OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

February 27, 2003

Agenda

BUCKHAM WOODS OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - (PARCEL NO. 3905-23-210-010)

CROSS BEND COURT - CONDOMINIUM SITE PLAN REVIEW - 6229/6231, 6202/6204, 6214/6216, AND 6226/6228 CROSS BEND COURT - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-26-287-132, 3905-26-287-102, 3905-26-287-112 AND 3905-26-287-122)

MAPLE HILL MALL CAR SALES EVENT - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - 5050 WEST MAIN - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-280-051)

WEST MAIN MALL - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-430-036)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, February 27, 2003, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Neil G. Sikora, Chairperson
Lee Larson
Kathleen Garland-Rike
Deborah L. Everett
Mike Ahrens

MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell
James Turcott

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

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

AGENDA

Ms. Stefforia announced that the item noticed in the paper regarding the application of Michiana Addiction had been withdrawn.

The Chairperson announced that, with regard to the site plan review for Cross Bend Court, he would be asking to be recused in that he owns property within 300 feet.

Mr. Larson moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, and Ms Everett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

MINUTES

The Planning Commission considered the minutes of February 13, 2003. Ms. Garland-Rike moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Ms. Everett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

BUCKHAM WOODS OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW - (PARCEL NO. 3905-23-210-010)

The Planning Commission considered the application of Bey-Moure LLP for a conceptual plan review of a proposed 70-unit, 30-acre open space community. The subject development would be located east of Buckham Highlands off of 9th Street, and is located within the "R-2" Residence District zoning classification. The subject site is Parcel No. 3905-23-210-010.

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

Ms. Bugge noted that this application concerns the first development to be reviewed under the new Open Space Preservation Residential Development option in Section 51.000 of the Ordinance. This section allows open space communities as a permitted use subject to the preservation of 50% open space. She noted that, after the initial conceptual review, detailed plans would be submitted for the review of the Township and the Kalamazoo County Road Commission. A public hearing would be conducted by the Planning Commission at the time of site plan review.

Again it was noted, that this project involves approximately 30 acres east of Buckham Highlands. Thirty-five duplex buildings were proposed, creating 70 dwelling units. The applicant had submitted a parallel plan, showing that a total of 74 units were possible through traditional platting.

Each proposed site would encompass the building footprint of the dwelling unit and minimal land, allowing individual ownership of each unit. The remainder of the property would consist of common elements, both limited and general. It was proposed that the internal road system would be public extending in from Buckham Highlands and creating a loop road. The road system would accommodate possible extensions to the north and south. It was proposed that the open space would be owned by the Condominium Association.

The applicant was seeking five deviations from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Bugge noted that Section 51.300 gives the Planning Commission the authority to grant deviations when found to be in keeping with the spirit of the Ordinance. First, the applicant was seeking deviation from Section 66.201 which requires 13,200 square feet for a duplex building. It was proposed that each site contain 5,676 square feet. Second, the applicant was seeking deviation from Section 66.201 which requires that sites be 120 feet wide at the building setback. The applicant was proposing an 86-foot width. Third and fourth, the applicant was seeking side and rear setback deviations, respectively. The applicant was proposing zero setbacks from side and rear boundaries. However, all sites would be at least ten feet from the overall condominium property boundaries. Further, buildings would meet the front setback and distance requirements between buildings. Fifth, the applicant was seeking to deviate from Section 66.400 which does not permit residential buildings to occupy more than 30% of the site. The applicant was proposing occupation of up to 100% of each site by the building. The applicant was proposing dedicated open space comprising 51% of the acreage.

Ms. Bugge reviewed the criteria for conceptual plan review set forth in Section 51.700 C. She noted that the Township Engineer had reviewed the proposed layout and felt the lots were buildable. Moreover, the layout was feasible for extension of utilities. Ms. Bugge expressed that one concern might be the fact that the project had no second access. However, the proposed development would provide for extensions to the north and south.

Todd Batts was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the proposed project was a site condominium development. Each duplex would be set on a "rectangle" of land. However, the applicant was seeking to surround each rectangle with a common element to maximize the "uniformity" and the look of the overall project. Front yards, therefore, would be owned by the Condominium Association.

He stated that the depression located in the southwest corner of the site would be used for storm water retention. The Buckham Woods Condominium Association would own this area.

Addressing the requested deviations, the applicant stated that, because of the unique design of the project, granting deviations would allow the project to meet the spirit of the Ordinance. The applicant was seeking a reduced site area since, because of the design of the common area around each unit, the layout would have an appearance similar to that if each building were placed on a 13,200 square foot lot. As to setback, the applicant wanted the flexibility to allow unit owners to build to the lot line. However, because of the design of common area around each unit, there would be sufficient space between buildings, at least 20 feet.

As to the access concern, Mr. Batts stated that the applicant had provided as much access as possible to the 30 acres at this time. He stated that the public road system had been tentatively approved, in its layout, by the Kalamazoo County Road Commission. Fifty-one percent of the 30 acres would be dedicated open space, including the four-acre storm water retention area. The open space does not include the areas within 60 feet of the road right-of-way.

In response to questions from Mr. Ahrens, the applicant stated that there were recorded easements allowing for each of three properties to use the storm water retention area, but the area would be owned by Buckham Woods. The applicant indicated that maintenance of the storm water area was covered by the existing recorded documents and would be specified in the proposed Master Deed of the project.

The Chairperson questioned the applicant with regard to building at the site, and he indicated that there would be no building outside the building envelope.

Mr. Larson questioned the applicant as to whether other layouts had been considered. Mr. Batts stated that others had been considered, but that layouts were limited due to the topography of the site. Mr. Larson was concerned that there was not enough contiguity in the four open space areas. The applicant pointed out that all open space areas were accessible to all other open space areas over general common elements. Therefore, all owners within the project would be able to access all open space areas.

Ms. Stefforia pointed out that the open space requirements had never been interpreted to require that all open space be located in one portion of the condominium project. Mr. Larson continued to be concerned that the open space would not accessible enough for passive recreation. Ms. Bugge noted that all units were adjacent to open space and could access all other open space by crossing general common elements.

As to the deviations requested, Ms. Bugge noted that similar requests had been made by, and approved for, Bronson Place. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that, as to the site area and width at building setback deviations, there would be no objection in that the spirit and intent of the Ordinance was met. Mr. Ahrens commented that he felt these deviations would allow flexibility and creativity in design. Ms. Bugge observed that the applicant was not creating a greater number of units than would be possible if no deviation were granted. Planning Commissioners also agreed that the remaining deviations would be appropriate.

Ms. Everett noted that the applicant, if the property were platted, could propose a project with greater density. Mr. Larson noted that the building envelope had sufficient setback from one another, creating the "same result" which would be achieved by compliance with the criteria.

As to access, Ms. Everett noted that future access potential had been provided where possible.

It was the overall consensus of the Planning Commission that the concept of the proposed Buckham Woods Open Space Community was satisfactory.

CROSS BEND COURT - CONDOMINIUM SITE PLAN REVIEW - 6229/6231, 6202/6204, 6214/6216, AND 6226/6228 CROSS BEND COURT - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-26-287-132, 3905-26-287-102, 3905-26-287-112 AND 3905-26-287-122)

The Planning Commission considered site plan review of a proposed conversion of four duplex buildings into an 8-unit condominium project. The subject properties are located at 6229/6231, 6202/6204, 6214/6216, and 6226/6228 Cross Bend Court. The subject properties are located in the "R-2" Residence District zoning classification and are Parcel Nos. 3905-26-287-132, 3905-26-287-102, 3905-26-287-112 and 3905-26-287-122.

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

Mr. Ahrens moved to excuse the Chairperson from participation in the item, and Ms. Everett seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Garland-Rike acted as Chairperson for the item.

Ms. Bugge stated that the property consisted of Lots 11, 12 and 13 of Quail Run Estates, each of which have a duplex upon them. There is a duplex under construction on Lot 10. She noted that this application was similar to one reviewed by the Planning Commission to establish the Fairgrove Condominiums near the subject request on June 28, 2001. The proposed project would make each dwelling unit within the duplex a condominium which could be separately owned. Within each lot, the driveway and yards would become a common element of the two condominium units located thereon. The proposed project would allow each dwelling unit to be sold separately, whereas, the duplex and lot are one legal property.

It was noted that the Township Board had approved the proposed condominiumization of the platted lots at their meeting of January 14, 2003. The Township Board had conditioned its approval on inclusion of language in the Master Deed and Bylaws that restrict each dwelling unit to single-family use and approval by the Planning Commission.

Gary Hahn was present on behalf of the applicants. He stated that the driveway and yard of each lot would become a limited common element for use by the two units located on that lot. However, all eight units would be part of one condominium project. He stated that the maintenance of each limited common element would be assigned to the two units which have its use. The Association would enforce this provision. Mr. Larson had questions regarding maintenance of the proposed condominium unit building and common elements.

The Chairperson called for public comment, and Jerome Kamm stated that he was the owner of four of the eight units involved. He said that it was the intention that the Association would share in the exterior maintenance of all buildings so as to keep their appearance at a "high level".

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

Ms. Garland-Rike reviewed the proposed application. After some discussion, Mr. Ahrens moved to approve the site plan with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That the Master Deed and Bylaws restrict each dwelling unit to single-family use.

(2) That the Master Deed and Bylaws be submitted to the Township for review and approval.

Ms. Everett seconded the motion, and the motion carried 4-to-0, with Mr. Sikora abstaining.

MAPLE HILL MALL CAR SALES EVENT - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - 5050 WEST MAIN - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-280-051)

The Planning Commission considered the application of Donley Voth on behalf of Enterprise Rent-A-Car for a special exception use review of a proposed one-day outdoor sales event concerning used vehicles by Enterprise Rent-A-Car in the parking lot of Maple Hill Mall. The subject property is located in the "C-1" Local Business District zoning classification at 5050 West Main Street. The subject site is Parcel No. 3905-13-280-051.

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

The event would take place in the parking lot and building of the former Montgomery Wards store at Maple Hill Mall. The applicant was proposing the display of 50-60 cars on Saturday, April 26, 2003, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The proposed display area would meet the setback requirements of the Ordinance. Ms. Bugge stated that the use of the former Montgomery Wards' building would require Fire Department approval. Ms. Bugge reviewed the criteria of Section 60.100 concerning special exception use. She concluded that the proposed use would be compatible with other uses permitted in the zoning district since retail uses were permitted by right. She also concluded that, based upon the nature of the area in question, the proposed use would not be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties. Further, as long as the proposed use complies with Fire Department requirements and other Ordinance standards, it was felt that it would promote public health, safety and welfare. Further, considering the proposed location, date and hours of operation, it was felt that the proposed use would encourage use of the land in accord with its character and adaptability. The criteria of Section 31.403 was reviewed, and it was determined that the Ordinance had been satisfied. Ms. Bugge also reviewed the criteria of Section 82 concerning site plan review.

The applicant, Donley Voth, was present, and he stated that he was available to answer questions.

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

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the application satisfied the requirements of the Ordinance.

Ms. Everett moved to approve the special exception use and site plan with the condition that the use of the building be subject to Fire Department approval. Ms. Garland-Rike seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

WEST MAIN MALL - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-430-036)

The Planning Commission considered the application of West Main 2000, LLP for a revised site plan review of a multi-tenant commercial building on an outlot at the West Main Mall. The subject building will be located along Drake Road within the "C-1" Local Business District zoning classification, and is Parcel No. 3905-13-430-036.

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

On January 23, 2003, the Planning Commission had granted special exception use and site plan review of a proposed 8,428 square foot multiple tenant building with a bank and drive-through window on the south end. A future building of approximately 12,000 square feet was also indicated on the site plan. The applicant was seeking an amendment of the approval so as to construct one large building of 19,996 square feet instead of two separate buildings. The drive-through window would remain as previously approved on the south end of the building.

As to access, no additional driveways were proposed. Ms. Stefforia noted that the proposed entrance to the pad site from the service drive had been improved with this site plan from the plan reviewed in January. The drives would line up with drive aisles in the parking area opposite the site. Stop signs would be utilized as appropriate to direct traffic at the new intersections. Further, Ms. Stefforia noted that the dumpster had been relocated to the northwest corner of the pad site. She felt this was a much preferred location. She suggested that planning plantings should be added around the perimeter of the block enclosure. She reviewed the criteria of Section 82.800. Josh Weiner, on behalf of the applicant, was present. He clarified, as to the appearance of the building, that it would have two fronts. One "front" along the east side of the building and along the west. Mr. Weiner stated that the applicant had no objection to including landscaping around the dumpster pad.

The Chairperson expressed that he was pleased with the revisions made by the applicant which seem to be consistent with the comments made at the January 23, 2003 meeting by the Planning Commission. The applicant responded that he had gone back to the drawing board when it determined they could obtain lease commitments for a large building.

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

The Chairperson reviewed the application.

It was noted that, as to landscaping, the Planning Commission had previously granted a deviation to allow a Type "C" greenspace along Drake Road in a 10-foot versus 20-foot greenspace. Planning Commissioners were reminded that this deviation had been based upon the slope (hill) in the area. It was felt that the topography allowed the 10-foot width to meet the intent of the landscaping provisions.

After further discussion, Ms. Garland-Rike moved to approve the site plan amendment with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That the placement of new stop signs and directional signs should be shown on a revised plan for Township Staff review and approval.

(2) That outdoor display or storage is not permitted on the subject property. Any additional outdoor display, beyond what was approved for Lowe's, will be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission under the special exception use criteria.

(3) That the revised dumpster location was approved. Additional plantings around the perimeter of the block enclosure should be reflected on the landscaping plan when prepared and submitted to Township Staff for review and approval.

(4) That, as to lighting, fixture details of parking lot and building-mounted lights must be provided for Township Staff review to insure compliance with the provisions of Section 78.000.

(5) That a sign permit will be required before any new signs can be placed at the property. All signs must comply with Section 76.170 unless a deviation is granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

(6) That a landscaping plan indicating species and size of proposed plantings along Drake Road and the north and south ends, as well as the internal parking areas, shall be provided to Township Staff for review and approval pursuant to Section 75.000 prior to the issuance of a building permit. Landscaping must 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.

(7) That approval is subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Township Fire Department pursuant to the adopted codes.

(8) That site plan approval is subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Township Engineer.

(9) That an Environmental Permits Checklist and Hazardous Substance Reporting form must be completed and submitted to the Township for each tenant prior to occupancy.

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

OTHER BUSINESS

The proposed text amendments concerning home occupations had been reviewed with the Township Board at the last joint meeting. Ms. Everett moved to schedule a public hearing on the home occupations text amendment, Draft 3, for April 10, 2003. Mr. Larson seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Stefforia noted that a rezoning request had been received from the Kalamazoo Area Christian Retirement Association regarding Parcel No. 3905-25-355-021. The applicant was requesting rezoning of the "R-2" property to the "R-4" Residence District. No Master Land Use Plan amendment would be needed.

The Planning Commission members agreed that the consideration for rezoning should be expanded to include all "R-2"-zoned properties with the exception of those within the Plainview Plat. Mr. Ahrens moved to schedule a public hearing for March 27, 2003. The motion was seconded by Mr. Larson, and it carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION

By:
Kathleen Garland-Rike, Secretary

Minutes prepared:
March 4, 2003

Minutes approved:
, 2003