OSTLOGOL.GIF (2116 bytes)

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP

PLANNING COMMISSION

October 4, 2001

Agenda

STEENSMA LAWN & POWER EQUIPMENT, INC. - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AMENDMENT - 7561 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-34-185-033 AND 3905-34-185-039)

SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS TEXT AMENDMENT - SECTION 82.900 - RESUME PUBLIC HEARING

DAY CARE IN THE "R-3" RESIDENCE DISTRICT - WORK ITEM

DEFINITION OF FAMILY - DISCUSSION ITEM

A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, October 4, 2001, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.

MEMBERS PRESENT

: Neil G. Sikora, Chairperson
Ted Corakis
Kathleen Garland-Rike
Stanley Rakowski
Deborah Everett
Elizabeth Heiny-Cogswell
James Turcott

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

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

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

AGENDA

Ms. Stefforia suggested adding the dias reshuffle.

Mr. Corakis moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Ms. Everett seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

STEENSMA LAWN & POWER EQUIPMENT, INC. - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AMENDMENT - 7561 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-34-185-033 AND 3905-34-185-039)

The Planning Commission reviewed a request for a special exception use permit and site plan amendment concerning a proposed 5,400 square foot storage building, parking and loading area improvements at 7561 Stadium Drive. The subject property is located in the "I-1" Industrial District zoning classification and is Parcel Nos. 3905-34-185-033 and 3905-34-185-039.

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

Mr. Rakowski stated that he had applied for employment at Steensma, and therefore, he would be abstaining.

It was reported that the site consists of two abutting parcels fronting on Stadium Drive with a combined area of approximately 4.5 acres. The applicant wished to construct a 5,400 square foot warehouse accessory building with a loading dock and associated parking spaces. The proposed building would straddle the common parcel line, and therefore, any approval would need to be subject to a combination of the parcels.

The establishment of the warehouse would eliminate outside storage of "delivered" items and equipment which was under repair. The applicant would also be required to come into compliance with the current landscaping provisions of the Ordinance.

There was a review of the criteria of Section 60.100. Ms. Stefforia stated that she did not believe the warehouse building would alter previous findings that the criteria were satisfied.

As to landscaping, it was indicated that the applicant would be trying to preserve existing trees but would need to "fill in" in front, probably with shrubs. Ms. Bugge reported that she had received information from the Township Engineer that the retention system was found satisfactory.

Gary Steensma was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the applicant wanted to put in storage so as to "clean up" the parcel. He indicated that equipment was constantly being moved in and out of the building, and it was problem. He also felt loading and unloading of trucks was a problem because there was nowhere on site to store delivered items. There was also nowhere to store equipment under repair. He stated that outdoor display of items for sale would continue, but it was hoped that the warehouse building would take care of outdoor storage. It was reported that the display area on the east side would be graded and landscaped using river rock and timbers rather than grass.

Mr. Turcott questioned whether any additional run-off would be created due to utilizing rock. Todd Batts, the Engineer for the project, reported that he believed that this would be an improvement. The river rock would be on a "filter base", and rain water should percolate.

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

The Chairperson summarized the application. Mr. Corakis stated that he felt that the changes suggested by the applicant would be an improvement to the use. He felt that the use would continue to meet the criteria of Section 60.100. Other Planning Commission members concurred.

Planning Commissioners reviewed the criteria of Section 82.800. In response to questioning by the Chairperson, the applicant indicated that they would be willing to combine the parcels with a recorded document.

Ms. Heiny-Cogswell suggested that, as to landscaping, any shrubs be grouped. Further, existing trees could be moved from the back of the site to the front.

Mr. Corakis stated that he felt that the applicant should put a cover or roof over the proposed gas tank for added protection. Ms. Bugge indicated that, if the gas tank were subsequently added, the applicant would need Township or MDEQ approval, depending on the size of the proposed tank.

After further discussion, Ms. Heiny-Cogswell moved to amend the special exception use permit and site plan approval finding the use continue to meet the criteria of Section 60.100. As to site plan amendment, the approval was subject to the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That no changes to access were proposed or approved.

(2) That as to parking, eight additional parking spaces were being provided for a total of 37. The parking lot aisles around the back-to-back deep parking spaces shall be changed to one way, and the four northern most spaces shall be moved to the south.

(3) That the loading and unloading must be in conformance with Section 68.301 and not interfere with vehicular movement.

(4) That the two parcels be combined by a recorded instrument/deed.

(5) That landscaping in conformance with Section 75.000 must be established.

(6) That outdoor display shall be in accord with prior approval, with the exception of the changes concerning the addition of the washed or river rock in the east display area.

(7) That no outdoor storage was indicated on the site plan; existing outdoor storage had been eliminated. No outdoor storage of damaged or inoperable vehicles or equipment would be permitted.

(8) That approval is subject to the lighting meeting the requirements of Section 78.700 and submission of lighting fixture details for staff review and approval.

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

(10) That approval is subject to the Township Engineer review and finding that storm water management is adequate.

(11) That approval is subject to submission of the Environmental Permits Checklist and Hazardous Substance Reporting Form.

(12) That site plan approval is subject to conformance with the groundwater protection standards of Section 69.

(13) That, in the event a gasoline tank is added to the site, it must be reviewed and approved by the Township or MDEQ, depending upon the size.

Ms. Everett seconded the motion.

The applicant expressed some concern that in the future, he would need to establish outdoor storage. It was indicated that, once the applicant had an idea of how much outdoor storage was needed and the location of such storage, he would need to return to the Township with a proposal. Ms. Bugge indicated that the applicant should not propose outdoor storage of inoperable equipment. If proposed outdoor storage were small in scale, the approval could be handled administratively.

Upon a vote on the motion, the motion carried with Mr. Rakowski abstaining.

SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS TEXT AMENDMENT - SECTION 82.900 - RESUME PUBLIC HEARING

The Planning Commission was to resume public hearing on the proposed text amendment of Section 82.900 of the Zoning Ordinance to renumber existing provisions and add a requirement for applicants to provide as-built (certified) drawings prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Ms. Bugge stated that the Township Planning and Zoning Department felt that the item should be postponed to the November meeting. Revisions to the proposed language would be suggested at that time.

Mr. Rakowski moved to table the public hearing on the item to the meeting of November 1, 2001. Mr. Corakis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

DAY CARE IN THE "R-3" RESIDENCE DISTRICT - WORK ITEM

The Planning Commission discussed a proposed text amendment to allow child daycare facilities as a special exception use in the "R-3" Residence District.

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

There was discussion of adding child care centers in the "R-3" District and the need to revise certain language to refer to child care centers rather than day nurseries. Ms. Bugge described the state law which provided that certain sorts of home day care operations were allowed as permitted uses with residential districts.

After further discussion, it was agreed that the Ordinance should not restate the law concerning these permitted uses. Instead, only the "R-3" District should be altered to allow child care centers, i.e., day care not provided in a home. It was agreed that there should be some design criteria for such uses. Ms. Bugge indicated that the item would return at a future meeting with proposed language.

DEFINITION OF FAMILY - DISCUSSION ITEM

The Report of the Planning and Zoning Department is incorporated herein by reference. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of adding a definition of "family" in the Township Zoning Ordinance. Other municipalities, including Kalamazoo Township, Portage and the City of Kalamazoo, had added a definition of family as one method of regulating use of single-family homes for student housing. The Township Attorney stated that she would update her research concerning this issue and make a recommendation.

OTHER BUSINESS

There was a shuffle of the dias.

PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

Ms. Everett reported that the Park Committee had met and would recommend to the Township Board that a consultant be retained to work on the recreation plan. This would include conducting a community survey.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.

OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION

By:

Minutes prepared:
October 8, 2001

Minutes approved:
, 2001