Planning Commission Minutes

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, July 16, 2007
Bloomfield Township Hall

I. ATTENDANCE:

PRESENT: Salz, Goldberg, Stefanes, Mintz, Swoboda, Reisinger, Stark

ABSENT: None

Staff Present: Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building Director, Christopher Gruba, Assistant Planner, Robin Carley, Development Coordinator

Mr. William Hampton, Township Attorney, was present.

Mr. Dave Payne, Township Supervisor, was present in the audience.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Motion was made by Swoboda, seconded by Reisinger and was unanimously supported to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June 18, 2007, as written.

YEAS: Salz, Goldberg, Stefanes, Mintz, Swoboda, Reisinger, Stark

NAYS: None

III. SITE PLAN REVIEW / REZONING:

A. Bloomfield Park (Township Portion) – New Construction

Mr. Salz updated the Planning Commission on the variances that were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 12, 2007, thus the return to the Planning Commission for site plan / rezoning review.

Ms. McCullough introduced the tabled proposal as submitted by Coventry II DDR Harbor Bloomfield Phase 1 LLC, for commercial development within Bloomfield Township on the northeasterly side of Telegraph Road, north of Square Lake Road, between Calico Corners at 1933 Telegraph Road and Uncle Ed’s Oil Change at 1995 Telegraph Road. The staff report, as provided to the Commissioners and the applicant, was reviewed by Ms. McCullough and submitted to the file. Ms. McCullough briefly highlighted the variances that were granted, including the concept of shared parking, subject to approval by the Township’s Traffic Consultant and the Township Board of Trustees. She noted that the variances that were granted, in total, were tied to the approval by the Joint Development Council for the portion of the project within the 425 Agreement Area. Ms. McCullough also noted the outstanding items still to be addressed by the applicant, including parking and traffic issues. The approval of the Wetlands Board was highlighted.

Mr. Salz asked for questions or comments from the Commissioners to Ms. McCullough.

There were no questions from the Commissioners to Ms. McCullough.

Mr. Salz asked for the presentation from Mr. Michael Labadie, the Township’s Traffic Consultant with Tetra Tech, Inc.

Mr. Labadie, commented on the progress to date made on the parking and traffic issues. He noted that revisions to the traffic impact study were still required to be submitted by the applicant before he could complete a thorough an accurate review of this project. Mr. Labadie reviewed his report dated July 11, 2007, as provided to the Commissioners and submitted to the file. This report was also previously provided to the applicant.

Mr. Labadie also reviewed the shared parking analysis, as submitted by the applicant, and noted that further revisions were also still required before he could complete a thorough and accurate review. Mr. Labadie reviewed his report dated July 12, 2007, as provided to the Commissioners and submitted to the file. This report was also previously provided to the applicant.

Mr. Salz asked for questions or comments from the Commissioners to Mr. Labadie.

Mr. Mintz commented on the last minute submittals made from the applicant to Mr. Labadie and the short time frame allowed for Mr. Labadie’s response.

Mr. Labadie acknowledged that more than once he was provided with last minute submittals, including information provided prior to tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Labadie also noted that revisions must still be provided for MDOT’s review and approval.

The Commission commented on the expected time frame for submittal and approval by MDOT of the traffic impact study. Stark questioned the capacity of the cinema and also questioned the number of parking spaces provided in the proposed parking buildings D, E, and F.

Mr. Salz asked for the presentation from the applicant.

Mr. Gary Ceepo, Senior Development Director for DDR, was present along with several members of the design team, including representation from Meachem and Apel Architects and Giffels Webster Engineering.

Mr. Ceepo reviewed a three page bullet point memo as provided for the Commissioners at the meeting and submitted to the file.

The memo addressed the following issues:

Mr. Ceepo asked for their Traffic Consultant, Mr. Rich Lansau of Walker Parker Traffic Consultants, to further address the shared parking issues.

Mr. Lansau reviewed the overall concept of shared parking, including time of day, day of the week and synergy of uses. He commented that the parking was addressing only the parking requirements for Phase I of the project. Travel distances from the various parking structures and lots to the retail uses were reviewed. He stated that he believed that the distribution of parking was acceptable throughout the site. Employee parking was also reviewed, including the issuance of parking cards to the employees.

Mr. Ceepo further addressed in detail the following issues, as referenced above, relative to Traffic Circulation, Departmental Reports, and Building Design and Lighting:

Mr. Salz asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commissioners to the applicant.

Mr. Salz asked for clarification of the travel distance from the proposed parking areas and if the parking was free.

Mr. Ceepo commented that all parking was paid parking.

Ms. McCullough noted that her previous staff report to the Planning Commission and provided to the applicant, dated May 17, 2007, included the required right-of-way widths regarding Friendship Circle.

Ms. McCullough also noted that Mr. Michael McCully, Fire Marshall, received last minute e-mails today, the day of this meeting, 07-16-07, at 3 P.M., from the applicant, asking for his approval on several issues. Mr. McCully’s response to the e-mail was read by Ms. McCullough and submitted to the file.

Ms. Stefanes commended Ms. McCullough and the Planning Department on their professionalism throughout this entire process and that the applicant had repeatedly submitted incomplete information on a last-minute basis.

Mr. Mintz commented that he is aware of numerous last minute submittals, including the last minute submittal / memo by Mr. Poland, the Developer’s Attorney, at tonight’s meeting. He did not appreciate the applicant taking advantage of the Township’s staff and of the Planning Commission. He commented that he is not inclined to make last minute reviews and approvals of last minute submittals. Mr. Mintz commented that the Township had a very effective process in place and that the applicant was responsible to provide complete and accurate information for review.

Mr. Salz asked for comments from Mr. Hampton, Township Attorney.

Mr. Hampton stated that the previously referenced draft agreement between Calico Corners and DDR must be submitted and reviewed by his office prior to any approvals granted by Bloomfield Township, noting that the Calico Corners site was also included in the shared parking analysis.

Mr. Hampton noted that the Right of Way width for Friendship Circle has been an ongoing issue and was previously included in Ms. McCullough’s staff report dated May 17, 2007. The right-of-way width for Friendship Circle was not addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 12, 2007.

Mr. Hampton stated that a motion to table would be in order.

Ms. Reisinger commented on the possible traffic back up along Telegraph Road, due to the amount of traffic stopped for entry into the Cinema and the adjacent restaurants. She expressed concern regarding the traffic issues that might be created on Telegraph Road that would require the attention of the Bloomfield Township Police Department.

Mr. Labadie noted that the traffic study had not yet delved into that much detail due to the need for traffic forecast issues still to be agreed upon. Mr. Labadie noted that the consultants and MDOT would definitely address this issue. Mr. Labadie also commented that the travel distance applied to both employees and users and that the Planning Commission must further consider this issue.

Dr. Goldberg commented that he was disappointed with the applicant’s numerous incomplete submittals to the Planning Commission for their review.

Ms. McCullough noted that the Planning Commission typically sees the approvals of all Township Consultants and Township Departments before they are asked to forward a site plan to the Township Board with a recommendation. To date, the applicant has not presented the necessary information to allow for the Planning Commission to take action, including the complete traffic study and shared parking analysis.

Mr. Payne, Township Supervisor, commented that this project has been ongoing for over six years, and that the traffic issues have always been one of the Township’s main concerns. He noted that the Township has been requesting a traffic impact study for numerous years and has still not received the necessary information.

Mr. Hampton stated that the Planning Commission could make a motion to table to a date certain, table indefinitely, or table until the applicant has provided an approved traffic impact study from MDOT.

The Commission discussed a possible motion to table with conditions to be met.

Mr. Salz recognized Mr. Doug Poland, Attorney with McShane & Bowie.

Mr. Poland, the applicant’s attorney, commented on the shared parking plan concept variance that was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 12, 2007, which he understood allowed for greater travel distances than 300 feet, as required by the Township’s parking ordinance. He also commented that he believed the shared parking variance that was granted also allowed for parking to be provided on property within the 425 Agreement area, outside of Bloomfield Township.

Mr. Salz commented that the traffic study must still be submitted and approved by our Consultants and MDOT, prior to the Planning Commission taking action. He commented that he felt the shared parking issue could be resolved.

Mr. Ceepo commented on the joint approval that was required for this overall project by both the Township of Bloomfield and the Joint Development Council.

Mr. Salz stated that the Planning Commission was always provided with approvals from the Township’s Departments, the Township’s Consultants, and MDOT when required, prior to forwarding the project to the Township Board of Trustees.

Dr. Goldberg stated that he would be remiss in his duties if he forwarded this project to the Township Board of Trustees in its incomplete state.

There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners.

Mr. Salz opened the public comment portion of the meeting.

There were no public comments and Mr. Salz closed the public hearing.

Mr. Salz called for a motion.

Motion was made by Goldberg, seconded by Stefanes, and was unanimously supported to table this request until the applicant submits a traffic impact study and a shared parking analysis approved by the Township and MDOT.

Mr. Salz called for a vote.

YEAS: Salz, Goldberg, Stefanes, Mintz, Swoboda, Reisinger, Stark

NAYS: None

Mr. Salz noted that the project was tabled until the applicant submitted the required information.

Mr. Stark asked to comment on the shared parking issue.

Mr. Salz allowed the comment.

Mr. Stark questioned if the Commission would be amenable to deviating from the 300 foot travel distance requirement of the Township’s ordinance.

Mr. Hampton commented that he did not recall that the Township had to address the 300 foot travel distance requirement with any recent projects.

Ms. McCullough commented that if the Township’s traffic consultant approved the shared parking plan, then perhaps the approval of the new shared parking requirements could include the concept of exceeding the 300 foot travel distance as currently stated in the Township’s parking requirements. She did not feel a variance would be required if the Commission accepted the shared parking plan, with the approval of the Township’s Traffic Consultant.

IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

A. Proposed Wind Energy System Ordinance

Ms. McCullough introduced this item to the Commissioners, and highlighted the proposed ordinance language, which was provided and submitted to the file. She reviewed several of the requirements, including minimum lot sizes, maximum height requirements, limiting sound levels, landscaping, and screening of the systems. Ms. McCullough also noted that only two zone districts were being considered - the single family residential district, and the light manufacturing district.

The Commission discussed the minimum lot size requirement of 5 acres and also the reference of commercial economic viability. They also noted that the single family residential zone districts included churches and schools and questioned if large towers should be allowed on these sites.

It was noted that there is a current House Bill in the State of Michigan addressing this issue, thus the need for the Township to take action.

Motion was made by Stark, seconded by Stefanes and was unanimously supported to call for a public hearing on Wednesday, September 5, 2007, for review and to receive public comment on the proposed Wind Energy System Ordinance.

YEAS: Salz, Goldberg, Stefanes, Mintz, Swoboda, Reisinger, Stark

NAYS: None

B. Proposed Mixed Use District Provisions

Ms. McCullough introduced this item to the Commissioners regarding the incorporation of a new mixed-use district ordinance. She reviewed the proposed provisions, including allowing for an increase in building height to allow for commercial, office and residential within one structure, with a shared parking requirement. Ms. McCullough noted that the owner of the office building at 37000 Woodward, southeast corner of Woodward and Big Beaver, was interested in renovating his building by proposing a mixed-use project. She commented that the newly adopted Master Plan called for a mixed-use district at this site.

The Commission discussed if allowing for a grander scale, including more floors of office and residential, might be more beneficial and serve as an economic incentive for

potential owners / developers.

Discussion followed regarding the sensitivity of increased building height within Bloomfield Township, especially adjacent to a residential zone district.

The Commission further discussed the amount of detail to be included in the mixed-use ordinance language, including the percentage of retail, office, and residential and which floor must be designated to each use.

Mr. Schubiner, Harbor Companies, commented that he has typically seen a requirement across the country for a minimum of two uses, as opposed to three, especially for small sites. He commented that typically the retail is on the first floor, with office or residential above. He cautioned the Commission on being too restrictive on regulating the number and amount of the proposed uses within one building or site.

Ms. McCullough commented that she would return to the Planning Commission with draft language, to be addressed with the review of the proposal for the project at 37000 Woodward Avenue.

C. Parking Study – Shopping Centers / Restaurants

Ms. McCullough reviewed the proposed draft document as provided to the Commissioners as a working ordinance amendment regarding the Township’s parking requirements and parking space layout.

Mr. Chris Gruba reviewed several of the Township’s shopping centers, including Bloomfield Plaza at the southwest corner of Telegraph Road and West Maple. The uses within Bloomfield Plaza were designated, including the amount of restaurant and entertainment uses. It was noted that the percentage of these uses exceeded 20 %, and would thus require a shared parking study to be submitted.

The parking requirements of several adjacent communities were applied to the Township’s requirements, noting that the Township’s parking requirements far exceeded the average requirements of most other communities.

It was noted that the Township Planning Department was recommending parking standards on a graduated scale, due to the size of the shopping center, with proposed ratios of 1:200 square feet of gross floor area, 1:225 square feet of gross floor area, and 1:250 square feet of gross floor area.

Ms. McCullough noted that Page 2 of the draft language highlighted these graduated ratios. She also noted that a combination of more intense uses within a single shopping center, such as assembly uses and restaurants, which exceeded 20 percent of the shopping center use, would require submittal of a parking study for review by the Township’s Traffic Consultant.

Ms. McCullough also commented on the specific requirements for a stand alone restaurant, a restaurant with a drive through, and a so-called "specialty use" or "specialty shop" type restaurant. She noted that specialty shops, such as a stand alone Starbucks or a stand alone ice-cream parlor, should be computed as retail parking.

Mr. Schubiner commended the Township on addressing this parking issue and commented on the parking requirements of Ann Arbor, including the adoption of maximum parking requirements to limit the amount / size of parking areas. He also commented on the need to address shared parking, with uses and hours of operation to be considered.

D. Items Not On The Agenda

Ms. McCullough noted that the Commissioners were provided the newly bound Chapter 42 (Zoning Chapter) of the newly adopted Bloomfield Township Code of Ordinances.

V. GENERAL BUSINESS:

The next Planning Commission meeting was scheduled for Monday, August 6, 2007.

VI. ADJOURNMENT:

The Planning Commission Meeting of Monday, July 16, 2007 was adjourned at 9:35 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia McCullough, Director

Planning and Building

rc

Home  |  Government  |  Services  |  Community  |  Current Events  |  Resources
Contact Us  |  E-mail List  |  Forms

Still can't find what you're looking for?
Use our comprehensive Search or Site Map pages!

Charter Township of Bloomfield
4200 Telegraph Road
P.O. Box 489
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303-0489
248.433.7700

Click here to report website technical issues.

Need to contact the webmaster?  Click here.

This site is best viewed in Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher and Netscape 6.0 or higher.

Having trouble accessing our site forms? Your browser may not have the Acrobat Reader plug-in that is required.  Click here to download a free copy of this software.

Site Design/Development by

Proudly serving our community online since 1999.
Named #1 Township Website in Michigan by Cyber-state.org

Site Use Policy

All information © 2008 Bloomfield Township, Michigan