OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES

March 6, 2000

RICHARD VAN DAM - DEPTH-TO-WIDTH VARIANCE - 8128-8132 WEST MAIN STREET (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-280-011)

CANNAAN PROPERTIES, LLC - SETBACK VARIANCE - 2490 SOUTH 11TH STREET (PARCEL NO. 3905-25-330-075)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, March 6, 2000, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township.

MEMBERS PRESENT:
Thomas Brodasky, Chairperson
David Bushouse
Sharon Kuntzman
Ted Corakis
Millard Loy

MEMBER ABSENT:
None

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

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m.

RICHARD VAN DAM - DEPTH-TO-WIDTH VARIANCE - 8128-8132 WEST MAIN STREET (PARCEL NO. 3905-16-280-011)

The Board first considered the application of Richard Van Dam for a variance from Section 66.201 to allow a division of his 19 acre parcel into two parcels, which would result in one of the parcels having a depth greater than the 4-to-1 ratio requirement of the Ordinance. The subject property is located at 8128-8132 West Main Street within the "C" Local Business District zoning classification (Parcel No. 3905-16-280-011).

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

Ms. Stefforia indicated that the request is very straightforward in that the applicant would like to split the 19 acre parcel into two parcels of 3.6 acres and 15.3 acres. The smaller parcel has 200 feet of frontage, but narrows to 175 feet after the first 85 feet. Because it narrows, it does not maintain the 4-to-1 width-to-depth ratio. The presence of a shared boat lift is what caused the shift in the property line. Typically, similar requests are granted if 200 feet of frontage is maintained.

Jeffrey Swenarton appeared for the owner of the property, the Richard Van Dam Trust. Mr. Swenarton stated that the shared boat lift resulted in a jog in the property line to maximize the use of the parcels. The Trust is holding the small parcel subject to approval under the Land Division Act. The Trust had two avenues to pursue, either a re-surveying or asking for a variance. The decision was to ask for this variance. Mr. Swenarton stated that there is 200 feet of frontage for the first 85 feet of depth. Other reasons for the jog in the property line include shared parking and an underwater storage tank. If the boundary line had been straight, it would have gone through the underwater storage tank.

There is a retention pond on the three acre parcel, and an Easement Agreement will be drafted regarding parking, ingress, egress, the retention pond and the boat lift. The Easement Agreement will be signed and recorded when the variance is approved.

Randy Van Dam was present and stated that the underground tank was a dry well that had been put in at the request of the Fire Department for extra water. The water can be used to fight fires on both parcels.

Mr. Brodasky asked if the depth could be reduced. Mr. Swenarton responded that the party interested in buying the property wants the entire 800 feet. The purchaser plans to use all of the parcel. When the property is sold, the retention pond will be moved onto the larger parcel.

Ms. Stefforia questioned why the survey depicted the easement stopping just short of the boat lift. Mr. Swenarton responded that it was the way it was drawn on the survey and that the easement does deal with the boat lift.

The Chairperson sought public comment, but there was none offered, and the public hearing was closed.

The Chairperson did not see a problem with this variance.

Ms. Kuntzman was concerned about a possible precedent being set and having other people with shared structures making the same request. Ms. Stefforia did not believe that example was similar to this situation.

Mr. Loy questioned whether the property would be serviced by the new water lines for fire protection. Ms. Stefforia indicated that it would be serviced by the new lines. Mr. Corakis questioned if public water was available if there was any need to use the dry well. Mr. Randy Van Dam responded that it would still provide extra water.

Mr. Loy stated that he did not see a problem with the request as long as the boat lift is included in the easement, and there is 200 feet of frontage.

Mr. Loy moved to grant the variance from the 4-to-1 depth-to-width ratio requirement of Section 66.201, with the following analysis and conditions:

(1) That substantial justice would weigh in favor of granting the variance in that other similar applications have been granted.

                                        (2) That 200 feet of frontage will be maintained.

(3) That variance is conditioned on the easement adequately addressing parking, the boat lift, retention pond and access.

Mr. Corakis seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-to-1 with Ms. Kuntzman voting no.

CANNAAN PROPERTIES, LLC - SETBACK VARIANCE - 2490 SOUTH 11TH STREET (PARCEL NO. 3905-25-330-075)

The Board next considered the application of Cannaan Properties, LLC for a setback variance from Section 64.300 to allow an entryway to extend into the front setback of property located at 2490 South 11th Street within the "C" Local Business District zoning classification. (Parcel No. 3905-25-330-075).

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

Ms. Bugge indicated that the building on the subject property was being remodeled. The improvements include an elevator, a new entryway on the east side of the building and a canopy structure over that entryway for patient drop-off. The variance being requested was for the four foot overhang that projected from the new entryway under the free-standing canopy. The overhang and canopy were designed to divert rainwater and keep the sidewalk free from the elements.

Ken Klock was present for the applicant. He stated that Kalamazoo Orthopaedic Clinic, PC, Kalamazoo Rheumatology and Psychotherapy Associates would be occupying the building. They have many handicapped patients. The lower level is being remodeled for physical therapy. The elevator and stairway are being added to the front of the building, making it easier to access for handicapped patrons and to provide another access in the event of emergencies. It is the overhang and the roof that are in the setback area rather than the building. It is desired to have the overhang and roof be overlapped by the canopy.

Mr. Brodasky examined Exhibit C, and based on the drawing, he asked if the canopy could be enlarged. Mr. Klock stated that the height of the canopy would have to be increased in order to enlarge its coverage.

Mr. Bushouse examined the drawing depicted on Exhibit B and inquired if the overhang area was going to be round. Mr. Klock stated that it would not, as it was going to be squared off and probably would not encroach by four feet, but would more likely encroach by only one foot. He stated that it was a very small part that was in violation of the Ordinance.

In response to a question from Ms. Stefforia regarding the new tenants, Mr. Klock stated that the lower tenant is Psychotherapy Associates, which is a part of the Stryker Corporation.

The Chairperson sought public comment, but none was offered, and the public hearing was closed.

Ms. Kuntzman moved to grant the variance from the setback requirement of Section 64.300 to allow the entryway overhang to extend into the front setback with the following analysis:

(1) Substantial justice would weigh in favor of granting the variance in that other similar applications have been granted.

(2) The purpose of remodeling is to accommodate handicapped people who will be using the building.

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

OTHER BUSINESS

The next item of business was a review of a Resolution Regarding Procedure for Public Comment.

Mr. Bushouse was concerned about numbered paragraph 3 on page two which read as follows:

"All public comment shall be limited to four (4) minutes in duration unless special permission has been granted in advance by the Supervisor or Chairperson of the meeting."

Mr. Bushouse believed that rebuttal should be limited to one (1) time, and after discussion, it was determined that the public comment should be limited to five (5) minutes rather than four (4) minutes, with rebuttal limited to no more than five (5) minutes.

Mr. Corakis moved that the Resolution be accepted with the only change being to numbered paragraph 3, which will read as follows:

"All public comment shall be limited to five (5) minutes per person in duration unless special permission has been granted in advance by the Supervisor or Chairperson of the meeting, and rebuttal shall be limited to one (1) time for no longer than five (5) minutes."

Mr. Bushouse seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:40 p.m.

Minutes Prepared:

March 6, 2000