OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

DECEMBER 15, 1997

____________________________________________________________________________

Agenda

WALLY'S SUB SHOP - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT/VARIANCE REQUEST - CONVERSION FOR RESTAURANT; PARKING LOT EXPANSION - 6475/6477 STADIUM DRIVE, 3311 S. 9TH STREET

AMERICAN RED CROSS - SITE PLAN REVIEW - PROPOSED 21,500 SQ. FT. FACILITY - 5642 VENTURE COURT (UNITS 4-7)

KALAMAZOO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ASS'N. - SECTION 20.205 - BOARD INTERPRETATION

_____________________________________________________________________________

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, December 15, 1997, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall, pursuant to notice.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Brian Dylhoff, Chairperson
David Bushouse
Lara Meeuwse
Thomas Brodasky
William Saunders

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

Also present were Rebecca Harvey and Mike West on behalf of the Planning and Zoning Department, Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney, and ten (10) other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.

MINUTES

The Board considered the minutes of the meeting of December 1, 1997. Ms. Meeuwse moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Brodasky seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

WALLY'S SUB SHOP - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT/VARIANCE REQUEST - CONVERSION FOR RESTAURANT; PARKING LOT EXPANSION - 6475/6477 STADIUM DRIVE, 3311 S. 9TH STREET

The Board considered the application of Mehdi Purazrang, representing Wally's Sub Shop, for site plan amendment for the proposed conversion of 1,500 sq. ft. interior building space for restaurant use and a 2,800-sq.-ft. parking lot expansion. The applicant also requested variance approval from the off-street parking requirement established in Section 68.300 of the Zoning Ordinance. The subject site consists of three separate parcels located at 6475/6477 Stadium Drive and 3311 S. 9th Street, and is within the "C" Local Business District Zoning classification.

The report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. Ms. Harvey reiterated that the proposal concerns two existing buildings located on three separate parcels. The improvements as proposed will be on all three parcels. Therefore, approval should be conditioned upon combination of the three parcels into one parcel. The resulting one parcel would comply with Ordinance standards.

Ms. Harvey noted that the Planning Commission had recently considered and approved special exception use permit/site plan approval for CarMart located in the rear building. Two parking spaces were approved in relation to the CarMart use. This use had not been established as yet, but the applicant sought approval of the instant site plan, which would incorporate CarMart. The applicant proposed expanding the existing Wally's Sub Shop into a part of the existing building which was now vacant. Moreover, an expansion of parking was proposed. Because of the weather constraints on establishing the proposed parking, the applicant sought a variance to allow Wally's to occupy the proposed space before the parking was established in the spring of 1998.

Ms. Harvey noted that the report outlines the parking requirements of the site. She noted that 30 spaces were required under the Ordinance and 30 had been proposed. The plans showed that, until the parking expansion was established in the spring, 19 existing spaces would be provided. However, she also noted that the existing parking area had been sealcoated in the summer of 1997; that had not yet been restriped. The Zoning Board of Appeals had previously interpreted that re-sealcoating a parking area would require that restriping be in compliance with Ordinance dimensional standards and other parking standards. She noted that some of the dimensions of some spaces did not comply with Ordinance requirements. Moreover, some parking was located in the right-of-way. She felt that the Board should make its conclusion as to how this previous interpretation applied to the site in question in that, if the parking lot were required to restripe in compliance with the dimensional standards of the Ordinance, it was possible that less than 19 spaces would be provided in the "existing" parking lot area.

In response to questioning by Ms. Meeuwse, Ms. Harvey noted that the applicant's proposed parking lot expansion was proposed to be in compliance with Ordinance standards.

The applicant was present; and the Chairperson, noting that parking was the main issue, questioned the applicant regarding the existing parking area. The applicant said that the parking spaces had been in existence for 14 years. The parking lot had been resealed during the summer of 1997 (partially). However, the applicant's contractor had not yet restriped the lot due to personal difficulties. Ms. Harvey noted that staff had discussed the parking issue with the applicant and the applicant's architect. The applicant was aware of the previous interpretation by the Board, but the applicant wished to obtain the Board's specific directions before having his architect redesign the parking area in compliance with Ordinance standards.

Mr. Saunders commented he did not feel that it would be a problem to allow the parking to continue as it exists at present until the spring of 1998, at which time the entire parking lot area should come into compliance with Ordinance standards.

Ms. Harvey suggested that the Board condition any approval on requiring that a design for the proposed parking lot arrangement be submitted to the Township staff for review and approval as to whether the design is in compliance with Ordinance standards. The Board could then address what options it felt were appropriate as to how and when the parking area would come into compliance.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and none was offered. The public hearing was closed.

Ms. Meeuwse moved to approve variance allowing occupancy of Wally's Sub Shop as proposed prior to completion of the site in compliance with the approved site plan with regard to parking with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That it was required that the applicant provide a plan showing parking at the site in compliance with Ordinance standards; plans shall be submitted to Township staff for review and approval.

(2) That the existing parking lot area must be restriped in compliance with Ordinance standards and the approved site plan as weather permits.

(3) That a gravel area sufficient to establish the approved parking lot expansion area be completed prior to occupancy.

(4) That the parking at the site be in complete compliance with Ordinance standards and the approved site plan by June 1, 1998.

(5) That a performance bond or cash assurance sufficient to cover the cost of the parking lot expansion project be provided to the Township by the applicant.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Brodasky and carried unanimously.

There was discussion regarding the residential parking spaces, and the applicant stated that he planned to pave the residential spaces to the back of the residence.

It was noted that signage and lighting were existing and would only need to come into compliance with current Ordinance standards if they were altered.

 

Ms. Meeuwse moved to approve the site plan amendment as proposed with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That the existing access arrangement will not be altered with this proposal.

(2) That all parking comply with Ordinance standards, including the dimensional requirement of 10' x 20'. Further, a parking lot layout plan be submitted to Township staff for review and approval. The variance previously granted by the Board and the conditions thereof were referenced and incorporated.

(3) That all barrier-free parking was subject to ADA and Michigan Barrier-Free Guidelines and must be designated with signage and pavement logo.

(4) That outdoor storage in conjunction with the restaurant use had not been proposed or approved.

(5) That the dumpster should be relocated to meet serviceability and accessibility standards; a dumpster enclosure and location proposal shall be detailed and submitted to Township staff for review and approval.

(6) That no changes to the exterior site lighting arrangements had been proposed. Any modifications to existing site lighting shall be provided in compliance with the lighting guidelines of Section 78.700 and must be detailed and submitted for review and approval pursuant to Section 78.720(g).

(7) That no additions or modifications to the existing signage had been proposed. All signage modifications must comply with Sections 76.130 and 76.135 and be reviewed and approved through the permit process.

(8) That landscaping was proposed along the northwest portion of the subject site and around the building perimeter. A landscape plan consistent with the streetscape goals and objectives identified in the Village Focus Area Development Plan shall be detailed and submitted for Township staff review and approval.

(9) That approval shall be subject to Township Fire Department review and approval.

(10) That approval shall be subject to Township Engineer review and approval.

(11) That issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed change in use shall be contingent on final inspections/approvals from the Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Fire, and Planning and Zoning Departments to insure compliance with all applicable regulations.

(12) That it was required that all three parcels be combined into one parcel through a written and recorded instrument on file with the Township.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Brodasky.

The applicant indicated that he could not combine the three parcels because he has a mortgage on one of the properties. After some discussion, the Township Attorney suggested that the applicant should return to modify this condition after consultation with his attorney so that the reasons why the combination was not possible could be detailed for Board consideration. It was noted that lack of combination would result in off-site improvements and the site itself would not meet Ordinance requirements.

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

AMERICAN RED CROSS - SITE PLAN REVIEW - PROPOSED 21,500 SQ. FT. FACILITY - 5642 VENTURE COURT (UNITS 4-7)

The next item was the application of Betty Lee Ongley, representing American Red Cross, for site plan review of a proposed 21,500 sq. ft. facility to serve as the American Red Cross Chapter office. The subject site is located at 5642 Venture Court (Units 4-7 of the Venture Park Condominium Developmentt) and is within the "C" Local Business District Zoning classification.

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

The Red Cross received approval for a similar facility at the site on August 19, 1996. That approval had expired. The new proposal suggested the same use with modification of

site features. The site would still occupy three building sites within the Venture Park Condominium project, and the Red Cross would own a fourth building site adjacent thereto. This unit would be vacant under this proposal.

It was noted, with regard to proposed access arrangements, that the access was not strictly subject to the Access Management Guidelines. Those guidelines, however, were used as a reference; and it was noted that the proposed access arrangement does not meet the guidelines as to the number of drives or as to the spacing between drives. However, it was noted that, if all four units developed separately, four drives could be established. This proposal suggested two drives.

A communications tower would be established in conjunction with the proposed use. The proposal for the tower was a special exception use which would go to the Planning Commission for review.

The applicant was present, along with Marilyn Vineyard and Robert Johnson.

Ken Paragon Peregon (landscape architect for the project) described the proposed site plan, noting that the orientation of the development had been "pushed to the south." Whereas under the previous plan Units 7, 6 and 5 would be occupied by the use, with Unit 4 vacant, this proposal would occupy Units 4 through 6 and leave Unit 7 vacant. Previously, the plan showed a separate garage building. The proposed plan would locate five garage bays within the northeast corner of the building. The proposed communication tower would be to the northwest corner of the building. Mr. Paragon stated that the site would be better able to be served by utilities in this location; for example, it was probable that a pump station for connection to sewer could be eliminated. Further, relocation allowed the development to be at a greater distance from the residential uses to the north.

Mr. Paragon stated that the applicant would try to retain as many existing trees as possible along West Michigan. The trees along Whitegate might need to be replanted because of the need to change the grade. It was noted that the Whitegate sign is currently located on Red Cross property and that there were discussions as to how to handle the signage for both.

In response to questioning by Mr. Brodasky, the applicant indicated that both drives were proposed to be full service drives. The Chairperson asked the applicant about plans for Unit 7. It was suggested that this unit would not be developed now but that it could be sold in the future or used for purposes of expansion of the Red Cross use.

The Chairperson questioned whether landscaping should be required around the retention pond existing on the north part of Unit 6. The applicant had not proposed any landscaping, and it was noted that the existing retention basin was part of the Venture Park project and received runoff from the public road system.

There was discussion of whether landscaping on the north part of Unit 7 should be required. Board members were satisfied that the issue of landscaping on the north part of Unit 7 could be addressed if the Red Cross use were expanded onto Unit 7 or if Unit 7 were sold and developed by another owner.

There was no public comment offered, and the public hearing was closed.

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

(1) That the proposed access arrangement was approved. It was noted that Venture Court is not an arterial or a collector and, therefore, development abutting same is not strictly subject to the Access Management Guidelines set forth in Section 67.000. Further, it was noted that the Red Cross use would be developed on three building sites. Individual development of these three building sites would result in three access points. The subject development proposal would establish only two access points. It was required, however, that the driveway design be subject to Kalamazoo County Road Commission review and approval.

(2) That parking for the proposed office facility be in compliance with Ordinance dimensional standards of 10' x 20'

(3) That barrier-free parking be subject to ADA and Michigan Barrier-Free Guidelines and be designated with signage and pavement logo.

(4) That the proposed building setbacks comply with Ordinance standards.

(5) That outdoor storage, including emergency-related vehicles, has not been proposed or approved.

(6) That the proposed dumpster arrangement is satisfactory and should be designed to accommodate recycling containers if appropriate.

(7) That the proposed communication tower be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission.

(8) That all exterior lighting be subject to compliance with Section 78.700 and be submitted for review and approval consistent with the standards of Section 78.720(g).

(9) That all signage must comply with Section 76.125 and be reviewed and approved through the permit process.

(10) That the general landscaping proposal reflected on the site plan was approved.

(11) That screening along the north boundary of Unit 7 will be addressed when Unit 7 is developed.

(12) That no variance approval had been requested.

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

(14) That approval was subject to the review and approval of the Township Engineer.

(15) That issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development is contingent upon final inspections/approvals from the Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Fire and Planning and Zoning Departments to insure compliance with all applicable regulations.

(16) That public water and sewer shall service the office facility. It was recognized that an environmental permits checklist and hazardous substance reporting form had been completed and submitted for review and approval pursuant to Section 69.000 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Brodasky seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

KALAMAZOO CHRISTIAN SCHOOL ASS'N. - SECTION 20.205 - BOARD INTERPRETATION

The next item was the application of John Buttery, representing Kalamazoo Christian School Association, for Board interpretation regarding Section 20.205 - "Public and Private Elementary Schools" - as a permitted use within the "AG"-Rural Zoning District classification. The applicant sought interpretation as to whether Section 20.205 would permit a school facility serving grades K-8 within the "AG"-Rural District.

The report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. Ms. Harvey noted that Township staff had interpreted previously that the Ordinance language would allow kindergarten through 8th grade at a facility within the "AG"-Rural Zoning District classification. The applicant asked for formal Board interpretation on this issue.

The applicant was present, stating that the purchase of the property was planned and, therefore, the applicant wished to make sure that the use would be allowed.

There was no public comment offered, and the public hearing was closed.

It was noted that the Ordinance differentiates between elementary and high school in that high schools have different needs.

After some discussion, Mr. Brodasky moved to interpret Section 20.205 to allow public or private schools containing kindergarten through 8th grade within the "AG"-Rural Zoning District classification. Ms. Meeuwse seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS

The Board discussed the 1997 year-end reports, noting that, with the special meeting which would be conducted on December 22, 1997, there would be 24 meetings in 1997. The Board also discussed the tentative meeting schedule for 1998.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS