A. AB-2009-14, CVS Pharmacy Proposed Drive-Thru, NE Corner of Baldwin and Maybee Roads (3461 and 3491 Baldwin Road and 3180 Maybee Road): Ms. Stacy Cerget, of Fazal Khan & Associates, 43279 Schoenherr, Sterling Heights, Michigan 48313, commented that she is here tonight representing the CVS Pharmacy. She noted that they have taken members' comments into consideration from the last meeting and have made substantial revisions to their plans. They have also met with the property owner to the north of the site and he has applied to rezone that property to RB-2 for the two parcels directly north of the site, which would do away with some of the variance requests if that property is rezoned. They have removed all of the parking from the east side of their parcel and shifted some of it to the north side of their parcel, which did not increase the variance request for the north side, it kept them the same and actually decreased them in some instances. They have also shifted the 100-foot canopy in order to achieve a 100-foot setback from the east property line, which allows still for two drive-thru windows, but the canopy is not encroaching. The driveway has been shifted as far as we can shift it per the Road Commission standards and now have an increased setback from the driveway to 61 feet. Originally it was 38 feet, that included the parking, so 58 feet was the tightest, so we got to move it a little about three feet over. As you look to the north, the driveway remains in the center of the parcel for access management and we've added a couple of parking spaces on the north side of that site and there is a direct access door for employee usage of that parking lot area. So, we've modified the site plan substantially in order to meet most of the concerns that you had and with the rezoning of that parcel to the north potentially happening and it will be on the October Planning Commission agenda, it would be potentially rezoned to commercial and if that is rezoned, the variances to the north will not be required. Since it is not rezoned yet, we still have to request those variances. We've minimized from eight variances down to four.
Board Member Geraci noted that there was a substantial shift to really almost alleviate everything from the east, except for one variance. He inquired what the petitioner would use for a temporary buffer on the northern property line until the property to the north is rezoned.
Ms. Cerget commented that that would have to be worked out with the property owner if the Planning Commission should require that.
Mr. R. Donald Wortman, of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc., noted that the Planning Commission and he would be discussing that with the petitioner and the property owner to the north. However, it is within the ZBA's prerogative to either make a communication to the Planning Commission or stipulate that in any of your motions here this evening, so you do have that option.
Board Member Geraci commented that he is very pleased with the substantial changes made to the east property line.
Board Member Crane noted that the primary focus to him has always been the eastern property line. Also, that the Planning Commission has studied the area and has determined from a planning standpoint that the direction that this Township should take is to bring the Gingellville Overlay District up to that area north of Maybee Road. So, in light of that he believes that the rezoning of this property and the rezoning of the property to the north is consistent with the Master Plan as it's now configured. He believes that the improvements along the eastern property line are substantial. Also, rather than any temporary screening along the northern property line that would be planted for a season or two and then removed, he would rather see any of that plant material end up along the eastern side of the property to further buffer between this development and the home to the east. He also believes it is important for the Planning Commission during site plan review to make sure that they end up with lots of permanent attractive landscaping along the northern side as well as on the eastern property line.
Board Member Durham inquired whether the petitioner has received the traffic information approval yet.
Ms. Cerget replied, no it is still in the process.
Acting Chairman Walker offered time for public comments on this case.
Mrs. Jill Kettler, of 3170 Maybee Road, commented that they are the property owner to the east of this project. She noted that she still is not in favor of this project, but does appreciate that the petitioner has made many changes to the plans. She also noted that she believes that the petitioner's hardship was self-created.
Board Member Geraci stated, I want to state for the record that the north property owner, Larry Mullins, has applied for his rezoning on the two lots to the north to go to RB-2, which is case PC-2009-13. Also from the August 10, 2009 regular meeting minutes where Mr. Mullins stated that, "I am the property owner to the north of this development and I did facilitate great effort in working with Velmeir to put that joint drive in so there wouldn't be multiple curb-cuts off of Baldwin Road that close to the intersection. In all the developments that we've done, I was the developer to the south of Maybee Road also on the east side and that whole facility is facilitated by the two curb-cuts and one off of Maybee Road. So, that was the intent of this whole thing. Whether I wanted to go ahead and rezone the property didn't make any sense at this time until I figure out what I wanted to do with the end use, but it will not be residential", which he has done now with case PC-2009-13, so I just want to make sure that the decisions that we make here tonight that deal with that north side that everybody is in agreement that there will not be any residential on that northern property line. I just wanted to clarify that, because then those large variances would go away if it is commercial.
Mr. Berger inquired, if members were to include in their motion that they want the nice landscaping on the north side and even more on the east side, then the Planning Commission would be sure to include that, too, is that right? If they are concerned about those things they could include them to take care of those things this evening.
Planner Wortman stated, either the ZBA can impose it as part of the variance or keep in mind that the special land use is still open with the Planning Commission and they still have a great deal of control on this. But yes you can certainly include that in your motion here tonight to ensure that it is stated the way you intend.
Board Member Cook inquired of Mrs. Jill Kettler, are there any things that they could do that would make you more comfortable with them coming in and receiving this variance?
Mrs. Kettler stated, I think as long as we work closely together on what the buffering will be and what it looks like and that kind of thing, I think that would make me feel better. I mean, by no means am I happy about this. This is not what I signed up for when I moved to this community, but as long as they're open and really work with us on that, I'd really appreciate that and it would sure make me feel a lot more comfortable.
Board Member Cook inquired, to date, has there been any communication at all?
Mrs. Kettler stated, no.
Ms. Cerget stated, I'd be happy to work with Mrs. Kettler. She is a very nice lady and has been very cooperative throughout the whole process. We'd be happy to work with her on specific plans. We have no problem with that.
Moved by Board Member Geraci, supported by Board Member Crane regarding case AB-2009-14, CVS Pharmacy Proposed Drive-Thru, NE Corner of Baldwin and Maybee Roads (3461 and 3491 Baldwin Road and 3180 Maybee Road), request for non-use variances from Zoning Ordinance No. 78, Section 12.03.F.1, Section 12.03.F.2, and Section 12.04.E.2. Section 12.03.F.1: A 49-foot building setback variance, an 85-foot parking lot setback variance, a 100-foot driveway setback variance, and a 57-foot drive-thru setback variance; all from the northern property line. Also from Section 12.03.F.1: A 39-foot driveway setback variance from the eastern property line. Section 12.03.F.2: A variance along the northern property line from the requirement for a 6-foot tall buffer (solid fence, wall, or double-staggered row of evergreens). Section 12.04.E.2: A 30-foot greenbelt setback variance on the north side. That these shall be granted contingent upon the approval of the special land use by the Planning Commission, because the petitioner has demonstrated practical difficulties exist. The petitioner has established that compliance with the strict letter of the ordinance would unreasonably prevent the petitioner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity to the ordinance unnecessarily burdensome. The petitioner has made substantial changes to the site plan to protect the landowners to the east by a 40% reduction of the driveway setback and eliminating the parking lot and drive-thru variances as asked for at the August 10, 2009 regular ZBA meeting. The petitioner has established that granting the variances requested would not be a detriment to public safety or welfare and would do substantial justice for the petitioner as well as the other property owners in the district. Because the petitioner has shifted the major variances to the north property line with the approval of the north property owner as stated in the August 10, 2009 regular ZBA meeting minutes and also tonight as I read the motion from those minutes. The petitioner will follow the extensive landscaping plans to the east as presented at the August 10, 2009 regular ZBA meeting. Also, I would like the Planning Commission and the petitioner to work closely on the landscaping on the east property line to support the east residents. Also, on the north property line, I would like some type of a joint venture on the common driveway between the approaches for some permanent landscaping to go in during this build of the CVS Pharmacy. The petitioner has established that unique circumstances exist regarding the area of the subject property because the property will be affected by the proposed Gingellville Overlay District and the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) requirement of the shared driveway to the north and the location of
the entrances off from the Baldwin Road and Maybee Road intersection. These requirements are part of the Gingellville design standards. The petitioner has established that the need for the variance is not self-created, because the RCOC's unique requirements of the entrances followed by the Gingellville design standard, which has not been fully approved and bearing an application for a rezoning to the northern property. The petitioner has established that granting of a variance does not impair the intent or purpose of the ordinance, nor will it set a precedent.
Board Member Cook noted that he believes that this motion is based on a lot of things that haven't been approved yet, particularly the rezoning to the north. He is also concerned that they haven't come to an agreement with the property owner to the east regarding the buffering and that they don't know whether the rezoning will actually be approved.
Mr. Berger commented that the property right now, if it didn't have a drive-thru on it could have a restaurant and the setback from the building would only be 30 feet from the property line. They wouldn't have anywhere near the kind of buffer that we're going to have established tonight with this parcel to the east if this were not this particular use. This will be much more substantial buffering than what the neighbor would get if a developer just came in under a normal site plan.
Roll call vote was as follows: Crane, yes; Cook, no; Durham, yes; Geraci, yes; Walker, no. Motion carried 3-2.
B. AB-2009-14A, CVS Proposed Pharmacy Signs, NE Corner of Baldwin and Maybee Roads(3461 and 3491 Baldwin Road and 3180 Maybee Road): Ms. Kelly Barber, of Sign Art, Inc., 5757 East Court Street, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49048, commented that she is here on behalf of CVS Pharmacy to request two variances from Ordinance No. 138, Sign Ordinance: 1)A variance to allow five additional wall signs; and, 2)A 70.07-square foot variance over the 40-square foot allowed amount in total wall signage. She then showed members pictures of several CVS stores' signs that have recently been installed in Indiana.
Ms. Stacy Cerget distributed sign plans to members for their review. She stated that they are identical to the sign plans that were in the August 10, 2009 ZBA meeting packets.
Board Member Geraci noted that he believes that they don't need a monument sign with having the wall signs.
Ms. Cerget noted that they are requesting two wall signs and one monument sign.
Mr. Berger noted that for clarification, the applicant is requesting two wall signs and one monument sign. You are allowed, by ordinance, two monument signs, but you traded and said that you'd like to do the additional wall sign in lieu of that, but because of how the ordinance reads, it would have been a variance request to seek and get the additional wall sign. They could have had two monument signs and never even asked for a variance, but they wanted the other wall sign and eliminate one of the monument signs, because they had two on their other plan, so that is what is being asked for tonight.
Board Member Geraci noted that the height of the monument sign is shown at nine feet, but the ordinance states that it should be eight feet. They have not asked for a variance for that height difference.
Mr. Berger noted that it would be up to the applicant to ask for a variance for that at this point.
Planner Wortman noted that it is close to street grade there where the monument sign would be placed, so it could come down to eight feet in height.
Mr. Berger noted that the monument sign at eight feet in height would be highly visible at that intersection.
Mr. John Baumann, of The Velmeir Companies, agreed that the monument sign would be eight feet in height.
Acting Chairman Walker offered time for public comments on this matter.
None were given.
Moved by Board Member Crane, supported by Board Member Durham regarding case AB-2009-14A, CVS Proposed Pharmacy Signs, NE Corner of Baldwin and Maybee Roads(3461 and 3491 Baldwin Road and 3180 Maybee Road), that we grant the applicant the variances from Ordinance No. 138, Sign Ordinance, as follows: 1)Section 8.B, in order to permit a variance to allow five additional wall signs; and, 2)Section 8.B, a 70.07-square foot variance over the 40-square foot allowed amount in total wall signage, conditioned upon the discussion here and the applicant's agreement that the monument sign shall be reduced in height so as to come into conformity with the sign ordinance. The findings of fact are based upon: 1)the unique character and location of this particular parcel; 2)the fact that it is a corner parcel; 3)the fact that at least some of the requested additional wall signs appear to be more informational or directional in nature; and, 4)that overall the amount and size of the signage that is called for here is in conformity with other similar uses throughout the Township. Roll call vote was as follows: Cook, yes; Durham, yes; Geraci, no; Crane, yes; Walker, no. Motion carried 3-2.
C. AB-2009-15, Douglas Broquet, 2355 & 2377 Indianwood Road: Acting Chairman Walker stated, the applicant requests a variance for additional accessory use on a 2.3-acre parcel containing five houses. This is an existing non-conforming parcel in a single-family residential zoning. The total of existing square feet of accessory use on this parcel is 1,870 square feet. The applicant is requesting an additional 320-square foot addition onto each of the two attached garages at 2355 & 2377 Indianwood Road. The proposed 640 square feet of accessory use will require a 1,010-square foot variance for total accessory use on one parcel.
Mr. Douglas Broquet, of 152 S. Newman Road, commented that he is proposing to build an addition on both houses at 2355 and 2377 Indianwood Road to add a 9'x22' addition onto each of those garages. The reason is due to the deterioration of the existing garages. He also noted that these additions would provide additional storage for these houses.
Board Member Durham inquired whether the applicant would be taking down the existing garages.
Mr. Broquet stated, they are deteriorated so badly that instead of repairing them, the garages will be taken down and new ones will be put in their place.
Board Member Geraci noted that this is a major non-conforming piece of property and you are asking us to add to the non-conformities. Also, he does not see any hardship to justify that.
Mr. Broquet noted that the garages are small one-car garages and they need more space to pull a car into them. Also, that currently the garages are 8'x22' and he wants to build the new garages at 22'x22'.
Mr. Berger noted that they would be 22'x23'. He also noted that all five houses are on one parcel and that is where the difficulty comes in. If it were five separate parcels, he wouldn't need to be here at all.
Mrs. Betty Broquet commented that the houses were built in the 1950's by her uncle many years ago and that's just what they did way back then and now she has it. Her parents passed away in 1999 and it was passed on to her.
Acting Chairman Walker offered time for public comments on this matter.
No comments were given.
Mrs. Broquet commented that she believes that it would improve the look of the neighborhood to have them made to look better.
Board Member Geraci commented that he agrees that they would look nicer, but he has a problem with making the non-conformity even larger.
Mr. Broquet stated, it is a non-conforming piece of property, but I guess my goal, too, is to enhance the neighborhood and make it more rentable at this time, too, along with the structures not being sound at this time. It's something that needs to be done.
Board Member Durham inquired whether Mr. Broquet has had an inspection done to confirm whether these garages were unsafe.
Mr. Broquet stated, no, I have not.
Mrs. Broquet stated, I'm going to have to disagree. They just need repair. It's not that they're unsound. One of the ladies that lived there for thirty years would hit the garage wall with her car and she extended it out and we pushed it back, but the boards are starting to rot on the one in particular that we want to fix right away. We have to fix it one way or the other and the roof probably needs to be repaired, too. It's starting to sag a little bit. It's not like it should be. Then the other two homes that are on the property and you're saying will you want to put garages on them, they're not built on the house like these two are.
Mr. Broquet stated, the other two houses, the garages are drive-in in the front, right off the street you drive right in to them and those garages can't be made any bigger, because it would encroach on the next-door neighbor.
Board Member Geraci stated, I'm looking for a hardship other than that they need fixing up. One of them looks like there is no renter in it now, but that's not what we're here for. We're not here to make structures rentable.
Moved by Board Member Geraci, supported by Acting Chairman Walker regarding case AB-2009-15, Douglas Broquet, requesting non-use variances for 2355 & 2377 Indianwood Road, from Zoning Ordinance No. 78, Section 27.02 for a 1,010-square foot variance of accessory use to construct two one-car garages at 320 square feet, that each be denied, because the petitioner has not established that practical difficulties exist, the petitioner has not established that compliance with the strict letter of the ordinance would unreasonably prevent the petitioner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with the ordinance unnecessarily burdensome and can comply with the ordinance by utilizing the existing condition. The petitioner has not established that the proposed variances would not be a detriment to the public safety and welfare, nor unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area and gives no evidence to the contrary. The petitioner has not established unique circumstances regarding the subject property. The variances relate to the user and not the land in question. This property is 2.3 acres containing five homes. This is an existing non-conforming parcel in a single-family residential zoning district. It is the position of the Zoning Board of Appeals to not increase non-conformities to this property. The petitioner has not established that the need for the variances is not self-created because of the existing non-conformities. The petitioner has established that even with the granting of the variances, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed and public safety secured. Roll call vote was as follows: Durham, yes; Geraci, yes; Crane, no; Cook, no; Walker, yes. Motion carried 3-2.
