OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

January 25, 2005

Agenda

Revised Pursuant to Zoning Board of Appeals - February 15, 2005

HARRISON PACKING - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7696 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-34-130-024)

CASTLE ROCK BUILDERS - RELIEF FROM PAST VARIANCE CONDITION - 1750 NORTH 10TH STREET- (PARCEL NO. 3905-12-355-050)

ACKERSON - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 10726 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-19-155-054)

A regular meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, January 25, 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 six other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

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

The Acting Chairman, Mr. Loy, said the first item on the Agenda was to elect a Chairman for 2005. Ms. Borgfjord made a motion to reappoint Mr. Loy as the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Turcott seconded the motion. The Acting Chairman asked if there were any other nominations, and hearing none, closed the nomination and called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

MINUTES

The Chairman said that the next item on the Agenda was consideration of the minutes of December 14, 2004. Mr. Mc Clung made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ms. Borgfjord. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

HARRISON PACKING - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7696 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-34-130-024)

The Chairman indicated the first action item on the Agenda was site plan review for Harrison Packing Company. He explained that the applicant was requesting site plan review for a proposed 40,000 square foot processing warehouse facility with associated office space at 7696 Stadium Drive, Parcel No. 3905-34-130-024. The Chairman asked to hear from the Planning Department.

Ms. Stefforia presented her report to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated January 25, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference. Ms. Stefforia provided background information to the Board, indicating that the subject property is located in the "I-1" Industrial District and that site plan review was being considered pursuant to Section 82.800 of the Zoning Ordinance. She explained that the applicant was proposing a 40,000 square foot industrial building for processing and packaging of pickles and related products. Ms. Stefforia said industrial buildings, including processing and warehousing, were permitted within the "I-1" Industrial District.

Ms. Stefforia explained to the Board that the property was part of a larger parcel owned by the Township and that Harrison Packing had a pending agreement for the purchase of 5.5 acres. She explained that a new public street with water and sewer would be established along the east property line of the subject property, and that the road would not only serve Harrison Packing but the future Township park immediately north of the site.

Ms. Stefforia then proceeded to review the provisions of Section 82.800 of the Zoning Ordinance with the Zoning Board of Appeals. In doing so, she noted that there would be two proposed drives off the new public street to provide sufficient access to the Harrison facilities.

Ms. Stefforia told the Board that the applicant was required to have a total of 55 parking spaces, but given the flexibility allowed under the Ordinance, 35 of those spaces would be deferred as they exceeded the applicant's needs. She explained that the applicant felt 20 spaces were sufficient for the proposed site. She said that the Ordinance allowed for deferred parking when the site plan demonstrated that the required number of spaces could be adequately accommodated, if needed, in the future.

Ms. Stefforia noted that the proposed building met the setback requirements of the Ordinance. She said that only one pole-mounted light was proposed, and that the balance of the exterior lighting would be wall-mounted. However, she said the details of the proposed pole and wall fixtures had to be provided before a building permit could be issued. She also noted that all exterior lighting had to comply with the provisions of Section 78.700.

She explained that no specific sign details had been provided and that any signs constructed would have to comply with Section 76.000 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Stefforia emphasized the fact that, as part of the Sales Agreement, the Township was requiring a 30-foot Type E greenspace along the entire perimeter of the subject property. She said a reduction in the planting requirements will be allowed for those areas where there was existing vegetation. However, she said a detailed landscaping plan had to be submitted for Staff review and approval before a building permit would be issued. She also noted that the dumpster enclosure details were not yet provided and would have to be provided to Staff for their review prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Ms. Stefforia said that no variances had been requested for the site. She said that the Fire Department had tentatively approved the latest site plan, but final site plan was still subject to review and approval of the Fire Department.

With regard to storm water, Ms. Stefforia said the Township Engineer was in the processing of reviewing the site plan, but that no comments had been received, and therefore, the site plan approval would be subject to review and acceptance of the Storm Water Management Plan by the Township Engineers.

Ms. Stefforia noted that public utilities would serve the facility, and that the Planning Department had received the Environmental Permits Checklist and the Hazardous Substance Reporting forms.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Stefforia. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant. Rush Harrison, representing Harrison Packing, introduced himself to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Harrison explained the historical development of Harrison pickles, which began business in 1939. He said that they were a producer of institutional-size pickles for commercial purposes, mainly in the Chicago and Detroit area. He explained that their operations were currently spread out among three locations in Kalamazoo, and that they were seeking to consolidate within a single 40,000-foot building. Mr. Harrison said they were currently working on a BEA for the property, and as soon as that was completed, they wanted to begin construction.

The Chairman asked Mr. Harrison how many employees he had. Mr. Harrison said that they had 13 employees at their Ransom Street site. He said he anticipated five additional employees in the coming year, and ten or possibly more employees the following year, if their marketing strategy was successful.

Mr. Turcott asked what was being processed at the site and/or discharged from the site. Mr. Harrison said his company primarily discharged water, but that before the water was discharged, the water was treated for its Ph level due to the acidic acid use in the treatment of pickles. He said they pretreated their water discharged to the sanitary sewer system with caustic soda. He said they had no BOD problems and only had to treat for the Ph to reduce the impact of the salt in their waste water.

Mr. Turcott asked if they were likely to have any run-off from the site. Mr. Harrison said that there would be absolutely no run-off from the site and that all discharge would be directly to the sanitary sewer system. He said there would be a complete containment system provided for within the facility and that all floors would be treated with epoxy to make sure that there would be no discharge from the building. He said everything would be captured within the containment area or on the floors and be discharged for treatment at the Kalamazoo County Waste Treatment Facilities.

Mr. Turcott asked if questions regarding this facility had been raised with the Township Engineer. Attorney Porter explained to the Board that the Township Engineer has determined that there would be no negative environmental impact and no negative impact on the Township's ability to take the waste water from Harrison Packing, due to their pretreatment program. Ms. Stefforia also noted that the Planning Department had called the City and had been told by the City DPW that there had been no problems with Harrison Packing's discharge of brine to the waste waters of the City. Again, this was due to Harrison Packing's pretreatment program.

The Chairman again asked the applicant if they could contain all of the salt brine of all the vats within their facility. Mr. Harrison said that they could.

Mr. Turcott asked if there were any other by-products that would disposed of at the site. Mr. Harrison said there would be nothing other than various containers for their supplies, which would be placed in a dumpster and taken away by a licensed waste hauler.

Mr. Turcott asked if all of the products would be fully packaged when they left the facility. Mr. Harrison said that they would either be packaged in bottles or buckets for final shipping.

Mr. Bushouse inquired about the size of the cooler at the site. Mr. Harrison said that they would be constructing a 5,000 square foot cold storage facility. Mr. Bushouse then asked where the evaporator would be located for cooling purposes. Mr. Harrison said he was not sure whether it would be inside or outside. Mr. Bushouse said he was concerned about that because of the impact on the appearance of the facility and the surrounding neighbors, given the adjacent park site. Mr. Harrison said that they would work with the Township to address those concerns.

Mr. Turcott asked if all processing would take place inside the facility. Mr. Harrison assured him that it would.

The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment. Mr. John Nieuwenhuis introduced himself to the Board and explained that he lived and owned property on 6th Street, west of the proposed building site. He first inquired as to whether the storm water, which would be discharged from the site, would discharge to the pond to the north of the building. Ms. Stefforia said that pond is located on property that was going to be retained by the Township for a park. She said there would be no storm water discharge from this site to the Township's property as currently being designed.

Mr. Nieuwenhuis said he was concerned about storm water because the pond was partially on his property, and he did not want any of the run-off coming from the parking lot to go into the pond. The Board indicated that they understood, but reaffirmed the fact that there would be no run-off from the Harrison site to the existing pond to the north, under the present proposal.

Mr. Nieuwenhuis said he was concerned about odors from the facility, not necessarily hazardous but odors. Mr. Turcott said he had spoken to the DEQ inspectors who regularly checked Harrison's site, and said that not only were there not any hazardous odor problems, and there were generally no problems with odors at all. The Chairman said he had worked near one of their plants for years and had never noticed any odor coming from their facilities. Mr. Harrison said that they did not anticipate that there would be any odors outside of the facility whatsoever.

Mr. Nieuwenhuis said he was also concerned about noise from ventilation, outside public address systems, trucking or bells on the trucks. Mr. Harrison said he would not have an outdoor public address system, nor did he expect that any of the heating or cooling systems would create noise above surrounding ambient levels. He said that there would be trucks on occasion which had to have bells to meet OSHA requirements, but that would be kept to a minimal level.

Mr. Nieuwenhuis then asked if there would be any screening. Ms. Stefforia said that would be addressed on the site plan and that Harrison Packing would be required to develop a Type E greenspace around the perimeter of their property.

Mr. Nieuwenhuis then asked if this would have a negative impact on water service in the area and whether it would result in the need for upgrades, which would financially impact surrounding property owners. Mr. Bushouse said that the water line in Stadium Drive was already a transmission-size line, and he did not expect any need for an upgrade in the water line to service Harrison Packing or any of the surrounding properties for the foreseeable future. He also said that the waste water line in the area, as well as the pump station nearby, was developed for a significant greater capacity west of the site and felt that it was more than adequate, again, for the foreseeable future.

The Chairman asked if there was anyone else from the audience who wished to comment. Hearing none, he called for Board deliberations. The Chairman began by saying he thought that Ms. Stefforia had covered all the issues quite well.

Mr. Bushouse explained to Mr. Harrison that the Township was working quite hard to make the sites attractive, not only for their development, but for future park development. He asked what the portion of the building would look like facing north as well as east. Mr. Harrison said that a portion of the office would be in the northeast corner, so he thought that some of the windows and brick exterior, which they planned primarily for the east side, would also wrap around onto the north side of the building. He also noted that they would be putting in the Type E landscaping, and therefore, would present a very attractive overall site design.

The Chairman asked for further discussion, and hearing none, said he would entertain a motion. Mr. Turcott made a motion to approve the site plan subject to the following conditions:

(1) Details of the proposed pole and wall fixtures must be provided before a Building Permit may be issued, and all exterior lighting shall comply with the provisions of Section 78.700.

(2) All signs shall comply with Section 76.000 and be reviewed and approved through the permit process.

(3) A detailed landscaping plan must be submitted for Staff review and approval before a Building Permit may be issued.

(4) Dumpster enclosure details must be provided for Staff review and approval before a Building Permit may be released.

(5) Site plan approval is subject to review and approval of the Fire Department.

(6) Site plan approval is subject to review and acceptance by the Township Engineer as adequate.

Mr. McClung seconded the motion. The Chairman asked if there was any further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

CASTLE ROCK BUILDERS - RELIEF FROM PAST VARIANCE CONDITION - 1750 NORTH 10TH STREET- (PARCEL NO. 3905-12-355-050)

The Chairman indicated that the next item on the Agenda was a request for relief from a past variance condition. He said the applicant was requesting the Zoning Board of Appeals to remove a condition placed upon a 1997 frontage variance to allow a future home site to have direct access to 10th Street. He said the subject property is located at 1750 North 10th Street, Parcel No. 3905-12-355-050.

The Chairman called for a report from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia presented her report to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated January 25, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference. Ms. Stefforia explained to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the prior owner obtained a variance for the division of the property in 1997. That variance provided for the creation of three parcels, two with 10th Street frontage and a rear parcel with a 33-foot easement over each of the front parcels to access 10th Street. One of the specific provisions was that the two parcels created on 10th Street share a drive onto 10th Street located along the 66-foot-wide easement until such time as a public road was established.

Ms. Stefforia said the applicant was now seeking relief from Condition #2 to allow one of the parcels abutting 10th Street to be divided and have a driveway directly off 10th Street.

The Chairman asked if any of the Board members had any questions of Ms. Stefforia. Mr. Bushouse said he did not see the pump station listed on the property. The applicant then presented a site plan to the Board, showing the abandoned pump station, which was to be removed from the property.

There was a brief discussion regarding the pump station and its location, as well as removal of the same from the property. Ms. Stefforia assured the Board that the pump station had been abandoned.

Mr. Bushouse asked who would bear the expense of removal of the pump station. Mr. Buford of Castle Rock Builders said he would.

The Chairman asked the applicant if he knew of anything else out there that the Zoning Board of Appeals should consider. Mr. Bushouse said he was somewhat concerned about the location of the buildings on Lot 2 of the proposed condominium development and whether or not they could be built upon, given the topography in the area. Mr. Buford said that the topos have all been done, and that the development would fit within the setbacks and existing topography. He said they were not able to access the new lot from the 66-foot easement, across from Litchfield Lane, because the setbacks were so great, it was impossible to go behind the buildings from the southeast.

Mr. Bushouse asked whether or not the development would direct any of the water from the development to the north. Mr. Buford said that he could not do that, because under Township ordinances, all water had to maintained on site.

Ms. Stefforia pointed out that storm water was primarily a site plan issue, which should be considered during site plan review. Mr. Bushouse said he understood but wanted to at least raise the questions at this point, given the applicant's request to relax one of the previous ZBA restrictions.

The Chairman asked if the applicant was going to have any problems fitting the proposed residence on the property. He inquired as to whether or not they should look further into whether the pumping station had been abandoned. Ms. Stefforia again assured the Board that the pumping station had been abandoned, and the Township would require the developer to remove the same from the property prior to development, through the Building Permit process.

Mr. Bushouse asked if the Township was relinquishing the requirement for the 66-foot easement to the east. Ms. Stefforia said that the Township was not relinquishing that requirement, only the provision which would require all residents to access North 10th Street via that easement. She said the relief requested was for one drive directly to 10th Street. Mr. Turcott asked where that drive was going to be located. Again, referencing the site plan, the applicant indicated where the Road Commission had given approval for the driveway permit for the proposed northern site condominium unit.

The Chairman asked if there were further questions. Hearing none, he asked for comments from the audience, and hearing none, called for a motion from the Board. Mr. McClung made a motion to remove the 1997 variance condition regarding access and allow one drive onto 10th Street for Lot No. 2 of Mr. Buford's site condominium development. 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 with Mr. Bushouse dissenting.

ACKERSON - ACCESSORY BUILDING REVIEW - 10726 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-19-155-054)

The Chairman said the next item for consideration was a site plan review of a proposed 2,640 square foot accessory building to be constructed prior to the dwelling. He said the subject property is located at 10726 West KL Avenue, Parcel No. 3905-19-155-054. The Chairman called for the presentation from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge presented her report dated January 25, 2005, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge explained that the applicant wanted to place a 40' x 66' accessory building on the vacant property prior to the establishment of the residence. She said the building would exceed the area of the future 2,000 square foot dwelling. She stated that the Board should consider this request pursuant to Section 78.820 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Bugge then proceeded to provide the Board with an overview of the subject property, which consisted of a eight-acre parcel, with 280 feet of frontage and 1,255 feet of depth. She said that the property had recently been split from the parcel to the east, which was owned by Mr. Reisterer. She said that Mr. Reisterer had requested authority to construct a 864 square foot building prior to the establishment of his dwelling in June of 2004. She said approval was granted subject to the posting of a performance bond and noted that the Reisterers had recently begun the construction of their dwelling. Ms. Bugge suggested the Board consider discussion of the time line for the construction of the accessory building and residence, as well as the purpose for the accessory building with the applicant. Ms. Bugge then took the Zoning Board of Appeals through a review of Section 78.820 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions of Ms. Bugge. Ms. Borgfjord asked about the adjacent property and the location of the home on that property. Mr. Turcott also asked about the property to the east. Ms. Bugge indicated that was the Reisterer property. The Chairman asked to hear from the applicant.

Mr. Craig Ackerson introduced himself to the Board. He said he did not think he could add much to Ms. Bugge's report. He explained that they had sold their home and were preparing to build a new home on the subject property. He said he anticipated starting the home in April of 2005, and wanted a place to store materials prior to the construction of the residence. He said, in the future, he planned to use the building for storage of lawn equipment, personal items, A.T.V.'s, etc. He said the proposed accessory building would be placed 700 feet from the road right-of-way, and, given the topography in the area, it was likely one would only see the roof of the building from the street. He also said it would be placed 35 feet from the east property line. He said the color would be similar to the color of the house, and he thought it would blend in quite nicely.

The Chairman asked if there would only be personal items stored in the proposed structure. Mr. Ackerson assured the Chairman that he would only store personal items in the building. He explained that he had three children, and that was the basis for the requested size of the structure.

Ms. Bugge asked if the home would be a single-story home. Mr. Ackerson said it would be a single-story, 2,000 square foot ranch home.

The Chairman asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Hearing none, he said he thought they had done this for two or three other people last year pursuant to the Ordinance and thought that, if an applicant provided a sufficient performance guarantee and could otherwise comply with the provisions of the Ordinance, he did not believe there would be a problem. Ms. Bugge pointed out that the Board had approved one similar request on H Avenue and another one for the adjacent property owned by the Reisterers.

Mr. McClung said that they usually required construction of the residence to begin within one year from the issuance of the Building Permit for the accessory building. Mr. Ackerson said that certainly would not be a problem, since, as he indicated earlier, he would begin construction of the residence in April and would likely complete it by September of 2005.

Ms. Bugge again reminded the Board that the performance guarantee would provide for the removal of the accessory building if construction of the residence was not begun within the required time frame.

Mr. McClung made a motion to approve the accessory building as requested, provided that the applicant begin construction of the residence within one year of the issuance of the Building Permit for the accessory building, and that a performance guarantee be provided to the Township in accordance with Section 82.950 for removal of the structure if the construction of the residence does not begin within one year. Ms. Borgfjord seconded the motion, and the Chairman called for discussion. Hearing none, he called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Other Business / 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 3:58 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:
January 28, 2005

Minutes Approved:
, 2005