CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 1998
MINUTES

PRESENT: Francis Marella, Chairperson
                        Carole L. Schwartz, Vice-Chairperson
                        Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
                        Joann Granata
                        Michael Nickerson
                        Ramon C. Young
                       

ABSENT:        Paul D. Woodring (Excused)

STAFF:        Michael P. Howell, Community Planner II
                        DEPT. OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Marella called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. He noted that one member of the Board is absent and that determination of the variance requests will be based on a majority vote of the membership, which amounts to a minimum of four votes.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. Marella requested that the approval of the report of the January 21, 1998 meeting be moved to Item #6 on the agenda and that a discussion of a proposed supplemental page to the Board of Appeals application regarding communications towers be added as Item #5.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, to approve the agenda as revised. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Bill Quinlan, of Quinlan Associates, 31325 Harper Avenue, St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082, architect for this project and representative to the petitioner, explained that last year the petitioner received site development approval to expand the restaurant into the last retail area of the building; however, he decided that since a lot of money would be spent on providing the required parking and improvements for such a small addition, it would be more feasible to construct a new building adjacent to the Goodyear building. Mr. Quinlan further explained that once this new construction is completed, they will be remodeling the existing restaurant for retail use. He informed that they are requesting a ten-foot side yard setback and greenbelt along the east property line. Mr. Quinlan acknowledged that when the Goodyear building was constructed, the ordinance permitted its location on the lot line; however, the ordinance has since been changed and that requires a minimum distance of twenty feet between buildings, which creates a hardship for the petitioner. He added that the 15 Mile Road right-of-way has been expanded and takes an additional 27 feet of their property, and he noted that the property to the rear of the subject parcel is zoned for parking, which means they cannot use that parcel for their building. These requirements now make it a very shallow parcel to work with.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the petitioner completed the remodeling which was approved by the Township Board last year.

Mr. Quinlan replied that the petitioner chose not to complete the remodeling as proposed because of the large investment for a relatively small addition. Mr. Quinlan explained that the existing building is 3,500 square feet total, which includes the last retail area of the building which was recently incorporated in the revised site plan as the addition to the restaurant. If they construct a "stand-alone" building as proposed, they will have 4,180 square feet and they feel it would be a better-looking restaurant because the original restaurant occupied retail space.

Mr. Young inquired as to whether the petitioner was previously before this Board for a parking variance.

Mr. Quinlan replied that the petitioner came before this Board last year for a parking variance at the time he planned to renovate the existing restaurant.

Mr. Young felt that the petitioner is experiencing a hardship because, although they are trying to adhere to the ordinance requirement of a ten-foot side yard setback, the Goodyear building being located on the property line forces the petitioner to maintain a twenty-foot side yard setback. He felt this is a hardship to the petitioner.

Ms. Schwartz acknowledged that this Board has faced this situation at other times, but she felt that the new ordinance requirements should be followed even though the petitioner considers it a hardship. She suggested that the petitioner "make-do" with the existing 3,500-square-foot building.

Mr. Quinlan commented that once the petitioner had an approved revised site plan to renovate the existing building, he realized that he was going to great expense for improved landscaping, development costs, etc., and he would still have an old building. He was not sure whether he would ever recover the costs of renovation, and therefore decided to construct a new building. Mr. Quinlan felt the proposed plan is an improvement to the community.

Ms. Schwartz reminded that monetary reasons do not constitute a hardship for this Board.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether Mr. Quinlan has discussed the proposed plans with the owner of the Goodyear building and what his feelings are on this matter.

Mr. Quinlan recalls that the matter was discussed with the adjacent property owner but he does not know whether there were any objections. Mr. Quinlan replied to inquiry that they previously needed a parking variance for the existing building because a restaurant requires more parking spaces than a retail use. He replied to inquiry that they have no prospective tenants for the existing building at this time, but once the new building is complete, the petitioner plans on renovating the existing building for retail use.

Mr. Campbell commented that the ability of providing parking to the rear of the proposed building would be an improvement.

Mr. Quinlan replied to inquiry that there are no windows on the wall facing the Goodyear building.

Mr. Don Porshe, 42160 Toddmark Place, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, owner of the Goodyear store, felt that the proposed restaurant would enhance the 15 Mile Road area; however, he expressed concern regarding safety issues in case of a fire. He replied to inquiry that his building measures approximately 50 feet by 150 feet. He replied to further inquiry that he purchased the building from John Ruggero in 1981.

Mr. Campbell questioned as to whether there are specific building requirements when they are in such close proximity to each other.

Mr. Howell replied that there are certain building codes which must be met, such as providing one-hour fire resistant walls. He indicated that this would be referred to the Fire Marshall, and they would make sure that the required codes are met.

Ms. Granata reminded that this Board can grant a variance, but the plans have to go through the site development process and specific requirements would be reviewed at that time.

Mr. Young stated that he met with the Building Department regarding this issue that they feel that Fire Department requirements have been satisfied on this plan. He agreed with Ms. Granata that this plan will have to be reviewed and go to the other Commissions and Boards for final approval.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether the ten feet between buildings will allow for adequate access by the Fire Department.

Mr. Howell replied that the Fire Department stated they need access around buildings and that is why the ordinance requirement was changed from the previously-allowed zero-foot side yard setback. He further replied that although the Fire Department may prefer a twenty-foot distance between buildings, they can access the rear of the property within a ten-foot distance.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5160 and application from Bill Vasilos, Roseann’s Kitchen, 21360 15 Mile Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by William S. Quinlan, Quinlan Associates, 31325 Harper Avenue, St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01-r, Land Use Regulations: Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Footnotes to Chart; Minimum Side Yard Setback Requirements in the B-1 Neighborhood Business District, concerning Lots 22 through 35 and Lots 179 through 188, Gratiot City Subdivision (Sections 33/34), generally located fronting the south line of 15 Mile Road, west of Gratiot Avenue at 21360 15 Mile Road, that variance be granted to permit construction of a retail building and a restaurant (Roseann’s Kitchen) in the B-1 Neighborhood Business District with east side yard setback from an existing building of ten (10) feet being ten (10) feet less than the required twenty (20) feet; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon the existing building being occupied with a retail use, and if the use is other than retail, then the petitioner must come before this Board once again; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed hardship that the parcel is narrow and that the adjacent building is located on the lot line, which would require the petitioner to provide an even greater side yard setback; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Campbell, Young, Nickerson, Marella. Nay - Schwartz. Absent - Woodring. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Tony Roselli, 17474 Iris Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, introduced his architect, August Caringi, 38350 James, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036. Mr. Roselli explained that a few years ago, he received site development approval for Buildings A and B. He completed Building A; however, due to health and financial reasons, he did not complete Building B at that time. His health and financial problems have been resolved and he would like to construct Building B as previously approved. He noted that the ordinances have been changed since that time and although it was in compliance with previous ordinance requirements, it is not in compliance with the current requirements. Mr. Roselli felt it is important to build according to the previous plan to maintain continuity between the two buildings. He also stressed that all sanitary sewers and storm drains have been installed and cannot be relocated.

Ms. Granata reminded that monetary hardships cannot be considered by this Board. She agreed with Mr. Roselli, however, that the property is odd-shaped and it would be a good idea to maintain continuity between the two buildings. She had no objection to the variance request.

Mr. Roselli replied to inquiry that he was diagnosed with cancer a few years ago and that is the reason for the delay in building.

Mr. Marella emphasized that the ordinance requirements have been changed since the petitioner originally received approval for the site.

Mr. Young inquired as to why there is a zero-foot setback proposed from Groesbeck and he further inquired as to the specifications of the previous ordinance.

Mr. Howell replied to inquiry that although the Planning Department was unable to locate any record of a previous variance granted for the setback along Groesbeck Highway, the approved site development plan by the Planning Commission and Township Board indicated a zero-foot setback along Groesbeck.

Discussion took place regarding the requested rear yard setback.

Mr. Roselli replied to inquiry that he has not talked to the adjacent property owner southwest of the subject parcel.

Mr. Marella commented that if the rear yard setback variance is approved, it may be creating a bad situation for the abutting property owner because it will force him to build twenty-feet from the lot line rather than the ten feet as required, in order to maintain the required distance of twenty feet between the two buildings.

Ms. Schwartz agreed with the concerns voiced by Mr. Marella. She could understand granting approval of the front yard setback from Groesbeck in order to keep the two buildings consistent.

Mr. Roselli could not understand why he should be penalized at this time because he waited a few years to build. He stressed that "everything is in place" and was already approved. He again noted that the sewers and drains would be in the wrong place if he is forced to change his plans. Mr. Roselli explained that his original building was going to be approximately 7,000 square feet, but with the revised ordinance requirements for parking, he is losing about 1,000 feet. He emphasized that if he has to reduce the size of his building by another 1,000 feet, resulting in a 4,800 square foot building, it will not be feasible to develop.

Mr. Young suggested consideration of a possible solution. He felt that by moving the building five feet closer to Groesbeck Highway, Mr. Roselli can maintain the 6,000 square foot size. He commented that although the two buildings would not have identical setbacks from Groesbeck, they would be one hundred feet apart and he did not feel the five-foot difference would be noticeable. He also suggested a possible compromise on the rear yard setback.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to the zoning of the properties adjacent to the subject parcel.

Mr. Howell replied that the adjacent property was recently rezoned to industrial.

Mr. Larry Scott, attorney representing the owners of property southwest of the subject site, explained that he attended the meeting tonight with the intention of discussing a potential drainage problem with the petitioner after this meeting. After listening to the conversation, however, he felt he may be able to shed some light on the situation. He noted that there is a site plan for the adjacent property, although it has not yet been submitted to the Township. He added that he does not have it with him at this meeting. He suggested that if he had an opportunity to view the site plan, he would be able to determine whether there are any buildings proposed within 20 feet of the lot line. He added that if there are no buildings proposed within the 20 feet of the lot line, he would not have an objection to the variance request; however, if there are buildings within 20 feet of the lot line, the petitioner may have to come up with an alternative solution. Mr. Scott stressed that although he does not want to create a delay for the petitioner, he felt it is important to look at his client’s plans. He commented that if this Board grants the requested rear yard variance tonight and he later discovers that his client’s buildings are planned within 20 feet of the property line, he will be coming to this Board for a variance, claiming that they were responsible for creating the hardship.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Young, with reference to File #5165 and application from Antonio Roselli, 27474 Iris Court, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, as represented by August L. Caringi, 38350 James Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart; Minimum Front Yard Setback in the I-1 Light Industrial District and Chapter 1292.01-(r), Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and Footnotes to Chart; Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements; I-1 Light Industrial District and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(13)-B, Off-Street Parking and Loading; Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning 1.081 acres fronting the west line of Groesbeck Highway, south of Hall Road (M-59) (P.C. 139, Section 2), that further consideration of request for variance to permit construction of an additional building (Building #2, Triangle Industrial Park) in the I-1 Light Industrial District with: 1) Front yard setback from Groesbeck Highway of zero (0) feet being twenty-five (25) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; and 2) Six (6) frontage trees being twelve (12) trees fewer than the required eighteen (18) trees; and 3) Rear yard setback of zero (0) feet being ten (10) feet less than the minimum required ten (10) feet; and 4) Zero (0) parking lot trees being five (5) trees fewer than the minimum required five (5) trees, be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Board of Appeals or until the petitioner requests a special meeting; further, this matter is tabled to allow further review of the site plan and possible coordination with the site plan in process for the abutting property southwest of the subject site. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Young, Granata, Nickerson, Schwartz, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - Woodring. Motion carried.


6.05 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GRATIOT AVENUE AND METROPOLITAN PARKWAY (SECTION 22)
-- APPEAL: NORTHPOINTE PLAZA
FILE #5168: JOHN G. LIADIS
REPRESENTATIVE: MATTHEW D. BERKE, NU-VEST ASSOCIATES, INC.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Matthew Berke, Nu-Vest Associates, 29201 Telegraph Road, Suite 450, Southfield, Michigan 48034, explained that the way in which the development is structured on the parcel creates a hardship for some of the tenants. He pointed out that some of the tenants are afforded visibility, while others are not.

Mr. Howell replied to inquiry that the height and size of the existing sign exceeds current sign requirements; however, it was erected prior to the change in the sign ordinance. He explained that the petitioners are permitted two pylon signs measuring 100 square feet each, but it is up to the owners of the shopping center as to what they wish to advertise on these signs.

Richard Walter, 47180 Arbor Trail, representing the petitioner as the individual who will be constructing the signs, pointed out that there are currently two pylon signs at that location. He noted that on the "nice-looking sign", they do not have enough space to identify all of their tenants. He noted that 100 square feet sounds large when considering a rug in a living room; however, when considering a sign for a large shopping center, he felt 100 square feet is actually small.

Ms. Granata pointed out that every one of the businesses in Northpointe Plaza has a sign, many of them being neon with a stripe. She understood that the parcel is triangular in shape, but she maintained that signs which meet current ordinance requirements can adequately advertise the businesses in that center. Ms. Granata cited an office complex as an example, where the signs were effectively utilized to advertise the businesses.

Mr. Walter argued that signage needs differ greatly from commercial to office. He insisted that commercial businesses greatly depend on visibility, unlike an office complex where visitation is not as frequent.

Mr. Campbell cited the example of the sign at Garpointe Plaza (17 Mile and Garfield), a retail shopping center located on a corner, with the added visibility problem of another business being located directly on the corner, partially blocking their view. He stressed that they met the current sign requirements and yet were able to amply identify their tenants. Mr. Campbell commented that in 1997, there was a coordinated effort between the Township and the business owners along Gratiot Avenue to look closely at the new sign ordinance. As a result, a compromise was reached, permitting larger signs for developments on roads with larger rights-of-way, such as Gratiot Avenue. He indicated that there were very specific conditions written into the sign ordinance. He closely read the wording of the ordinance with regards to this petition and did not see where these requirements were met.

Mr. Young felt the sign ordinance is very liberal, especially in comparison to ordinances in other communities.

Mr. Berke cited Jenny Craig as an example of their hardship. He noted that the Jenny Craig Weight Loss Center fronts Metropolitan Parkway and is not visible from Gratiot Avenue. He explained that by the time a prospective client notices them, they are already on Metropolitan Parkway and must then find a way to turn around. He insisted that the tenants need visibility on the pylon sign.

Mr. Marella noted that he has visited the subject site and at times has experienced difficulty in locating a parking place. He could see no evidence that the tenants are lacking for business, and added that the current signs "must be doing their job".

Mr. Walter pointed out one of their hardships in the fact that although they are on a corner parcel, they only have access from Gratiot. He felt that when someone is trying to find a business and cannot locate it until they are on Metropolitan Parkway, they try to turn around and a safety issue is involved.

Ms. Granata suggested that the petitioner advertise only the name of the shopping center on the sign. She indicated that this has been done at locations in the past and it is up to the individual businesses, in their advertising, to point out they are located in the Northpointe Plaza Shopping Center at Metropolitan Parkway and Gratiot.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to why both pylon signs are facing north and south rather than one of them facing east and west.

Mr. Walter replied that the signs were in existence when they purchased the shopping center.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Young, with reference to File #5168 and application from John G. Liadis, 29201 Telegraph Road, Suite 450, Southfield, Michigan 48034, as represented by Matthew D. Berke, Nu-Vest Associates, Inc., same address, for variance to Clinton Township Building and Housing Code, Chapter 1488.02-(c)-(1)-B-1; Definitions and Restrictions; "Business Sign; Pylon Sign" and Chapter 1488.02-(c)-(1)-B-2; Definitions and Restrictions; "Business Sign; Pylon Sign", concerning 6.05 acres located at the northwest corner of Gratiot Avenue and Metropolitan Parkway, aka 37005 through 37125 Gratiot Avenue (P.C. 138, Section 22), that request for variance to permit additions to an existing pylon sign for a shopping center abutting a thoroughfare with right-of-way greater than 120 feet (Northpointe Plaza located at the northwest corner of Metropolitan Parkway and Gratiot Avenue) in the B-3 General Business District with: 1) Display area of 160 square feet being 60 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 100 square feet; and 2) Height of 27 feet being 9 feet in excess of the maximum permitted 18 feet; be denied by reason that no practical difficulty or hardship was presented. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Young, Schwartz, Campbell, Nickerson, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - Woodring. Motion carried.

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there were no written replies received in response to the mailing of the Notice of Public Hearing to the owners and occupants within 300 feet of the land in question.

Bill Thompson, Lehner Associates, Inc., 22900 Wellington Crescent, Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043, explained that he is here in place of Mr. Jerry Seay, who is home with the flu. Mr. Thompson noted that the site development plans for Walgreens began last July or August. He commented that they have to provide for a 33-foot road right-of-way along Northbound Gratiot Avenue and a 66-foot road right-of-way along Southbound Gratiot Avenue. He added that they petitioned to have 27 feet of road right-of-way vacated along Wellington Crescent, but in January, were informed by the Road Commission that they would only vacate 17 feet of the required 27 feet. Mr. Thompson stated that as a result, they have reduced the size of the building slightly and he offered to eliminate the sidewalk along the front of the building, which would reduce the size of the variance being requested, but he stressed that they are running into difficulty in providing a greenbelt on three sides of the property.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to whether the petitioner has gone to the Township Board for a sidewalk waiver.

Mr. Thompson clarified that he was referring to the sidewalk along their building and not the required sidewalk.

Mr. Campbell stated he would rather see a larger variance rather than sacrificing the sidewalk along the building. He felt that a lack of a sidewalk would result in customers walking in the maneuvering lane to gain access to the building, and it would become a safety issue.

Ms. Granata agreed with Mr. Campbell’s suggestions to grant a larger setback variance from Wellington Crescent in order to maintain the sidewalk.

Mr. Campbell acknowledged that developing on a parcel fronting three streets and trying to meet three setback requirements creates a difficult situation. He felt that what the petitioner is proposing will be an asset to the community.

Mr. Nickerson inquired as to whether one building will be facing Wellington Crescent.

Mr. Thompson clarified that there will be only one building on this parcel and it will be facing Wellington Crescent.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5170 and application from Midwest Mount Clemens Limited Partnership, 3315 North 124th Street, Suite E, Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005, as represented by Jerry Seay, Jerry M. Seay, P.C., 16931 Nineteen Mile Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, and Bill Thompson, Lehner Associates, 22900 Wellington Crescent, Mt. Clemens, Michigan 48043, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart; Minimum Front Yard Setbacks in the B-3 General Business District, concerning 1.5061 acres generally located fronting the south line of Wellington Crescent, east of Gratiot Avenue at 22900 Wellington Crescent, that variance be granted to permit construction of a retail building (Walgreens Drug Store) on a parcel abutting more than one public thoroughfare in the B-3 General Business District with front yard setback from Wellington Crescent of eighteen (18) feet being seven (7) feet less than the minimum required twenty-five (25) feet; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that this property abuts three thoroughfares; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Granata, Nickerson, Schwartz, Young, Marella. Nay - None. Absent - Woodring. Motion carried.

Mr. Campbell explained that he drafted a supplemental page to go with the Board of Appeals application in the cases regarding communications towers. He noted that, in the past, variance requests for communications towers have resulted in many standard questions being asked of the petitioner with regards to co-locating, future plans, etc. It was discussed at a couple of previous meetings by this Board and it was determined that in order to facilitate the process, it would be helpful to this Board to be provided with additional information on a supplemental sheet so they may review it prior to the meeting. He requested comments or suggestions for any changes to this sheet that the Board members felt may be advantageous.

Mr. Marella commented that Item #3 on the sheet is very important and he thought the supplement was a good idea.

Ms. Schwartz inquired as to whether there is anything on the sheet indicating that the petitioner has tried to co-locate.

Mr. Campbell replied that Questions #5 and #6 address that issue.

Motion by Ms. Schwartz, supported by Mr. Campbell, to direct the Planning Department to implement Mr. Campbell’s draft as a supplemental page to the Board of Appeals Application when the variance concerns communications towers; further, this direction is subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development. Motion carried.

Ms. Schwartz requested the following change to the report:

Page 15, Last Paragraph:

Change from: "Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Ms. Harris,..."
Change to: "Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Young,..."

Mr. Young requested the following change to the report:

Page 6, Paragraph 7, Lines 13-14:

Change from: "...and the fact that the entrance to the site is not on Gratiot Avenue. Roll Call Vote:..."
Change to: "...and the fact that the entrance to the restaurant is going to be off of the Quinn Road side on the south side of the building and not off of Gratiot Avenue as it is today. Roll Call Vote..."

He also requested that a superseding letter be sent to the petitioner.

Mr. Campbell requested the following change to the report:

Page 3, Paragraph 6, Line 1:

Change from: "Motion by Mr. Woodring, supported by Ms. Schwartz..."
Change to: "Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Schwartz..."

He also requested that a superseding letter be sent to the petitioner.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, to approve the report of the January 21, 1998 Meeting as amended. Motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Mr. Nickerson, supported by Mr. Campbell, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:03 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS