Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Tuesday, June 12th, 2007
Bloomfield Township Hall

Chairman Khederian addressed the audience:

Welcome to the Bloomfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of June 15th, 2007.

As a brief introduction – The Zoning Board of Appeals is a seven member, quasi-judicial body appointed by the Bloomfield Township Board of Trustees. It is established and regulated by the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act and the Bloomfield Township Zoning Ordinance for questions arising under the Zoning Ordinance. Matters pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals are decided on a case-by-case basis.

The Zoning Board is empowered to: 1.Grant variances to the Zoning Ordinance, 2. Approve accessory structures, and 3. Interpret the Zoning Ordinance.

Any appeal of a decision made by the Zoning Board of Appeals is subject to Circuit Court Review.

Each case will be called separately, in the order shown on tonight's agenda. There will be an opportunity for public comment at one point during each case. All persons wishing to address the Board will be asked to provide their name and address at the podium. Given the number of appeals tonight, please make your comments brief. You are encouraged to address the Board, but if you do so, please address your comments to me, the Chairperson, and not the applicant or other members of the public.

Comments by the Neighborhood Association will be considered as part of the factual information presented to the Board, but it is not the determining factor for approval or denial. Please confine comments to the specific request before the Board.

For a request to be successful, an affirmative vote of at least four members present is required. A tie will result in the applicant being denied their request.

We hope this helps provide a better understanding of what you can expect at tonight's meeting. Thank you. We’ll now call the first case.

I. ATTENDANCE:

PRESENT: Board Members David Buckley, Brian Kepes, Carol Rosati, Robert Taylor, and Chairman Corinne Khederian.

ABSENT: James Aldrich, Jane Reisinger, Lisa Seneker, and Brian Henry

STAFF PRESENT: Patricia McCullough, Planning and Building Director, Brenda Schultow, Code and Ordinance Officer, Robin Carley, Development Coordinator, and Kathy Davis, Building Department Secretary.

TOWNSHIP REPRESENTATIVE: Derk Beckerleg, Attorney from Secrest Wardle.

Chairman Khederian addressed the audience and indicated item (1T) 5569 Woodwind Drive, was withdrawn at the petitioner’s request.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

a. Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 15th, 2007.

Motion on by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Buckley to approve the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes of May 15th, 2007 as written.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

III. APPEALS:

Tabled Items

(1T) This item has been withdrawn at the petitioner’s request.

Seeking approval for an existing accessory structure, an air-conditioning unit screened with existing and proposed evergreen plantings, located in the southerly side yard 11.8 ft. from the residential building on Lot 46, Kirkwood No. 1, Section 30. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that ground mounted mechanical and electrical equipment may be permitted in any side yard when placed immediately adjacent to the residential building. (Stephen Fisher, 5569 Woodwind Drive, 19-30-128-002)

(2T) 43020 Woodward Avenue – Marathon Service Station

Mr. Edward Etchen, of Etchen Gumma Limited Architects, was present seeking approval for the height of an accessory structure, a 46’x 37.9’ x 22’ high canopy on Lots 25 to 31 and part of Lot 32, The Crescent, Section 3. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not exceed 14 ft. in height and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-03-352-004)

Mr. Etchen addressed the Board and indicated the previous requests from May 15th, 2007, was approved without the 22-foot high canopy. Mr. Etchen commented re-noticing was required to be mailed out to allow for the correct height of the canopy to be identified.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, commented the proposal was before the Township Board June 11th, 2007, and the site plan was approved as submitted subject to the applicant receiving the variance for the height of the canopy. Ms. McCullough stated the canopy height of 22-feet was revised and the re-noticing was completed.

Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Buckley in regard to the appeal at 43020 Woodward Avenue for a 22-foot high canopy, that the variance be approved as approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty, given the information from May 15th 2007 meeting. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.

Motion carried, 5- 0.

New Items

(1) 1063 Westview Road – Bloomfield Twp./Fire Station No. 2

Mr. John Argenta of CDPA Architects, was present seeking approval for a 7.9 ft. encroachment into the required 40 ft. front yard setback for the construction of an addition to include an apparatus bay for the existing non-conforming building, located 32.1 ft. from the front lot line. Also seeking approval for a 6.4 ft. encroachment into the required 16 ft. side yard setback for the construction of an addition to include living quarters, located 9.6 ft. from the easterly side lot line for Acreage Parcel AC109C, Section 12. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded, or extended. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40 ft. in the required front yard setback, and a minimum of 16 ft. in the side yard setback. (19-12-251-021)

Mr. Argenta addressed the Board with a request for a 7.9-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback for the construction of an addition to include an apparatus bay at the existing Fire Station No. 2. Mr. Argenta also requested a 6.4-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the construction of an addition to include living quarters for the fire fighters at the existing Fire Station No. 2. Mr. Argenta stated the existing building was constructed in 1958. Mr. Argenta made reference to the proposed site plan and indicated the proposed addition for the living quarters would be on the east side of the existing building. Mr. Argenta commented the requested expansion would not be feasible to the north because of the sloping ground to the wetlands. Mr. Argenta indicated the requested side yard setback variance is on the east property line, which abuts the Eastover Elementary School parking lot. Mr. Argenta made reference to the proposed site plan and indicated the proposed addition for a new apparatus bay would be located on the west side of the existing building adjacent to the existing apparatus bays. Mr. Argenta stated the length of the modern fire fighting vehicles requires a bay length that results in a 32-foot yard setback for the new 23’-feet 6" wide bay only in lieu of the required 40-foot front yard setback. Mr. Argenta commented the variances are required to plan and construct the additions to the existing fire station in order to provide a properly functioning fire station to house modern fire fighting vehicles.

Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 1063 Westview Road for a 7.9-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, and a 6.4-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the existing non-conforming building, that the variance be approved as requested, given the expansion could not be proposed to the north due to the sloping ground to the wetlands. Based on the information presented, and for public safety reasons, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(2) 5759 Blandford Road – C. Heaphy

Mr. Chris Heaphy, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the installation of an accessory structure, an 8.3’ x 7.6’ hot tub screened with existing and proposed plantings, located in a rear yard on the existing deck more than 16 ft. from the side and rear property lines on Lot 3, Glencoe Estates, Section 28. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall be screened from adjacent residences with evergreen and deciduous material, which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-28-153-004)

Mr. Heaphy addressed the Board with the request for the installation of a hot tub to be screened with existing and proposed plantings, located in the rear yard on the existing deck. Mr. Heaphy made reference to the site plan and indicated the 10-foot high hedge along the lot line that would screen the proposed hot tub from view. Mr. Heaphy indicated the two (2) additional spruce trees that would be installed at the north lot line and six (6) 4-foot high arborvitaes along the south lot line. Mr. Heaphy presented the Board with Glencoe Estates Homeowners Association comments.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to the appeal at 5759 Blandford Road for the installation of a hot tub, that the request be approved as submitted based on the information presented, per landscape plan presented the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(3) 821 Highwood Drive – M. Nasrollahzadeh

Mr. Masoud Nasrollahzadeh, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory structure, a 12’ x 12’ x 17.9’ high pergola, located in a front yard on a proposed terrace 50 ft. from the rear property line and 101.6 ft. from the front property line, Rayburn Road frontage, on Lot 103, Eastover Farms No. 1, Section 13. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not exceed fourteen (14) ft. in height, shall be screened from adjacent residences with evergreen and deciduous material, which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-13-126-005)

Mr. Nasrollahzadeh addressed the Board with the request for a pergola to be located in the rear yard on a proposed on a terrace. Mr. Nasrollahzadeh commented notice was incorrect and indicated a front yard. Mr. Nasrollahzadeh stated the subdivision association has granted approval for the variance request.

Mr. Taylor commented given the home has a two (2) road frontage and based on the Township Ordinance the request would be for a front yard variance request.

Mr. Alvin Blair, resident at 3575 Squirrel Road, was present and spoke in objection of the height of the proposed pergola.

Ms. Linda Longo, resident at 3655 Rayburn, was present and spoke in objection of the height of the proposed pergola.

Mr. Daniel Moore, resident at 922 Eastover Drive, and Vice President of Eastover Farms #1 Association, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance requested. Mr. Moore stated the proposed plans presented to the Association indicated the pergola was attached to the house. Mr. Moore commented the plans presented to the Board indicate the proposed pergola would be attached to the deck. Mr. Moore stated the information presented on the plans is conflicting.

Mr. Nasrollahzadeh replied the height of the proposed pergola would be proportionate with the existing house.

Mr. Taylor questioned why would the Architect refer to this structure as a pergola.

Mr. Nasrollahzadeh could not reply to Mr. Taylor’s question.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Buckley in regard to the appeal at 821 Highwood Drive for the construction of a pergola, that the request be tabled to July 10th, 2007 meeting to allow the petitioner to seek the Architect for a revised rendering to lower the height of the proposed structure to adhere to the Township Ordinance, provide screening and obtain neighbors approval and subdivision association comments for the revised rendering.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(4) 1735 Dell Rose Drive – H. Abu-Akeel

Mr. Joseph Farnese was present, on behalf of the homeowner seeking approval for a 4 ft. encroachment into the required 16 ft. side yard setback for an existing and a proposed air-conditioning unit screened with existing evergreen plantings, located 12 ft. from the southerly side lot line on Lot 3, Dell Rose Gardens, Section 6. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 16 ft. in the side yard setback. (19-06-178-012)

Mr. Farnese addressed the Board with the request for a 4-foot encroachment into the side yard setback for an existing and a proposed air-conditioning unit to be screened with existing evergreen plantings. Mr. Farnese made reference to the site plan and indicated the existing and proposed air-conditioning units. Mr. Farnese commented the proposed air-conditioner would be placed along side the existing air-conditioning unit within the existing hedge.

Motion by Mr. Buckley, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 1735 Dell Rose Drive for a 4-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must submit a revised site plan to

the Building Department within five (5) business days and existing evergreens to match the height of the new air-conditioning unit.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(5) 6171 Lantern Lane – C. Benitah

Mr. Rick Lindbeck, of Rick Lindbeck Design, was present seeking approval for a 12.5 ft. encroachment into the required 40 ft. front yard setback and a 14 ft. encroachment into the required 35 ft. rear yard setback to replace the existing carport/shed with a single-story garage addition for the existing non-conforming building, located 27.5 ft. from the westerly front lot line and 21ft. from the northerly rear lot line on Lot 86, Foxcroft No. 2, Section 29. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded, or extended. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40 ft. in the front yard setback, and a minimum of 35 ft. in the rear yard setback. (19-29-429-006)

Mr. Lindbeck addressed the Board with the request to rebuild a similar structure, locating an enclosed 3-car garage with a mud/entry and bathroom connection to the existing living area of the house. Mr. Lindbeck made reference to the proposed site plan and indicated the proposed connection would also have a secondary entrance to the house from driveway. Mr. Lindbeck commented the exterior materials would match the existing and be harmonious and the new rooflines would compliment the current structure while providing a new focal point at the drive entrance.

Mr. Elmer Reinke, resident at 6184 Lantern Lane, was present and spoke in opposition of the elevation for the variance request.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, made mention of the letter received in support from Foxcroft Improvement Association for the variance requests.

Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 6171 Lantern Lane for a 12.5-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot front yard setback, and a 14-foot encroachment into the required 35-foot rear yard setback for the existing non-conforming building, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Given it is an existing non-conforming structure and what is proposed does not increase the non-conformity. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(6) 6188 Thurber Road – R. Emmer

Mr. George Hartman of G.J. Hartman Architects, was present seeking approval for a 16.5 ft. encroachment into the required 40 ft. front yard setback, and a 2.2 ft. encroachment into the required 16 ft. side yard setback for the construction of a single-story addition to the existing non-conforming home, located 23.5 ft. from the front lot line and 13.8 ft. from the southerly side lot line, Lot 104, Wing Lake Shores, Section 29. Article XV, Section 1502 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded, or extended. Article XIV, Section 1400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 requires a minimum of 40 ft. in the front yard setback, and a minimum of 16 ft. in the side yard setback. (19-29-376-007)

Mr. Hartman addressed the Board with a 16.5-foot encroachment into the front yard setback and a 2.2-foot encroachment into the side yard setback for the construction of a single-story addition. Mr. Hartman made reference to the proposed site plan and indicated the proposed addition would be to create an exercise room and mud hall at the rear of the existing garage and to expand the existing garage forward. Mr. Hartman stated the home is currently non-conforming due to the shape of the lot, which adds to the difficulty of expanding the home.

Ms. Emmer presented the Board with the approval from the subdivision association along with the adjacent neighbors for the variance requests.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to the appeal at 6188 Thurber Road for a 16.5-foot encroachment in the required 40-foot front yard setback, and a 2.2-foot encroachment into the required 16-foot side yard setback for the existing non-conforming building, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(7) 6336 Thurber Road – M. Schlegel/N. Dewan

Mr. Matthew Schlegel, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of an accessory use/structure, an in-ground pool screened with proposed plantings, located in a rear yard 40 ft. from the northerly front lot line, Sunningdale frontage, and 10 ft. from the rear lot line. Also seeking approval for installation of a 6 ft. high vinyl privacy fence with a gate, extending from the southerly wall of the building towards the side lot line, along the side and rear lot lines, and within a front yard setback, Sunningdale frontage, for Lots 210 and 211, Wing Lake Shores, Section 29. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that an accessory use/structure shall not be located closer than sixteen (16) ft. to any side or rear lot line, shall be screened from adjacent residences with evergreen and deciduous

material, which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that fences in a residential district must be located in a side or rear yard and shall not exceed 4 ft. in height. (19-29-381-006)

Mr. Schlegel addressed the Board with the request to construct an in-ground pool screened with proposed plantings to be located in the rear yard 40-feet from the northerly front lot line of Sunningdale frontage, and 10-feet from the rear lot line. Mr. Schlegel made reference to the proposed site plan and indicated the in-ground pool and patio to be installed behind the home. Mr. Schlegel indicated due to the shallow back yard and the configuration of the lot the proposed location of the pool would be to the north of the center of the backyard and align it alongside the western neighbor’s driveway. Mr. Schlegel stated this proposed location would avoid the electrical wire and potential tree root problems to the south. Mr. Schlegel addressed the Board for the installation of a 6-foot high vinyl privacy fence with a gate, extending from the southerly wall of the building towards the side lot line, along the side and rear lot lines, and within a front yard setback of Sunningdale frontage. Mr. Schlegel stated the proposed 6-foot fence screened with arborvitaes would provide privacy and shelter the neighbors from any unwanted noise.

Mr. Kepes questioned the interpretation for the proposed side and rear yard fence.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, replied the interpretation for this request is based upon the frontage of the home and the side setback, which is defined by the existing home. Ms. McCullough stated the property has two (2) front yards.

Mr. Kepes questioned what the distance was from the home to the proposed swimming pool. Mr. Kepes suggested moving the proposed swimming pool closer towards the home, which would allow for the fence to be placed inward to enclose only the proposed swimming pool.

Mr. Schlegel made reference to the site plan and indicated the existing fence line and commented the previous fence was dilapidated and unsafe. Mr. Schlegel stated the designer has proposed the swimming pool approximately 17-feet from the home allowing for the patio to be utilized as a dining area for the family. Mr. Schlegel stated the neighbors approved of the proposed location of the swimming pool. Mr. Schlegel commented the Wing Lake Property Owners Association submitted a letter indicating they would remain neutral for the variance requests.

Chairman Khederian made mention of a letter received in opposition from Mr. & Mrs. Paul Reason, residents at 6266 Worlington Road, for the variance requests.

Mr. Taylor expressed his concerns with the proposed in-ground swimming pool being located 10-feet from the rear lot line, and the 6-foot high privacy fence enclosing the property. Mr. Taylor suggested moving the swimming pool closer towards the home and installing evergreen screening along Sunningdale, would be more appealing than the proposed 6-foot high stockade fence.

Mr. Schlegel replied the 6-foot fence would allow for privacy and would help reduce the noise. Mr. Schlegel presented photographs of his mother’s residence located in Bloomfield Township and made reference to the existing 4-foot and 6-foot high stockade fence around the in-ground swimming pool. Mr. Schlegel stated he would like to maintain the patio area as proposed for the swimming pool area.

Chairman Khederian questioned are the immediate neighbors next to this property in agreement with this project.

Mr. Schlegel replied Mr. Douglas Felt, resident at 6411 Sheringham, are in agreement with the proposed swimming pool location but, there is an issue with the proposed fence. Mr. Schlegel stated the other immediate neighbors approve of the variance requests as proposed.

Motion by Mr. Buckley, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 6336 Thurber Road for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool screened with proposed plantings, located in a rear yard 40-feet from the northerly front lot line, Sunningdale frontage, and 10-feet from the rear lot line, that the variance be approved as request. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.

Motion failed, 2 – 3.

YEAS: Buckley, Taylor

NAYS: Rosati, Kepes, Khederian

Motion failed due to lack of support.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to the appeal at 6336 Thurber Road for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool screened with proposed plantings, located in a rear yard 40-feet from the northerly front lot line, Sunningdale frontage, and 10-feet from the rear lot line. Also the installation of a 6-foot high vinyl privacy fence with a gate, extending from the southerly wall of the building towards the side lot line, along the side and rear lot lines, and within a front yard setback, Sunningdale frontage, that the variance request be tabled to the July 10th, 2007, meeting to allow for the petitioner to relocate the swimming pool towards the home and the fence to adhere to the Township Ordinance.

Motion failed, 2 – 3.

YEAS: Taylor, Rosati

NAYS: Kepes, Buckley, Khederian

Motion failed due to lack of support.

Ms. McCullough made mention to the Board that failure to take action on an appeal would result in an automatic denial for the variance request/requests.

Motion by Mr. Kepes, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at 6336 Thurber Road for installation of a 6-foot high vinyl privacy fence with a gate, extending from the southerly wall of the building towards the side lot line, along the side and rear lot lines, and within a front yard setback, Sunningdale frontage, that the 4-foot and 6-foot fence be approved as requested contingent upon the fence style be open slat. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.

Motion carried, 5 –0.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Mr. Buckley in regard to the appeal at 6336 Thurber Road for an in-ground swimming pool screened with proposed plantings, located in a rear yard 40-feet from the northerly front lot line, Sunningdale frontage, and 10-feet from the rear lot line, that the request be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits from the Building Department.

Motion carried, 4 – 1.

YEAS: Taylor, Buckley, Rosati, Khederian

NAYS: Kepes

(8) Section 28 – Glencoe Estates

Mr. Allen Forgach, homeowner at 5901 Blandford Road, and Chairperson of Glencoe Estates subdivision association, was present seeking approval for the installation of a 2.2 ft. high cedar split rail fence, located in required front yards, Quarton Road frontage, Lots 43, 26, 25, and 1, Glencoe Estates, Section 28. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that fences in a residential district must be located in a side or rear yard. (19-28-151-002; 19-28-152-001; 19-28-152-009; 19-28-153-001)

Mr. Forgach addressed the Board with the request for the installation of a 2.2-foot high cedar split rail fence, located in the front yard of Quarton Road frontage. Mr. Forgach made reference to the site plan and indicated the proposed fence would be installed at 5730 Burnham Road, 5731 Burnham Road, 5716 Blandford, and 5719 Blandford. Mr. Forgach stated the subdivision association has granted approval for the 2.2-foot high cedar split rail fence as proposed.

Motion by Mr. Buckley, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regards to the appeal at 5730 & 5731 Burnham, and 5716 & 5719 Blandford for the installation of a 2.2-foot high cedar split rail fence, located in required front yards, of Quarton Road frontage, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits from the Building Department.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(9) 4555 Private Lake – H. Sanford

Mr. Brad Balkwill, of AZD Associates Architects, was present seeking approval for the following in preparation for the construction of a new home on Acreage Parcel, Section 31:

Article IV, Section 400 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 allows for one single-family dwelling in the R-3, Single Family Residential, zoned district. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall not exceed 14 ft. in height, shall be screened from adjacent residences with evergreen and deciduous material, which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Article II, Section 201 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 defines accessory use/structure as a use, which is clearly incidental to, customarily found in connection with, and located on the same zoning lot as, the principal use to which it is related. (19-31-476-008)

Mr. Balkwill addressed the Board with the request to remove item two (2) from the variance request. Mr. Balkwill stated the 22.9’ x 22.9’ x 21.7’ high portico would not be requested the homeowner has elected to go with a traditional front porch. Mr. Balkwill addressed the Board with the request for item three (3) to only retain the existing 20’ x 23.3’ x 14’ high storage building including a 3-foot high cupola after demolition of the existing home. Mr. Balkwill stated the storage building would not have electrical, mechanical, or plumbing and would be screened with proposed evergreens plantings. Mr. Balkwill addressed the Board with item one (1) and asked that the current owners reside at the existing home until the new home has been constructed. Mr. Balkwill stated once the new home is completed, the existing home would be demolished in a timely manner.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to the appeal at 4555 Private Lake Drive to retain the existing storage building after demolition of the existing home, be approved as submitted, and the variance to retain the existing home until after a new home has been constructed be granted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits. Within 30 days of obtaining the temporary/final certificate of occupancy the required parallel utility services will be disconnected from the existing structures. The completion of the new home and demolition of the existing structures are to take place within 24-months.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(10) 3555 Forest Hill Road – Maplewood Homes

Mr. Chris Berryman and Mr. Kelly Fackler of Design Studio, was present seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, four 4’ x 4’ x 3.3’ high stone pillars, located in a front yard at each side of the two driveway entrances, Forest Hill Road frontage, Lot 28, Brookside Hills, Section 16. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall be screened from adjacent residences with evergreen and deciduous material, which will obscure view twelve (12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (19-16-203-002)

Mr. Berryman addressed the Board with the request to construct four (4) 4’ x 4’ x 3.3’ high limestone pillars, located in a front yard at each side of the two driveway entrances, of Forest Hill Road frontage. Mr. Berryman made reference to the site plan and indicated a yew of evergreen hedges would connect the proposed limestone pillars.

Mr. Hal Pringle, resident at 3660 Forest Hill, was present and spoke in opposition of the variance request.

Mr. Kepes questioned would there be landscaping installed and would there be anything on top of the proposed limestone pillars.

Mr. Kelly Fackler replied and presented a landscape plan to the Board. Mr. Fackler stated there would not be anything installed upon the proposed limestone pillars.

Mr. Taylor made mention to the Board that his office has listed this home and may be a conflict of interest.

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, replied as long as there is no direct financial benefit, there would not be a conflict of interest.

Chairman Khederian made mention of the letter received from Brookside Hills Protective Association, and indicated the association approved the proposed limestone pillars with the following stipulation: The grade and landscaping material, as it relates to the pond, be installed in conformance with the plan dated June 16th, 2006 prepared by Robert – Thomas Landscape Environments.

Mr. Fackler replied he was unaware of the stipulation, but he would address the comments with the builder, Maplewood Homes.

Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Kepes in regard to the appeal at 3555 Forest Hill Road for the construction of four (4) entry pillars, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance for the construction of four (4) entry pillars located in a front yard be granted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits and submit a revised site plan to the Building Department prior to final grade inspection.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

(11) 3916 Cotton Tail Lane – J. Partridge

Mr. James Partridge, homeowner, was present seeking approval for the construction of accessory structures, a 9.5’ x 10’ x 9.7’ high cedar pergola with 3.3 ft. railings, located in the southwesterly front yard 48 ft. from the front lot line and 30 ft. from the westerly side lot line, Lot 18, Gilbert Lake Estates, Section 28. Article XV, Section 1503 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that accessory structures shall not be erected in any required yard, except a rear yard, shall be screened from adjacent residences with evergreen and deciduous material, which will obscure view twelve

(12) months of the year, and shall require the review and approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Article XV, Section 1510 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 states that fences in a residential district must be located in a side or rear yard. (19-28-177-009)

Mr. Partridge addressed the Board with the request to construct an entry arch structure with railings, 9.5’ x 10’ x 9.7’ high with 3.3-foot railings, located in the southwesterly front yard. Mr. Partridge made reference to the photographs and indicated this structure would be an integral part of the linear garden element in the yard. Mr. Partridge indicated the entry arch would be open and airy, painted a light brown and silver in color to enhance the existing garden.

Ms. Esther Hoffley, resident at 3928 Cottontail Lane, was present and questioned the location of the proposed structure.

Mr. Partridge made reference on the site plan where the proposed structure would be located.

Chairman Khederian made mention of a letter received in support of the variance request from Dr. and Mrs. John Finley, residents at 6079 Snowshoe Circle.

Motion by Mr. Taylor, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to the appeal at 3916 Cotton Tail Lane for the construction of an entry arch, that the request be approved as submitted, and the variance for the construction of an entry arch with railings located in a front yard be granted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate compliance with Section 1804 Standards, and did demonstrate all of the standards for practical difficulty. Petitioner must obtain all necessary permits.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

Chairman Khederian commented to the audience, there would be a five-minute break to allow for the petitioner to set-up.

(12) Coventry II DDR Harbor – Bloomfield Park portion for Bloomfield Township

Ms. Patti McCullough, Planning and Building Director, introduced the proposal to the Board for the following interpretation and variances as they relate to Article XIV, Section 1400 and Article XV, Sections 1503, 1504, and 1512 of Zoning Ordinance No. 265 to allow for the construction of buildings for the proposed Bloomfield Park Development within that portion of Bloomfield Township:

(19-05-155-045 to 047, 19-05-156-030; 031)

Ms. McCullough addressed the Board with an introduction for the requested proposals. Ms. McCullough stated the Planning Commission heard this proposal and forwarded it on to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the consideration of the various appeal items as indicated. Ms. McCullough stated before the Board is an overall development plan, which has been considered by Bloomfield Township. Ms. McCullough made reference to the overall development plan called "Bloomfield Park" for information the area that falls within Bloomfield Township is divided in the area as indicated on the plan. Ms. McCullough stated any re-zoning requests or development that occurs within this area would require the normal review process from Bloomfield Township. Ms. McCullough indicated the majority of the development falls within the 425 Agreement, which is a party to Bloomfield Township, the City of Pontiac, and is under the auspice of jurisdiction of review by the Joint Development Council. Ms. McCullough commented Bloomfield Township has a representative, City of Pontiac has a representative, and there is a neutral party whom acts as the Chairman. Ms. McCullough stated the applicant is seeking to propose the Bloomfield Park development in a way that it would involve the portion of Bloomfield Township. Ms. McCullough stated the interest is to present and develop the project in a seamless fashion acknowledging the development pattern that is being established in the 425 area. Ms. McCullough indicated the 425 Consent Agreement and the Development Agreement must adhere to the City of Pontiac Town Center Ordinance, which is an adopted Zoning Ordinance provisions specific to the area as indicated. Ms. McCullough stated the plan for the balance of the 425 Agreement has not received approval from the Joint Development Council, and indicated it is still under conceptual review and consideration by the respective communities. Ms. McCullough stated what the applicant has proposed is through a concept plan which is reflecting compliance with the Town Center Ordinance. Ms. McCullough indicated the applicant is proposing to continue the development standards into the Bloomfield Township property. Ms. McCullough addressed the roadway system within Bloomfield Park and identified the roads, development parcel A as Friendship Circle, Restaurant Row, and Telegraph Road. Ms. McCullough identified Restaurant Row frontage, Telegraph Road, and Hood Road as parcel B. Ms. McCullough indicted Bloomfield Township identifies this area as the B-3 classification. Ms. McCullough stated the items before the Board is setbacks, parking, loading, building height, and parking setback, which are all within the B-3 district. Ms. McCullough commented to the Board a shared parking plan would be presented as entirely as Bloomfield Park. Ms. McCullough indicated signage would be addressed under the B-3 district. Ms. McCullough closed by commenting to the Board the applicant is asking to address the project under the terms and conditions of the Pontiac Town Center Ordinance as being part of an over all development project encompassing the two (2) communities.

Mr. Gary Ceepo, Senior Development Director of Developers Diversified Realty Corporation was present and presented the Board members with a portfolio of the Corporation. Mr. Ceepo introduced Mr. Doug Poland, legal counsel for land use attorney, Mr. Mark Daniels, of Meacham and Apel Architects, Mr. Oscar Mertz of Elkus Manfredi Architects, Mr. Richard Lansu of Walker Parking Consultants, and Mr. Craig Schubiner, joint venture developer.

Mr. Doug Poland, attorney on behalf of Craig Schubiner, was present and indicated the variances before the Board. Mr. Poland addressed the provisions of the Master Plan and asked the Board to utilize the Master Plan when determining a motion.

Mr. Oscar Mertz addressed the Board with an aerial view of Bloomfield Park boundary lines and presented a master lease plan. Mr. Mertz made reference to the aerial and indicated half of the frontage along Telegraph Road is located within Bloomfield Township.

Mr. Richard Lansu addressed the shared parking requests with the Board. Mr. Lansu provided a shared parking report for the mixed-use development. Mr. Lansu commented the parking report evaluation of the impact of the anticipated site development, and the ability of the proposed parking components to provide adequate parking in the future.

Mr. Poland made reference to the property for which the variances are requested and identified them on proposed the site plan. Mr. Poland stated Telegraph Road borders the property on the southwest on the northwest and northeast by the area covered by the Act 425 Agreement, and on the southeast by lot 33 of Bloomfield Acres and Hood Road. Mr. Poland indicated the property is to be developed as part of the Bloomfield Park mixed use development and will provide high-end retail and entertainment development in Bloomfield Township as part of a large scale mixed use, town center style development. Mr. Poland commented Ms. McCullough, Township Planning Director, has indicated the B-3 zoning has been given for the proposed development. Mr. Poland asked the Board to grant the requested variances in order to permit the development of the property as a successful retail and entertainment development consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and the goals of the Master Plan. Mr. Poland indicated eight (8) requested variances for front setbacks, one (1) requested variance for rear setback, one (1) requested variance for parking setback, one (1) requested variance for sign height, two (2) requested variances for shared parking, and two (2) requested variances for loading spaces. Mr. Poland stated each variance represents an element essential to the architectural and commercial success of the proposed development. Mr. Poland commented each variance is necessary to create a high quality, visually interesting, and pedestrian friendly environment by enhancing streetscapes, providing interesting architectural features, and/or promoting efficient use of common spaces such as parking and loading.

Mr. Ceepo made reference to the proposed plan and indicated the variances for the loading spaces. Mr. Ceepo indicated an interior truck dock with a dumpster surrounded by a loading area for buildings known as BP2, BP3 and BP4. Mr. Ceepo stated loading would be performed in the mornings or during off hours. Mr. Ceepo made reference to the building known as BP6 and indicated this is an internal loading dock with an overhead door and proposed landscaping along Telegraph Road frontage.

Mr. Kepes questioned is the Zoning Board of Appeals the first Board to hear this proposal.

Ms. McCullough replied the Design Review Board heard the proposal on May 3rd, 2007 and forwarded the site plan onto the Planning Commission, which was heard on May 21st, 2007, which forwarded the request onto the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Ms. McCullough stated depending on the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals relating to the variance requests the petitioner would have to return to the Planning Commission for them to address the issue of the re-zoning request and the preliminary site plan recommendation to the Township Board.

Mr. Kepes questioned if the minutes from the previous meetings were provided in the Board members packets.

Ms. McCullough replied the minutes from the Planning Commission and Design Review Board meetings were provided in the Board members packets.

Ms. McCullough confirmed that the Planning Commission and Design Review Board minutes were not included in the Zoning Board Members packets as stated on June 12th, 2007.

Mr. Kepes addressed his concerns with the parking setbacks and commented he was uncertain to take action until the plans have been approved from the Planning Commission.

Mr. Kepes made reference to the parking setbacks and stated that 10% were on-site parking and 90% was deck parking and commented that he was uncertain whether to take action until the plans had been approved by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Derk Beckerleg, Township Attorney, replied the Planning Commission cannot take action on a variance request. Mr. Beckerleg commented the variance requests are for the Zoning Board of Appeals to take action on.

Mr. Taylor addressed his concern with the Board granting approvals for the variances without the 425 Agreement being approved.

Ms. McCullough replied the approvals would be contingent upon the shared parking obligation.

Mr. Taylor questioned the width and length of the proposed cinema marquee.

Mr. Mertz replied the width and length of the proposed cinema marquee would be traditional in size as presented.

Mr. Douglas Allen, resident at 1195 Fairfax Avenue, was present and spoke in opposition of the lighting that would project from the proposed cinema marquee.

Mr. Ceepo addressed the security for the proposed site and indicated a full time on site security staff would be available with cameras and call buttons thought the development that would be monitored through the security office.

Mr. Buckley addressed the proposal and commended the Planning Department for their hard efforts in presenting this item to the Board.

Mr. Beckerleg suggested to the Board to include the following conditions within the motion for each of the approved variances:

Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Buckley in regard to the appeal at Bloomfield Park within the portion for Bloomfield Township for a 25 ft. front setback required for the building known as BP3 with 5 ft. proposed from Restaurant Row. A 25 ft. front setback required for the building known as BP4 with 5 ft. proposed from Restaurant Row. A 25 ft. front setback required for the building known as BP4 with 6 ft. proposed from Friendship Circle. A 25 ft. parking setback required for Friendship Circle with parking shown within the Friendship Circle right-of-way. A 25 ft. front setback required for building known as BP5 with 5 ft. proposed from Restaurant Row. A 25 ft. front setback required for building known as BP6 with 5 ft. proposed from Restaurant Row. A 25 ft. front setback required for building known as BP6 with 0 ft. proposed from Hood Road. A 25 ft. front setback required for building known as BP Cinema with 6 ft. proposed from Restaurant Row. A 20 ft. rear setback required for building known as BP Cinema with .8 ft. proposed to lot line. A 25 ft. parking setback required for building known as BP6 from Hood Road. Loading for buildings known as BP2, BP3, and BP4 is deficient in area with 10 sq. ft. per lineal ft. of building frontage required. Loading space for building known as BP6 is located within a front yard, that the variances be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. The approval is subject to the following conditions: Approval of the adjacent development in the 425 Area as generally described and depicted in today’s proposal by the components with that approval be by the required appropriate bodies. Approval of the Planning Commission and Township Board as to the site plan for the Bloomfield Township proposal as well as the rezoning as discussed. Approval of the Design Review Board as to all the items they are responsible for reviewing the design including but not limited to the marquee design particularly the width of the marquee.

Mr. Kepes addressed his concerns with the Zoning Board of Appeals granting approvals prior to the Planning Commission approving the development.

Mr. Kepes addressed his overall concerns were based on not having the minutes from the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board meetings and the magnitude of the project and the amount of the variances, he thought it would be appropriate to allow for more time to study the project as a whole.

Motion carried, 4 – 1.

YEAS: Rosati, Buckley, Taylor, Khederian

NAYS: Kepes

Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at Bloomfield Park within the portion of Bloomfield Township that the variance for a building known as BP Cinema rooftop sign proposed at a height of 75 ft. that the sign be approved not to exceed 71-feet in conformance with the development agreement. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. The approval is subject to the following conditions: Approval of the adjacent development in the 425 Area as generally described and depicted in today’s proposal by the components with that approval be by the required appropriate bodies. Approval of the Planning Commission and Township Board as to the site plan for the Bloomfield Township proposal as well as the rezoning as discussed. Approval of the Design Review Board as to all the items they are responsible for reviewing the design including but not limited to the marquee design particularly the width of the marquee.

Motion carried, 4 – 1.

YEAS: Rosati, Taylor, Buckley, Khederian

NAYS: Kepes

Motion by Ms. Roasati in regard to the appeal at Bloomfield Park for portion in Bloomfield Township for parking for the buildings known as BP1, BP2, BP3, BP4, BP5, BP6, and BP Cinema to be provided as part of a shared parking plan for the overall Bloomfield Park Project including the Bloomfield Township portion and the 425 Agreement portion, that the variance request be tabled until the plan has been approved by the traffic consultants and Joint Development Council.

Motion was withdrawn and restated by Ms. Rosati.

Mr. Beckerleg indicated the shared parking plan before the Board is a concept plan for the proposed development.

Mr. Buckley commented on Bloomfield Township’s requirements for appropriate parking to obtain a liquor license. Mr. Buckley stated given this concept plan, it would be appropriate to see more information on the restaurants and the day vs. the night uses.

Motion by Ms. Rosati, Seconded by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at

Bloomfield Park within the portion of Bloomfield Township for parking for the buildings known as BP1, BP2, BP3, BP4, BP5, BP6, and BP Cinema to be provided as part of a shared parking plan for the overall Bloomfield Park Project including the Bloomfield Township portion and the 425 Agreement portion, that the variance be approved for concept only for shared parking with the ultimate review and approval being granted by the Planning Commission, Township Board and Joint Development Council. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty. The approval is subject to the following conditions: Approval of the adjacent development in the 425 Area as generally described and depicted in today’s proposal by the components with that approval be by the required appropriate bodies. Approval of the Planning Commission and Township Board as to the site plan for the Bloomfield Township proposal as well as the rezoning as discussed.

Motion carried, 4 – 1.

YEAS: Rosati, Taylor, Buckley, Khederian

NAYS: Kepes

Motion by Mr. Taylor in regard to the appeal at Bloomfield Park within the portion of Bloomfield Township for the building known as BP Cinema has a proposed height of 36-feet with 32-feet allowed, that the variance be approved as requested. Based on the information presented, the applicant did demonstrate to the Board’s satisfaction all of the standards for practical difficulty.

Motion failed due to lack of support.

Motion by Mr. Buckley, Seconded by Ms. Rosati in regard to the appeal at Bloomfield Park within the portion of Bloomfield Township for the building known as BP Cinema with the proposed height of 36-feet that the variance request be denied as submitted. Based on the information presented, the applicant did not demonstrate the Test of Practical Difficulty, given there are other alternatives to address the issue and there is nothing unique that would require the proposed building to be taller than 32-feet.

Motion carried, 5 – 0.

Mr. Poland addressed the Board and requested the three (3) interpretations be withdrawn from the agenda request and indicated the interpretations were no longer needed.

IV. GENERAL BUSINESS

Next Board Meeting – July 10th, 2007

V. ADJOURNMENT

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia McCullough, Director

Planning and Building Department

kd

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