CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS
REPORT OF MEETING
APRIL 15, 1998
MINUTES

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

ABSENT:        Francis Marella, Chairperson (Excused)

STAFF:             Mark F. Miller, Assistant Director
        DEPT. OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Schwartz called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. She 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. She stated that, for this reason, anyone who desires to have their petition tabled until the next meeting is welcome to come forward at this time; however, no one responded to this offer. Ms. Schwartz explained that the documentation for each petition will be read by the secretary, the petitioner will be given an opportunity to add or clarify information and the public will be given an opportunity to speak in an orderly manner, after which time the public hearing will be closed and the Board members will have the opportunity to ask questions, discuss the matter and vote on the issue.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by Mr. Woodring, supported by Mr. Campbell, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried.



1.081 ACRES FRONTING THE WEST LINE OF GROESBECK HIGHWAY, SOUTH OF HALL ROAD
- REF: TABLED FROM 03/18/98 MEETING
-- APPEAL: TRIANGLE INDUSTRIAL PARK
FILE #5165: ANTONIO ROSELLI
REPRESENTATIVE: ANTONIO ROSELLI

Pertinent correspondence was read and entered into the record. Mr. Campbell indicated that there has been no change in the purpose of the request and no additional material received relevant to this request.

August Caringi, 38350 James Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, recalled that at the last meeting, there was some concern by the Board members about the proposed development adjacent to Mr. Roselli’s property. He explained that they have obtained a copy of a statement from the adjacent property owner indicating that he has no objection to the proposed zero-foot side yard setback. Mr. Caringi noted that they wish to construct the building on the property line in order to maintain continuity in the area and to make use of their odd-shaped parcel. He added that there would still be a distance of more than twenty feet between the proposed building and the future buildings on the adjacent property.

Mr. Campbell read the letter from the adjacent property owner, Groesbeck Pond L.L.C., dated April 9, 1998, indicating that they have no objections. He added that the letter was signed by Edward Gross.

Mr. Woodring recalled that at the last meeting, there was some concern that the petitioner had obtained a verbal approval from the adjacent property owner, indicating no objection to the proposed variance. He stated that at that meeting, this Board requested that the petitioner supply a letter signed by the abutting property owner indicating that he has no objection to the request for variance. Mr. Woodring felt the petitioner fulfilled his obligation and had no objection to the variance request.

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Woodring, 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 variance be granted 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; further, this grant of variance is based on the practical difficulty that the petitioner is attempting to maintain continuity in the area, and further, the odd shape of the property; further, this variance is granted on the basis that a letter has been submitted by the petitioner, upon request by this Board, signed by the abutting property owner, indicating that he has no objection to the variance as requested; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances.

Further discussion ensued prior to the roll call vote.

Ms. Schwartz questioned as to whether a covenant should be provided by the abutting property owner indicating that he will allow the petitioner access to his property to maintain the subject building.

Mr. Miller confirmed that the abutting property owner would have to grant Mr. Roselli the access or ability to go onto his property to maintain the portion of the building which is on the lot line, and stressed that although the Township can request that the petitioner seek this permission, it is out of their hands to enforce it.

Ms. Schwartz commented that she would still like to see a covenant.

Mr. Miller stated that he does not know what such a covenant could require.

Ms. Schwartz still felt there should be a signed covenant provided by Mr. Gross, the abutting property owner. She expressed concern that in the event of a fire, the emergency vehicles should have permission to enter onto the neighboring property.

Ms. Granata pointed out that this site development plan has to be approved by the Planning Commission, the Township Board and the various reviewing agencies, including the Fire Department. She felt that if they have a problem with the site, this will be indicated to the Planning Department prior to its submittal to the Planning Commission.

The Roll Call Vote took place at this time as follows: Aye - Granata, Woodring, Nickerson, Young, Campbell, Schwartz. Nay - None. Absent - Marella. 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.

David Mazur, 39999 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, attorney representing the petitioner, explained that the parcel is in a light industrial area on a dirt road which is poorly maintained. He indicated that the problem began in 1988 when the petitioner and his family purchased the property and received approval for their site plan. He noted that they constructed the building and although they never installed the fence as indicated on the site plan, they have been continuously using the property since that time, basically in compliance with the site plan as approved in 1988. Mr. Mazur commented that because of having to maneuver the large trucks on a poorly maintained road, they were not able to install the fence because they needed the additional room to maneuver. He informed that the petitioner has received violations issued from the Building Department. He complained that the neighboring businesses are also experiencing similar problems and that the business directly across the street has to use the petitioner’s property to maneuver his trucks. He indicated that the lack of maneuvering room has been a hardship for the petitioner and his business.

Mr. Miller requested the opportunity to comment due to the unusual circumstance. He noted that although there was an approved site development plan in 1988, the development was never completed according to that plan. Several items were not completed, some of which were proper screening and the parking area. He emphasized that the site plan of 1988 is not valid. Mr. Miller explained that since 1988, there have been new ordinance requirements. While open storage was permitted with no limits in 1988, the current zoning ordinance has limitations and that is one of the reasons the variance is being requested. He felt this site is close to being considered a "junkyard". He added that the Township’s Ordinance Enforcement Division has been involved with this site for a number of years.

Roberta Fortune, 35433 Hengesbach, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, explained that she lives on the street west of Cordelia and agreed with Mr. Miller’s comments that the subject site looks like a "junkyard". She disagreed with Mr. Mazur’s observation that the landscaping company located across the street has difficulty maneuvering their trucks onto their property.

Barbara Clark, 35493 Hengesbach, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, felt that the petitioner’s building is an eyesore and questioned how the petitioner got permission to build the way he did. She explained that at one time she owned the property adjacent to the subject site but has since sold it and is glad she did. She replied to inquiry that she still resides in the area but is located one street away. She felt the subject site is a disgrace to the neighborhood and should never have been permitted.

Ms. Granata could not see any hardship for the variance requested. She observed the site and noticed trucks maneuvering in and out of neighboring properties without any difficulty.

Mr. Nickerson requested clarification that in 1988, the petitioner obtained site plan approval and proceeded to build, but did not put up the required fence and maintained storage in areas which were not permitted.

Mr. Miller explained that the paving of certain areas, as indicated on the approved site plan, was not completed. He noted, however, that he was at the site on this date and the cement was about to be poured, although it was confirmed by Spalding, DeDecker and Associates, Inc., the Township engineering firm, that no permits had been pulled to pour the cement. Mr. Miller replied to inquiry that despite Ordinance Enforcement activity, the site has not been brought into compliance and the petitioner continues to store junk and debris.

Mr. Campbell commented that the copy of the document indicating Township approval in 1988 appears to be for a use other than the current use. He cited a letter written by the Planning Department, indicating that automobile repair facilities are not allowed in an I-1 zoning district and that is why there is an I-2 district. He felt the petitioner is operating an I-2 use in an I-1 district, and as a result, he could not see where this Board would have any basis to approve the variance request. He felt that to approve this would be allowing a "spot zoning".

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Campbell, with reference to File #5178 and application from Elmerico and Ada Iafrate, Elmara, Inc., c/o John Iafrate, 35443 Cordelia, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, as represented by David Mazur and Peter J. Lucido, 39999 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Chapter 1280.03-(b), I-1 Light Industrial District, Required Conditions; and Chapter 1292.01-(m), Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart and Footnotes to Chart; Minimum Front Yard Setback Requirements in the I-1 Light Industrial District; and Chapter 1292.01, Land Use Regulations; Schedule of Regulations Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area: Chart; Minimum Rear Yard Setback Requirements in the I-1 Light Industrial District, and Chapter 1296.02-(a)-(13)-B, Off-Street Parking and Loading: Space Layout Standards, Construction and Maintenance, concerning Lots 41 through 45, A. F. Hengesbach Subdivision (Section 26), generally located fronting the west line of Cordelia, north of 15 Mile Road at 35443 Cordelia, that variance request to permit continuance of an existing "construction yard" (Elmara, Inc.) in the I-1 Light Industrial District with: 1) Outdoor storage area occupying a front yard, a required rear yard and required side yard which is not permitted; and 2) Outdoor storage area of 22,500 square feet being 20,250 square feet in excess of the maximum permitted 2,250 square feet; and 3) Front yard setback for the outdoor storage area of zero (0) feet being 25 feet less than the required 25 feet; and 4) Zero (0) frontage trees being eleven (11) trees fewer than required; and 5) No 30"-high landscaped berm or masonry wall as required to serve as a screening buffer between a parking area and a thoroughfare; and 6) Zero (0) parking lot trees being two (2) trees fewer than required, be denied by reason that there is no practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and to approve would create a "spot zoning"; further, that this matter be referred to the Ordinance Enforcement division for follow-up on the existing violations. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Granata, Campbell, Nickerson, Woodring, Young, Schwartz. Nay - None. Absent - Marella. 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.

Mark Stolaruk, 1928 Star-Batt Drive, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309, the petitioner’s son, explained that the subject parcel is cut by a sanitary sewer easement, which is quite large. They are proposing to construct an upscale hotel, including a swim club and banquet facility. He noted that they currently have two hotels at other locations, but this site would be their premier center. He pointed out that because of the large sewer easement, they cannot utilize their entire parcel, and in order to make it a viable location for a hotel, they are requesting a variance to permit a taller building than what is allowed.

Steve Stolaruk, 1928 Star-Batt Drive, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309, assured that the hotel facility they are proposing will be upscale and impressive. He added that they plan to construct a swimming pool which will most likely be the largest pool in Macomb County, and they will offer swim club memberships to the facility.

Ms. Schwartz pointed out that economic hardships were listed on the application as the reason for the requested variance, and she informed that economic reasons cannot be considered by this Board for a variance.

Mr. Mark Stolaruk clarified that the hardship is the fact that the sanitary sewer easement limits the placement of the building and cuts down on the buildable area of the property.

Sol Cronn, 44253 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, noted that there are large trees on the property which he estimated to be approximately 200 years old. He could not see why these trees should be cut down to allow construction of a hotel. He inquired as to where the access road will be located.

Mr. Mark Stolaruk displayed the proposed site development plan and indicated where the access drive is anticipated.

Mr. Cronn noted that there is already excessive traffic in the area due to a nearby school and John Carlo’s site. He cited that when the Child Guidance Center was constructed, they were required to install a fence and greenbelt to act as a buffer to the abutting residential district, and he requested the same consideration between the subject site and his property if this is approved.

Mr. Miller replied to inquiry that the site development plan has not been fully reviewed by the Planning Department. He explained that the petitioner needs the height variance in order to make the project feasible and requested to come before this Board first for that reason. If the variance is granted, then the petitioner will go forward with the site development process. Mr. Miller replied to further inquiry that abutting property owners are not notified when an item is submitted to the Planning Commission for site development approval; however, he suggested that if anyone would like such notification, they can submit their names to the stenographer and the Planning Department will assure that notification is sent to them prior to the Planning Commission meeting.

[NOTE: THE FOLLOWING NAMES AND ADDRESSES WERE SUBMITTED AS REQUESTING NOTIFICATION OF THE DATE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WHEN THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS BEING CONSIDERED:

        Scott & Mariann Bell, 44181 Gratiot Avenue, Clinton Township, MI  48036
        Kenneth Card, 44091 Leeland Avenue, Clinton Township, MI 48036
        Arnold Hellner, 23537 Northport Drive, Clinton Township, MI 48036
        Jacques Beaudoin, 44425 North Gratiot, Clinton Township, MI 48036
        G. H. Martin, 23568 Northport Drive, Clinton Township, MI 48036
        Daniel Valentine, 23552 Suttons Bay, Clinton Township, MI 48036
        Joe Mijewski, 23605 Northport, Clinton Township, MI 48036
        Jane Jazonlich, 23585 Northport, Clinton Township, MI 48036
        Sol Cronn, 44253 Gratiot, Clinton Township, MI 48036
        Denzil Davey, 23557 Suttons Bay Drive, Clinton Township, MI 48036
        Anna Szymberski, 23565 Suttons Bay Drive, Clinton Township, MI 48036.

Jacques Beaudoin, 44425 North Gratiot, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, objected to the use of this property for a hotel. He felt it may attract "transient behavior".

Ms. Schwartz reminded that the only item being considered at this meeting is the height of the proposed structure and the actual site development plans will be reviewed by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. She added that a B-3 General Business zoning district permits a hotel.

Mr. Beaudoin stated he is opposed to the variance request for the additional building height. He felt there are safety factors involved, and he felt the excessive height will be a detriment to the resale value of the abutting property.

Mr. Mark Stolaruk disagreed that the hotel will be a detriment and noted that their other two locations, in Rochester Hills and Waterford, are very successful. He noted that they have neighborhood residents, including many senior citizens, who take advantage of their swim club. He added that the City of Troy has a contract with them to utilize their pool for various activities, and he noted that they even offer classes such as water aerobics.

Mr. Steve Stolaruk recalled that Mr. Beaudoin’s property is just north of the subject site and is currently for sale. He felt the hotel will increase the value of the abutting properties and that Mr. Beaudoin may be able to get the price he is asking for his property.

Mr. Woodring replied to inquiry that he is a member of the Planning Commission and confirmed that this site development plan did not yet come before them.

Ms. Granata stated she would feel more comfortable in considering this variance request if the site plan had been fully reviewed by the Planning Department. She felt, however, that there is a definite need for additional hotels in the area, with the number of functions in the Township, as well as the surrounding communities of Mount Clemens and Sterling Heights. Ms. Granata added that whether or not this is the proper location for a hotel, she did not know but felt that the Planning Department should review the plans prior to this Board considering the variance request.

Joe Majeski, 23605 Northpointe Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48036, representing the Board of Directors for Baypointe Condominiums, stated that they were surprised to see the amount of trees being cut down on the subject site. He recalled being told when he purchased his condominium that "no one would ever touch those trees because the environmentalists would not allow it". He expressed concern with the height of the proposed building. He felt it will cause drastic changes to the area. Mr. Majeski informed that their association looked into the possibility of purchasing a portion of land to be developed into a small park-like setting, but since they were told that "nothing would ever be developed" on the subject property, they did not feel it was necessary. He emphasized that the condominium owners are now afraid of what will be "at their back door".

Ms. Schwartz once again reminded the residents that the requested height variance is the only matter being considered tonight.

Mr. Majeski stated that their association is totally opposed to the requested height variance.

Mr. Young agreed with Ms. Granata and was hesitant to grant a height variance without the plan being reviewed. He noted that a variance goes with the land, and should this plan be denied by the Planning Commission for other reasons, the height variance would stay with the property. He felt that in the best interest of the community, a full review of the plans should be done first and if it is determined that a height variance is still necessary, then the matter should come before this Board.

Mr. Campbell noted that based upon the zoning map and the documentation from the Planning Department, it appears that this property is properly zoned for a hotel. He could not distinguish whether the entire proposed development is in a B-3 district.

Mr. Miller replied that portions of the proposed site are currently zoned I-1 and will be going before the Planning Commission and Township Board for rezoning to B-3.

Mr. Campbell inquired as to the location of the petitioner’s other two facilities.

Mr. Mark Stolaruk replied that they own the Concorde Inn (with a Lowe’s International Affiliation) at M-59 and Crooks in Rochester, and the Concorde Inn-Best Western at M-59 near the Pontiac Airport in Waterford.

Mr. Steve Stolaruk replied to inquiry that the access doors to the rooms will be interior.

Mr. Mark Stolaruk clarified that a hotel is defined as having interior access to the rooms, whereas a motel has exterior access to each room.

Mr. Campbell felt that hotels are superior to motels for that reason because they create less noise and afford more security. He stressed that the most logical structure for a hotel with interior access to each room is that of a vertical design. It provides shorter distances for patrons to walk and is a superior design. He agreed with Ms. Granata that the Township is in need of quality hotels. Mr. Campbell explained that when he considers a height variance, he looks at whether it might infringe on the adjacent property owners, and in this case, he does not feel there will be an impact on any views of the residents in the adjacent condominiums. He felt there is sufficient basis to grant the variance as requested.

Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. Young’s comment that the variance goes with the land; however, he felt that if the Board desires, a condition could be placed on a grant of variance which would restrict this variance approval for only this development. Mr. Miller replied to inquiry that the maximum 25-foot height requirement may not address the needs of this district, and he noted that residential homes are permitted to be 30 feet in height.

Mr. Woodring expressed concern with how North Gratiot is being developed, and he felt that property owners should be able to develop their land in accordance with the ordinances. He felt that a family exercise facility and hotel would be good for the neighborhood. He commented that the taller height will permit more open space on the property, which he felt is an asset. He was in favor of the variance request.

Mr. Young noted that a relative of his recently stayed at the Concorde Inn in Rochester and was very impressed. He added that the pool facility was very nice.

Mr. Mark Stolaruk explained that the facility in Rochester is the "prototype" and the proposed location will be their premier center, with a much larger pool.

Ms. Granata stated that she used to work with the Chamber of Commerce and confirmed that there is a need for quality hotels in the area. She stated no objection to the variance request as long as Mr. Woodring, a member of the Planning Commission, was comfortable with it.

Ms. Schwartz commented that the area surrounding the subject site is mainly comprised of older homes, most of them being three stories. She therefore felt that the proposed height of the subject development would not be out of order for the area and it will blend in with the neighborhood.

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Ms. Granata, with reference to File #5181 and application from Steve Stolaruk, Star-Batt, Inc., 1928 Star-Batt Drive, Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309, as represented by Mark Stolaruk, same address, for variance to Clinton Township Planning and Zoning Code, Section 1292.01, Schedule of Regulations; Maximum Building Height in the B-3 General Business District, concerning 7.50 acres generally located fronting the west line of Gratiot Avenue, south of Hall Road (M-59) (Section 1), that variance be granted to permit construction of a hotel and health club with a height of 52 feet which is 27 feet higher than the maximum allowed 25 feet; further, this grant of variance is contingent that it is only in effect as long as this property is occupied with a hotel; further, this grant of variance is based on claimed practical difficulty that the subject parcel is bisected by the sanitary sewer easement, which restricts the placement of the building; further, this variance is granted due to the fact that construction of a hotel of this design and height is in the best interest of the safety and security of the public; further, this grant of variance is contingent upon compliance with all other requirements of Township ordinances. Roll Call Vote: Aye - Campbell, Granata, Nickerson, Woodring, Young, Schwartz. Nay - None. Absent - Marella. Motion carried.

REPORT OF MEETING
-- MARCH 18, 1998

Mr. Campbell recalled that at the last meeting, there was mention of Ms. Granata being unable to attend, so he requested that the minutes reflect her being "excused".

Motion by Mr. Campbell, supported by Mr. Nickerson, to approve the report of the March 18, 1998 Meeting with the addition of "excused" following Ms. Granata’s name in the roll call vote. Motion carried.

Mr. Miller informed that the Department of Planning and Community Development is in the process of preparing an amendment to the zoning ordinance for a new zoning district which would require mutual access drives. He mentioned the request which was considered by this Board at their January meeting and legal opinion was requested. He inquired as to whether the fact that they are developing a new zoning district in an attempt to alleviate the problem would suffice at this point rather than obtaining a written letter from the attorney. He added that a moratorium has been placed on building in this area, but admitted that this moratorium may have to be extended for a short time until this new zoning district is established.

Mr. Woodring complimented the Planning Department for developing this ordinance and he felt that they have accomplished a great deal in this endeavor. He replied to inquiry that the developers of property along Groesbeck do not have to be consulted when revising this ordinance; however, one developer who was granted approval was already contacted.

Mr. Campbell recalled that he requested a legal opinion, but felt that the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance is essentially a legal opinion and would suffice.

Mr. Miller noted that the Planning Department has received an application to rezone property along Hall Road, between Garfield and Romeo Plank, from TR Technical Research to B-4, which requires mutual access drives. He added that Stu Evans may be developing at that location and that it may be a site where there will be only one or two driveways for the entire stretch of land along Hall Road between Garfield and Romeo Plank.

Ms. Granata felt that when business owners see how the mutual access drives work, the business owners along Garfield Road may gladly join with the abutting properties to provide mutual access drives and provide additional greenbelt. She felt it will be a great improvement to the area.

Discussion took place regarding the sign for the office building located at the northeast corner of Metropolitan Parkway and Utica Road and whether it is in compliance with the current ordinance requirements.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Ms. Granata, supported by Mr. Nickerson, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Campbell, Secretary
CLINTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF APPEALS