2005