OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

February 15, 2005

Agenda

SCHLEY ARCHITECTS - SETBACK VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - TOWNSHIP HALL ADDITION - 7275 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-15-405-011 AND 3905-15-405-020)

WEST MAIN 2000, LLC - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 5173 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-430-038)

VAN DAM - SITE PLAN REVIEW - ADDITION TO REPAIR AND STORAGE BUILDING AT D & R SPORTS CENTER - 8178 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-280-012)

TEMPORARY LODGING INTERPRETATION

A regular meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, February 15, 2005, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Millard Loy, Chairman
Dave Bushouse
Grace Borgfjord
Duane McClung
James Turcott

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director, Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; James W. Porter, Township Attorney; and approximately five other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.

MINUTES

The Chairman said the first item on the Agenda was to approve the minutes of January 25, 2005. Ms. Borgfjord noted that Mr. Bushouse had not voted in favor of the motion to lift the variance condition for Castle Rock Builders. Therefore, a revision to page 8 was needed to reflect that the motion passed 4-to-1, with Mr. Bushouse dissenting. Mr. McClung made a motion to approve the January 25, 2005 minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Ms. Borgfjord. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

SCHLEY ARCHITECTS - SETBACK VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - TOWNSHIP HALL ADDITION - 7275 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-15-405-011 AND 3905-15-405-020)

The Chairman said the next items on the Agenda for consideration were items 3 and 4, the setback variance and site plan review for the addition to the Township Hall. He said the proposed addition would not satisfy the current front setback requirements, and therefore, a variance was sought by Schley Architects. He noted that the property is located at 7275 West Main Street, Parcel Nos. 3905-15-405-011 and 3905-15-405-020). The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Department.

Ms. Bugge presented her report to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated February 15, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference. Ms. Bugge explained to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the Township was requesting site plan approval for a 11,070 square foot addition to the existing building, for a total area of 24,090 square feet. She said a variance was being requested to allow the north side of the proposed addition to be built in line with the current building. She explained that the existing building is approximately 120 feet from the center of West Main Street, when a setback of 170 feet is required. She said that the initial building was constructed in the 1960's when West Main was a two-lane road, and the setback requirements were 130 feet from the center of the road. She also noted that the road, when it was originally constructed, was thought to be centered on the section line, but when the road was widened in the 1970's, the center line of the road was considerably further south than the section line.

Ms. Bugge told the Zoning Board of Appeals that the subject property was located in the "RR" Rural Residential District. She then proceeded through the standards of approval for a nonuse variance.

Under the standard of whether conformance was unnecessarily burdensome or whether reasonable options for compliance were available, Ms. Bugge stated in her report that, given the existing building setback from West Main and the site layout, it was reasonable for an addition to be proposed to continue the building line.

Under the standard of substantial justice applied to the applicant and other property owners, Ms. Bugge pointed out that the Zoning Board of Appeals had set a precedent of granting variances to allow expansions while maintaining existing building lines, and cited the Board to the following matters: University Bookstore, LaRue's, Siegel, Dunshee and Universal Image.

With regard to whether there were any unique physical characteristics, Ms. Bugge noted that the pre-existing layout of the building and the parking facilities might be considered unique physical characteristics.

With regard to the standard of self-created hardship, she did note that the applicant's desire to construct the proposed addition in line with the existing building triggered the variance request, but asked the Board to consider that the original building was placed in conformance with the then-existing setback requirements.

Under the standard of whether the spirit of the Ordinance could be observed, public health, safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done if the variance was granted, Ms. Bugge noted that the applicant could satisfy the setback requirements, but noted that the building, as originally constructed, was in compliance with the setback provisions and was a legal nonconforming building.

Ms. Bugge then proceeded to take the Board members through the site plan review sections of the Ordinance, to-wit: Section 82.800.

Lastly, Ms Bugge reviewed the non-motorized path map with the Board, noting that there should be some type of bike path along M-43.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the architect, Mr. Schley. Mr. Schley explained to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the Township had looked at alternative locations for the proposed building addition, but that the proposed location made the most sense. He said that any other alternative would put pedestrians in harm's way from crossing vehicular traffic. He said it was much safer to design the proposed building at its present location and keep the new addition adjacent to the existing structure. He said it would also assist in integrating the two buildings to have them adjacent to one another.

Mr. Schley noted that the Planning Department was recommending a Type C greenspace, which, he thought, if done along the complete frontage, would make it look abnormal and out of character with its current rural setting. He suggested perhaps putting in the Type C greenspace from the Fire Department's drive to the proposed drive to the west, but no further.

Ms. Bugge pointed out that the Township did own three properties and that there would be some difficulties putting the green space along M-43 in certain areas because of existing septic systems. She also noted that there were some limitations due to proximity to the road, as well as the location of certain utilities, but she thought that the Township could generally comply with the greenspace requirements.

Mr. McClung thought it was only fair to make the Township comply with the greenspace requirements, given the fact that the Township was requiring other developments in the Township to do the same. Ms. Bugge agreed and said she thought the main focus for the landscaping should be between the two main drives servicing the property, but that they would have to take into account certain constraints based upon the road right-of-way.

The Chairman asked if there were any comments from the audience, and hearing none, called for Board deliberations. The Chairman said he thought a variance was justified in this case, given that the circumstances involving the location of the existing building were unique. He also thought it was appropriate to maintain the building line as they had done in other similar commercial settings. Therefore, he said what the architect was proposing for the Township was certainly not out of line with what the Zoning Board of Appeals had allowed other developments.

Mr. McClung said he thought what the architect was requesting was reasonable in this case. Mr. Bushouse said, from the Township Board's standpoint, the Township did not want to do anything which others had not been allowed to do. He said the Township had explored several other options, but none of them were feasible and that the proposal was the most logical one for many reasons, most importantly being the safety of pedestrians accessing the public buildings.

Mr. Turcott said he was pleased with the Planning Department's analysis of precedents of the Board which provided a clear basis for granting the proposed variance. Mr. Turcott complimented the Board and Mr. Schley on the overall design of the proposed facilities.

Ms. Borgfjord asked whether the additional expansion was being proposed as part of a phased development. Ms. Bugge said only the primary addition was being proposed at this time and that the expansion area would be reserved for a future date. Mr. Schley said that the future expansion was not certain and might be 25 or 30 years into the future, but that his office wanted to plan for that expansion, if necessary.

Mr. McClung made a motion to approve the variance based on the Planning Department's analysis and the reasons set forth in the record. Mr. Turcott seconded the motion, and the Chairman called for further discussion on the motion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

The Board then proceeded to review the Planning Department's analysis for site plan review. Ms. Borgfjord made a motion to approve the site plan as presented, subject to the following conditions:

(1) All parking must conform to Section 68.000.

(2) All site lighting shall comply with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance. Details of any new outside lighting shall be submitted for Staff review and approval.

(3) A landscaping plan for the north property line from the Fire Department drive to the new drive in conformance with Section 75 shall be submitted for Staff review and approval.

(4) A deviation from landscaping requirements along the northeast property line is granted.

(5) Site plan approval shall be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Fire Department, pursuant to the adopted codes.

(6) Site plan approval shall be subject to the Township Engineer finding the site engineering is adequate.

(7) An Earth Change permit must be obtained from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner.

(8) A driveway permit for the new driveway shall be obtained from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.

(9) Permits for the new septic systems shall be obtained from the Kalamazoo County Environmental Health Department.

The motion was seconded by Mr. McClung. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

WEST MAIN 2000, LLC - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 5173 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-430-038)

The Chairman said the next item for consideration was site plan review for West Main 2000, LLC. He said the applicant was requesting site plan review for a proposed 28,421 square foot building to be established within the development known as West Main Mall. He noted that the subject property is located at 5173 West Main Street, Parcel No. 3905-13-430-038). The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge presented her report to the Board dated February 15, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge noted that the re-development commenced in December of 1999. She said that the applicant was now requesting approval for a 28,421 square foot building and related parking facilities proposed for the southwest corner of the property to the west of Lowe's. She said the proposed occupant of the building would be Olympia Career Training Institute, which was a retail service allowed within the "C-1" District.

Ms. Bugge provided an aerial of the property and explained to the Board that the building would utilize the established Mall circulation pattern for access and 200 existing parking spaces north of the site. She said the proposed driving aisles and 188 parking spaces would be added around the proposed building. She did note that 20 of the proposed parking spaces intrude into the required Type G greenspace adjacent to the Country Club Apartments, and therefore, Mr. Timmons of West Main 2000, LLC, had asked for a deviation to allow a 15-to-20 foot wide greenspace in place of the 40-foot width required.

Ms. Bugge then proceeded to take the Board through the site plan review criteria of Section 82.800. Under the access review, Ms. Bugge made particular note that sidewalks were required under Section 78.650 of the Township Zoning Ordinance and were not provided on the site plan. Under Subsection 82.800 B, Ms. Bugge also noted that the light fixtures were not in conformance, exceeding the permitted maximum wattage.

Under Subsections C and D of Section 82.800, Ms. Bugge noted that on the south side, the applicant was requesting a deviation from landscaping requirements to allow 20 parking spaces within the 40-foot wide greenspace area. She noted that the applicant was suggesting a six-foot high fence and landscaping materials within the 15-to-20 foot wide greenspace area. Ms. Bugge expressed a concern because it was the first time that any building had been constructed in this section of the Mall property adjacent to the Country Club Apartments. She also noted that there appeared to be additional space west of the proposed parking area, which was currently a natural area. She suggested, if the Board did allow a reduction in the greenspace, that the Board require a six-foot high solid fence be installed and maintained by the property owner, with the details being reviewed by Staff. She also recommended a revised landscaping plan to be reviewed and approved by Staff.

Under Subsection E of Section 82.800, she noted that no variances were being sought for the building. Under Subsections F and G, she said that the plans had to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the Township Engineer. Under Subsection H, Ms. Bugge said that the facility would be provided with public water and sewer. Under Subsection I, she said the Environmental Permits Checklist and Hazardous Substance Report Form had been received and were on file with the Township.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Tim Timmons introduced himself to the Board, as well as the architect Shannon Streich. He said that he thought there were really only two controversial issues; the first was the encroachment into the required greenspace to the south, and the second was the proposed sidewalks. He said he and his partners had a serious problem with installing sidewalks along Drake Road and West Main, based solely upon an amendment to their site plan to put into a 28,000 square foot building. He said he thought that the sidewalk proposal was excessive in relationship to the relatively small amendment to the proposed site plan.

Mr. Timmons said he believed that the Olympia Training Institute needed all of the parking spaces requested. He said did not want to see the Township require them to encroach into the natural greenspace to the west, as it would require the cutting of some very nice oak trees, and he thought that would be counter-productive.

The Chairman asked Mr. Timmons what hours the Olympia Training Institute would be open. Mr. Timmons said he thought it would be open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., with limited hours on Friday.

Mr. McClung asked what the height was of the existing fence. Mr. Timmons said he thought the fence was six feet high and was placed on a small mound. He stated they had installed the fence and were the owners of it.

Mr. Turcott noted that similar education facilities often had evening classes, and he thought the Board should take that into consideration. Mr. Timmons said that was true, but that he had only worked with the Olympia Training Institute and was not familiar with what other similar facilities provided in the way of evening classes.

Mr. Bushouse said he was looking at the elevations, and thought that the land was higher south of the existing fence than the area immediately north of the fence. He said if that was the case, there would be a negative impact on the apartments to south. He said he thought that the developer should pay particular attention to this so as to not have headlights shining in the windows of the apartments to the south. He also noted that there had been incidents with the lights being too bright at Kohl's, and he wanted the developer to make sure that the parking lighting did not exceed the Township's limitations.

Mr. Timmons said he had no problems in complying with the lighting requirements provided for in the Zoning Ordinance, and that he would work with Staff in making sure they remained in compliance. He also said he did not believe that the lights from cars would have a negative impact on the property to the south. He explained that, when you are on site, the property rose slightly and that there was a six-foot fence on top of that rise. Therefore, you could not even see anything but the second level of the apartments over the fence.

Mr. Bushouse again expressed some concern as to whether or not the fence would be adequate without berming. Mr. McClung said he thought headlights from the cars would not be at more than 951 feet in elevation, which would put them well below the level of the six-foot fence.

The Chairman asked how far the proposed parking area was from the existing fence. Ms. Bugge said it was approximately 15 to 20 feet. Ms. Stefforia said where the distance between the parking and the property to the south was the narrowest, it was abutting the parking area within the apartment complex. The Chairman concurred, and said at the narrowest area, there was a carport next door which seemed to mitigate the impact on the apartments to the south.

Mr. McClung asked if there was ever a deviation given before. Ms. Bugge said that no similar deviations were previously granted.

Ms. Stefforia noted that a deviation had been previously given to Kohl's because there was not sufficient space in which to locate the greenspace so it was all placed within a ten-foot area. Ms. Bugge said that was true because there was not sufficient width in that case, but here, there was sufficient width, and there was an area to the west to accommodate the parking without encroaching into the greenspace. Mr. Timmons said he thought it would be worse to encroach into the natural area, which would negatively impact the Elk's, which would be worse than to take away a small portion of the greenspace to the south. Mr. Timmons said the area to the south would be adequately protected by the fence and additional plantings, even within the limited space available.

Mr. Bushouse asked if the Board was going to discuss the sidewalks. The Chairman said he did not see how such a limited site plan review could trigger sidewalks for the entire property. Mr. McClung said he thought expecting this developer to put in sidewalks for the entire facility based on the addition of one building was hard to justify. Ms. Stefforia pointed out that the applicant was the owner of the entire parcel and that any time site plan review was required, it triggered the sidewalk provisions contained in the Ordinance. Ms. Bugge said that the site plan review involved the entire property and was subject to the requirements of the Ordinance, even if the building was located in the back corner of the property. Ms. Stefforia said, if it was not built now, it would likely be built in the future and assessed to the applicant anyway. Mr. Timmons said he thought it would be more appropriate to be assessed in the future than to require construction based upon an additional building that only made up approximately five percent of the entire development. Mr. Bushouse said he felt a bit different in that sidewalks and bike trails were critical to the community. He said developers always ask, "why me?" He said that the City of Kalamazoo had been installing sidewalks to the east and that he wanted to see them continue to promote pedestrian traffic within the Township.

Mr. Turcott noted that the Planning Commission had worked diligently to establish the sidewalk requirements and that the first developers could always make the argument that the sidewalks did not lead anywhere, but as he had stated on previous occasions, one had to start somewhere. He said that the Township and this development were not pedestrian friendly and thought it needed to be improved. Mr. Timmons said that he was afraid that, if he were required to build 1,700 feet of sidewalk, which led to nowhere, it was a significant enough requirement to possibly stop development and that it seemed harsh to make such a requirement.

Ms. Borgfjord asked if they had other developers in the area put in sidewalks. Ms. Stefforia indicated that Starbucks would be putting in sidewalks when they developed. Ms. Bugge pointed out that Walgreens had voluntarily installed sidewalks. She again emphasized that, in this case, the property was all owned by one owner.

Ms. Bugge said that perhaps there was a middle ground. She noted that Drake Road had sidewalks on the east side which had been installed by the City and perhaps the developer would be willing to install sidewalks along West Main Street, which would at least facilitate pedestrian traffic along West Main, which could then connect to the available sidewalks on the east side of Drake Road. She also suggested contacting the other businesses along the West Main area to try to encourage them to install sidewalks in conjunction with the developer's sidewalk.

Mr. Timmons said he thought that sounded logical and made a lot more sense, but questioned how the Township would get others to put in sidewalks along West Main Street. The Chairman said he thought that seemed like a logical solution and thought the Township should use its best efforts to try to encourage others along the West Main route to put in sidewalks along with the developer's sidewalks in this area. Mr. McClung said he could agree to Ms. Bugge's proposal.

Mr. Turcott said he thought there was a basis to waive the sidewalk requirements along Drake Road, based on the severe topography and the difficulty in putting in sidewalks in that area.

Mr. Bushouse asked how much sidewalk would be required of the developer along the north property line. Ms. Bugge said approximately 500 feet, given the width of the existing driveways. The Chairman asked the developer if he would object to putting sidewalks along the north property line. Mr. Timmons said that they would not object to that requirement.

A discussion ensued regarding the corner property and what could be required with regard to the installation of sidewalks. Attorney Porter pointed out that there was a difference between establishing a special assessment district and requiring it as part of site plan review. He said perhaps the Township could extend the time for the developer to install sidewalks in order to determine whether the Township could obtain consent of the property owners in the area to set up a special assessment district for the installation of the sidewalks.

The Chairman asked if there were any further questions of the developer. Hearing none, he called for public comment. There being no public comment, the Chairman called for Board deliberations. The Chairman said he thought there were really only two areas that needed discussion, the greenspace and sidewalk requirement. The Chairman said he had mixed feelings about the greenspace because he did not want to see the trees to the west cut down. He also noted that there would be a fence and wondered if there would be a way to fill in the existing area to accommodate the deviation request. The Chairman asked if the Board could place requirements as to the types of plantings to be located in the greenspace area. Ms. Bugge said she would be more comfortable letting the landscape designer work within the confines allotted should the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the deviation.

Mr. McClung said he did not have a problem granting the deviation because he thought that the topography and the existing fence would block headlights from impacting the property to the south. Mr. Turcott expressed concern that the lights would still shine into the windows on the second floor. Mr. McClung said he did not think that would be the case, given the angle of the headlights. Ms. Borgfjord said she thought perhaps the parking requirement was a bit excessive. Mr. Timmons said he did not think that it was and that the school had specifically indicated that they needed the 388 parking spaces. He said that sometimes there was excessive parking for particular types of uses, but not in this case.

The Chairman said he did not think the school would have requested such a large number of parking spaces if they were not needed. Ms. Bugge pointed out that 200 of the existing spaces were not only going to be used for this facility, but also to meet other parking requirements in the future, for buildings proposed to the north. Ms. Bugge said the landscaping and greenspace was not only required to alleviate the impact of lights but was there to simply provide greenspace within the Township.

Mr. Bushouse asked if they could put off requiring sidewalks to see if the Township could establish a special assessment district to install sidewalks along West Main. Attorney Porter said he thought it would be best to make it a requirement of the site plan approval in case the Township was unable to establish a special assessment district to pay for the sidewalks. It was a consensus of the ZBA members to structure the condition in such a fashion. Ms. Stefforia asked for one year in which to work to establish the special assessment district, and if not successful, the applicant then be required to install sidewalks along their north property line at that time.

Mr. McClung made a motion to approve the site plan and grant the deviation requested along the south property line, subject to the following conditions:

(1) Parking and drive aisles shall be provided in conformance with Section 68.

(2) A stop sign shall be provided where the new east drive meets the existing aisle behind Lowe's.

(3) A revised photometric plan and parking light fixture details in conformance with Section 78.700 shall be provided for Staff review and approval.

(4) Other site and/or building light fixtures shall comply with the requirements of Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance. Details shall be provided for Township review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

(5) Pursuant to Section 76.000, a Sign Permit will be required before any new signs can be placed upon the property.

(6) A deviation is granted to allow a greenspace with a reduced width of 15-to-20 feet for a length of 200 feet as indicated on the landscape plan in conjunction with a six-foot high, solid fence that will be installed and maintained by the owner of the property. Details of the fence shall be submitted for Staff review and approval.

(7) A revised landscaping plan in accordance with Section 75 shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

(8) Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the approved landscaping plan prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or a performance guarantee must be provided consistent with Section 82.950.

(9) Site plan approval shall be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Fire Department, pursuant to the adopted codes.

(10) Site plan approval shall be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Township Engineer.

(11) Site plan approval shall be subject further to Staff review and approval of the fence installed along the south perimeter line and the landscaping within that area.

(12) Site plan approval shall be subject further to the installation of sidewalks along West Main Street on the north boundary line of the developer's property unless the Township is able to establish a special assessment district, incorporating the developer's property and adjacent properties, to install said sidewalks within the next year. Sidewalk construction plans shall be provided for Township review and approval.

Ms. Borgfjord seconded the motion. The Chairman called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

VAN DAM - SITE PLAN REVIEW - ADDITION TO REPAIR AND STORAGE BUILDING AT D & R SPORTS CENTER - 8178 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-280-012)

The Chairman indicated that the next item on the Agenda was review of site plan of Mr. VanDam, owner of D & R Sports Center, for a proposed addition to a repair and storage building at the D & R Sports Center. He said the property was located at 8178 West Main Street, Parcel No. 3905-16-280-012. The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia submitted a reported dated February 15, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia said that she had not included the sidewalk requirements with the site plan review because of the small nature of the proposed addition. She said, just as she had indicated in her report, that a more formal site plan review was likely with the addition of the showroom which was currently being planned. She said the ZBA might want to take up the issue of sidewalks at that time.

Ms. Stefforia then proceeded to review Section 82.800 with the Zoning Board of Appeals members, noting that proposed lighting will have to be modified to comply with the Ordinance. The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Stefforia.

Mr. Turcott asked if a delay on action on the sidewalk would preclude them from addressing it in the future. Ms. Stefforia said it would not, and it mostly likely would be a bike lane, requiring some type of approval from MDOT.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Ms. Borgfjord asked when Mr. VanDam was going to construct the addition to the showroom. Mr. VanDam said it would likely be next year, funds permitting.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions from the audience. Ms. Applegate told the Board that she lived next door and had no objections to the proposed improvement. However, she did want to know what the property owner's intent was with regard to the remainder of his property. Mr. VanDam said he would be happy to discuss that matter with her and planned on meeting with her in the next week or so.

The Chairman asked if there was any further public comment, and hearing none, closed the public portion of the meeting and called for Board deliberations. After a brief discussion, Mr. McClung made a motion to approve the site plan with the following conditions:

(1) All new exterior lighting and any changes to the existing lighting arrangement must comply with the requirements of Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

(2) Revised plans demonstrating compliance with Section 78.700 must be provided to the Township before a Building Permit may be issued.

(3) A Sign Permit must be obtained before any additional sign(s) is placed upon the property.

(4) Site plan approval is subject to Fire Department approval.

(5) Site plan approval is subject to the applicant submitting a completed Environmental Permits Checklist and a Hazardous Substances Reporting form.

Mr. Turcott seconded the motion. The Chairman called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

TEMPORARY LODGING INTERPRETATION

The Chairman said that the ZBA was being asked to consider what the term "temporary lodging" meant as it relates to an occupancy at a hotel or motel. The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia submitted her report dated February 15, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia explained to the ZBA members that it had recently come to the Township's attention that a motel in the Township may be renting rooms to guests for a period significantly longer than what a typical motel/hotel stay would be. Therefore, the Staff was requesting the ZBA to determine what "temporary lodging" meant as it related to a hotel or motel. Ms. Stefforia provided a dictionary definition, but asked for input from the Board and that they consider what the term "temporary lodging" meant.

Ms. Stefforia pointed out that the concern stemmed from the fact that hotels and motels are not apartments, and that if hotels and motels were being used to serve as multi-family housing, they certainly were not designed for that purpose. She also said that the density within hotels and motels was much greater than that permitted within a multi-family district.

Mr. Turcott said it was not uncommon to see motels turn into apartments, and so he understood the Planning Department's concerns.

Mr. McClung said that he had been requested, as part of his job, to travel out of state for up to an 18-month period. He said, in that case, he would have stayed at a motel to avoid the cleaning and upkeep associated with renting an apartment. Therefore, he did not think a stay even for a fairly lengthy period would take it out of the realm of what was common for a hotel/motel stay.

Ms. Borgfjord said that there was certainly a difference in use between simply sleeping in a hotel and actually living within a hotel.

In the discussion, the Residence Inn facility was raised. However, Mr. Bushouse pointed out that the difference between a Residence Inn and a typical hotel is that it is designed like an apartment and has to meet different code requirements in order to accommodate the longer residential stays at that facility. Ms. Bugge pointed out that there was a big difference between what was required by code for a hotel/motel than for an apartment.

Mr. Bushouse suggested that, if the long-term residents did not exceed 50% of the building, he was not sure that the Board should even address the issue. Other members of the ZBA agreed and said until the matter became a more significant problem, they did not think the Township should address the issue.

Other Business

The Chairman asked if there was any other business. Ms. Stefforia said that the Planning Commission had formed a subcommittee to review the Master Land Use Plan and needed a ZBA representative. Ms. Borgfjord graciously volunteered to serve in that capacity.

Adjournment

The Chairman asked if there was any other business to come before the Board, and hearing none, the Chairman called for adjournment at approximately 8:25 5:25 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

By:
Millard Loy, Chairman

By:
Dave Bushouse

By:
Grace Borgfjord

By:
Duane McClung

By:
James Turcott

Minutes Prepared:
February 22, 2005

Minutes Approved:
, 2005