OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

July 27, 2000

Untitled Untitled

Agenda

WEST PORT TRAILS NO. 1 - PLAT REVIEW - EXPANSION - (PARCEL NO. 3905-02-455-012)

MESSAGE EXPRESS - PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE/SITE PLAN REVIEW - 624 NORTH FOURTH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-305-050)

STEENSMA LAWN & POWER EQUIPMENT - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AMENDMENT -SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - 7561 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-34-185-033)

SERVICE AND DESIGN GROUP - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AMENDMENT - 4208 SOUTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-35-330-060)

MEIJER - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - 6660 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-185-020)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, July 27, 2000, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Wilfred Dennie, Chairperson
Ken Heisig
Ted Corakis
Stanley Rakowski
Neil Sikora
Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell

MEMBER ABSENT: Marvin Block

Also present were Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner, and Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney, and 7 other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

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

AGENDA

Mr. Corakis moved to approve the Agenda as submitted, and Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

MINUTES

The Planning Commission considered the minutes of July 13, 2000. Mr. Rakowski suggested a change to page 4 in the second paragraph to include the word "consider". As to page 3, it was suggested that for the third paragraph, the "." after Street be eliminated. Typographical errors on page 1 were referenced for elimination. The Chairperson suggested adding a "%" sign after the "20" on page 5. Mr. Heisig moved to approve the minutes as amended, and Mr. Sikora seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

WEST PORT TRAILS NO. 1 - PLAT REVIEW - EXPANSION - (PARCEL NO. 3905-02-455-012)

The Planning Commission considered the proposed layout of West Port Trails Plat, as expanded with four additional lots. Said Plat will be located on the north side of "H" Avenue, west of 10th Street in the "AG" Agricultural-Rural District zoning classification. The plan involves Parcel No. 3905-02-455-012. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

It was noted that the Planning Commission had initially reviewed and recommended approval for a preliminary plat for this parcel consisting of 39 lots on January 8, 1998. The Township Board granted step one and two approval for a slightly modified plan consisting of 35 lots, with 4 lots on the east side of Oak Harbor Drive held as "future development" and the leaching area was moved farther north. Subsequently, the future development area was granted special exception use/site plan approval for the West Port Swim Club. Plans for the Swim Club did not come to fruition, and the developer now wished to include the land in the first phase of West Port Trails. The plan proposed by the applicant was substantially the same as that for which the Planning Commission had previously recommended approval.

The applicant was not present, and there was no public comment, and the public hearing was closed.

The Chairperson made reference to Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Land Division Ordinance. It was recognized that there were block length issues with regard to Hollison Drive and Bayfield Drive. However, provision for future road extension to the north would result in a Hollison Drive block length of approximately 650 feet, in compliance with Ordinance provisions, and a continuous looped road for Bayfield Drive with access to H Avenue.

It was noted that the Planning Commission had previously suggested no direct access on H Avenue for abutting lots.

After further discussion, Mr. Heisig moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat to include 39 lots with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That approval be conditioned upon receipt of a legal opinion as to ownership and use conditions/easements regarding the subject property.

(2) That a letter of approval for the preliminary plat had been received and was on file from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.

(3) That no direct access to H Avenue from lots 1, 2, 38 and 39 (i.e. abutting lots) be permitted.

(4) That the block length for the proposed Hollison Drive and Bayfield Drive be approved, given the temporary nature of the block length in that future road extension to the north was proposed, and given the configuration of the internal street network.

(5) That all street lighting be designed to comply with the intent of Section 78.700 and be in character with the recommended lighting objectives and standards.

Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion. There was no public comment on the motion, and upon a vote, the motion carried unanimously.

MESSAGE EXPRESS - PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE/SITE PLAN REVIEW - 624 NORTH FOURTH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-305-050)

The Planning Commission considered the application of Message Express for a special exception use and site plan review of a proposed 250 foot tall telecommunication tower for antennae placement. The tower would be erected at 624 North Fourth Street within the "AG" Agricultural-Rural District zoning classification. The site is Parcel No. 3905-16-305-050. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

It was noted that the subject property is a 100 x 208 foot parcel on the east side of North Fourth Street, immediately south of Valleyview Bible Church. Although the property is sub-standard in relation to the Zoning Ordinance requirements for buildable parcels, it existed prior to the Ordinance provisions, and therefore, is considered "grandfathered" and buildable. On November 1, 1976, the Zoning Board of Appeals had approved the location of a 160 foot tower for use by ham radio operators and for civil defense purposes. At that time, no commercial use of the tower was anticipated. The 160 foot tower is still in use.

The applicant proposed the removal of the existing tower and replacement with a 250 foot telecommunications tower for commercial use. The existing ham antennas would be accommodated on the new tower. Further, the tower would accommodate other co-locators. The applicant had proposed a Rohn Model SSV lattice construction type tower. However, the applicant was willing to use a monopole design tower.

Because of the residential nature of the location, the applicant was proposing to use only one building, 24 x 36, of a residential character, 10 feet in height, at the site to accommodate all ground mounted equipment. The building would be wood with vinyl siding. All co-locators would be housed in this single building, providing for a neat and orderly site. The two ice bridges leading from the building to the side of the tower would also be shared.

The applicant was proposing access to the site via the existing gravel drive improved to handle the weight of emergency equipment and widened to 12 feet. The existing gate at the entrance to the driveway would remain, but be replaced if it was not in good condition. The applicant proposed that all existing vegetation remain in place.

Kenneth Bobo was present on behalf of the applicant.

He stated that Message Express provides wireless service for Barry County Telephone Company. The subject site would be part of an expanding service area. Other carriers were also interested in using the proposed site, as it was one of the few sites on the west side of Kalamazoo County. Mr. Bobo stated that the proposed site was chosen because of the existing tower. The new tower would be virtually identical and placed in the same location as the existing tower. He reiterated that the applicant had agreed to move the ham and civil defense antennas on to the new tower. He felt that the new tower would be an improvement in that the existing tower does not meet modern standards. He stated that the tower would accommodate the antennas of Message Express, the ham and civil defense antennas and up to five other commercial antennas. He stated that Nextel and OmniPoint had expressed interest in co-locating on this new tower. Only one building would be established on the site to accommodate equipment, therefore avoiding clutter. The gravel drive would meet all Fire Department requirements.

In addressing the issue of the possibility of tower collapse, Mr. Bobo stated that collapse was extremely unlikely. He had spoken with the engineer designing the tower. He stated that it would have a contained fall area of 100 feet. The Engineer had indicated that the only tower collapse of recent history had been during Hurricane Andrew cased by flying debris from a home. In his opinion, the existing vegetation would be sufficient screening.

In response to questions by the Chairperson, Mr. Bobo stated that Message Express would be seeking to purchase the site. A height of 250 feet was sought because of the number of antennas and type of users which would be using the site. As to interference, there would be no interference with the ham/civil defense antennas. He stated that FAA mandates that any interference be corrected, or the tower shut down.

Mr. Heisig had questions as to the lighting of the to tower, and Mr. Bobo stated that lights would be required for a tower of 200 feet or more. It would accommodate a medium intensity strobe light pursuant to FAA specifications. Mr. Bobo stated that the tower has a FAA approval for 200 feet, and that FAA approval for the additional 50 feet was expected within the next 90 days.

Mr. Heisig had questions with regard to the lattice versus monopole design. Mr. Bobo stated that there was an advantage with regard to cost in the lattice design, and that the lattice design was closer to the design of the existing tower.

In response to questions from Mr. Corakis, Mr. Bobo stated that the site is 1,004 feet above sea level. Further, the antennas and other appurtenances could take the height to 260 feet.

The Chairperson sought public comment, and Dennis Boersema stated that the site is currently used by his amateur radio group, and that they have a good relationship with the current owner. They anticipated a good relationship with Message Express. He felt that it made sense to have the tower serve a dual purpose, rather than solely be used for amateur radio operations. He stated that the Ham antennas still serve emergency communication functions.

Mr. Rakowski asked about the use of the extra 100 feet, and Mr. Boersema indicated that the ham operators would be locating at the same level on the new tower and therefore would be at the new tower's lower level.

Geri Nelson of Nextel Communications indicated that her company had been looking at the area for a tower. They were interested in considering locating on this tower at approximately the 200 foot height.

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

The Chairperson summarized the application. The Chairperson noted that the 1976 approval had anticipated no commercial use. However, it was acknowledged that there had been many changes in the communications industry since that time. He noted that Ordinance provisions in Section 60.600 had attempted to regulate the location of communication towers as special exception uses in all but the industrial zones. The Ordinance requires that the setback of the tower be equal to the height so that the fall distance would be on the subject property. However, the reviewing body is given the authority under the Ordinance to deviate from this requirement, if the deviation is within the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.

The Township Attorney stated that, although this would be the first review of a new tower under the Ordinance provisions, the Board should consider in its special use analysis the fact that there is an existing tower at the site.

Reference was made by the Chairperson to Sections 60.600, 60.100 and 82.800. The Chairperson commenced an analysis of the special use criteria, first asking the Planning Commission to consider whether the proposed use was compatible with other uses expressly permitted within the zoning district. Mr. Heisig commented that he felt that the applicant had presented a justification for the increased height, and that considering that the site is presently used for a tower, be believed the proposed tower would be compatible with other uses expressly permitted in the district. Further, the one building to house all ground equipment at the site, as proposed by the applicant, would be residential in nature.

The Chairperson commented that this tower would be the only tower in the western half of the Township. Further, it was recognized that the topography of the property was unique in that it was one of the highest points in the Township. The Chairperson felt that it was hard to see the existing tower because of the topography and trees at the site. Mr. Rakowski concurred that the existing tower was not noticeable. Mr. Corakis was somewhat concerned that an increased height and strobe light would make the tower more noticeable. The Chairperson stated that he felt that adding height might make the tower visible, but since it would be painted gray and the strobe would not be apparent in daytime, he did not feel that the tower would be incompatible.

There was discussion of the design of the tower, and Ms. Bugge commented that the lattice style was twice as large in girth than the existing tower. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that she felt that the monopole design would be less conspicuous given the proposed 250' height.

The Chairperson asked whether the Township had provided notice to neighboring properties, and Ms. Bugge confirmed that notice had been provided.

Returning to a discussion of design, Ms. Heiny-Cogswell again commented that the monopole would be more aesthetically acceptable and might be more acceptable due to the fall factor.

The Chairperson stated that given the topography lended itself to use as a tower site, and since the site had been used for towers since 1976 with no complaint, he felt that the site was appropriate.

Planning Commissioners concluded that the proposed use would not be detrimental or injurious to use of adjacent properties or the general public. The only concern as to this element was with regard to the fall radius. It was recognized that the fall radius of the tower exceeded the boundaries of the subject property. However, reference was made to the letter of Rohn Industries regarding fall radius and the sheet G enlargement. Ms. Bugge indicated that the Engineer had stated that, with regard to both types of towers, the new tower would be reinforced so that the fall radius would be 100 feet. The tower would be engineered to buckle and fall down upon itself. Given the age of the existing tower, it was likely that the fall radius would be 160 feet.

The Chairperson stated that he felt the new tower would be an improvement over the existing tower. He recognized that the property to the south was not yet built upon, and that to the north, the fall radius would impact a church parking lot. He suggested referring the Rohn letter of June 29, 2000, that the strengthening suggested in the letter be required due to the fact that the lot was "smaller" than was required under current Ordinance standards. Mr. Sikora agreed, stating that he did not feel the Planning Commission should deny the tower just because the property, which is currently vacant, might sometime be built upon. He felt building a home within the 100 foot radius area would be unlikely since the tower would already be in place.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell agreed, stating that, in her opinion, the screening existing at the time made it ideal for the establishment of a tower.

The Planning Commission considered whether the use promoted public health, safety and welfare. Planning Commissioners felt that the use would continue to promote public health, safety and welfare in that the ham and civil defendant use would continue. Further, it was felt that expansion of cell phone coverage areas would promote public health, safety and welfare. It was particularly noted that this tower would be the only tower on the west side of the Township. Use of the site would allow for use of an existing tower site and the possibility of future co-location. Moreover, establishing only one building on the site to handle all equipment would promote public health, safety and welfare.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use would encourage the use of the land in accord with its character and adaptability. Mr. Sikora stated that the topography of the site would make this a prime site for tower use, and therefore, he felt that the use would encourage use of the land in accord with its character. Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell agreed, stating that the vegetation would also make the site ideal. In her opinion, use of a monopole design would be in character. The Chairperson stated that, in his opinion, the size of the site would limit its possible use.

Reference was made to Section 60.600 with the Chairperson stating that he felt the co-location intent of the Ordinance would be served by the request in that the applicant had indicated future co-location by other commercial users would be permitted. The design would accommodate approximately five other commercial users. An engineering study of the existing tower had been conducted, and it was unable to support the applicant's equipment, and therefore, could not be approved for commercial use. Therefore, the existing tower did not meet the co-location intent of the Ordinance provision. It was recognized that the proposed tower is at least 150 feet from all existing homes, and therefore, deviation from the setback provision might be appropriate.

After further discussion, Ms. Heiny-Cogswell moved to grant a special exception use permit to approve a tower to replace the existing tower at the site, which tower would be a maximum of 250 feet with appurtenances to 260 feet. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell reasoned that the proposed use met the criteria of Section 60.100 based upon the discussion of the Planning Commission. The motion included a deviation from the setback requirement to allow the height to exceed the setback. The permit was conditioned as follows:

(1) That the tower be strengthened as proposed by the applicant's Engineer's letter of June 29, 2000.

(2) That the fall radius be only 100 feet as confirmed by sealed plans and letter of the applicant's Engineer.

(3) That the tower design be a monopole.

(4) That FAA approval be obtained.

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

Mr. Sikora moved to approve the site plan with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That as to access, no change in the driveway placement was proposed. A deviation was granted to allow the driveway area to remain gravel. The driveway must be improved to meet Fire Department requirements. Township Staff approval of the proposed gate to the access point was required.

(2) That all ground equipment be located in a single building, and building elevations be submitted to Township Staff for approval.

(3) That all lighting must comply with Section 78.700 and details submitted to the Township Staff for review and approval.

(4) That only signs required by the FAA would be posted, and no advertising was permitted.

(5) That existing vegetation remain, be maintained, and replaced if damaged or dead.

(6) That deviation to allow driveway parking was granted.

(7) That deviation to allow setback as proposed was granted.

(8) That site plan approval is subject to the review and approval of the Township Fire Department.

(9) That site plan approval is subject to the Township Engineer finding site engineering adequate.

(10) That a Hazardous Substance Reporting Form and Environmental Permits Checklist were completed and on file with the Township.

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

STEENSMA LAWN & POWER EQUIPMENT - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AMENDMENT -SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - 7561 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-34-185-033)

The Planning Commission considered special exception use approval and site plan amendment for a proposed expansion of outdoor display and storage at 7561 Stadium Drive. The subject property is located in the "I-1" Industrial District zoning classification, and is Parcel No. 3905-34-185-033. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge presented photographs of the site and the proposed display and storage areas. She noted that on January 26, 1995, the Planning Commission had granted special exception use/site plan approval under Section 41.401 to Heslinga Lawn and Power Equipment at the above site. At that time, outdoor display was limited to the paved area under the front and side overhang of the building during business hours. On April 27, 1995, amendment was granted to include outdoor storage.

The applicants have recently purchased the business, which is on a parcel of approximately 2.5 acres and adjacent to a parcel to the east consisting of 1.9 acres. The applicant was requesting expansion of outdoor display and storage areas. The outdoor display would consist of 4,775 square feet of grass area to the north of the parking spaces that are in front of the building and 1,875 square feet of grass area to the east of the building and parking lot. Most of this area is in front of the building setback line, and therefore, not in compliance with Section 31.403.d. Therefore, a variance would be required. Outdoor storage would consist of an additional 1,450 square feet to the east of the dumpster area on the existing grass. This area would be used on an as-needed basis. A chainlink fence had been installed around the property perimeter, and all display and storage would be within the fenced area.

In response to questions from Mr. Heisig, Ms. Bugge stated that the applicant was already using the proposed areas, but when approached by the Township, had applied immediately for approval. She reported that the size of the building was 13,800 square feet.

Brian Steensma on behalf of the applicant reiterated that they were seeking additional outdoor storage and display. He felt it was imperative for his business that display be approved. In his opinion, a type of use, such as theirs, was a lot like a car lot and required outdoor display. He stated that the area granted to the previous owner for outdoor display was insufficient. He noted that some products would not fit under the overhang and awning. He also felt it was important to display on a grassed area given the type of product involved. He indicated that he had received positive feedback from neighbors and customers concerning the display. The berm or hill at the front of the property blocked the view of the overhang area, and therefore, he felt it was of limited display value.

In response to questions from Ms. Bugge, Mr. Steensma indicated there were no plans to pave the storage area. The display would be left outside at night. Hours of operation were 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturday.

In response to questions from the Chairperson, Mr. Steensma clarified that his business dealt strictly with lawn, commercial and residential equipment. He believed the existing display area did not accommodate his needs because of "the amount of equipment and the type of equipment involved". Some equipment is too big in height and width to fit under the overhang. He indicated that there would be year-round display, but probably not as much equipment would be displayed during winter months. They did not sell snowmobiles at this time.

Ms. Bugge asked how many different models were on display on the east side of the site, and Mr. Steensma stated that there were 12 items in this area involving 9 different models. She asked about the display at the west line, which was not specified in the application. The applicant indicated that they do want to use this area for a used equipment display.

Mr. Sikora had questions about the fencing, and Mr. Steensma stated that it had been established for security of the outdoor display. The applicant was entertaining the possibility of painting the fence green so as to blend in with the grassy areas.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and Richard Schramm spoke, stating that he owned the property to the north. He felt that the business was an excellent neighbor, and it was neat, tidy and well run. He believed that the fence was justified because there are security issues in the neighborhood. In his opinion, the Township should grant the application.

Terry Schley spoke stating he had concern about signage, i.e., that the equipment being displayed was in the nature of a large sign.

Bert Steensma stated that had the applicants known of the setback and display issues, they might not have chosen this site. He felt that display was critical to the nature of the business just as it is with car sales.

Public comment was closed, and the Chairperson summarized the application. The Chairperson stated that he recognized that if the use were in a commercial zone, it would still require special exception use for display. There was concern that the display area was within the setback, but the Chairperson noted that, given the limitations of the site, he wondered whether there were any other places that could accommodate the display. Mr. Rakowski commented that, if the applicant complies with the setback, the display might interfere with parking and site circulation.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use was compatible with other uses expressly permitted within the zoning district. It was recognized that the site currently allows for outdoor display and sales, and that all display would be within a fenced area. The Chairperson stated that, in his opinion, it was appropriate to display those items in their natural setting. After discussion, the Planning Commission concluded that it was compatible. Mr. Corakis clarified that he felt it was compatible as long as the lawn on which the display was located was maintained. Further, the storage area was appropriate in that it was non-visible from the site.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use would be detrimental or injurious to the use and development of adjacent properties or the general public. In Mr. Rakowski's opinion, the use would have no impact. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell disagreed, stating she was concerned about setting a precedent allowing display in the setback area. The Chairperson agreed, but he felt that display outside the building was logical given the nature of the use.

Mr. Heisig stated that he agreed that display was necessary because of the type of product involved. He noted that most people wish to view such equipment in person prior to a purchase. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell agreed, but stated that, in her opinion, the location of the display might not be appropriate and that it would be distracting for passing motorists. The Planning Commission concluded that outdoor display which had occurred on site since first approved would not be injurious; however, consideration would need to be given to the proposed location of the outdoor display.

The Planning Commission next considered whether the proposed use would promote the public health, safety and welfare. It was noted that the proposed area would be subject to the approval of the Township Fire Department, and was within security fencing.

As to whether the proposed use would encourage use of the land in accord with its character and adaptability, it was recognized that there was no change in the use, merely an increase in outdoor storage and display. It was felt that the size of the display was not a problem, but merely its location within the setback. Mr. Heisig stated that, in his opinion, the type of equipment would define the display area. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell stated that she had no issue with the intensity of the use, but with the location being used as "signage".

After some discussion, it was suggested that the item be tabled so that Planning Commission members could meet at the site to review the proposed display areas. Mr. Sikora moved to table the item to the meeting of August 10, 2000, and that the Planning Commission meet at 6 p.m. at the applicant's site, i.e., 7561 Stadium Drive. Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

SERVICE AND DESIGN GROUP - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AMENDMENT - 4208 SOUTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-35-330-060)

The Planning Commission next discussed the application of Service and Design Group Architects Inc. for a special exception use and site plan review of a proposed conversion of the existing house at 4208 South 9th Street for use as an architect's office. The subject site is located in the "I-R" Industrial District zoning classification to a depth of 1,070 feet from the front property line and "R-3" for the remaining 250 feet. The property is Parcel No. 3905-35-330-060. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Terry Schley on behalf of the applicant was present. He noted a letter had been received from Kazoo, Inc. in support of the project. Kazoo, Inc. owns property bordering to the south. He also presented letters from B&B Lumber located across the street, and Visser Landscape Service located to the north, indicating support of the proposal.

He stated that the residential appearance of the building would not be changed appreciably. In his opinion, the proposal was within the character of the area. This is particularly true given the adjacent residential uses to the west. In response to questioning by the Chairperson, Mr. Schley indicated that the conversion would involve a new porch, canopy, walkway and barrier-free access. There would be a new entry and some "skin" modifications. Overall, the size of the building would remain as is. The building would house a staff of six, including three licensed architects. It was felt that parking at the site would be more than adequate. The building is a single story with basement. The offices would be located on the first floor, with the basement being used for utilities and storage.

Mr. Corakis had questions with regard to the location of the access point. Mr. Schley stated that it had been moved to accommodate separation requirements from the drive to the north.

Mr. Sikora had questions with regard to hours of operation, and the applicant indicated that his employees were given flexible hours, and therefore, arrivals would be between 7 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and departures at approximately 5:30 p.m.

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

The Chairperson summarized the application and made reference to Section 60.100.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use was compatible with other uses expressly permitted in the "I-R" District. It was noted that the purpose of the District was to provide standards of intensity of use and standards of external effects and amenities compatible with the surrounding or abutting residential districts. It was felt that, given that the building would have a residential appearance, this purpose would be met. Planning Commissioners agreed that an architect's office would be in keeping with the use allowed as a special use and office in this District.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use would be detrimental or injurious to the use and development of adjacent properties or the general public. Planning Commissioners concluded that, given the surrounding uses and the approval of the neighbors, there would be no detrimental impact. It was believed that the changes that were proposed by the applicant would improve the site and its relationship to adjacent properties. Such changes included the relocation of the drive.

As to whether the proposed use would promote public health, safety and welfare, Planning Commissioners agreed that the public health and safety would be served by the changes proposed at the site.

Planning Commissioners also concluded that the proposed use would encourage use of the land in accord with its character and adaptability. Mr. Heisig noted that the applicant was using an existing building and would leave a large area undeveloped at the present time.

With regard to Section 82.800, the relocation of the drive to improve safety and meet safety guidelines was noted. It was further noted that the drive location had been approved by the Kalamazoo County Road Commission. It was felt that parking compiled complied with Ordinance provisions. Only one light was proposed in the parking area, and it would be required to meet Section 78.700. Public water was available to the site if the well in place were to fail. Ms. Heiny-Cogswell commented that the design of the parking perpendicular to 9th Street was appropriate.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell moved to approve special exception use of the site as an architect's office, concluding that the proposal met Section 60.100 pursuant to the previous discussion of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Heisig, and it carried unanimously.

Mr. Corakis moved to approve the site plan for the site with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That the access be relocated as proposed by the applicant to satisfy the Access Management Guidelines. It was noted that it was not possible for the driveway serving this property to satisfy both provisions of spacing from others on the same side of the street and lining up with the drives opposite. Therefore, accommodating spacing from the drives on the same side of the street was preferred.

(2) That parking satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance.

(3) That any site lighting must comply with the requirements of Section 78.700.

(4) That the approval was subject to the review and approval of the Fire Department.

(5) That approval was subject to the applicant satisfying the stormwater management provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to be determined upon receipt of the detailed stormwater management information from the applicant.

(6) It was recognized that public water was available to serve the site if the existing well should fail.

(7) That the Hazardous Substance Reporting Form and Environmental Permits Checklist had been completed and on file with the Township.

(8) That all existing vegetation be retained as practicable.

(9) That any signage be subject to the permit process of the Ordinance.

Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion. Upon a vote on the motion, the motion carried unanimously.

MEIJER - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - 6660 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-185-020)

Next, the Planning Commission discussed the application of Meijer, Inc. for special exception use and site plan review of three annual 10-day outdoor sales events. The subject property is located at 6660 West Main Street within the "C" Local Business District zoning classification, and is Parcel No. 3905-14-185-020. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Bugge reminded the Planning Commission that the Meijer site currently has approval for three 7-day events, but were requesting expansion to allow for 10 days each. Further, expansion of the existing approval to allow a portion of this outdoor event to occur in the parking lot was requested. Further, Township Staff was asking that the Planning Commission consider authorizing Staff to review and approve specific site plans with regard to placement of display in the parking area in the future.

Dave Hafer on behalf of the applicant was present. He explained that the applicant did not plan to change the location of the tents used in the tent sale. All sales events, however, would not utilize the tent. Mr. Hafer indicated that Meijer would prefer 30 total days and allow them to allocate among sales. The Township Attorney stated that the notice to the public did not cover such an amendment to the request.

It was recognized that the Planning Commission had previously reviewed and approved a 10-day sales event involving display in the parking area in April of 2000. Based upon the discussion and conclusions of the Planning Commission at the meeting of April 27, 2000, approval of the subject application was appropriate.

Mr. Corakis moved to approve special exception use amendment to allow three annual outdoor sales events at the subject site for up to 10 days each, utilizing the sidewalk and parking areas, limited to 6,000 square feet in the parking area. The approval was subject to the conditions imposed on approval of previous sidewalk sales events. Further, Township Staff was authorized to review and approve site plans as to the specific site layout for each sale utilizing parking area. Mr. Heisig seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

Mr. Rakowski stated that a meeting with the Kalamazoo County Road Commission the preceding Monday had indicated concerns about safety on certain roads within the Township.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

        OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
        PLANNING COMMISSION

        By:

Minutes prepared:
July 31, 2000

Minutes approved: