OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

June 22, 2000



AUTUMN VIEW OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - SITE PLAN REVIEW - NORTH SIDE OF KL AVENUE, 
WEST OF 8TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-22-155-010).

REZONING - STADIUM DRIVE - PUBLIC HEARING (PARCEL NOS. 3905-35-115-010; 35-115-020; 35-115-050; 35-115-066; 
35-115-070; 35-135-090; 35-115-031; 34-280-032; 34-280-011; 34-280-016; 34-281-010 and 34-280-040)

KALAMAZOO CENTER FOR THE HEALING ARTS - OFFICE DEVELOPMENT IN 9TH STREET FOCUS AREA - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE  
6350 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-23-255-021)
                                                                                                                                         
A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, 
June 22, 2000, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township.

MEMBERS PRESENT:	
Ken Heisig, Acting Chairperson
Ted Corakis
Stanley Rakowski
Neil Sikora

MEMBERS ABSENT:	
Wilfred Dennie
Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell
Marvin Block

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director, Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner, and 
Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney, and approximately 13 other interested persons.


CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.

AGENDA

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

MINUTES

The Planning Commission considered the minutes of the meeting of June 1, 2000.  Mr. Sikora moved 
to approve the minutes as submitted.  

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

AUTUMN VIEW OPEN SPACE COMMUNITY - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - SITE PLAN REVIEW - NORTH SIDE OF 
KL AVENUE, WEST OF 8TH STREET (PARCEL NO. 3905-22-155-010).

The Planning Commission next considered the special exception use and site plan review of a 
proposed 77-unit residential site condominium open space community to be located on 57 acres.  
The subject property is located on the north side of KL Avenue, west of 8th Street, and is within  
the "AG"-Rural zoning district classification.  The property is Parcel No. 3905-22-155-010. 
The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia distributed a handout received from the applicant illustrating Phase 1 of the 
project with layouts showing possible locations of residence dwelling buildings, septic fields 
and relief areas.

It was noted that the Planning Commission had conducted conceptual plan reviews on June 1 and 
April 27, 2000.  The primary issue at each review was the interior road system.  It was the 
consensus of the Planning Commission that the main road in the site be private but located on a 
public right-of-way/ingress-egress easement to the Township.  The redesign of the site had 
resulted in the loss of three building sites and some open space.  Therefore, only 77 building 
sites were proposed and a total of 22.6 acres, or 40.02% of open space.  The project would be 
accomplished in three phases, each standing alone with regard to its compliance with the open 
space requirement of 40%.

In that the private road would be located on a public right-of-way, a setback of 40 feet for 
buildings would be required.  The applicant was requesting a deviation pursuant to Section 
60.540(I) to allow a setback of 21 feet, i.e., 40 feet from the paved edge of the road.

Public sewer was not available for the site, but it would be served by public water.  Ms. Stefforia stressed that the 
Township Engineer and County Health Department would need to review the project.  It was 
indicated that, if the property were traditionally platted, approximately 105 lots could result.

As to project phasing, the applicant had submitted a schedule indicating that Phase 1 would be 
commenced in 2000-2001, and it was anticipated it would be completed in 2003. Phase 2 would be 
commenced in 2003 and completed in 2005.  Phase 3 would be commenced in 2005 and completed in 
2007.

George Granger, Engineer, was present on behalf of the applicant.  He stated that the applicant 
had incorporated the comments of the Planning Commission from the last two conceptual plan 
meetings.  He stressed that, if deviation from the setback of 40 feet from the public right-of-way 
were granted, uniformity of setback in the development would result, in that along the private 
cul-de-sacs the setback would be 40 feet from the paved surface.  With regard to the public 
right-of-way, the setback would be 40 feet from the paved surface, but 21 feet from the 
right-of-way line.

With regard to the right-of-way, it would be granted to the Township by the developer on a 
phase-by-phase basis.  At the initiation of each phase, the right-of-way would be deeded. 
The applicant stated that, if the right-of-way were deeded immediately in its entirety, 
subsequent modifications to Phases 2, and 3 and the layout thereof, would be complicated.

The applicant, Dave Corning, had questions with regard to the right-of-way, and the Township 
Attorney expressed the opinion that the right-of-way should be deeded on a phased basis.

Carol Segerdahl, a 13-year resident of the area, requested a brief description of the Phase lines 
and the development as a whole.  The applicant's builder, Greg Pendowski, described the open space 
community.  He stated that there would be a few model homes built, but most homes would be "built 
to suit".  

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

The Planning Commission considered the special exception use criteria of Section 60.100.  The 
Commission considered whether the project would be compatible with other uses expressly permitted 
within the "AG" zoning district classification.  In that the project would consist of 77 building 
sites on approximately 57 acres, a resulting density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre, the project 
density would be less than that allowed if the area were platted.  Since the Agricultural District 
allows single-family homes as a permitted use, it was felt that this project, particularly given 
its density, would be compatible.

Next, the Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use would be detrimental or 
injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or the general neighborhood.  
Planning Commissioners determined that the use would not be injurious, particularly since it 
would be less dense than a traditional single-family subdivision. Additionally, the developer 
granting a public right-of-way around the main private road would allow for future connection to 
other properties.

In addition, the Planning Commission considered whether the use would promote public health, 
safety and welfare.  Planning Commissioners felt that the use as an open space community was 
consistent with the purpose of the "AG" District and the open space provisions.  Further, public 
health would be promoted in that public water would serve the project.  Additionally, the 
development would be served by one access to a public road with the main private street on a 
public right-of-way.  Stormwater management would be handled on site using natural low areas.  
Planning Commissioners concluded that the project would promote public health, safety and welfare.

Also, the Planning Commission considered whether the project would encourage the use of the land 
in accord with its character and adaptability.  Planning Commissioners felt that the project was 
in character in that the layout preserved existing trees and proposed use of open space for 
passive recreation.  Walking trails and a play area were proposed.  Further, it was felt that the 
project would be able to satisfy the standards of the Planning Commission in that it was 
consistent with the open space provisions of the Ordinance.

The Acting Chairperson made reference to Section 82.800 with regard to site plan review.  It was 
noted with regard to access that the Kalamazoo County Road Commission would need to review and 
approve the placement of the driveway (intersection of the private road with KL Avenue).  It was 
recognized that a passing lane and right turn deceleration lane might be required.

No building site would directly abut the property lines of the development; therefore, there 
would be no direct access for each building site to KL Avenue.

With regard to the private road system, Planning Commissioners reached consensus that deviation 
from the setback along the right-of-way was appropriate to allow for uniformity of setbacks 
throughout the project.  Mr. Sikora felt, although he was in favor of public roads throughout 
the project, that the provision of a private road on a public right-of-way was a reasonable 
substitute.  It was noted that the care of the private roads would not be the responsibility of 
the Township.  The provision of the right-of-way provided the opportunity for converting the road 
system to a public road in the future if necessary, but did not require such a conversion.

Ms. Stefforia reminded the Board that Mr. Block had been concerned about enough parking and 
providing sufficient setback to park two cars within the driveway.  It was felt that a 21-foot 
setback would be sufficient.  The consensus was to allow deviation to allow for a setback of 40 
feet from the paved surface.

Planning Commission members concluded that the project would meet the open space criteria of 
Section 60.570.

As to signage, there was discussion as to why the proposed sign was not within the boulevard, 
and the applicant responded that most boulevard signs are damaged in snow removal and other 
activities.  The entry sign would be approved through the permit process pursuant to the 
Ordinance provisions.

After further discussion, Mr. Rakowski moved to grant special exception use permit approval for 
the project, concluding that the proposed community met the standards of Section 60.100, and 
Mr. Rakowski referenced the discussion of the Planning Commission.  Approval was conditioned as 
follows:

(1)	That the County Health Department review and approve the proposed project with regard to 
	on-site septic systems.

(2)	That the Master Deed and By-laws be submitted to, reviewed and approved by Township Staff 
	and Township Attorney for compliance with open space community provisions and the 
	conditions of the approval of the project.

(3)	That a private road system was approved subject to the requirement that the main private 
	road be established within a 66-foot ingress/egress easement/right-of-way granted to the 
	Township and provided by the owner on a phase-by-phase basis.  The right-of-way/easement 
	should clearly designate that the Township has no responsibility for maintenance, 
	improvement or repair of the right-of-way or any improvements therein.

(4)	That the phase schedule proposed by the applicant was approved, conditioned upon work 
	commencing on each phase within 12 months of the scheduled date.

(5)	That use of the open space was limited only to passive recreation, i.e., walking trails 
	and play area.

Mr. Sikora seconded the motion.  There was no comment on the motion, and the motion carried 
unanimously.

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

(1)	That the approval of the access point, i.e., connection of the private street to KL Avenue, 
	was subject to the review and approval of the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.  There 
	shall be no direct access to KL Avenue for any building site.

(2)	That all street lighting in the development comply with the provisions of Section 78.700.

(3)	That an earth change permit from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner's office is 
	necessary before any earth change activities commence.

(4)	That, as proposed by the applicant, existing trees and open space be preserved along the 
	perimeter.

(5)	That no variance was requested.  However, the Planning Commission granted deviation 
	regarding the setback along the public right-of-way to allow a setback of 40 feet from 
	the paved surface of the private road for all building sites within the project.

(6)	That site plan approval is subject to the review and approval and conditions imposed by 
	the Township Fire Department.

(7)	That site plan approval is subject to the review and approval of the Township Engineer 
	and his finding that the proposed site engineering is adequate.

(8)	That public water would be provided to serve the project.

(9)	That approval is subject to the review and approval of the County Health Department with 
	regard to on-site septic systems.

(10)	That all signage for the project be approved through the permit process pursuant to 
	Ordinance standards.

Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion.  There was no comment on the motion, and it carried unanimously.

REZONING - STADIUM DRIVE - PUBLIC HEARING (PARCEL NOS. 3905-35-115-010; 35-115-020; 35-115-050; 
35-115-066; 35-115-070; 35-135-090; 35-115-031; 34-280-032; 34-280-011; 34-280-016; 34-281-010 
and 34-280-040)

Planning Commissioners resumed the public hearing on the rezoning request of several property 
owners, as expanded by the Planning Commission, encompassing 12 parcels located in Sections 34 
and 35 on the south side of Stadium Drive. The applicants requested that the rear of the 
properties be rezoned from the "AG" Agricultural-Rural to the "C" Local Business District zoning 
classification.  The request is to extend the commercial zoning to the AT&T right-of-way, 
which is the rear property line for parcels under consideration.  The property is comprised of 
Parcel Nos. 3905-35-115-010; 35-115-020; 35-115-050; 35-115-066; 35-115-070; 35-135-090; 35-115-031; 
34-280-032; 34-280-011; 34-280-016; 34-281-010 and 34-280-040.  The item had been tabled from 
the meetings of February 24, 2000, and May 11, 2000.

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

Mr. Corakis reminded the Planning Commission that he owns property at the southeast corner 
abutting the rezoning, but not within the rezoning area.  He did not feel that his ownership of 
this property would impact his viewpoint on the proposed rezoning.  He had no direct financial 
benefit or detriment from the rezoning.  The Township Attorney opined that Mr. Corakis would 
not need to abstain.

A map of the Village Focus Area and some of the surrounding property was presented on the 
overhead projector.  The properties which were being considered for rezoning were identified on 
the map.  It was noted that the applicant was requesting action on the five western-most 
properties out of the 12 properties, which were outside the Village Focus Area.  Ms. Stefforia 
noted that the back portion of the eastern-most parcel out the five had been combined with the 
two abutting parcels which were within the Village Focus Area.

It was noted that the Planning Commission had studied the Village Commercial District during the 
last few meetings and had decided not to expand the Village Focus Area to include these five 
parcels.  North of the property the area was zoned "C" Local Business with a mix of commercial 
uses.  The property to the east was "C" Local Business with non-conforming residential uses, 
vacant land and commercial uses.  South of the property, south of the AT&T right-of-way, 
was Agricultural-Rural.  The property to the west was within the "I-1" Industrial and 
Agricultural Districts.

Ms. Stefforia stated that another option for zoning of the subject property would be "R-3" which 
permits office development.  However, the Planning Commission should consider whether "R-3" was 
an appropriate transition from Industrial to Commercial zoning.  Ms. Stefforia felt that 
Commercial zoning of the subject property might be a more appropriate transition between 
Industrial and Village Commercial Districts.  Moreover, the Planning Commission could consider 
the possibility of a Commercial PUD Overlay District.  Ms. Stefforia provided a handout to 
Planning Commissioners describing such a district.  This handout is incorporated herein by 
reference.  The Acting Chairperson wondered how long adoption of a PUD Overlay District would 
take, and Ms. Stefforia suggested that it would take several months.

Mr. Rakowski wondered whether the Planning Commission should reconsider including the property in 
the Village Focus Area.  He felt that it would be important to make this area more "uniform" with 
the neighboring properties, noting that in his opinion, Agricultural zoning was not appropriate 
between the Industrial and Village Commercial or Commercial Districts.  Mr. Corakis agreed that 
the area should be more "uniform".  The Acting Chairperson, Mr. Heisig, stated that he felt that 
the property could be more uniform or more appropriately zoned without including it in the Village 
Focus Area.

Mr. Charlie Hill was present on behalf of the applicants. He stated that he represented 8 of the 
12 parcels.  The applicants were seeking Planning Commission recommendation on the five western 
most parcels which were not within the Village Focus Area.  However, he had no objection to the 
rear five acres on the eastern-most side being considered as part of the Village Focus Area 
since it had been combined with two parcels within that Area.  Mr. Hill commented that, in his 
opinion, rezoning the subject property to the "C" District would provide the best "stepping down" 
from Village Commercial to Industrial zoning.  In response to questioning by the Acting Chairperson, 
Mr. Hill stated that he felt that it was time for the Township to consider creating a Commercial 
PUD District or Overlay District, but felt that the process would be too lengthy for application 
to this property.  He reiterated that one reason for seeking rezoning of this property was to 
allow for an interior street system to be established in the area.

The Acting Chairperson asked for public comment, and Kadir Mohmand spoke, stating that he wanted 
to know the names of the property owners who were seeking rezoning.  In addition, Mr. Mohmand 
wanted to see a copy of the Village Focus Area map.  At the time of his comment, a copy of the 
Village Focus Area map was on display on the overhead projector.  Mr. Mohmand commented that 
others had been denied Commercial zoning because of the amount of vacant Commercial in the 
Township. 

Brian Moloney spoke, stating that he believed rezoning of the property was appropriate, given the 
fact that the property was virtually surrounded by Commercial and Industrial zoning.  In his 
opinion, it made sense to have an interior road system in this area.

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

Mr. Heisig stated that he had previously recommended against rezoning property to the "C" District 
because of the 20%-25% vacant Commercial property within the Township, and he did not see the 
need to add more. He believed that this comment was generally applicable, however, there are 
exceptions to every rule.  In his opinion, some unique circumstances require rezoning of property.  
In his opinion, the uniqueness of the subject properties, being split zoned and virtually 
surrounded by Industrial and Commercial zoning, as well as the buffer of the AT&T right-of-way, 
were circumstances which indicated rezoning was appropriate here.

Mr. Sikora stated that he felt that the Township should pursue a Commercial PUD District, but 
agreed that this application should not be delayed while the Township develops it.

There was discussion of the five acre parcel and whether it should be included as part of the 
Village Focus Area.  Planning Commissioners' consensus was that there would be no need to change 
the boundaries of the Village Focus Area.  Ms. Stefforia agreed, stating that it would probably 
not change how the parcel was developed.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed rezoning was supported by the adopted 
Master Land Use Plan.  It was recognized that rezoning would require an amendment of the Master 
Plan; however, it was felt that the Master Land Use Plan Policies with regard to additional 
Commercial zoning in the Township would support the rezoning in this area in that the properties 
were surrounded by Commercial and Industrial zoning.  Rezoning the property so that it was not 
inconsistent with the front half of each parcel would avoid "strip commercial development".  

The Planning Commission next considered whether the proposed rezoning would severely impact 
traffic, public facilities and the natural characteristics of the surrounding area, or 
significantly change population density.  Planning Commissioners concluded that additional 
Commercial zoning in this area would not negatively impact traffic, public facilities or 
population density, given that the front 660 feet of the property was already zoned in the 
"C" Local Business District zoning classification.  Further, given the surrounding zoning 
and the location adjacent to the AT&T right-of-way, it was felt that Commercial zoning would not 
negatively impact the area.

Also, the Planning Commission considered whether the proposed rezoning would constitute a spot 
zone, granting a special privilege to one landowner not available to others.  Planning Commissioners 
concluded that rezoning the property would not constitute a spot zone in that other properties 
in the area were commercially zoned, and the parcels themselves were partially zoned Commercial.  
The extension of Commercial zoning to the AT&T right-of-way would be a "natural boundary" for the 
District.  Planning Commissioners felt that it was unlikely, given Agricultural zoning, that the 
back part of the parcels would develop agriculturally or residentially.  In fact, Planning 
Commissioners felt that retaining the Agricultural zoning would be more of a "spot zone", given 
the fact that the property was nestled between Industrial and Commercial zoning.

In addition, the Planning Commission considered whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary 
to the established land use pattern. It was agreed that the established land use pattern was hard 
to define, given the mix of uses in the area.  Planning Commissioners concluded that the rezoning 
would not be contrary to the established land use pattern, given the other Commercial zoning in 
the area.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed rezoning, if approved, would have the 
effect of stimulating similar rezoning requests in the vicinity.  Mr. Corakis commented that he 
felt that this rezoning would not stimulate other rezonings because the property was "insulated" 
by Industrial and Commercial zoning on three sides and the AT&T right-of-way to the south.  Mr. 
Rakowski agreed, stating that if the AT&T right-of-way were not there as a buffer, he felt that 
it was possible the Commercial zoning could expand to the south.  Planning Commissioners concluded 
that, given the location of the property, it was unlikely to stimulate other rezoning requests in 
the area. Also, the Planning Commission considered whether there was a change in conditions in the 
area which would support the proposed rezoning.  It was noted that the Planning Commission was in 
the process of considering the Village Commercial District, as called for in the Master Land Use Plan.  
In addition, it was felt that rezoning the property to the Commercial District would allow for a 
stepping down from the Industrial to the Village Commercial zoning, which was planned for the 
Village Focus Area.  Further, the property was located on a designated highway, which was planned 
to be five lanes in the future.  

The Planning Commission considered whether there were other sites adequately zoned available 
elsewhere to accommodate a proposed use.  It was recognized that there was at least 20% vacant 
commercial property within the Township.  However, it was felt that, given the desire to 
encourage use of interior lands and to establish an internal street network in the area, and to 
avoid strip Commercial development, rezoning the back part of existing, commercially-zoned 
parcels would be appropriate.  Further, the location of the property surrounded by Industrial and 
Commercial zoning was unique.  The Planning Commissioners agreed that the Commercial zoning would 
provide an appropriate stepping down in zoning classification.  Therefore, Planning Commissioners 
concluded that it would be appropriate to recommend rezoning in this area, even though rezoning 
of property to the Commercial District would not normally be supported because of the 
percentage of available vacant Commercial property.

Mr. Rakowski moved to recommend rezoning of the southern portion of the five western-most parcels 
under consideration from the "AG" Agricultural-Rural to the "C" Local Business District zoning 
classification and to amend the Master Land Use Plan to reclassify the property to the Commercial 
classification based on the discussion of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Corakis seconded the 
motion.

The Acting Chairperson asked for comments on the motion, and Mr. Mohmand commented that the 
Village Focus Area had not yet passed.

It was noted that the Village Focus Area was a recognized designation within the Master Land Use 
Plan and had been "passed" or adopted by the Township.  The Village Commercial District had not 
yet been specifically adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance.

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

KALAMAZOO CENTER FOR THE HEALING ARTS - OFFICE DEVELOPMENT IN 9TH STREET FOCUS AREA - 
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE - 6350 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-23-255-021)

The Planning Commission next considered the application of Jim Herweg on behalf of Kalamazoo 
Center for the Healing Arts for a special exception use and site plan review of the proposed 
14,686 square foot office building on 15 acres on the north side of KL Avenue east of 9th Street 
at 6350 West KL Avenue.  The property is located in the "R-2" Residence District and the 9th 
Street Overlay Zone to a depth of 880 feet, and is Parcel No. 3905-23-255-021.  The Report of 
the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.  It was noted that this 
application represented the first new building suggested for the 9th Street Overlay Zone.  It 
was recognized that Section 50.401 provides for the single story building not exceed 10,000 
square feet in gross floor area.  Two story buildings were allowed to be up to 15,000 square 
feet in area.  The applicant was proposing a single story building.  A variance from the Zoning 
Board of Appeals would be required to exceed the 10,000 square foot limit.

In response to questions from the Acting Chairperson, the Township Attorney indicated that the 
Planning Commission, in considering the size of the proposed building, should consider how it 
impacts on the ability of the application to meet the criteria for special exception use approval.

It was felt that the most critical issue for the application would involve the access proposal 
of the applicant.  The proposed placement of the driveway should be considered for its impact on 
potential future internal street network and/or shared access with other properties.

Larry Harris on behalf of the applicant was present. Mr. Harris made reference to the purpose of 
the 9th Street Focus Area, stating that he felt the design of the project was consistent with 
this purpose. He stated that the design had been created to be sensitive to the natural terrain.  
There would be three elements to the proposed site to deal with: teaching, healing and support 
staff.  The presence of these elements dictated the size of the building.  He noted that the 
building would cover only a third of an acre out of the 15 acres.  Over 90% of the property would 
remain as open space and in a natural state.  The driveway location and design had been conceived 
to utilize the natural topography of the site.  The building had been laid out so as to provide 
the therapy area with a view of only natural portions of the site.

Mr. Harris commented that, even though the building was over 10,000 square feet, he believed it 
met the Focus Area's goal.

There was discussion of the possibility of an internal road network, and Mr. Harris commented 
that he felt it would inappropriate or unuseful to establish a parallel road to KL Avenue.  In 
his opinion, such a parallel road would "bisect" parcels and lead to smaller parcel development.  
He felt the Planning Commission should concentrate on grouping developments with a shared drive.  
He stated that the applicant was proposing that their drive be shared with the properties to the 
east and west, if ultimately developed under the Overlay Zone District.  He suggested a location 
for the connection with the eastern parcel at the north end of the parking lot, and with the 
western parcel near KL Avenue.

Stormwater retention would be handled by an existing retention basin which was located off site 
pursuant to an existing easement.  

The Acting Chairperson had questions with regard to hours of operation, and Jim Herweg was 
present, stating that the site would operate from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 
9:00 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday.  There would be no overnight patients at the site.  An expansion 
of the business would be handled at the off-site facility of the business and possibly by a 
second building on site.

It was noted that the business served handicapped persons, and therefore, a single story building 
was advantageous.

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

Acting Chairperson made reference to Section 60.100 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Planning 
Commission considered whether the proposed use was compatible 
with other uses expressly permitted within the 9th Street Focus Area Overlay District.  
Planning Commissioners reached consensus that the proposed use would be compatible, given the 
building would encompass only 2.22% of the 15-acre parcel. Further, the parking area would not 
be visible from the street.  The size of the building, it was concluded, would not negatively 
impact the compatibility of the property, given the size of the overall site.

The Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use would be detrimental or injurious to 
the use or development of adjacent properties or the general public.  It was felt that, given 
the surrounding land uses, there would be no detrimental or injurious impact, particularly since 
the building and parking area would be such a small percentage of the total parcel acreage.  
Additionally, the offering of shared access would reduce any negative impact.

The Planning Commission considered whether this proposed use would promote the public health, 
safety and welfare.  Again, it was concluded that there would be no negative impact, and the use 
would promote the public health, safety and welfare.  The building and parking area would 
encompass only about 10% of the site.  
The site would be served by public sewer paid by the applicant.  The shared access arrangement 
suggested by the applicant would meet the spirit and intent of the 9th Street Overlay District.

Next, the Planning Commission considered whether the proposed use would encourage the use of land 
in accord with its character and adaptability.  It was agreed that the proposed use would 
encourage the use and the character, given that the building placement and parking layout 
was designed to work with natural topography.

Returning to the access issue, it was recognized that the Overlay Zone criteria envisioned only 
one access point on KL Avenue.  Mr. Rakowski felt that the location of this proposed access point 
600 feet from 9th Street was significant.  Other Planning Commissioners agreed, particularly 
given the use of 
other properties to the east of the subject site.

Reference was made to Section 82.800 and the site plan review criteria.  The Planning Commission 
returned to a discussion of access with Mr. Heisig stating that he felt that the criteria of the 
Ordinance was met.  However, he was concerned about how the development would interact with 
future developments.  
The applicant confirmed that they were agreeable to granting access easements to the property to 
the east and west to provide shared access with the subject site.

After further discussion, Mr. Sikora moved to grant special exception use approval, concluding 
hat the proposal met the criteria of Section 60.100 and 50.600 pursuant to the discussion of the 
Planning Commission.  The motion was conditioned upon the applicant providing, as proposed, an 
ingress/egress easement for the properties to the east and west and the general public to allow 
for shared access and possible extension of the drive for use as part of an internal road network 
for the 9th Street area.  The easement/shared access agreement must be written, recorded, and on 
file with the Township.  

Mr. Rakowski seconded the motion. 

The Acting Chairperson asked for comment on the motion, and the applicant indicated its agreement 
with and acceptance of the conditions of the motion.

Mr. Mohmand commented that he felt the Planning Commission should not "limit the use" of the 
subject property.

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

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

(1)	That the access arrangement as proposed by the applicant was approved, subject to the 
	review and approval of the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.

(2)	It was noted that the development would occur in the southern 590 feet of the 880 feet 
	of the Overlay Zone and would encompass less than 10% of the 15 acres.

(3)	That parking as proposed by the applicant was approved.

(4)	That any site lighting comply with the requirements of Section 78.700 and 50.000 of the 
	Zoning Ordinance.

(5)	That the size of the building as proposed by the applicant was approved subject to the 
	receipt of a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

(6)	That approval is subject to the review and approval and conditions imposed by the 
	Township Fire Department.

(7)	That approval is subject to the applicant satisfying stormwater management provisions of 
	the Zoning Ordinance and other requirements of the Township Engineer.

(8)	That a Hazardous Substance Reporting form and Environmental Protection Checklist had 
	been completed and were on file with the Township.

(9)	That all signage be in conformity to and approved pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Sikora.  There were no comments on the motion, and the motion 
carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned 
at 10:13 p.m.

				
Minutes prepared:
June 29, 2000


Minutes approved:
July 13, 2000