OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

February 26, 1998

 

TWO SQUARED DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. - REZONING - APPROX. 19 ACRES -
EAST OF U.S. 131, WEST OF MAPLE HILL DRIVE

GARB-KO PUD - INDY-C-KAL - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE/SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - CORNER KL AVENUE AND DRAKE ROAD
SECTION 60.500 - OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY - PUBLIC HEARING

______________________________________________________________________________

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, February 26, 1998, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall, pursuant to notice.

Members present:

Wilfred Dennie, Chairperson
Ted Corakis
Millard Loy
Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell
Ken Heisig
Lara Meeuwse
Marvin Block

Members Absent: None

Also present were Mike West and Rebecca Harvey (after 7:36 p.m.) of the Planning and Zoning Department, Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney, and two (2) other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

AGENDA

The Chairperson suggested adding a discussion of the agenda for the meeting of March 12, 1998. Ms. Meeuwse moved to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Corakis seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

MINUTES

The Planning Commission next considered the minutes of the meeting of February 12, 1998. Ms. Meeuwse moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Heisig seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

TWO SQUARED DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C. - REZONING - APPROX. 19 ACRES - EAST OF U.S. 131, WEST OF MAPLE HILL DRIVE

The next item was consideration of the application of Robert Lennon on behalf of Two Squared Development, L.L.C., for rezoning of approximately 19 acres situated in the NW¼ of Land Section 13, adjacent to the north of TGI Friday's, on the north side of West Main and to the west of Maple Hill Drive; rezoning from the "R-4" Residence District to the "C" Local Business District Zoning classification would be considered. The Planning Commission would also consider amendment of the Township's Master Land Use Plan. The item had been tabled from the meeting of January 22, 1998. It was noted that the review of the applicant's traffic study was under way; however, KATS had not yet completed its analysis. A letter had been received from the applicant indicating that there was no objection to tabling the item to the meeting of March 12, 1998.

Ms. Meeuwse moved to table the item to the meeting of March 12, 1998. The motion was seconded by Mr. Corakis and carried unanimously.

GARB-KO PUD - INDY-C-KAL - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE/SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - CORNER KL AVENUE AND DRAKE ROAD

The next item had been tabled from the meeting of January 22, 1998, and was the application of Donald J. Barker, on behalf of Indy-C-Kal, Inc., for special exception use permit/site plan amendment of the proposed outdoor retail sales of various productw in conjunction with the operation of the 7-11 Food Store at the corner of KL Avenue and Drake Road (5034 West KL Avenue). The property is situated in the SE¼ of Land Section 24 and is within the "R-4" Residence District Zoning classification and is part of a Planned Unit Development (fka Multiple Use Development).

The applicant was not present, and Mr. Loy moved to table the item to the end of the agenda so as to give the applicant an opportunity to arrive.

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

SECTION 60.500 - OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY - PUBLIC HEARING

The next item was consideration of certain text amendments to Section 60.500 regarding the Open Space Community. The Chairperson began a review of the proposed changes. There was a discussion of Section 60.540 and subparts A and C regarding density. It was noted that density would largely be controlled by the number of units that could be developed in an economically viable parallel plan. There was also a discussion of whether a mobile home park would be allowed to be designed as an open space community. It was noted that, given the definition of the word "dwelling," a mobile home park could not be developed as an open space community but a mobile home subdivision or condominium development could be created as an open space community.

Ms. Harvey arrived.

There was a discussion of Section 60.550 and the proposed language which would require arrangement of streets to be extended to the boundary line of the project. Mr. Loy felt that this requirement would remove a great deal of the incentive for creating an open space community. After further discussion, it was determined that this paragraph should be phrased to say "may be required to be extended."

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

Mr. Loy moved to recommend that the following text be adopted by the Township Board:

Section 60.500 Open Space Community

Section 60.520 Scope

An Open Space Community is defined as a residential development whereby the protection of substantial open space is established as the primary site development consideration of which the clustering or grouping of dwelling units and/or lots upon a small portion of the site is a fundamental part.

An Open Space Community shall be recognized as a Special Exception Use and shall be controlled by the guidelines thereof. Such residential developments shall be permitted as a Special Exception Use in the "AG," "R-1," "R-2," "R-3," "R-4" and "R-5" Zoning classifications.

Section 60.540 Development Provisions

A. Delete

B. An Open Space Community shall be limited to single-family and/or two-family residential dwelling units, if same is permitted by the underlying residential zoning district, and provided that the total number of dwelling units does not exceed the density for the Open Space Community site permitted by Section 60.540 C.

C. (2nd paragraph)
The number of residential sites allowable within an Open Space Community project shall be determined in the following manner:

(3rd bullet)
: the number of lots determined by the Planning Commission in this review shall be the maximum number of residential sites allowable for the Open Space Community

E. Residential sites shall be designed to accommodate adequate sewage disposal where public sewer is not required.

G. Cluster area design standards

(Add)

: The use of single-loaded streets (houses on only one side) — especially alongside "open space," around community common areas, and to create foreground meadows along the public road that serves the development — should be incorporated into cluster area designs to avoid a suburban subdivision appearance.

Section 60.550 Design Standards

B. Interior Street System:

(Add as 3rd paragraph)

Where adjoining areas are not subdivided, the arrangement of streets in the proposed Open Space Community may be required to be extended to the boundary line of the project to make provision for the future projection of streets into adjoining areas.

(Add as 5th paragraph)

Streets should, whenever possible, be designed to connect with each other to minimize dead-ends. Where cul-de-sacs are unavoidable, and where space permits, they should be designed with a central island where vegetation can be preserved/established.

(Add as 6th paragraph)

Streets systems should be designed so that their curvature or alignment produces "terminal vistas" of open space elements, such as water features, meadows, or playing fields. This may commonly occur at the terminus of street intersections or through the use of single-loaded streets.

Ms. Meeuwse seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS

There was a discussion of the proposed agenda for the meeting of March 12, 1998. It was noted that the Buckham Highlands and Two Squared Development applications would be considered. Due to the length of these items, it was decided that discussion of the first draft of the setback text would be considered at the first meeting in April. The Planning Commission also decided that it would take up the Neighborhood Commercial and 9th Street Focus Area Overlay Zone items, which had been returned by the Township Board, at the meeting of March

GARB-KO PUD - INDY-C-KAL - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE/SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - CORNER KL AVENUE AND DRAKE ROAD

Since the applicant was now present, the Planning Commission began a discussion of the application of Indy-C-Kal, Inc. 26, 1998.

The report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. It was noted that the project had initially been approved under a previous text as a Multiple Use Development. The commercial development had been allowed to locate on the perimeter of the MUD, along KL Avenue and Drake Road, through a variance in that the previous text language required that commercial development be established in the interior of an MUD. Further, the previous MUD language had required that the commercial activity primarily serve residents of the MUD. When the text was rewritten to its current PUD language, the non-residential element of the PUD was no longer limited to specific uses or location. Also, it was not required that it primarily serve the residents of the PUD. However, the current language does require that the non-residential use be an integral part of the residential development and logically oriented to and coordinated with the PUD

Ms. Harvey noted that this was the first application dealing with an outdoor display and sales associated with the PUD and not a "general" commercial zoning use.

The applicant was present, stating that he supplies firewood to the 7-11. He does not own or have an interest in the store. The 7-11 was seeking to display and sell the firewood; firewood had been previously placed on the site for sale. The applicant indicated he had no idea that the outdoor display and sale of product was in violation of the Ordinance.

The applicant was unsure about whether the 7-11 owners wished to display other products. He was not sure what kind of products would be displayed and sold or where they would be located.

In response to a question by Mr. Corakis, the applicant indicated that he stored the wood outside, stacked on the sidewalk, where it would stay until sold.

Ms. Harvey noted that the applicant's comments indicated facts that were different than those understood by the Planning and Zoning Department. She stated that, when Township staff observed the firewood displayed at the store, they notified the store management that they would need approval. At that time the firewood was located on the sidewalk of the store. She stated that the Township Fire Department was concerned about this location and required that it be moved to a corner of the parking lot. The Township had also been informed by 7-11 that they were interested in displaying other products on the sidewalk. Township staff requested information as to the types/amounts of product and their proposed locations.

The staff had understood that there would be two different entities trying to sell different kinds of products at the site. It had not been understood previously that 7-11 sold the firewood. It was thought that the applicant sold the wood at the 7-11 store on consignment. As to the other products offered for sale, 7-11's owners understood that they would need to present information as to the type/amount and location of products to the Planning Commission and, if not presented, the application would be denied.

The Chairperson stated that, since this applicant does not know enough details about the other items that 7-11 is seeking to sell, he believed it would be inappropriate to consider the application for display and sale of anything other than firewood.

In response to questioning by the Chairperson, the applicant stated that he delivers firewood to the 7-11 store every 6-10 days. He delivers usually at night between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. The applicant was proposing seasonal display in the winter from around September 1st to April 1st.

In response to questioning by the Chairperson, the applicant stated that piles of firewood would be approximately 3' tall and occupy a 20' area. The applicant indicated that the location in the parking lot "did not work" because the firewood was being covered with snow by snowplow operators clearing the parking area. The applicant indicated that he was unsure in what location the firewood would be situated and stated he would like to work with the Fire Department to get approval for placement on the sidewalk.

Ms. Meeuwse questioned the applicant as to who purchases the firewood. Ms. Meeuwse was concerned because the apartments making up the PUD did not have fireplaces. Therefore, she felt that the sale of firewood could not possibly be an integral part of the residential development or logically oriented to that residential use.

No public comment was offered on the item, and the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Block expressed concern that the Planning Commission should know exactly where the applicant was proposing to locate the firewood display and sales area. Ms. Meeuwse expressed concern that, because the Speedway application had been denied, and since the sale of firewood could not possibly serve any of the PUD residences, the Planning Commission should not approve the application.

Ms. Meeuwse moved to deny the application, finding that the applicant could not meet the criteria of Section 60.100, reasoning:

(1) That to grant the application would be inconsistent with the Planning Commission's decision with regard to the Speedway application.

(2) That the sale of firewood cannot be of service to any of the residences in the PUD in that they have no fireplaces; the sale of firewood could not be an integral part of the residential development, therefore, as required by Section 60.430(B)(2).

3) That there was a concern with the lack of specificity as to the location of the proposed display area, given the concerns of the Fire Department.

Mr. Block seconded the motion.

The Chairperson commented that the Planning Committee Commission was sympathetic to the applicant's needs but that sympathy could not be taken into account when reviewing the criteria of the Ordinance. The Chairperson stated that, unfortunately, the criteria of the Ordinance would require denial.

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

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.