OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

May 21, 2001

Agenda

SEECO COMMERCIAL PARK - UNIT #1 - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 714 NORTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-332-001)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, May 21, 2001, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township.

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

MEMBER ABSENT: Jill Jensen

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

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 3:01 p.m.

MINUTES

The Board considered the minutes of the meeting of May 7, 2001. Ms. Kuntzman moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Mr. Corakis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

SEECO COMMERCIAL PARK - UNIT #1 - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 714 NORTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-14-332-001)

The Board considered the application of Jamie Dyer of Wightman Ward for site plan review of a proposed 4,800 square foot medical building on site condominium Unit #1 of the Seeco Commercial Park. The subject property is located at 714 North 9th Street, within the "C" Local Business District zoning classification, and is Parcel No. 3905-14-332-001. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia reminded the Board that, when the Seeco Commercial Park was approved in 1994, the Planning Commission required the placement of a service drive connecting Seeco Drive to West Main Street. This included an intersection with 9th Street opposite to the drive of Crystal Car Wash. The Planning Commission approval was conditioned upon the complete construction of the service drive at the time that Units #1, #2 or #3 were built upon. The service drive is to meet design criteria of the Access Management Plan, which requires drives to be 30 feet wide.

Ms. Stefforia noted that the owner of the site condominium park would be requesting that the Planning Commission amend its approval to allow the service drive to be a width of 24 to 26 feet wide and that it end just north of Unit #1 at this time. The abutting parcel is currently vacant. Ms. Stefforia felt that, because these two issues did not impact the layout of the site plan of Unit #1, the Zoning Board of Appeals could conduct site plan review of Unit #1 with the above issues pending.

The facility would be served by a driveway onto the service drive. The Road Commission was comfortable with the intersection of the service drive with 9th Street, but indicated that it might negotiate some details of design as part of the permit process.

There was discussion of the proposed parking at the site. Based upon usable floor area, approximately 26 spaces were required. The site plan provided for 33 spaces. The proposed parking lot layout and site circulation were satisfactory, except with regard to the issue of four parallel parking spaces on the east side of the site. The applicant was proposing that these parallel spaces be 20 feet in length, but only eight feet in width. The driving aisle would be one-way and was shown at 12 feet in width. Therefore, the applicant was requesting a deviation from the space and aisle width requirements to allow the four parallel parking spaces as shown. The staff was comfortable with granting the deviation so long as the drive aisle be signed as one-way traffic, and the parking spaces be signed as employees only.

Jamie Dyer was present on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that Bruce Kuipers of Delta Design and Michael Seelye, one of the owners of the Park, were present.

Ms. Stefforia indicated that the landscaping proposed by the applicant met Ordinance provisions. However, there were two triangular areas in the northwest corner of the parking lot that the staff felt should be used as green space. Mr. Dyer indicated that the applicant had no problem with these areas being "grass".

There was discussion of the setback south of the building. The Ordinance requires 20 feet or the height of the abutting side of the building at its highest point, whichever is greater. It was noted that the Ordinance measures height according to roof type. For this type of roof, the average height would be between the eaves and peak. Mr. Kuipers indicated that this mid-point was 18 feet.

There was discussion of the dumpster screening, and it was indicated that it would be screened with "lumber".

As to the four parallel parking spaces, Ms. Kuntzman questioned whether these spaces were necessary since the site provided more parking than was required by the Ordinance. The applicant indicated that the doctors utilizing the site were concerned about eliminating parking; they felt all the spaces proposed were essential.

It was the consensus of the Board that deviation would be appropriate for the four parallel spaces in that, because the aisle would be one-way and the parking would be for employees only, there would not be a lot of in-and-out traffic. Mr. Bushouse also felt that for the four parallel spaces, eight feet of width was more than adequate.

There was discussion of storm water problems with questions from Ms. Kuntzman. The applicant indicated that a lot of material had been removed from storm water retention pond. It was felt that some of the problem with overflow resulted because originally the clay layer had not been penetrated when the pond was put in. Further, the applicant had an agreement with the owners of the adjacent storm water pond to allow for inter-connection of the two ponds so that overflow could go into the off-site pond.

Mr. Corakis questioned whether the applicant would consider sidewalks along 9th Street. Mr. Seelye responded that, since sidewalks were not required in the Ordinance, he was not in favor of putting a sidewalk along 9th Street.

Mr. Bushouse complimented the applicant on placement of greenspace on-site rather than only within the right-of-way.

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

Ms. Kuntzman moved to approve the site plan with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That the final design and placement of the service drive's intersection with 9th Street be subject to the review and approval of the Kalamazoo County Road Commission.

(2) That parking as proposed by the applicant was approved. The applicant was granted deviation to allow the placement of four parallel parking spaces with the condition that the adjacent drive aisle be signed and utilized for one-way traffic and also signed as "employees only".

(3) That all setbacks are satisfactory.

(4) That no outdoor storage was proposed or approved.

(5) That one dumpster would be established on-site and enclosed as proposed by the applicant.

(6) That all lighting comply with Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

(7) That, pursuant to Section 76.000, a sign permit be required before any identification signage could be placed on the subject property.

(8) That landscaping as proposed was approved. However, two triangular areas at the northwest corner of the parking lot must be used for green space and protected from encroachment by vehicles as indicated in Section 75.140(B)(3). All landscaping must be installed pursuant to the approved site plan before occupancy is permitted, or a performance guarantee consistent with Section 82.950 must be provided.

(9) That approval is subject to the review and approval and compliance with the requirements imposed by the Township Fire Department.

(10) That the applicant is required to provide documentation that verifies that the necessary corrections have been made to the retention pond and such documentation must be reviewed and approved by Township Staff and Township Engineer before a building permit may be issued. Further, the applicant was required to provide and have on file with the Township a copy of the Agreement with the Hannipel and Stone Mountain properties for use of the off-site retention pond for overflow.

(11) That an earth-change permit from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner is necessary before any earth-moving activities commence on the site.

(12) That approval was subject to the Township Engineer finding that the proposed site engineering is adequate pursuant to the Ordinance.

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

ADJOURNMENT

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

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

By:
Millard Loy, Chairperson
By:
Sharon Kuntzman
By:
Ted Corakis
By:
David Bushouse

Minutes Prepared:
May 24, 2001
Minutes Approved:
, 2001