OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

October 2, 2000

Agenda

EXFIL - JAMES KINDLE - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 4110 SOUTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-35-330-050)

HATFIELD - FRONTAGE VARIANCE - 8506 AND 8546 WEST "ML" AVENUE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-28-180-018, 016 AND 019)

OCEAN VIEW PLAZA - VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH 9TH STREET AND ATLANTIC AVENUE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-35-212-040, 030, AND 020)

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, October 2, 2000, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township.

MEMBERS PRESENT:             Thomas Brodasky, Chairperson
Millard Loy
David Bushouse
Sharon Kuntzman
Ted Corakis (after 3:05 p.m.)

MEMBER ABSENT: None

Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director, Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner, and Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney, and 9 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 September 11, 2000. Ms. Kuntzman moved to approve the minutes as submitted, and Mr. Loy seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

EXFIL - JAMES KINDLE - SITE PLAN REVIEW - 4110 SOUTH 9TH STREET - (PARCEL NO. 3905-35-330-050)

The Board considered the application of James Kindle of Exfil for site plan review of a proposed addition of a 20,000 square foot warehouse building at the facility at 4110 South 9th Street. The subject property is located in the "I-R" Industrial District Restricted, and "R-3" Residence (rear 250 feet), and it is Parcel No. 3905-35-330-050. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Mr Corakis entered the meeting.

Ms. Stefforia noted that the applicant was not proposing any new access point. She felt that the Board should discuss the proposed parking arrangement with the applicant including the number of employees expected at the site and the use of the building. She advised the applicant to be careful about the placement of the north end of the building since setback is measured from the leading edge of the building. No new landscaping was required since the property abuts industrial zoning on all sides.

The applicant was present and stated that he was available for questions.

In response to questions from the Chairperson, the applicant stated that the front building at the site would be used for office space. The new square footage would be used for warehousing. One business occupied both the office and warehouse portions of the site. Therefore, the warehouse was an accessory to the use of the "front" building.

The Chairperson had questions with regard to lighting at the site, and the applicant indicated that additional lighting would be comprised of seven wallpacks on the exterior of the proposed building. Wall signage would be utilized.

Mr. Corakis had questions with regard to the number of employees, and the applicant stated that there were 25 employees of the business, six of whom worked off-site most of the day. The applicant was proposing 25 parking spaces, including five spaces at the new warehouse building. The business operated with one shift.

After further discussion, Ms. Stefforia stated that she would be comfortable with allowing the parking as proposed so long as Township Staff had the option of requiring more spaces in the future if parking became a problem.

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

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

(1) That the site would be served by the existing drive off South 9th Street.

(2) That parking as proposed by the applicant was satisfactory; however, in the event that the Township Staff determined that parking was insufficient at the site as approved, the Township had a discretion to require the applicant to establish additional parking spaces.

(3) That the applicant was reminded that the setback was measured from the leading edge of the building.

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

(5) That all lighting must comply with the requirements of Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

(6) That a sign permit in compliance with Section 76.000 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be applied for and granted by the Township prior to the placement of any sign.

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

(8) That approval is subject to the Township's Engineer review and acceptance that the site engineering is adequate.

(9) That it was noted that an Environmental Permit Checklists and Hazardous Substance Reporting Form had been completed and were submitted to the Township.

Ms. Kuntzman seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

HATFIELD - FRONTAGE VARIANCE - 8506 AND 8546 WEST "ML" AVENUE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-28-180-018, 016 AND 019)

The Board considered the application for variance from the provisions of Section 66.201 to allow the reconfiguration and division of existing parcels, one with less than 200 feet of frontage on a public street. The subject property is located at 8506 and 8546 West ML Avenue and is Parcel Nos. 3905-28-180-018, 016 and 019. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. Since the applicant was not present, the Board members agreed that the item should be considered at the end of the meeting.

OCEAN VIEW PLAZA - VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH 9TH STREET AND ATLANTIC AVENUE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-35-212-040, 030, AND 020)

The Board next considered the application of Bruce VanderWeele, as agent for the owners, i.e., Dare to Be Great, for a site plan review and variance from the provisions of Section 64.000 to allow the establishment of a new commercial building to be built at the northeast corner of South 9th Street and Atlantic Avenue. The subject property is located in the "C" Local Business District zoning classification, and is Parcel Nos. 3905-35-212-040, 030 and 020. The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference.

Ms. Stefforia stated that the owners wished to develop a commercial building on the combined three parcels, which would be designed to house a variety of non-residential uses such as a restaurant, office and retail. The applicant was seeking approval of the proposed site plan which was consistent with the Village Commercial District and text applicable thereto. It was noted that this site is located within the Village Focus Area. Since the Village Commercial text had not yet been adopted, a variance was required to allow the setback proposed by the applicant.

It was noted that the Master Land Use Plan regarding the Village Focus Area and the proposed Village text called for reduced front setback. With regard to the front setback, it was noted that a former AT&T right-of-way existed along the frontage of the property over which AT&T continues to have an easement. The placement of the AT&T easement prevented the placement of the building at the 20-foot setback as allowed under the proposed Village text. Therefore, some parking was proposed at the front of the site, i.e., 18 spaces. As to the number of parking spaces, the number satisfied the Ordinance if a mix of uses were assumed based on information provided by the applicant on Sheet C.201 of the plans. Ms. Stefforia suggested that the approval require that each tenant obtain Township Staff approval so that the parking on site could be monitored for compliance with Ordinance provisions.

There are currently two drives onto 9th Street at the subject property. The owners were proposing that the southern 9th Street driveway be closed while the northern access remains. Additionally, however, a driveway onto Atlantic Avenue was proposed for a total of two driveways to serve the site. The applicant had indicated the owners' willingness to close the Atlantic Avenue driveway in the future to connect to the street on the abutting Township property if ever constructed. The applicant would require a deviation from the Access Management Guidelines for the approval of two access points to serve the combined site.

With regard to the setback variance, Ms. Stefforia stated that, in the past few years, a number of variances were granted in the Village area, specifically noting LaRue's, Warehouse Distributors, Oshtemo United Methodist Church and the Migala law office. Principally, these variances were supported by the Master Land Use Plan with regard to the Village Focus Area and the upcoming adoption of the Village Commercial District.

The applicant was present and stated that he was available to answer questions.

Mr. Corakis asked about the retention area, and it was noted that it would have a small area of green space between three and five feet in width, then filled with large stone. The area would have a 4-to-1 or 5-to-1 slope.

Ms. Kuntzman asked about access on 9th Street and whether that driveway would require widening. It was noted that it would be two lanes and that the Road Commission would require a deceleration lane on 9th Street.

Mr. Bushouse asked about sidewalks along the property, and the applicant responded that a sidewalk would be established along Atlantic Avenue and would be left as is along 9th Street except as interrupted by the access drive, where it would be moved.

There was discussion of whether the applicant was willing to share the 9th Street access point with the property to the north if that property were to convert in the future to a nonresidential use.

Ms. Stefforia stressed that the Board could justify deviation from the Access Management Guidelines to allow two drives if the applicant was willing to share the access point.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and Mehdi Purazrang was present and asked how close the building was from the property line. Ms. Stefforia stated that the building would be located approximately 60 feet from the north property line.

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

The Chairperson noted that the proposal was as close as could be designed for the site to compliance with the Village Commercial District and concept. The only area of deviation from the Village Commercial text was with regard to the location of some of the parking and the building setback along Atlantic Avenue. However, it was due to the location of the AT&T easement.

Mr. Bushouse and the other members concurred that the application and variance proposal was in accord with the Master Land Use Plan and the proposed Village Commercial District.

Mr. Corakis moved to grant the front setback variance as discussed with the finding that the variance was consistent with the intent and spirit of the Ordinance, consistent with past approvals in other similar cases, and consistent with the Master Land Use Plan as to the Village Focus Area. Mr. Loy seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

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

(1) That, as to access, deviation from the Access Management Guidelines was granted to allow for two drives as proposed by the applicant, with the following conditions:

(a) That the applicant/owner share the access point on South 9th Street with the property to the north if that property should develop with a nonresidential use in the future. The appropriate easement agreement must be executed, recorded and on file with the Township.

(b) That the driveway onto Atlantic Avenue be closed to connect to the street on the abutting Township property if ever constructed.

(2) That parking is found to be satisfactory; however, each proposed tenant would require administrative review to assure that adequate parking is available on the site.

(3) That site lighting comply with the requirements of Section 78.700 of the Zoning Ordinance.

(4) That a sign permit in compliance with Section 76.000 and the proposed Section 33.410 of the Zoning Ordinance be applied for and granted by the Township prior to placement of any signs on the property.

(5) That landscaping be installed as reflected on the site plan before a certificate of occupancy is granted.

(6) That all building materials comply with the forthcoming provisions of Section 33.409.

(7) That all three parcels be combined as proposed by the applicant.

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

(9) That the site plan approval is subject to review by the Township Engineer and acceptance of site engineering is adequate.

(10) That an Environmental Permits Checklist and Hazardous Substance Reporting Form be completed and provided as to any tenant locating in the building.

Ms. Kuntzman seconded the motion.

The Chairperson inquired of the applicant with regard to whether they were agreeable to the condition with regard to deviation from the Access Management Guidelines so as to allow for two drives at the property. The applicant, and owner, who was present, indicated agreement with the conditions imposed in the motion.

There was discussion of the possible signage at the site, and it was noted that, if the applicant desired to seek a freestanding sign, an application for a variance would be required.

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

HATFIELD - (Continued)

Although the applicant was still not present, the Board decided to consider the proposed variance request. Ms. Bugge stated that the applicant was seeking to reconfigure three existing parcels. In 1994, a larger parcel was split into the three subject parcels comprised of Parcel 28-180-018, designated as Parcel A, which consisted of 70 acres and had 866 feet of frontage on ML Avenue. This property is vacant. Parcel 28-180-016, designated as Parcel B, consisted of 10 acres and is landlocked. This property has a residence and an agricultural building. Parcel 28-180-019, designated as Parcel C, consisted of four acres with 350 feet of frontage on ML Avenue and has a residence and agricultural building. Two of the properties are owned by the applicant's father, and the other by his brother. The applicant was seeking to reconfigure the parcels so that there would be seven parcels, six of which would comply with the frontage requirements of the Ordinance. One parcel would consist of ten acres with 100 feet of frontage on West ML Avenue and be non-conforming. This was the parcel for which a variance was requested.

Ms. Bugge stated that there was sufficient frontage on West ML Avenue to reconfigure the proposed Parcel B in conformance with the required 200 feet of frontage. The remaining 700 feet of frontage could be split into three conforming parcels or subdivided by platting or condominium act into four or more lots. Thus, the applicant could divide the land area into six divisions without platting or site condominium development in conformance with Ordinance provisions.

It was noted that there were a number of prior applications similar to the instant case which had been denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the other options available to the applicants.

Mr. Loy stated that he did not feel that the Board should grant the variance in that it would establish an undesirable precedent. The Chairperson agreed.

The Chairperson asked for public comment, and Char Schramm noted that she and her husband own adjacent property. Although she had no objection to the application, she agreed that the applicant had other alternative methods of complying with the Ordinance.

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

Ms. Kuntzman moved to deny the variance with the following reasoning:

(1) That conformance was not unnecessarily burdensome in that the applicant had other alternative methods of compliance with Ordinance requirements.

(2) That substantial justice would not be served by granting the variance due to the amount of the variance requested and denial of previous similar applications.

(3) That the hardship was self-created in that the proposed division was at the option of the applicant.

(4) That there were no physical limitations preventing compliance with the Ordinance.

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

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

By:
Thomas Brodasky, Chairperson

By:
Millard Loy

By:
Ted Corakis

By:
Sharon Kuntzman

By:
David Bushouse

Minutes Prepared:
October 5, 2000

Minutes Approved:
, 2000