OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

March 18, 2002

Agenda

NEWHALL-KLEIN - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 6109 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-23-430-032)

METRO STORAGE - RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF NONCONFORMING USE - 6777 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-305-021)

PANERA BREAD - SITE PLAN REVIEW - WEST MAIN MALL AT 5161 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-430-036)

KOHL'S - SETBACK VARIANCE - WEST MAIN MALL AT 5161 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-430-036)

PATTISON - FRONTAGE AND DEPTH-TO-WIDTH VARIANCES - WEST OF N. 9TH STREET AND IN THE 1600 BLOCK - (PARCEL NO. 3905-11-355-041)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, March 18, 2002, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Stanley Rakowski, Acting Chairperson
Dave Bushouse
Jill Jensen
Grace Borgfjord

MEMBER ABSENT: Millard Loy

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director, Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; Robert C. Engels, Township Attorney, and 11 other interested persons.

CALL TO ORDER

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

MINUTES

The Board considered the minutes of the meeting of February 11, 2002. Ms. Borgfjord moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Ms. Jill Jensen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

NEWHALL-KLEIN - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 6109 WEST KL AVENUE - (PARCEL NO. 3905-23-430-032).

The Board considered the application of Newhall-Klein, Inc. for site plan review for a proposed building at 6109 KL Avenue, which is a vacant parcel of land on the south side of KL Avenue, east of 9th Street. The subject property is located within the "I-1" Industrial District, Manufacturing/Servicing zoning classification, and is Parcel No. 3905-23-430-032.

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

Ms. Bugge presented a review under Section 82.800 of the Ordinance. She stated that the site would be served by an easement over an existing shared driveway on the adjacent property to the east. Ms. Bugge suggested that a condition of site plan approval be that the shared easement be maintained at all times. She also stated that the site plan indicates that there will be 21 parking spaces, and she suggested that all parking must conform to Section 68.000. She also stated that the building meets all setback criteria with no outdoor storage being indicated. Two pole lights are proposed for the parking lot, but photometric details still need to be provided. Any additional outside lighting should be subject to Township Staff review and approval. The site plan approval should be conditioned on all site lighting complying with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance. The details of the proposed dumpster enclosure have been provided and meet Township criteria. No sign is indicated on the site plan, and any sign must be on the subject property. Ms. Bugge indicated that, pursuant to Section 76.000, a Sign Permit will be required before any signs can be placed on the property.

Only a portion of the property will be disturbed for construction. The applicant is requesting that retained vegetation be used to fulfill the landscaping requirements within the "C" green space to the north and the "A" greenspaces to the east and west sides of the property. The applicant is requesting that existing vegetation within green space to the south be found sufficient as it abuts a 150-foot wide railroad easement that is zoned in "AG" by default, and the building is 200 feet from the south property line. Parking lot landscaping must be submitted for Township Staff review. Ms. Bugge asked that the Zoning Board consider granting a deviation from Section 75.000 to permit existing vegetation to fulfill the perimeter landscaping requirements. The landscaping for the parking area is subject to Township Staff review and approval.

No variance is being requested, and the Township Fire Department has reviewed the site plan. Ms. Bugge suggested that the site plan approval be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Fire Department pursuant to the adopted codes.

Stormwater management will be onsite, with site plan approval being subject to the Township Engineer finding the site engineering adequate. Public sewer and water will service the proposed building. The applicant has submitted the Environmental Permits Checklist and Hazardous Substance Reporting Form. An Earth Change Permit must be obtained from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner.

Ms. Bugge stated that an existing pond would be used for stormwater retention. Ms. Stefforia asked if the pond was regulated by the DEQ. Ralph Plott is the architect for the project, and he responded by stating that the existing pond is a rainwater pond, which varies in size with the season. An environmental assessment was done for the property, and there were no problems noted. He stated that soil and erosion permits would be obtained from the Drain Commissioner.

Ms. Stefforia also questioned what was meant by the shared easement being maintained at all times, and Ms. Bugge replied that there was a maintenance agreement for snowplowing and general maintenance of the drive. She stated that agreement is already in place to adequately maintain the drive for access purposes.

The meeting was open to public comment. There was no comment, and the public comment was closed.

Ms. Borgfjord questioned Ms. Bugge regarding the landscaping. Ms. Bugge stated that landscaping was usually required on all sides of the property, but in this case, there is a 150-foot wide railroad easement on the south property line, and the proposed building is going to be located 200 feet from the south property line. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 40-foot buffer area because of the location of the building and the 150-foot wide railroad easement.

Ms. Borgfjord asked about signs, and Ms. Bugge responded that any signs would have to be located on the subject site with a permit being necessary if any signs were placed on the property.

Mr. Rakowski reviewed the site plan under Section 82.800. Ms. Stefforia asked about the shared easement for the driveway. Ms. Bugge said it would be shared by three different parties on three different properties.

Mr. Bushouse asked why screening was required on the south 40 feet because there was a sewer located at the point, and the sewer would need to be maintained. He stated that the Township did not want plantings on a sewer line.

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

(1) The shared driveway easement must be adequately maintained at all times.

(2) All parking must conform to Section 68.000.

(3) All site lighting shall comply with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

(4) Pursuant to Section 76.000, a Sign Permit will be required before any signs can be placed on the property.

(5) A deviation from Section 75.000 shall be granted to permit existing vegetation to fulfill the landscaping requirements, except that landscaping for the parking area is subject to Township Staff review and approval.

(6) Site plan approval shall be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Fire Department, pursuant to the adopted codes.

(7) Site plan approval shall be subject to the Township Engineer find the site engineering adequate.

(8) An Earth Change Permit must be obtained from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner.

Ms. Borgfjord seconded the motion. Mr. Rakowski asked for any additional public comment. There was none, and the motion carried unanimously.

METRO STORAGE - RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF NONCONFORMING USE - 6777 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-305-021)

Next, the Board considered the application of Metro Storage for a variance to allow removal and replacement of an existing house/office building on property where current use is legal nonconforming. The subject property is located in the "C" Local Business District zoning classification at 6777 West Main Street, and the Parcel No. is 3905-14-305-021.

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

Ms. Stefforia stated that, in 1986, the Zoning Board of Appeals found that a residence could be established on the site as part of the storage facility provided it was only occupied by the manager and his or her family. In 2000, the Zoning Ordinance was amended eliminating storage/warehouse facilities as a special exception use in "C" and "C-1" Local Business Districts, and at the same time, added it as a special exception use in the "I-1" Industrial District.

Ms. Stefforia then reviewed the approval standards for a nonuse variance.

The first standard concerns whether conformance is unnecessarily burdensome, if there are reasonable options for compliance, and if reasonable use of the property exists with denial of the variance. Ms. Stefforia stated that removal of the house will not bring this legal, nonconforming use more into compliance with the Ordinance as the storage buildings will remain. She stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has previously interpreted that the subject building is accessory to the permitted use at the site, and therefore, allowed.

The next standard dealt with substantial justice, and was to be applied to both applicant and other property owners in the district. It is necessary to review past decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals for consistency. Ms. Stefforia stated that no similar request had been received and considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. There are two other self-storage facilities in the Commercial Districts of the Township, and only one has a manager resident/office building.

The next standard dealt with unique physical characteristics, and if there are unique physical limitations or conditions which prevent compliance. Ms. Stefforia stated that the site offered no unique physical limitations or conditions to prevent compliance.

The next standard questions if the hardship was self-created, and if there were conditions or circumstances which resulted in the variance request created by actions of the applicant. Ms. Stefforia stated that the applicant's desire to replace the existing building triggered their variance request, but the need for the variance was because mold was discovered in the building, which was not the result of actions of the applicant.

The last standard questions if the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed, and the public health, safety, and welfare secured, and substantial justice done if the variance is granted. Ms. Stefforia stated that the use was established in 1986 with Planning Commission approval, with a 2000 text amendment that removed the use from those allowed in the Commercial Districts if became legal nonconforming. The grandfathered land use, which is as a storage facility, will remain whether the variance to replace the residence/office building is granted or denied, and the residence/office building is only accessory to the permitted use of the property.

The applicant, Chris Arnold, was present. He is the construction manager for Metro Storage. He said that the structure has been vacant since November because of the mold. The home now on the site is a 1986 HUD home. The cost of a remedial action with no permanent guarantees makes replacement of the home the best way to go. There are also health considerations.

Mr. Arnold said that 99% of Metro sites around the nation have managers on site for security.

Mr. Rakowski asked how long it would take to replace the home, and Mr. Arnold said it would be from six to eight weeks. The home there now is a manufactured home which will be replaced with a new modular, but this one will be BOCA built. There is a $25,000 difference in the homes, but Mr. Arnold felt that the difference in cost was justified.

Ms. Borgfjord asked if the home would be the same size, and Mr. Arnold stated that it would be the same.

No public comment was offered, and the public hearing was closed. During Board discussion, Mr. Rakowski considered the standards under Section 62.152, which had been particularized by Ms. Stefforia. He did not believe that problems with the mold were self-created.

Mr. Bushouse stated that he had no problem with the request. Mr. Bushouse moved that the variance request be allowed with a new house/office building to be the same size as that being replaced. The motion was seconded by Ms. Jensen. The matter was opened for public comment, and there being none, the motion carried unanimously.

PANERA BREAD - SITE PLAN REVIEW - WEST MAIN MALL AT 5161 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-430-036)

The Board next considered the request from Continental Designs, Inc. on behalf of West Main 2000, LLC, for site plan review of a proposed 6,500 square foot commercial building for a proposed Panera Bread restaurant and a future tenant space at West Main Mall located at 5161 West Main Street. The subject property is located in the "C-1" Local Business District zoning classification, and is Parcel No. 3905-13-430-036.

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

Ms. Stefforia reviewed the criteria for review under Section 82.800 of the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the development will continue to be served by the existing curb cuts onto Drake Road and West Main Street, and that no additional driveways are proposed. The alignment of the access aisles within the property will not be changed, with the exception of the internal drive, which will shift around the backside of the building. To insure that the drive area is adequately defined, Township Staff recommends that two additional islands of internal parking lot landscaping be created on the northern end of the two tiers of parking south of the new building to further define the drive aisle behind the subject building. The physical space is available to create the islands with the loss of only four parking spaces.

Parking on the site exceeds Ordinance requirements, but as additional tenants are proposed, the issue of parking will be revisited to insure that an adequate number of spaces will be provided within the development.

The new building satisfies the setback requirements. Township Staff states that outdoor display or storage is not permitted, and that any outdoor display should be subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission under the special exception use criteria.

The plan indicates that the dumpster will be enclosed with a decorative block wall on three sides and gates at the front access point facing west. Township Staff recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals consider requiring the planting of shrubs along the decorative block wall enclosing the dumpster.

Site lighting within the Mall is under a variance previously granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any building-mounted lighting or changes to the previously approved pole lighting arrangement will have to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, or a variance must be sought. Township Staff recommends that, if any changes to the previously approved lighting arrangements are proposed, details of fixture type, height, wattage, shields, etc., must be provided for Township Staff review and approval. All building-mounted lighting must comply with the requirements of Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance. Details shall be provided for Township review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

No additional freestanding signs may be erected on this site, as the current overall sign package was granted a variance in 1999. However, each building is permitted wall signs consistent with the provisions of Section 76.000. Pursuant to Section 76.000, a Sign Permit will be required before any new signs can be placed on the property.

This property is zoned "C-1" Local Business District, as is the land across West Main Street. The property is within a long established Commercial area.

Additional landscaping along the Mall's West Main Street frontage was proposed and approved with the site plan review of the Kohl's department store. It should be required that landscaping be installed consistent with the previously approved landscaping plan this year (2002) or a performance guarantee should be posted by the applicant or owner pursuant to Section 82.950.

Although the restaurant will receive deliveries, the applicant has stated that no loading area or dock is necessary. The details of the loading area to service the Hardings' and Kohl's buildings have not yet been provided by the applicant as was required with the site plan approval of those buildings. It should be required that details of the loading area to serve the Hardings' and Kohl's buildings be provided for Township Staff review and approval pursuant to the site plan approval previously granted for those buildings.

No variances are being sought by the applicant for the subject building. The Fire Department is reviewing the site plan, and site plan approval should be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Fire Department, pursuant to the adopted Codes.

Stormwater retention for the entire property is established. Proposed modifications are subject to a review by the Township Engineer. The Township Engineer has requested additional information relating to the entire Mall property, which includes a plan of the overall Mall stormwater management system, including drainage patterns, sub-basin boundaries and design calculations, a clear utility map of the entire Mall property that depicts all the utilities and easements (sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, gas and electricity). Site plan approval should be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Township Engineer.

The proposed facility will be served by public water and sewer. The Environmental Permits Checklist and Hazardous Substance Reporting form must be completed and submitted to the Township for each tenant before occupancy may occur.

Josh Weiner was present for the applicant. He is the managing member of West Main 2000, LLC, and had with him Tim Timmons and their architect, Jerry Stifler.

Mr. Bushouse had a question regarding an apparent structure shown in the drawing on the north line of West Main Street. Mr. Weiner stated that there was an existing curb in that area, and what appeared to be a structure might be an existing fire hydrant. Mr. Weiner believed that wall signs should be all the signage required, although he might have to come back to seek additional signage if needed by the co-tenant.

Mr. Weiner agreed that there would be a loss of four parking spaces with the additional islands but, because four additional spaces had been added to the original plan, the loss of these four spaces resulted in a net of no lost parking spaces.

In commenting on plantings by the dumpsters, Mr. Weiner stated that landscaping as it currently exists needs a greater concentration and will incorporate screening of the dumpster area. He stated that no lighting changes are planned, and the landscaping as approved will be installed this year. The Kohl's and Hardings loading area plans have been requested. The Kohl's building should start by August 1. He is in agreement with the fire lane requests and said that his engineer will provide plans of the stormwater and utilities in compliance with the request of the Township Engineer. He is hopeful that construction will be completed this year.

Mr. Rakowski asked about deliveries on the east side of the proposed building, and Mr. Weiner stated that the deliveries would be made at a side door on the east side of the building. The doors are at the same elevation as the regular door so there is no need for lifts. He believed that panel trucks would constitute the largest delivery trucks.

Mr. Rakowski asked about signs on the building, and Mr. Weiner said the plans are to have signs on the north, south and east elevation with that depending on the interpretation of the Ordinance and use by the other tenant.

Ms. Stefforia inquired whether there would be outdoor tables in the front of the building. Mr. Weiner stated that al fresco dining would be available as weather permitted.

The Chairperson asked for public comment. Upon receiving none, the public comment was closed. The Chairperson asked for comments from the Board, and he reviewed the criteria of Section 82.800 which had been covered by Ms. Stefforia.

Mr. Bushouse questioned why plantings around the dumpster had been specified without consideration of the overall site landscaping plan. Ms. Stefforia responded that landscaping in this part of the Mall had not been required when Lowe's was approved. Mr. Bushouse stated that it should be required that landscaping of the north area of the property be subject to Township Staff review and not confine landscaping to a single dumpster. Mr. Bushouse wanted there to be consistency which had not been done with the McDonald's restaurant. Mr. Weiner stated that Mr. Bushouse's suggestion was good. Mr. Bushouse also stated that it was important to have a clear utility map with proper easements designated because of the extensive construction that has taken place at the Mall. He said that it was important to know where the lines are in order for them to be serviced.

Mr. Bushouse moved for approval of the site plan review with the following conditions:

(1) Two additional islands of internal parking lot landscaping to be created on the northern end of the two tiers of parking south of the new building to further define the drive aisle behind the subject building.

(2) No outdoor display or storage shall be permitted by right on the subject property. Any outdoor display is subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission under the special exception use criteria.

(3) Landscaping plan for the north area of the Mall property must be submitted to Township Staff for review.

(4) If there are any changes to the previously-approved lighting arrangements, details of fixture type, height, wattage, shields, etc. must be provided for Township Staff review and approval.

(5) All building-mounted lighting must comply with the requirements of Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance. Details shall be provided for Township review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

(6) Pursuant to Section 76.000, a Sign Permit will be required before any new signs can be placed upon the property.

(7) Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the previously-approved landscaping plan this year (2002), or a performance guarantee must be posted by the applicant or owner pursuant to Section 82.950.

(8) Details of the loading area to serve the Hardings and Kohl's buildings must be provided for Township Staff review and approval pursuant to the site plan approval previously granted for those buildings.

(9) Site plan approval shall be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Fire Department, pursuant to the adopted Codes.

(10) A plan of the overall Mall stormwater management system, including drainage patterns, sub-basin boundaries and design calculations must be provided.

(11) A clear utility map of the entire Mall property that depicts all the utilities and the easements (sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, gas and electricity) must be provided to the Township Engineer.

(12) Site plan approval shall be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Township Engineer.

The motion was seconded by Ms. Jensen. Public comment was sought. There being none, the public comment was closed. Upon a vote, the motion carried unanimously.

KOHL'S - SETBACK VARIANCE - WEST MAIN MALL AT 5161 WEST MAIN STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-13-430-036)

The Board considered the application of Continental Designs, Inc. on behalf of West Main 2000, LLC, for a one-foot supplemental setback variance (for a total reduction of seven feet) from the 85-foot setback along the west property line where previously a six-foot variance was granted. The subject property is Parcel No. 3905-13-430-036 and is the former West Main Mall site at 5161 West Main Street which is located in the "C-1" Local Business District zoning classification.

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

Ms. Stefforia stated that, in December of 2001, the applicant asked for and received a six-foot setback variance. It was subsequently determined that an additional one foot was needed, so the applicant is now requesting a seven-foot setback variance rather than the six-foot variance that had already been granted.

Ms. Stefforia stated that the previous findings of fact that resulted in the granting of the six-foot variance could carry over to this request. She stated that there would be no residential property impacted by the granting of the variance.

Present for the applicant was Josh Weiner. He stated that the applicant did not realize before that a seven-foot variance was necessary because they were dealing with proto- typical plans. The Kohl's Construction Department did site specific plans, and those were found by Mr. Kreps from Continental Designs, Inc. to need the additional foot.

Mr. Rakowski asked about alternatives to granting the additional foot including making the building one foot shorter. Mr. Weiner stated that everything in the store is pre-designed, and if you make the building one foot shorter, it will have a domino effect on the entire building. He stated that Kohl's knows what is successful and works for them and wants to do what has been done successfully in the past.

Mr. Rakowski was concerned that it was not done right in the first place, and the applicant might be back again requesting an additional foot. Mr. Weiner stated that he was uncomfortable in having to come back, and they may have jumped the gun a bit by coming to the Township when they did. They want to get Kohl's open as soon as possible, and are hoping that can be done before the coming holiday season.

At the conclusion of the discussion, it was asked if there was any public comments, and there were none. The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Rakowski stated again that he had problems with the additional one-foot variance request.

Mr. Bushouse stated that he had no problem, and that the Board needed to look at what is practical. The use at the west property line is a golf course, it is screened, is at a higher elevation, and no residential use would be made of the golf course property. One foot will make little difference. He stated that the building will sit a considerable distance off the road, and there is plenty of parking and loading space.

Mr. Rakowski was concerned about the precedent that was being set, but Mr. Bushouse stated that each case must be looked at on an individual basis. The distinguishing features here are that the abutting use is a golf course with no anticipated residential development. There is a wall between the properties, screening the golf course property from the Kohl's site, and the Kohl's property is ten feet lower than the golf course property.

Mr. Bushouse moved for approval of the seven-foot supplemental setback variance based on the same criteria that resulted in the granting of the six-foot variance. Ms. Borgfjord seconded the motion. Mr. Rakowski asked for public comment, and there was none. Upon a vote on the motion, the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Bushouse told Mr. Weiner that he had seen the State Highway Department counting cars, and hoped that the applicant was still working to get a traffic light. Mr. Weiner indicated that they were still working to get a traffic light.

Mr. Rakowski commented on the drive behind Godfather's Pizza, and said that there were bad potholes on that entry drive. Mr. Weiner stated that the applicant would take care of the potholes.

PATTISON - FRONTAGE AND DEPTH-TO-WIDTH VARIANCES - WEST OF N. 9TH STREET AND IN THE 1600 BLOCK - (PARCEL NO. 3905-11-355-041)

Next, the Board considered the application of Michael Pattison for a variance to allow a nonconforming parcel to be buildable with inadequate frontage and a depth-to-width ratio in excess of 4-to-1. The subject property is located on the west side of N. 9th Street in the 1600 block and has an "AG" Agricultural-Rural District zoning classification. The subject property is Parcel No. is 3905-11-355-041.

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

Ms. Bugge stated that the subject property abuts Steeplechase Court. The property had been split in 1995 resulting in two nonconforming lots. The subject lot has about 60 feet of frontage on Steeplechase Court. The subject parcel has both inadequate frontage and a depth-to-width ratio in excess of 4-to-1. There are two ways to be in compliance, one is to extend the public road to create frontage, and the other is by platting the parcel. However, the applicant requests that a variance be granted instead.

Ms. Bugge reviewed the standards of approval for a nonuse variance (practical difficulty).

The first standard deals with the conformance, with conformance being unnecessarily burdensome, with the issues being whether there are reasonable options for compliance and if reasonable use of the property exists if the variance is denied. Ms. Bugge said that frontage could be established if the public road is extended into the property to create 200 feet of public road frontage for the parcel. She also stated that the property could be platted as it meets the dimensional criteria for width at building setback and public road access.

For a depth-to-width ratio, it must be determined if additional property is available for purchase from the adjacent parcels to the north or south to increase the width of the property. The depth of the parcel is not out of character with parcels fronting on 9th Street, but it is not in character with the lots on Steeplechase Court.

The parcel is currently used for agricultural purposes, and this use can continue.

The next standard is substantial justice. It must be applied to both applicant and other property owners in the district. To determine if there is substantial justice, past decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals were reviewed for consistency and the precedents that had been set by those decisions.

Ms. Bugge presented four situations where a frontage variance was denied, those being Klerk on 2/29/99, VanDoeselaar on 9/13/99, Hetrick on 9/11/00, and Hatfield on 10/2/00. VanDoeselaar was granted on 11/20/00, with the reason being that the Zoning Board of Appeals had previously denied her variance, but when the applicant proceeded with the platting procedure, she could not get a well permit because of possible water contamination. It was believed that she would have a better chance of getting a well permit for an individual parcel rather than for a plat. Based on that consideration, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance.

Ms. Bugge also presented four depth-to-width ratio cases, all of which had been granted. These were Gilcrest on 4/6/98, Saunders on 8/2/99, VanDoeselaar on 1/17/00 and Palm on 2/7/00.

The next standard involves unique physical circumstances, but Ms. Bugge found no unique physical limitations or conditions that had been brought to the Township Staff's attention.

The next standard is self-created hardship, and it was determined that the division of the property in 1995 into two nonconforming parcels was at the discretion of the applicant's relative. No variance was requested at that time.

The final standard is, will the spirit of the Ordinance be observed, the public health, safety, and welfare secured, and substantial justice done if the variance is granted? Ms. Bugge stated that, according to Section 66.204, the purpose of the dimensional requirements is to secure the more orderly development of the property in unplatted areas. She stated that other options are available, and the Board must consider the precedent that would be set if the frontage variance is granted. She also stated that granting a depth-to-width variance may be considered within the spirit of the Ordinance based on the past decisions.

Ms. Bugge stated that, under Section 66.203, the Zoning Board of Appeals is given the right and authority to require the conveyance or dedication to the public of a 66-foot-wide right-of-way for ingress and egress to and from interior land if a variance is granted.

Mr. Rakowski asked if the property to the north was owned by one individual. Ms. Bugge stated that it was. Mr. Rakowski asked, if the variance was granted, how the property to the north would be affected. Ms. Bugge said that was why, if the variance was granted, a right-of-way should be required to permit the future extension of Steeplechase to 9th Street.

The applicant, Mike Pattison, was present. Mr. Pattison stated that he understood the frontage requirements as the Township did not want homes on top of each other. He did not understand the depth-to-width requirement, but he felt that he could work through that requirement. He said that he was not going to receive any benefit if the variance was granted that would be to the detriment of anyone else. He would maintain the separation of homes, and there would be no hardship to anyone. There would be a benefit to the Township because there would be an increase in the property value. He believed that other alternatives would be burdensome as he would have to spend thousands of dollars to look at alternatives to the variance. This would be especially true if he needed to hire engineers and put in a road.

Mr. Pattison said that, though the hardship may have been self-created, it was not done intentionally. His family did not realize in 1995 when the property was sold that there would be a problem. It was believed that the public road (Steeplechase Court) abutted the property and could be used for ingress and egress.

Mr. Pattison stated that there were unique circumstances because of the history and heritage of the land. Ninth Street at one time was Pattison Road, and the property in question has been in his family for at least four generations. He believed that it would reflect positively on the Township to allow the Pattison family to continue residing in the Township. He believed that the end result would be the same whether a variance was granted or he had to build a road or plat. Money would be the only real difference, and allowing the variance would not cause harm to anyone.

Mr. Pattison stated that he did not realize that the intent in extending the road would be to allow traffic though his property. Ms. Bugge said that, if the land was platted, he wouldn't need to put in a road, but the Township might require an easement. Ms. Bugge stated that any financial burden was not something the Township was permitted to consider.

There were no questions from the Board members, and the matter was opened for public comment.

Bruce Stanley, who resides on Steeplechase Court, said that the neighborhood had been there for eight years without the road being extended. He said that he would not mind a single residential lot as that would keep the integrity of the development the same as it is now.

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

Ms. Bugge stated that the 200-foot frontage requirement for parcels has been in existence since 1965, and the 4-to-1 width-to-depth ratio has been in effect since 1968. She stated that the 200 feet of frontage must be on a public road.

Mr. Rakowski, in looking at the standards, said that other means were available. Mr. Bushouse agreed and said that the Board could not look at the financial burden.

Mr. Bushouse asked how the Payne property was different than this situation, and Ms. Bugge said that in that case there was access to two different roads in the Country Club Plat, and enough property was owned to also have frontage on KL Avenue. In the VanDoeselaar case, the variance was originally denied because other means were available. The Health Department would not approve a plat because of possible water contamination, so Mrs. VanDoeselaar came back to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the variance was granted on the basis of hardship because of the water problem.

Ms. Bugge stated that, if a road goes in, the property could further be divided in the future. Ms. Bugge stated that she was very concerned about any precedent that would be set by allowing the variance in this case.

Mr. Bushouse said that he likes to see major roads connected, and would like to see a connection to 9th Street over the westerly property.

Mr. Pattison stated that he would work with the Township to provide an easement, but building a road was too expensive. He stated that he plans to build his house 150 feet from Steeplechase Court.

Mr. Rakowski asked about platting, and Ms. Bugge stated that no road would be required, but an easement might be required.

Ms. Borgfjord asked how many parcels there would be if the property was platted, and Ms. Bugge stated that there would be only one lot. Mr. Bushouse stated that, whether a variance is granted or platting is required, there will be the same end result.

Ms. Bugge stated that, if a variance is granted, the facts must be distinguished because of the precedent that would be set.

Ms. Jensen inquired as to the steps in platting. Ms. Bugge stated that, through the Township, it is a three-stage process with $150 fee for each step of the process. She does not know what the engineering costs would be, and cost is not something that the Township can consider.

Ms. Jensen inquired if it would be a problem if precedent is set with the right-of-way being given. Ms. Stefforia thought that it might be possible to distinguish this situation based on a right-of-way being given.

The Board raised the question as to whether or not the Township could require a 66-foot easement over the applicant's property if it is platted. That issue will be researched by Township Counsel.

Mr. Bushouse moved to table this matter until April 8, 2002. Ms. Borgfjord seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

By:
Stanley Rakowski, Acting Chairperson

By:
David Bushouse

By:
Jill Jensen

By:
Grace Borgfjord

Minutes Prepared:
March 22, 2002

Minutes Approved:
, 2002