OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

January 22, 2002

Agenda

P& N PROPERTIES, LLC - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7123 STADIUM DRIVE (PARCEL NOS. 3905-34-280-011, 3905-34-280-016, 3905-34-280-032 AND 3905-34-280-020)

MATTSON - SETBACK VARIANCE - 8561 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-33-402-502)

CORNING - FRONTAGE AND DEPTH-TO-WIDTH VARIANCE - 7710 WEST KL AVENUE (PARCEL NO. 3905-22-185-010)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Millard Loy, Chairperson
Dave Bushouse
Stanley Rakowski
Grace Borgfjord

MEMBER ABSENT: Jill Jensen

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

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Ms. Borgfjord nominated Millard Loy to be elected as Chairperson. The nomination was seconded by Mr. Rakowski. Mr. Loy nominated Mr. Rakowski for Vice Chairperson. Ms. Borgfjord seconded the nomination. Upon a vote on the nominees, Mr. Loy and Mr. Rakowski were elected unanimously.

MINUTES

The Board considered the minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2001. Mr. Bushouse moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

P& N PROPERTIES, LLC - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7123 STADIUM DRIVE (PARCEL NOS. 3905-34-280-011, 3905-34-280-016, 3905-34-280-032 AND 3905-34-280-020).

The Board considered the application of P&N Properties, LLC, for a site plan review of a proposed 10,080 square foot professional office building and associated parking at 7123 Stadium Drive. The subject property is located in the "C" Local Business District zoning classification and is Parcel Nos. 3905-34-280-011, 3905-34-280-016, 3905-34-280-032 AND 3905-34-280-020.

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

Ms. Bugge noted that the subject property, which currently consists of four parcels on the south side of Stadium Drive, was proposed to be combined into one parcel which would contain 38.6 acres. The owner anticipated converting the proposed driveway from Stadium Drive into a public road and extending it to the rear of the property at a future time in order to facilitate the subdivision of the property.

The proposed office building and a 600 square foot accessory building would be the only structures on the 38.6 acre property at this time. However, future development plans were considered in the placement of the office building and accessory building on the site. The building setbacks were consistent with the requirements from Stadium Drive and the property line to the east. Additionally, the setbacks were consistent with the possible future roadway to the west and the south property line indicated by the "future sanitary sewer line". The "site" of the office building, accessory building and parking would encompass approximately three acres.

The applicant was seeking one deviation from Ordinance standards, that deviation being to allow landscaping of the three-acre site as if it were a freestanding site; therefore, landscaping would be provided at the site on "four sides" of the three-acre site instead of along the entire Stadium Drive frontage.

As to access, it was noted that the proposed driveway does not meet Access Management Guidelines for distance between driveways. However, the County Road Commission was satisfied as to the location, both for its use as a driveway and as a future public road.

With regard to parking, the applicant was seeking to defer five spaces.

As to the Engineer's review, Mr. Bushouse suggested that an engineer be retained as the consultant to review the proposed site plan since the site was being developed by the Township's regular Engineer. Mr. Bushouse suggested that this would avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Dan Lewis was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated that no areas would be disturbed other than the 2.95 acre site at this time. The landscaping plan would be submitted along with building plans prior to issuance of a building permit.

Mr. Bushouse questioned the applicant concerning the grade of the driveway from the site to Stadium Drive. The drive would have a downward slope to Stadium Drive in general. Mr. Lewis stated that there was a two percent upgrade and then a dip down to Stadium Drive. Mr. Bushouse expressed concerning about adding additional water run-off from the site to Stadium Drive and suggested that a catch basin be added. Mr. Lewis indicated that the retention pond located at the site would receive the water run-off from the site with the possible exception of a portion of the driveway. Mr. Lewis indicated that there had been a discussion of adding a catch basin to receive the driveway water run-off, but that the Road Commission had indicated they did not feel that the run-off would be a problem.

Mr. Bushouse also had questions regarding the future sanitary easement, and Mr. Lewis pointed to the proposed easement along the property line which would serve the entire site.

In response to questions from the Chairperson, the applicant indicated that the design of the site and the driveway took into account a possible expansion of Stadium Drive to five lanes.

There was continued discussion of the possibility of water run-off to Stadium Drive, and Mr. Bushouse commented that he believed that all water should be retained on site, and no further storm water run-off added to Stadium Drive, given the problems with flooding in that area. The Chairperson agreed, stating that he felt a catch basin should be added. All Board members concurred that there be no additional run-off to Stadium Drive, and that all water run-off from the driveway and site as a whole, be captured.

There was no public comment on the application, and the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Bushouse moved to approve the site plan subject to the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That access to the site be served by a single driveway from Stadium Drive. A driveway permit must be obtained from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.

(2) That parking as proposed by the applicant was approved, including the deferral of five spaces. All parking spaces must meet the dimensional criteria of 10 feet X 20 feet.

(3) That all site lighting must comply with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

(4) That a sign permit pursuant to Section 76.000 is required before the placement of any signs on the subject property.

(5) That a deviation be granted from Section 75.000 to permit the developed area to be considered as a freestanding site for purposes of landscaping. A landscaping plan must be submitted to the Township Staff for review and approval. Landscaping must be installed consistent with the approved landscaping plan, or a performance guarantee pursuant to Section 82.950 must be provided before a certificate of occupancy can be issued.

(6) That approval is subject to the review, approval, and satisfaction of any requirements imposed by the Township Fire Department.

(7) That approval is subject to the review and approval of an engineer consultant retained by the Planning Commission/Township to determine that site engineering is adequate and to assure that there will be no additional water run-off from the site or the drive to Stadium Drive.

(8) That an earth change permit be obtained from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner.

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

MATTSON - SETBACK VARIANCE - 8561 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-33-402-502).

The Board considered the application of Harold Mattson for a variance from the provisions of Section 64.200 to allow an accessory building to be located within the required setback. The subject property is located at 8561 Stadium Drive within the "AG" Agricultural-Rural District zoning classification. The property is Parcel No. 3905-33-402-502.

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

Ms. Bugge stated that Section 64.100 required a building setback of 120 feet from the center of Stadium Drive right-of-way for the subject accessory building. The accessory building had been placed on the property 67 feet from the center of the street right-of-way, 53 feet less than was required. She pointed out that the house on the subject site and the house on the western property are nonconforming with regard to setback in that they measure only 99 feet and 69 feet from the center line respectively.

Ms. Bugge indicated that the property has a steep slope from the front to the rear yard, though the rear yard was flat, and that the applicant had stated that there was a septic field in the rear yard that might preclude placement of the building in that location. Ms. Bugge stated that there is an additional level area behind the accessory building where the applicant currently stores various materials.

Ms. Bugge presented photographs of the site and summarized the analysis of the nonuse variance criteria contained in her report.

The applicant, along with Heidi Waber, owner of the site, was present. The applicant is the site's lessee. The applicant provided a sketch of the property showing the rough areas in which the house, proposed accessory building, etc. were located. Ms. Waber indicated that placing the accessory building to the back of the property was a problem due to the slope, the existing drainfield and the need to preserve sufficient area for a replacement drainfield. She also felt it was important for her tenant to have access to the accessory building for his heavy equipment.

The applicant stated that there was a shed close to the road when he moved to the home, which he had taken down for replacement with this accessory building. He stated that there was a deep gully in the back of the property, and that the area was "too steep" for access by vehicle.

The applicant indicated that he did not wish to put the building to the back of the property because he would also have to remove trees.

Jim Raymond, the owner of the property neighboring to the west, stated that he felt that the addition of the shed was a good thing, and that it cleaned up the property. The shed had been placed "even" with the setback of his house.

Mr. Bushouse questioned the applicant, who indicated that the shed was 10 feet X 15 feet. The shed had been placed on wolmanized lumber over stabilized gravel. In response to questions from Ms. Borgfjord, the applicant indicated that the shed had been established in late summer, and that he was not aware of the setback requirements at that time.

There was no public comment, and the public hearing was closed. The Chairperson stated that he recognized there was a problem with the terrain and difficult physical circumstances, but was concerned about setting an undesirable precedent.

In response to questions from Mr. Bushouse, it was clarified that the house on the subject property was located 99 feet from the center line of Stadium Drive. The shed was located 67 feet from the center line, and the neighboring home was 69 feet from the center line.

The Board members were concerned about the large amount of the variance being requested. Further, Mr. Bushouse commented his concern that Stadium Drive would be widened to five lanes in the near future.

Ms. Borgfjord stated her agreement with Mr. Bushouse's comments, indicating that she would be more comfortable with a smaller variance request.

After further discussion, the Township Attorney, along with Ms. Bugge, suggested that perhaps further investigation was needed to determine whether a reduced setback under Section 64.100 would be applicable in this case. The Section would allow for a reduced setback if there was a prior lawful nonconforming building located within 300 feet of the proposed building closer than the prescribed setback requirements. Inquiries should be made into whether the neighboring home to the west was within 300 feet (it was estimated to be within 50 feet), when the house to the west was established and whether it was lawfully nonconforming. Ms. Bugge indicated that, depending upon the resolution of the investigation, the setback could be reduced to 89 or 69 feet.

Mr. Rakowski moved to postpone consideration of the item to the meeting of February 11, 2002. Mr. Bushouse seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

CORNING - FRONTAGE AND DEPTH-TO-WIDTH VARIANCE - 7710 WEST KL AVENUE (PARCEL NO. 3905-22-185-010).

The Board considering the application of Dave Corning for a variance to allow a land division that would result in a parcel which did not satisfy the 200-foot frontage requirement and the 4-to-1 depth-to-width provisions of Section 66.201. The subject property is located at 7710 West KL Avenue within the "AG" Agricultural-Rural District zoning classification and is Parcel No. 3905-22-185-010.

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

Ms. Stefforia noted that the property is a 14.9 acre parcel on West KL Avenue with approximately 380 feet of frontage. The applicant was seeking to divide the property and purchase the rear 12.5 acres. The 12.5 acre parcel would have only 66 feet on frontage on West KL Avenue. The second parcel resulting from the division would satisfy Ordinance requirements with 314 feet of frontage and 2.4 acres.

The applicant had indicated an intention of developing the 12.5 acres as an open space community which would eventually be connected to Autumn View which is an open space community west of the subject property.

It was anticipated that a street would be established commencing at the 66-foot frontage on KL Avenue up the center of the property and a connection to the street proposed and partially constructed within the open space community of Autumn View to the west through another parcel owned by the applicant.

The applicant was present, stating that he was available to answer questions. He identified the owners of the properties to the east and west.

Mr. Corning stated that he also owned Parcel No. -040 which was currently in a PA 116 Agreement, which had about two years remaining. This parcel also has 66 feet of frontage on KL Avenue and could provide a future connection to Autumn View.

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

It was noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals had granted similar variances in the past to allow for the establishment of non-buildable parcels, subjecting the approval to a condition that no development occur on the nonconforming parcel until a road is extended to achieve compliance with the frontage requirements, or until a plat or site condominium is established on the site.

It was felt that no right-of-way or easement under Section 66.203 would be necessary if development did not occur until compliance with frontage requirements, or until platting or site condominiumizing of the property.

After further discussion, Mr. Bushouse moved to grant the variance to allow division of the subject property as proposed by the applicant with the condition that no building permit be issued for development on the 12.5 acre parcel until the parcel was in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance's frontage requirements through extension of public road or otherwise, (i.e., through platting or site condominiumizing). Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

ADOPTION OF REVISED 2002 MEETING DATE SCHEDULE

Ms. Stefforia indicated that the proposed meeting for February was being changed to February 11, 2002. Ms. Borgfjord moved to approve the revised 2002 meeting schedule, and Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Stefforia presented a report of activity conducted by the Board in 2001.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:33 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS


By:
Millard Loy, Chairperson

By:
Stanley Rakowski

By:
David Bushouse

By:
Grace Borgfjord

Minutes Prepared:
January 24, 2002

Minutes Approved:
, 2002