February 2, 1998





A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, February 2, 1998, commencing at approximately 3:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall, pursuant to notice.


Brian Dylhoff, Chairperson
David Bushouse
Lara Meeuwse
Thomas Brodasky

MEMBER ABSENT: William Saunders

Also present were Mike West on behalf of the Planning and Zoning Department, Scott Paddock, Building Inspector, Patricia R. Mason, Township Attorney, and three (3) other interested persons.


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


The Board considered the minutes of the meeting of January 19, 1998. Mr. Brodasky suggested a change to page 2, in the first paragraph, to end the second-to-the-last sentence at the word "vacant."

Ms. Meeuwse moved to approve the minutes as amended, and Mr. Brodasky seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.


The next item was the application of Arthur Scheffers and Clancy Jones for site plan amendment to permit occupancy of a restaurant, office use and retail area within the approved Chime Street Plaza (Retail Center). The subject site is located on the southeast corner of Chime Street and Stadium Drive (6547 Stadium Drive) and is within the "C" Local Business District Zoning classification.

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

Mr. West questioned whether there was indeed a taper or deceleration lane at the Stadium Drive access point. Mr. Jones stated that there is a deceleration lane for eastbound Stadium Drive traffic but that at the present time it was filled with snow. Mr. West noted corrections to his report and stated that the options for changes to access presented in the report should be: (1) to close the Stadium Drive access with parking lot modifications to increase throat length of the Chime Street access drive and (2) to modify to a two, one-way-drive access arrangement. However, he also noted that, subsequent to the writing of the Planning and Zoning report, Fire Department review was conducted and the Fire Department objected to the modification of the access arrangement so as to eliminate one drive or create two, one-way drives. The Fire Department felt that either option would cause concern. They were especially concerned about eliminating the Stadium Drive access point, feeling that to do so would inhibit the ability to access (ingress and egress) the site.

Mr. West questioned the applicant with regard to the measurement from the edge of the flower shop to the edge of the asphalt at the site as shown on the plan. He stated that he had measured the site and it was not 72' as indicated on the plan but was approximately 64'. Mr. West felt that therefore it was important that the applicant submit a revised site plan showing the appropriate scale and dimensions. The redrawing of the plan to scale and with appropriate dimensions might result in the need to alter the parking lot to make sure that there was adequate aisle width. Mr. West noted that the applicant had proposed four parking spaces in excess of that which would be required, i.e., 58. Subsequent to the application, the applicant had determined that they would like to occupy the site prior to the completion of the site work, such as parking lot modifications and landscaping. Therefore, the applicant would be making application for variance approval.

The applicants were present and echoed the necessity for two drives at the subject site. Mr. Jones noted that the applicant is willing to revise the plan to show accurate dimensions and recognized this could possibly eliminate some parking. He stated that the new parking lot arrangement could be established by the end of May. The applicant planned to slurry seal and stripe the parking lot so as to avoid bleed-through from old striping.

There was discussion of proposed variance, and it was stated that it could likely be heard on February 23, 1998.

The Chairperson stated that, in view of the concerns of the Fire Department, the existing drive arrangement would be justified.

Mr. Brodasky questioned the applicant with regard to the dumpster location. Mr. Jones responded that the current location would remain in place, and this was identified at the northeast corner of the site. Mr. West indicated that the storage shed at the site was also not reflected on the plan and should be added.

The Chairperson questioned the applicant with regard to the parking spaces located on the south side of the site, which were diagonal. The applicant responded that they had been placed in a diagonal manner to allow for better maneuverability. The Chairperson felt that, given these angled spaces, it was important that car traffic be allowed to circle the building. It was felt that the position of the shed and dumpster might prevent this traffic movement. Therefore, the shed and dumpster should be relocated to allow for vehicle traffic. It was recognized that truck traffic would not be able to access this area in back of the building.

As to landscaping, the applicant indicated that the area currently landscaped would not be expanded but that the existing landscaping would be "redone" with new fill and plantings. The Chairperson suggested that the applicant be consistent in its landscaping with the Village Focus Area plan.

There was discussion of throat-length requirements, and Mr. Bushouse stated he was concerned about increasing the throat length on Stadium Drive, which, in his opinion, would reduce visibility.

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

It was recognized that there was no way for the access arrangement to come into compliance with the spacing requirements of the Ordinance, at least for the Stadium Drive access point, short of closing the access drive.

After further discussion, Ms. Meeuwse moved to approve the site plan with the following conditions, limitations and notations:

(1) That the existing access arrangement, as proposed by the applicant, was reviewed and approved, recognizing that deviation from the Access Management Guidelines was necessary based upon Fire Department needs.

(2) That, as to parking, 58 spaces were required, and all spaces should be dimensioned at 10' x 20'.

(3) That all barrier-free parking comply with ADA and Michigan Barrier-Free Guidelines and be designated with signage and pavement logo.

(4) That a revised site plan, properly scaled and dimensioned, showing all features at the site including the proposed locations and dimensions of barrier-free parking spaces/ aisles, shed and dumpster, be submitted to Township staff for review and approval.

(5) That the shed located at the southeast portion of the site and the dumpster at the northeast portion be relocated so as to allow car/vehicle circulation around the back of the building.

(6) That the dumpster enclosure and location proposal be detailed and submitted to Township staff for review and approval.

(7) That no changes to exterior lighting had been proposed but that any modifications to existing site lighting be provided in compliance with the lighting guidelines set forth in Section 78.700 and a lighting proposal be detailed and submitted to Township staff for review and approval.

(8) That all changes in signage comply with Sections 76.125 and 76.135 and be reviewed and approved through the permit process.

(9) That a landscape plan for the subject site consistent with the streetscape goals/ objectives of the Village Focus Area Development Plan was recommended and should be submitted to Township staff for review and approval.

(10) That it was recognized the applicant planned to request variance with regard to occupancy prior to completion of all site items.

(11) That approval was subject to the review and approval of the Township Fire Department.

(12) That issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed change in use was contingent on final inspection/approvals from the Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Fire and Planning and Zoning Departments to insure compliance with all applicable standards, regulations and conditions.

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


There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.