OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

August 10, 2000

Untitled Untitled

Agenda

STEENSMA LAWN & POWER EQUIPMENT - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AMENDMENT -SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - 7561 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-34-185-033)

LANDSCAPING PROVISIONS - TEXT AMENDMENT (DRAFT 6)

AGRICULTURAL-RURAL ZONING DISTRICT

CANNAAN PROPERTIES REZONING - LAND SECTION 25 (3905-25-330-080)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, August 10, 2000, commencing at approximately 7:00 6:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Wilfred Dennie, Chairperson
Ken Heisig
Ted Corakis
Stanley Rakowski
Neil Sikora
Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell
Marvin Block

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

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

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. at 7561 Stadium Drive.

STEENSMA LAWN & POWER EQUIPMENT - PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AMENDMENT - 7561 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-34-185-033)

The Planning Commission considered the application for a special exception use permit and site plan amendment concerning a proposed expansion of outdoor display and storage at 7561 Stadium Drive. The subject property is within the "I-1" Industrial District zoning classification, and is Parcel No. 3905-34-185-033. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. The item had been tabled from the meeting of July 27, 2000.

The Chairperson made reference to the diagram of the site, indicating the building setback line.

The applicant was present and showed the Planning Commission members the area approved for display under the awning. He proposed display areas to the east and along the west fence line. Additionally, the area proposed for display along the front, i.e., north, was shown to Planning Commission members. All areas consist of grass.

The applicant confirmed, in answer to Mr. Block's question, that there would not be a lot of equipment displayed during winter months. At present, the applicant has no plans to carry winter sports equipment.

In response to other questions, the applicant indicated that the acreage to the east is owned as a separate parcel, and is being purchased by the applicant under land contract. It is utilized as part of the drainage system for the property.

The applicant showed Planning Commission members the area proposed for outdoor storage. The area was east of the dumpster and would be approximately 40 feet by 75 feet.

It was indicated that the applicant could not park the display items in the paved area in that they would impair customer parking, site circulation and emergency access.

The applicant commented that sales have increased since the display was established. Also, the applicant had received compliments on the display area. The applicant confirmed that he would not object to painting the fence a green color. However, it was indicated that there might be some problem because of the material of the fence.

Richard Schramm was present, indicating that he owns the property across the street. In his opinion, the proposal was consistent with the character of the area, which is industrial. He was concerned that the business be allowed to be "viable". He felt that a viable business would better benefit his property. He had no objection to the additional display area, stating that he would expect to see this type of equipment given the use. In his opinion, the topography of the site made the display area, as currently approved, lacking in visibility. Also, the speed of the traffic in the area made it difficult to see the site. Mr. Corakis agreed, stating that in his opinion, the trees and topography impaired the visibility of the site.

After further discussion, the Chairperson indicated that the Planning Commission would reconvene at the Township Hall.

The Chairperson recalled the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. at the Township Hall. One member of the public was present.

AGENDA

The Chairperson suggested switching items 2 and 3 on the Agenda. Mr. Block moved to approve the Agenda as amended, and Mr. Heisig seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

MINUTES

The Planning Commission considered the minutes of the meeting of July 27, 2000. Mr. Sikora suggested a change to page 6 to correct a typographical error. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell also suggested a change to page 6 to clarify that the monopole design would be less conspicuous given the proposed 250 foot height of the tower. Typographical changes to pages 5 and 13 were suggested. Mr. Corakis moved to approve the minutes as amended, and Mr. Sikora seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

STEENSMA LAWN & POWER EQUIPMENT (continued)

The Planning Commission continued consideration of the Steensma application, and the Chairperson summarized the proposal. He noted that most of the proposed display area was within the setback. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. However, the Planning Commission would need to review the display as it relates to compliance with the special exception use and site plan review criteria.

The Chairperson made reference to Section 31.403. The Planning Commissioners concluded that there was compliance with all subparts with the exception of part (d) concerning setback, which would require a variance. The Chairperson asked the Planning Commission to consider whether, given the site and type of merchandise involved, the display would comply with the criteria. Mr. Block felt that, given the size of the equipment and the type of equipment, the display was similar to a car lot and should be "nearer to the road".

It was recognized that the display areas of Leaders Marine and DNR Sports complied with setback requirements.

The Chairperson made reference to Section 60.100. The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use was compatible with other uses expressly permitted within the zoning district. Planning Commissioners concluded that the proposed use was compatible with the Industrial District. It was recognized that the district allows for outdoor storage. Further, the request involved an expansion of existing display and storage at the site.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use would be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or the general public. Planning Commissioners concluded that the proposed use would not be detrimental or injurious, given the use of the surrounding properties which were industrially zoned. Further, security fencing had already been installed. It was felt it was significant that the equipment would be displayed in its natural setting, on grass.

Planning Commissioners concluded that the proposed use would promote public health, safety and welfare in that the site would be fenced and lighted. However, the Township Fire Department would need to review and approve the proposed layout. Further, the Planning Commissioners concluded that the proposed use would be in accord with the character and adaptability of the property. The equipment displayed would be in its "natural setting" and would not interfere with the fire lane, parking, site circulation, etc.

The criteria of Section 82.800 were reviewed.

Ms. Bugge suggested that the Board approve additional display and storage. If a variance were denied, the placement of the display areas in accordance with the Ordinance could be administratively approved.

Mr. Block moved to approve a special exception use amendment, noting that the criteria of Sections 60.100 and 31.403 had been met. The motion was conditioned upon receipt of a variance to allow display within the setback area. In the event no variance was received, placement of additional display could be administratively approved by Township Staff. Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

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

(1) That a variance be received to allow display within the setback area, or alternate display areas be approved by the staff.

(2) That no change to access was proposed.

(3) That no changes to the building, structures or entryways were proposed.

(4) That approval was subject to the review and approval of the Township Fire Department.

(5) That no engineer review was required.

(6) That the site plan conforms with the groundwater protection standards.

(7) That the display area be properly maintained.

Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sikora reminded the applicant that the equipment displayed should not be used as "signage".

LANDSCAPING PROVISIONS - TEXT AMENDMENT (DRAFT 6)

The Planning Commission considered Draft 6 of the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding landscaping provisions. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. It was noted that the tables had been altered to reduce some landscaping requirements particularly where the site was adjacent to a site of the same zoning. It was felt there should be some change to the verbiage in Table 75-B to reference the Access Management Plan. There was discussion of the proposed Section 75.240 with a concern that residential properties were required to be landscaped within one year of issuance of a building permit. Mr. Block felt that, in some cases, a building project might exceed one year. Given that the landscaping provisions were meant to apply to only those sites which required site plan review and not generally residential sites, it was felt that the proposed Section 75.240 should be moved to the stormwater erosion section, i.e., Section 78.535.

A drawing drafted by Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell to illustrate application of the landscaping provisions to the Renal Care Facility was displayed. The Chairperson noted that there had been a concern expressed at the joint meeting with the Township Board that the text could not work with this site, for example. The diagram illustrated that this site could accommodate the existing use and the proposed landscaping.

After further discussion, Mr. Block moved to schedule a public hearing for September 28, 2000. Mr. Corakis seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

AGRICULTURAL-RURAL ZONING DISTRICT

The Planning Commission discussed current provisions of the Agricultural-Rural Zoning District. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. There were several items of concern, primarily: (1) the potential for intensive livestock operations; and (2) the lack of public utilities (sewer and water) on the westerly side of the Township. It was noted that only five properties in the Township were 100 acres or larger. Only 44 properties within the Township were used for truly agricultural purposes. There was discussion of the possibility of amending the Ordinance to require a larger parcel, lot or building site where there was no public sewer or water available. The Chairperson suggested obtaining input from State, EPA and other sources regarding the size.

Ms. Stefforia indicated that the staff would obtain literature and other information for the Planning Commission's reference.

CANNAAN PROPERTIES REZONING - LAND SECTION 25 (3905-25-330-080)

It was noted that following the public hearing on the Kalamazoo Area Christian Retirement Association rezoning request, a discrepancy in the property line of the parcel was discovered. The Township Engineer's office determined that the legal description for the former AT&T right-of-way indicated that the entire area of the right-of-way was owned by Kalamazoo Area Christian Retirement Association. After discussion, it was agreed that Planning Commissioners felt the recommendation should go forward as previously made, i.e., leaving the southern 50 feet of the former right-of-way as a buffer zoned in the "R-2" District.

OTHER BUSINESS

There was a discussion of upcoming meeting agendas, and it was noted by Ms. Bugge that the applicant on the Maple Hill Mall special use permit item had not yet provided information for the scheduled August 24, 2000, meeting. The meeting might therefore be cancelled.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

Mr. Block had questions with regard to the proposed fencing of the retention pond at 10th Street and West Main.

Mr. Sikora expressed his appreciation for Ms. Heiny-Cogswell's work on the landscaping plan for the Renal Care Facility site.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION

By:

Minutes prepared:
August 17, 2000

Minutes approved: August 24,2000