Interstate Capital Director of Engineering Jason Raleigh (left) and Darius Udrys, Director of Communications for Interstate Capital, review a proposed development in Charleston Township at a rezoning change request public hearing May 26 at the Charleston Township Hall.
(Photo by Bruce Rolfe)
By Bruce Rolfe
The Charleston Township Planning Commission unanimously recommended the township board deny a petition request by Interstate Capital to rezone part, or all of a parcel of land for a proposed development project in Charleston Township at a public hearing May 26.
Planning Commission members Don Kramer and Joan Orman were absent.
Charleston Township attorney Robert Thall said the denial will go back to the Charleston Township Board to accept the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the rezoning request or send it back to the Planning Commission.
Interstate Capital is proposing a development project at the corner of 40th Street and L Avenue and on L Avenue in Charleston Township.
The plan calls for developing 79.94 acres at the corner of 40th Street and L Avenue and consideration of re-zoning all of 77.69 acres on L Avenue, east of the property at the corner of 40th and L Avenue. which would be part of the development.
Interstate Capital would like to purchase the two parcels but is requesting the zoning be changed on one of the parcels before the purchase is finalized.
The property at the corner of 40th Street and L Avenue is currently zoned light industrial. The applicant would like the township to consider re-zoning the entire eastern 77.69 acres from agriculture to light industrial.
Interstate Capital Director of Engineering Jason Raleigh said Interstate Capital has a master plan to deliver two, 500,000 square foot buildings with the ability to expand up to approximately 850,000 square feet to meet users operational needs.
Darius Udrys, director of communications for Interstate Capital, said the two clean, modern buildings that would be leased out to companies, will be an approximately $80 million investment.
Udrys said Interstate Capital’s research relied on areas where the development could be located. He said the company needed a little more room to make the development that would take place in the parcel already zoned light industrial, economically viable. He said the township master plan designates that area for industrial development.
Udrys adds the township’s master plan also indicates further industrial development should be encouraged to locate in that area rather than piece meal throughout the township.
Planning Commission Chairman Tim Vosburg said there were three letters given to the Planning Commission opposing the project,
Wayne Carlson, who lives in the Lakeview Meadows subdivision, presented the Planning Commission a supporting document from the Board of the Lakeview Meadows Association opposing the rezoning request and a resident petition containing the names of 58 local residents opposing the development.
After Udrys and Raleigh offered a brief explanation of the proposed development, public comments were heard.
All public comments with the exception of one, were opposed to the development.
Public comments against the proposed developement focused on the view for local residents, excessive traffic, noise, bright lights at night, a reduction in property value and a desire to maintain a natural quiet atmosphere.
“I think it’s wonderful that you want to give and do it. Charleston could use the money. But we came here because we wanted nature. They’re taking it away,” said Charleston Township resident Ann Nieuwenhuis.
Some felt the development could discourage people from developing any lots that still remain for sale in the Lakeview Meadows housing sub division, potentially meaning less tax revenue for the township.
Some in the audience felt with the proposed development already being marketed, home values in the area where the proposed development would be located are being lowered by appraisers and buyers.
Linda Behnke, who lives in the Lakeview Meadows subdivision reviewed several talking points why she opposed the proposed development. She feels the proposed development conflicts with the township’s master plan. She said one policy in the township’s Master Plan protects residential areas from non-residential development.
Behnke was also concerned with ground water risks.
She said the township’s future land use map shows the Township’s wellhead protection area overlays a portion of the parcel proposed to be rezoned.
Behnke said the proposed site is less than a mile from established residential subdivisions in the Long Lake, Portage Lake, and Blue Lake area. She said nearly all residences in the affected area, including the Long Lake and Blue Lake neighborhoods, have certified private wells drawing from the same shared aquifer.
Udrys felt the petition and supporting document submitted by the Lakeview Meadows Association contained “misinformation, baseless insinuations, and some flat-out untruths flung our way.”
“As a company that seeks to be a good neighbor and sees its developments as long-term commitments, we like to work in communities that welcome the opportunities we offer—good-paying jobs, tax revenue, population growth. It is not our policy to ride roughshod into communities where we are not welcome or wanted,” said Udrys.
Udrys said the development Interstate Capital is proposing could create 200-400 jobs.
The director of communications said the township would benefit financially when Interstate Capital becomes users and payers for hookup into the township’s water system.
However there would be an opportunity for additional revenue because water infrastructure will be extended to subdivision lots that border the proposed development on the eastern side. He said Interstate Capital would be contributing substantially to the cost of that infrastructure.
Udrys feels having water available at the border of the subdivision should have a positive effect on property values with the potential for additional users.
While an estimate for how much additional tax revenue the proposed development would generate was not available, Raleigh felt there would be a significant increase generated by the economic activity.
“Looking at construction overall, if you compared Target’s construction side and their equalized value, they’re roughly 10 million. Looking at what we have and what we’re proposing, we anticipate being close to double that. We anticipate investing between 40 to 60 million dollars, if not greater,” said Raleigh.
“Our managing partner said that entire subdivision (Lakeview Meadows) could be developed and would not equal the amount of tax revenue that we will bring in with those two industrial buildings that we propose,” adds Udrys.
Udrys said the project will benefit the local economy. He said market and Interstate Capital’s own experience show healthy demand for industrial space, so when suitable industrial buildings go up, there is no trouble finding tenants.
Derrick Wissner, a commercial real estate broker with Callander Commercial out of Kalamazoo and connected with selling the property, was the only person who spoke in favor of the development. He felt the project would bring a tremendous amount of tax revenue.
He said a denial of the rezoning request still leaves the parcel of land that is zoned light industrial, meaning “the next developer might come along and by right, be able to build whatever they want.”
“You know these guys have a very modern concept that frankly the market demands right now. I know of no site that’s large enough to fit what the market’s calling for right now anywhere close to I-94,” said Wissner.
Raleigh said there will be no entrances or access points to the new development on L Avenue. An entrance would be cut in on 40th Street.
Udrys said a standard tax abatement would be requested as part of the development.
Township attorney Robert Thall pointed out the Planning Commission should just consider the zoning application. He said the purchaser could alter their intent for the land after it is sold and even sell it for something that would be used on the property entirely different then what was proposed.
He also advised the board about a conditional rezone where the developer commits to certain development features. If the property is rezoned then the developer is bound to the conditions recorded on the property.
Thall said the Planning Commission should take multiple things into consideration regarding compliance to the master plan and the rezoning request.
He said the Planning Commission should consider all uses in the proposed zoning district.
He said the Planning Commission would have to determine if the proposed development is appropriate for that location at this time.
Thall said the developer could choose to come back with a conditional rezone request.
Another item of consideration the township attorney said the Planning Commission should consider is consistency with zoning in the general area and consistency and compatability for general land use patterns in the area.
“Would it allow a use that would be compatible and consistent with existing development in the area,” said Thall.
Other things Thall suggested the Planning Commission should consider included suitability of the proposed uses in the zoning district, adequacy of public services that are available to develop at an I-1 site, and is there adequate traffic access to the development site.
The township attorney adds the Planning Commission should determine whether the land could be used reasonably under the current district without rezoning the parcel.
He adds the Planning Commission should also determine if there is an identifiable public need for what the property would be proposed to be used for at the rezoned location.
He said citizen opposition should be taken into consideration, but warned courts have determined “that’s not a really legal standard.”
“Yes, you should take public comment into consideration but at the same time, it they need to meet the criteria for rezone and you deny it just because there’s citizen comment, you’ll lose in court on that,” explained Thall.
Planning Commission member Brian Moravic said a few years ago the Planning Commission considered a request to rezone the parcel from agriculture to light industrial and the request was denied.
He adds the Planning Commission reviewed the location again as part of the township’s master plan and chose to leave the parcel agricultural.
“Because we have one subdivision in all of Charleston Township and it just happens to be that (Lakeview Meadows) subdivision. So it’s not consistent with our master plan.
It doesn’t fit into the local area, the surrounding communities. I think the points that you (attorney Thall) brought up, we’re on fairly firm ground not to go along with the proposal as it’s currently submitted,” said Moravic.
Raleigh said the company did consider splitting the parcel zoned agriculture. He said when considering the existing 77 acre property that is zoned light industrial there were two obstacles. He said an overhead power line cuts through the middle and turns into the subdivision. He adds there is also an oil pipeline that cuts through the southern third of the property. The two obstacles prevented the company from constructing a viable building into the I-1 parcel, creating the need to request a zoning change.
“The reason we submitted our plans to the community is because we’re committing to those plans, which would include a 260-foot ‘green zone’ natural buffer and additional setbacks on the east side of the parcel. Whatever legal procedures need to be taken to get that (the development) firmed up, we’re willing to do that,” adds Udrys.
The Charleston Township Planning Commission unanimously recommended the township board deny a petition request by Interstate Capital to rezone part, or all of a parcel of land for a proposed development project in Charleston Township at a public hearing May 26.
Planning Commission members Don Kramer and Joan Orman were absent.
Charleston Township attorney Robert Thall said the denial will go back to the Charleston Township Board to accept the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the rezoning request or send it back to the Planning Commission.
Interstate Capital is proposing a development project at the corner of 40th Street and L Avenue and on L Avenue in Charleston Township.
The plan calls for developing 79.94 acres at the corner of 40th Street and L Avenue and consideration of re-zoning all of 77.69 acres on L Avenue, east of the property at the corner of 40th and L Avenue. which would be part of the development.
Interstate Capital would like to purchase the two parcels but is requesting the zoning be changed on one of the parcels before the purchase is finalized.
The property at the corner of 40th Street and L Avenue is currently zoned light industrial. The applicant would like the township to consider re-zoning the entire eastern 77.69 acres from agriculture to light industrial.
Interstate Capital Director of Engineering Jason Raleigh said Interstate Capital has a master plan to deliver two, 500,000 square foot buildings with the ability to expand up to approximately 850,000 square feet to meet users operational needs.
Darius Udrys, director of communications for Interstate Capital, said the two clean, modern buildings that would be leased out to companies, will be an approximately $80 million investment.
Udrys said Interstate Capital’s research relied on areas where the development could be located. He said the company needed a little more room to make the development that would take place in the parcel already zoned light industrial, economically viable. He said the township master plan designates that area for industrial development.
Udrys adds the township’s master plan also indicates further industrial development should be encouraged to locate in that area rather than piece meal throughout the township.
Planning Commission Chairman Tim Vosburg said there were three letters given to the Planning Commission opposing the project,
Wayne Carlson, who lives in the Lakeview Meadows subdivision, presented the Planning Commission a supporting document from the Board of the Lakeview Meadows Association opposing the rezoning request and a resident petition containing the names of 58 local residents opposing the development.
After Udrys and Raleigh offered a brief explanation of the proposed development, public comments were heard.
All public comments with the exception of one, were opposed to the development.
Public comments against the proposed developement focused on the view for local residents, excessive traffic, noise, bright lights at night, a reduction in property value and a desire to maintain a natural quiet atmosphere.
“I think it’s wonderful that you want to give and do it. Charleston could use the money. But we came here because we wanted nature. They’re taking it away,” said Charleston Township resident Ann Nieuwenhuis.
Some felt the development could discourage people from developing any lots that still remain for sale in the Lakeview Meadows housing sub division, potentially meaning less tax revenue for the township.
Some in the audience felt with the proposed development already being marketed, home values in the area where the proposed development would be located are being lowered by appraisers and buyers.
Linda Behnke, who lives in the Lakeview Meadows subdivision reviewed several talking points why she opposed the proposed development. She feels the proposed development conflicts with the township’s master plan. She said one policy in the township’s Master Plan protects residential areas from non-residential development.
Behnke was also concerned with ground water risks.
She said the township’s future land use map shows the Township’s wellhead protection area overlays a portion of the parcel proposed to be rezoned.
Behnke said the proposed site is less than a mile from established residential subdivisions in the Long Lake, Portage Lake, and Blue Lake area. She said nearly all residences in the affected area, including the Long Lake and Blue Lake neighborhoods, have certified private wells drawing from the same shared aquifer.
Udrys felt the petition and supporting document submitted by the Lakeview Meadows Association contained “misinformation, baseless insinuations, and some flat-out untruths flung our way.”
“As a company that seeks to be a good neighbor and sees its developments as long-term commitments, we like to work in communities that welcome the opportunities we offer—good-paying jobs, tax revenue, population growth. It is not our policy to ride roughshod into communities where we are not welcome or wanted,” said Udrys.
Udrys said the development Interstate Capital is proposing could create 200-400 jobs.
The director of communications said the township would benefit financially when Interstate Capital becomes users and payers for hookup into the township’s water system.
However there would be an opportunity for additional revenue because water infrastructure will be extended to subdivision lots that border the proposed development on the eastern side. He said Interstate Capital would be contributing substantially to the cost of that infrastructure.
Udrys feels having water available at the border of the subdivision should have a positive effect on property values with the potential for additional users.
While an estimate for how much additional tax revenue the proposed development would generate was not available, Raleigh felt there would be a significant increase generated by the economic activity.
“Looking at construction overall, if you compared Target’s construction side and their equalized value, they’re roughly 10 million. Looking at what we have and what we’re proposing, we anticipate being close to double that. We anticipate investing between 40 to 60 million dollars, if not greater,” said Raleigh.
“Our managing partner said that entire subdivision (Lakeview Meadows) could be developed and would not equal the amount of tax revenue that we will bring in with those two industrial buildings that we propose,” adds Udrys.
Udrys said the project will benefit the local economy. He said market and Interstate Capital’s own experience show healthy demand for industrial space, so when suitable industrial buildings go up, there is no trouble finding tenants.
Derrick Wissner, a commercial real estate broker with Callander Commercial out of Kalamazoo and connected with selling the property, was the only person who spoke in favor of the development. He felt the project would bring a tremendous amount of tax revenue.
He said a denial of the rezoning request still leaves the parcel of land that is zoned light industrial, meaning “the next developer might come along and by right, be able to build whatever they want.”
“You know these guys have a very modern concept that frankly the market demands right now. I know of no site that’s large enough to fit what the market’s calling for right now anywhere close to I-94,” said Wissner.
Raleigh said there will be no entrances or access points to the new development on L Avenue. An entrance would be cut in on 40th Street.
Udrys said a standard tax abatement would be requested as part of the development.
Township attorney Robert Thall pointed out the Planning Commission should just consider the zoning application. He said the purchaser could alter their intent for the land after it is sold and even sell it for something that would be used on the property entirely different then what was proposed.
He also advised the board about a conditional rezone where the developer commits to certain development features. If the property is rezoned then the developer is bound to the conditions recorded on the property.
Thall said the Planning Commission should take multiple things into consideration regarding compliance to the master plan and the rezoning request.
He said the Planning Commission should consider all uses in the proposed zoning district.
He said the Planning Commission would have to determine if the proposed development is appropriate for that location at this time.
Thall said the developer could choose to come back with a conditional rezone request.
Another item of consideration the township attorney said the Planning Commission should consider is consistency with zoning in the general area and consistency and compatability for general land use patterns in the area.
“Would it allow a use that would be compatible and consistent with existing development in the area,” said Thall.
Other things Thall suggested the Planning Commission should consider included suitability of the proposed uses in the zoning district, adequacy of public services that are available to develop at an I-1 site, and is there adequate traffic access to the development site.
The township attorney adds the Planning Commission should determine whether the land could be used reasonably under the current district without rezoning the parcel.
He adds the Planning Commission should also determine if there is an identifiable public need for what the property would be proposed to be used for at the rezoned location.
He said citizen opposition should be taken into consideration, but warned courts have determined “that’s not a really legal standard.”
“Yes, you should take public comment into consideration but at the same time, it they need to meet the criteria for rezone and you deny it just because there’s citizen comment, you’ll lose in court on that,” explained Thall.
Planning Commission member Brian Moravic said a few years ago the Planning Commission considered a request to rezone the parcel from agriculture to light industrial and the request was denied.
He adds the Planning Commission reviewed the location again as part of the township’s master plan and chose to leave the parcel agricultural.
“Because we have one subdivision in all of Charleston Township and it just happens to be that (Lakeview Meadows) subdivision. So it’s not consistent with our master plan.
It doesn’t fit into the local area, the surrounding communities. I think the points that you (attorney Thall) brought up, we’re on fairly firm ground not to go along with the proposal as it’s currently submitted,” said Moravic.
Raleigh said the company did consider splitting the parcel zoned agriculture. He said when considering the existing 77 acre property that is zoned light industrial there were two obstacles. He said an overhead power line cuts through the middle and turns into the subdivision. He adds there is also an oil pipeline that cuts through the southern third of the property. The two obstacles prevented the company from constructing a viable building into the I-1 parcel, creating the need to request a zoning change.
“The reason we submitted our plans to the community is because we’re committing to those plans, which would include a 260-foot ‘green zone’ natural buffer and additional setbacks on the east side of the parcel. Whatever legal procedures need to be taken to get that (the development) firmed up, we’re willing to do that,” adds Udrys.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
