Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic

Members: Gerard Dettloff, Kathleen Hardenburg, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis,

David A. Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Planning Commission

Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Kathleen Hardenburg,

Greg Hooper, Nicholas Kaltsounis, David Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and

Emmet Yukon

Present

9 -

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Also present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

2008-0300

May 20, 2008 Regular Meeting

A motion was made by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, that this matter be

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece,

Schroeder and Yukon

9 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Notice of Meeting Postponement - July 1 has been moved to July 29,

2008

B) Clinton River Review 2008 for September 26, 2008 at Oakland

University

C) Planning & Zoning News dated May 2008

D) 2009-2014 Final Capital Improvement Plan

NEW BUSINESS

Rochester Meadows was first on the Agenda, but no one

was present for the applicant at the start of the meeting, so

the Chair postponed the item until later on the Agenda.

2008-0302

Final Site Condominium Plan - Pine Woods Site Condominiums, a proposed 29-unit

development on 9.6 acres, located south of Auburn, west of M-59, zoned R-4, One

Family Residential, Parcel Nos. 15-34-101-012 & -013, L&R Homes, applicant

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Derek Delacourt,

dated June 17, 2008 and Final Site Condo Plan dated

received June 11, 2007 had been placed on file and by

reference became part of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant were Lorenzo and Vito Randazzo,

L & R Homes, 2490 Walton Blvd., #203, Rochester Hills, MI

48309.

Mr. Randazzo indicated that he was looking forward to a

recommendation of approval of the Final Site

Condominium Plan to City Council, and he advised that

they had been working with the City and with their

Engineers.

Mr. Delacourt summarized that the project was a 29-unit

site condominium development, which had been

recommended for Preliminary Plan approval a couple of

years ago by City Council. Since that time, the project had

gone through Construction Plan review, and those plans

were approved by the Engineering Department. The City

had also reviewed the Master Deed, By-Laws and Exhibit

Bs. He pointed out a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of the

public street, and said it was hoped that it would be

extended to Livernois in the future. Until then, the Master

Deed specified that Lot 17 could not be constructed until

the road was extended. The Preliminary Plan was

conditioned to protect trees abutting the existing Hazelton

Subdivision entrance, and the current plan also showed

them as protected. He noted that the Final Plan was

consistent with the Preliminary Plan, and that Staff was

recommending approval.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Randazzo if he had

anything to add, but Mr. Randazzo felt that everything was

updated nicely. Mr. Kaltsounis moved the following motion:

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, in the

matter of City File No. 05-005 (Pine Woods Site

Condominiums), the Planning Commission recommends

that City Council approve the Final Site Condominium Plan

based on plans dated received by the Department of

Planning and Development on June 11, 2007, with the

following four (4) findings and subject to the following five

(5) conditions.

Findings:

1. All applicable requirements of the One-Family

Residential Detached Condominiums Ordinance and

Zoning Ordinance can be met.

2. Adequate public utilities are currently available to

properly service the proposed development.

3. The Final Plan represents a reasonable and acceptable

plan for developing the property.

4. The Final Plan is in conformance with the Preliminary

Plan approved by City Council on March 15, 2006.

Conditions:

1. The applicant shall submit a Performance Bond for

proposed trees and landscaping of $56,781.00, as

adjusted if necessary by the City’s Landscape

Architect, prior to issuance of a Land Improvement

Permit.

2. Tree protective fencing must be installed, inspected

and approved by the City’s Landscape Architect prior

to the issuance of the Land Improvement Permit for

this development.

3. The applicant must obtain a Land Improvement Permit

and any outstanding permits and easements prior to

grading and construction commencing, per Public

Services memo of January 23, 2008.

4. Place detectible warnings at sidewalk ramps located in

the road right-of-ways, per Building Department memo

of January 28, 2008, prior to obtaining Building

Permits.

5. Exhibit B must be reviewed and approved by

Engineering Services Staff, prior to issuance of a

Land Improvement Permit.

Mr. Hooper mentioned that the last time the applicants were

before the Commission, it was noted that there was some

discussion with the owners of Lots 6 and 7 to the west with

the hope that there could be a connection to Livernois, and

he asked if there was anything new to report.

Mr. Randazzo said that they could not work anything out

with them. They tried, but nothing happened.

Ms. Hardenburg verified that the plans were received June

7, 2007. Mr. Delacourt advised that the plans were

submitted almost a year ago, while the applicant was going

through Construction Plan review.

A motion was made by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, that this matter be

Recommended for Approvalto the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece,

Schroeder and Yukon

9 -

2008-0303

Acceptance for Second Reading and Adoption - An Amendment to Chapter 138 of the

Code of Ordinances of the City of Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan, to rezone

one parcel of land totaling approximately .91 acre, known as Parcel No. 15-27-351-008 at

990 W. Auburn, at the northesast corner of Auburn and Livernois, from B-5, Automotive

Service Business to B-1, Local Business, and to prescribe penalities for the violation

thereof

(Reference: Staff Report, prepared by Ed Anzek, dated

June 17, 2008, and accompanying documentation from

applicant had been placed on file and by reference became

part of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant was Ron Jona, Ron Jona &

Associates, 29000 Inkster Road, Southfield, MI 48034.

Mr. Jona stated that he was appearing on behalf of the

developer as the architect and planner.

Mr. Anzek noted that he and Mr. Jona had been working for

several months on the proposal. The client would like to

redevelop the corner, which would take a Rezoning,

because a gas station use was not supported by the sellers

or the potential re-users. He recalled that there was a

previous applicant who wanted to redevelop the site about

two years ago. During discussions, they identified that the

site was cumbersome because of its configuration. They

knew that the required setbacks made the site complicated.

If Mr. Jona was approved and wished to pursue the project,

a Variance would be needed for the site. They would have

to establish the district for the property in order to know the

setbacks and what type of Variance would be needed. The

sequence would involve first a Rezoning, then a Variance

based on the design, and then Site Plan Approval request.

Chairperson Boswell said that no matter what the outcome,

the site would require some type of Variances. Mr. Anzek

said that with the current zoning, they would end up with a

10-foot wide available building envelope. He added that it

was similar to the problem for the Clark station on Auburn.

Mr. Jona said that he had looked at the corner for a number

of different people over the last seven years. They felt they

had a plan that would make sense, but they would need a

Variance. They believed that the density they proposed

would be reasonable, and that the development would be

far superior than the abandoned building that was there

now. They would redesign the curb cuts, and they hoped to

be able to put in a neighborhood-type development that

would be suitable for the area. They would not keep the

gas use.

Mr. Anzek advised that the recently adopted Master Plan

supported the corner as a Business Flexible Use 2. That

would support neighborhood commercial, and B-1 was an

appropriate zoning district for that.

Mr. Dettloff asked if the site was eligible for brownfield

redevelopment. Mr. Anzek was not sure, but he indicated

that the owners did a good tank cleanup after the Speedway

left. It was his understanding that they had an MDEQ

clearance. Mr. Dettloff asked if the property was under

contract, rather than purchased outright, to which Mr. Jona

agreed. Mr. Dettloff clarified that the sale was contingent

upon getting the necessary approvals.

Ms. Brnabic asked who did the cleanup, and Mr. Anzek

replied that it was owner, Marathon Oil. Ms. Brnabic asked

if everything had been removed, and she wondered who

would be responsible if further cleanup was necessary.

She thought something could have spread, even though the

tanks had been removed. She suggested that once the dirt

was removed for development, that they might find

something. Mr. Anzek agreed it would be wise for the

developer to take soil borings to test the site. If they found

something, they would have the right to go back to the

seller to make sure it was cleaned.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if the deed showed that the property

could no longer be used as a gas station. Mr. Anzek did not

think it was a deed restriction; it was the seller’s restriction.

Mr. Schroeder asked Mr. Jona if they had done any

preliminary plans to see how the site could be used or

where the building would be located.

Mr. Jona said they prepared a preliminary Site Plan and

they were looking at a two-tenant building for approximately

4-5,000 total square feet. He said it would be

conventionally planned, meaning that parking would be in

the front and the building in the back. Ingress/egress would

be from Auburn and Livernois, with both entrances moved

to the far edges of the site. They still would have to look at

detention and engineering issues, but they looked at the

Ordinance, and felt they would comply other than with the

rear yard setback. Mr. Schroeder asked if it would just be

the rear yard setback, and Mr. Jona believed it would be

rear and perhaps one side.

Mr. Schroeder was interested to know whether they would

be looking at major or minor Variances, and Mr. Jona said

that he would call them minor, because there was a lot of

room behind the building. The 50-foot setback would be

down to 25 feet, which was normal for other cities, but he

acknowledged it would be a 50% Variance for Rochester

Hills because of the multiple-family residential zoning on

that side of the property. He thought that the size of the

property caused a hardship, and that it would warrant the

Variance percentage. Mr. Schroeder asked if they had any

opportunity to get property to the east. Mr. Jona said that

the owner of that property contacted him, and they

discussed potential cooperation, at least, between the

developments. They could potentially connect, but as far

as joint development, it had not happened yet. If they were

approved for the Rezoning, they would show the owner to

the east the plans, and Mr. Jona remarked that anything

was possible. Mr. Schroeder said he was glad to see that

they would work together.

Ms. Brnabic asked Mr. Anzek if the preliminary Site Plan

would be presented to the ZBA before the Planning

Commission, if the Rezoning were approved. Mr. Anzek

said there should be separation between Site Plan issues

and the legislative action taken by the ZBA. The ZBA’s task

was to grant minimum relief, and it was not their job to

determine the Site Plan but to determine what was

reasonable to make the site work. Ms. Brnabic said she

asked the question because it had been brought up by the

Chair of the ZBA. He felt that if a Site Plan had been

approved by the Planning Commission and it then came

before the ZBA for Variance(s), it put the ZBA on the spot,

and they felt they had to grant them to make everything

work.

Mr. Anzek stated that the sequence would be a Rezoning,

then to ZBA, then to the Planning Commission. Mr. Anzek

related that Mr. Colling had expressed those concerns to

him as well. They would not want either body to dictate to

the other. The ZBA had to evaluate something with

different standards - minimum relief. It would become Mr.

Jona’s responsibility to put something workable together

and to seek minimum relief, and that was the burden to

present to the ZBA. Ms. Brnabic said she agreed. She said

she did not, personally, think retail on the corner would be a

bad idea. She acknowledged that the property was difficult

for a variety of reasons. She did not think it could function

realistically as a gas station even if Marathon would allow

it. She stated that it had been an eyesore for years, and

that if they could work with the applicant for a retail

establishment, she would support it.

Mr. Anzek reminded that B-1 was the least intrusive of the

commercial zonings. It was designed for neighborhood

support activities, and there were a lot of people that lived

in the area, which Mr. Jona’s letter also pointed out.

Mr. Dettloff agreed with Ms. Brnabic that it would be nice to

see the property finally redeveloped. He asked Mr. Jona

who the developer was, and Mr. Jona said it was Mr. Tom

Hannawa. Mr. Dettloff asked if he was local or from out of

state. Mr. Jona advised that his office was in Troy. He had

done a variety of small commercial projects. Mr. Jona said

that he had recently been engaged in four or five projects,

and Mr. Hannawa knew his background and track record

and he trusted Mr. Jona to work with the City to come up

with a plan that would suit the corner. Mr. Hannawa was not

ultimately opposed to making an appearance, but he had

complete faith in Mr. Jona’s abilities. Mr. Dettloff asked if

he knew the potential users. Mr. Jona said they would be

small users, but he did not name a tenant. Mr. Dettloff

encouraged him to keep an open dialogue with the

neighbor to the east throughout the process. Mr. Jona said

they absolutely would do that, and if there was anything

preemptively they could do to facilitate his land

development, he would.

Mr. Yukon asked whether, in the event the property was

rezoned for another use, Mr. Jona had any thoughts about

traffic at the intersection. He noted it was a pretty tight

corner, especially for traffic westbound on Auburn trying to

make a right onto northbound Livernois.

Mr. Jona said that there were two curb cuts by the corners

currently, and they would be moved with the new plan. He

had only visited the site once, and it was not at peak hours.

They might have to have maneuverability restrictions, such

as right in, right out only or stacking, and between the

Commission and the Road Commission, they would

probably have to do some road improvements. He said it

was the traffic that enticed them to believe they could make

a development work at the corner. Mr. Yukon said he

agreed with his fellow Commissioners that it would be nice

to see the corner cleaned up because it had been in a sad

shape for a very long time. He said that he would support a

Rezoning for the property.

Mr. Schroeder said he was in support also, and he felt that

Mr. Jona had a good track record, and he moved the

following motion:

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Dettloff, in the matter

of City File No. 95-015.3, the Planning Commission

recommends to City Council approval/denial of the

request to rezone Parcel No. 15-27-351-008 (0.91± acres)

from B-5, Automotive Service Business to B-1, Local

Business.

Chairperson Boswell stated that a Rezoning was a Public

Hearing, and he opened the Public Hearing at 7:57 p.m.

Seeing no one come forward, he closed the Public Hearing.

Hearing no further discussion, he read the motion and

called for a vote.

A motion was made by Schroeder, seconded by Dettloff, that this matter be

Recommended for Approvalto the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece,

Schroeder and Yukon

9 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion

had passed unanimously and thanked the applicant.

2008-0304

Site Plan Approval Request - City File No. 99-007.5 - T-Mobile American House,

installation of a proposed 120-foot cell tower, panel antennas, and communications

equipment on 681 square feet of the 7.8 acre southernmost American House parcel on

the east side of Adams, north of South Boulevard, zoned SP, Special Purpose, Parcel

No. 15-31-301-038, T-Mobile USA, Inc.applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report, prepared by Ed Anzek, dated

June 17, 2008, and accompanying documentation from

applicant had been placed on file and by reference became

part of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant was Wallace R. Haley, Haley Law

Firm, PLC, 8065 Grand River, Brighton, MI 48114.

Mr. Haley stated that he was present on behalf of T-Mobile.

He advised that the project included a 120-foot stealth

flagpole tower, signifying that it was not just a traditional

monopole. They had worked closely with Mr. Anzek and

with American House on where to put it, and the Site Plan

showed the agreed upon location. He referred to the packet

he had provided and to a photo of what it would look like

(packet on file in the Planning and Development

Department).

Mr. Anzek related that wireless telecommunication facilities

were a principal permitted use in the Special Purpose

district, which the site was zoned, as well all other districts.

Conditions of approval included that the pole had to be

designed and engineered to support a minimum of two

collocators. Also, the pole had to be set back at least as far

as the pole’s height from residential property. They

discussed the possibility with Mr. Haley of co-locating on

other towers in the area, which could not be met by

T-Mobile. Mr. Anzek indicated that it was not a unique

experience; the City was beginning to get numerous

requests from cell service providers for possible locations

throughout the City. That could be attributed to the increase

in text messaging and because people were getting rid of

their landlines and using cell phones at home. People

were also on their phones longer. He noted that the

equipment on the ground would be screened with an 8-foot

tall brick wall, and he concluded that the plans met the

Ordinance requirements.

Mr. Schroeder asked if there would be antennas attached to

the flagpole. Mr. Haley said they would be inside. The top

portion would actually be made of a radio frequency

penetrable material, and the antennas were inside with

shielded panels that could be removed.

Mr. Yukon asked what type of maintenance would be

required for the equipment and pole. Mr. Haley said it

would be visited by field technicians once a month.

Historically, it was usually closer to 60 days for an

inspection, to make sure animals were not inside the

cabinets and those types of things. Most of the diagnostics

were done remotely.

Mr. Yukon asked if the flagpole would be illuminated at

night. Mr. Haley stated that if the flag were being flown, it

would have to be lit. Mr. Yukon asked if the flag would be

flown every day, and Mr. Haley said that would be up to

American House. T-Mobile would provide the flag, but

whether they chose to fly it everyday would be up to them.

He said he had no problems with a condition stating that a

light would have to be provided if it was flown at night. Mr.

Yukon asked Mr. Haley if there had been any objection to

the 8-foot brick wall. Mr. Haley indicated that they had

talked about it, and it was somewhat larger in appearance,

but the next best opaque screening would be a wooden

fence. He felt it was a personal choice, and he noted that

the landlord did not have any feelings one way or the other.

The goal was to make sure the ground equipment was

covered.

Chairperson Boswell summarized that T-Mobile would

provide the flag and that American House would be

responsible for flying it. He reminded that there were

several occasions during the year when the flag was

supposed to be flown at half-mast, and that flags did

become tattered and needed to be replaced. He asked if it

would be the responsibility of American House to replace it,

which Mr. Haley confirmed. Chairperson Boswell

commented that if American House decided they did not

want to fly or replace it, they could just put the flag away

and there would be a pole sticking up in the middle of the

site.

Mr. Dettloff asked if the lease would be in five-year

increments, which Mr. Haley verified.

Mr. Anzek said it was his understanding from Mr. Leafdale,

who was active with the veterans, that a flag did not need to

be lit at night; it was just done as a customary practice. Mr.

Haley agreed there was not a law regarding that. The

lighting was a personal notion. Mr. Anzek asked if the pole,

due to its height, was required to have a red light for planes.

Mr. Haley said it was not, and that the FAA considered

anything 200 feet above ground level to be a hazard. There

were situations based on locations of airports where towers

less than 200 feet would have to be lit, but that was only for

certain situations.

Mr. Reece noted that Troy Beaumont had a heliport, and

quite often, they came in from the direction of American

House. Mr. Haley said he had no knowledge of the FAA

requiring anything, and he had not seen a letter from them

indicating that there was a hazard to aviation. Ms.

Hardenburg did not feel it was in the pattern for Troy. Mr.

Haley added that heliports were different, because their fly

zones were very minimal.

Mr. Kaltsounis said it was a concern to him that the pole’s

location would be on the highest point of the entire property.

Mr. Haley did not agree, and Mr. Kaltsounis said that

everything to the north was lower. Mr. Anzek said that the

property drained towards the tower location and on the

other side of the building (to the east) was the retention

basin for the property.

Mr. Kaltsounis said one thing that came to mind was that

there would be a very large residential community going in

just to the south. He next referred to the following Condition

and read, “No signals, lights or any other means of

illumination shall be permitted on the facility unless

required by State law.” He did not think they could light the

flag per the Ordinance. He thought it was a tough decision,

and he indicated that he did not think the flag would stay up

there on a daily basis. Upon questioning, Mr. Haley said

that American House would be given access to the ground

facility as part of the agreement.

Mr. Schroeder asked if the flag was on a mechanized

system, or if it would have to be cranked up and down by

hand. Mr. Haley said it would have to be cranked. Mr.

Schroeder remarked that at 120 feet, he would question

how often they would put the flag up and down. Mr. Haley

said there were a lot of maintenance people who could very

easily raise and lower the flag.

Chairperson Boswell said that without the flag, people

would drive by and see an 8-foot wall with a big “stick” and

nothing on top of it.

Ms. Brnabic said that was her concern, as well. She could

consider the fact that the tower concept was better than

those in prior years, but if a flag were flying on the pole, it

would at least represent something. Without it, it would just

look like a tall pole structure, or “stick” as Chairperson

Boswell pointed out. The fact that people would have to

crank the flag up and down by hand would make it much

more difficult. Perhaps they would just leave it up rather

than having to do that every day. She originally wondered if

they could request that the flag be flown all the time, but

she did not know if that was possible.

Chairperson Boswell asked if it was possible to put a

condition on American House. Mr. Anzek did not believe

so. He also thought that the orders to fly half mast were

only for government entities. He added that privately flown

flags did not have to honor those provisions. Ms. Brnabic

asked if they could require the pole to have a mechanical

system. Mr. Haley said that there might be a system, but

he had never seen one in all the poles they had done. Mr.

Anzek noted that the cabling for the flagpole in front of City

Hall was internal to the pole. There was a crank at the

bottom, and it moved the flag relatively easily. He clarified

that the cabling was external for the subject pole, and he

asked about wind causing the cable to bang against the

pole. Mr. Haley said he had not encountered that issue.

Mr. Anzek reiterated that the top half would be of a

fiberglass material, but the bottom half would be metal. Mr.

Haley said they had never gotten complaints about

anything banging against a facility. Mr. Haley brought up

the issue of the flag flying continuously, and he said he

thought American House would work that out with their

maintenance people. From a stealth design and planning

point of view, he thought the Commissioners would find the

flagpole much more aesthetically pleasing and much more

in line with trying to meet dual goals to cover residential

areas with minimally aesthetically disruptive towers. They

were doing a lot of them, and people said it was not

necessary to fly the flag because the monopole was a lot

less visually intrusive and considered a good way to go.

He referred to the tree at 14 Mile and Orchard Lake Road,

which people thought was 180 feet tall, which was, in

reality, only 120 feet tall. It was huge and structurally

massive. The unipole design was very slim and a less

visual way of going about things. He recapped that things

had changed, and that now people were using cell phones

in their homes. He referred to the Wireless Oakland project,

and commented that not a lot of things were being done in

that area, so people were using their cell phones.

Ms. Hardenburg asked if the flag would be large or of a

smaller size. Mr. Haley said it would be proportional, and

about 24 feet by 36 feet. He agreed a six-by-six foot flag

would not look too well. He presented one to the Mayor in

Westland, and it was rather large. Ms. Hardenburg asked

what would have to happen to get the flag lit at night. She

reminded that American House had a lot of senior citizens,

and that flags were lit at night because it was respectful, not

because it was a State law. She felt that the elderly people

would expect it to be lit. Mr. Anzek said they could make

that a condition of approval. Mr. Haley said they had put in

lights on a timer in other locations, which could be

manually overridden. Chairperson Boswell thought it would

be easier for everyone if it were never brought down. Mr.

Haley agreed.

Mr. Reece asked the average diameter of the flagpole. Mr.

Haley said that most of the poles were about 33 inches on

the bottom, tapering up to 27 inches. Mr. Reece asked if

there would be an orb on top, which Mr. Haley confirmed.

Mr. Reece asked if the metal part of the pole would be

stainless steel. Mr. Haley said it was galvanized steel that

would be painted white, and the radon portion would be

white also. Mr. Reece commented that it would look fairly

consistent. He asked at what elevation the antennae

material started. Mr. Haley replied that it would be located

between 80 and 100 feet.

Mr. Hooper said that he supported the stealth design for

those types of projects. He did not really support the look of

the base design, however. He asked if there was a way

they could add some relief elements, such as column

features, rather than having just a four-sided square block

structure. He asked if they could use the same color

scheme for the brick and limestone that would be used for

the recently approved American House building to the

north. Mr. Haley agreed they could match the bricking. He

suggested that they could add ornamental metal fencing on

top. Mr. Hooper remarked that it would look like a jail. Mr.

Haley suggested that if there were multiple color schemes

in the brick, they could pick up a row and stagger it. Mr.

Hooper said he was referring to columns or soldier piles.

He did mind an all brick and limestone feature, but he did

not like having four solid walls, and he felt there could be a

way to break them up with relief elements.

Mr. Reece suggested masonry veneer to match the color of

the masonry approved for American House to the north,

with a limestone cap. Rather than trying to make a silk

purse out of a sow’s ear, he said that he would be more

inclined to putting ornamental shrubbery or other

landscaping around the base to break up the wall.

Mr. Haley did not think there would be any room for

landscaping because it was taking up the island and traffic

went around it. It was a gravel island and the equipment

would take up almost the entire island. He wondered if they

could use some kind of block corners with a cap on the top.

Mr. Reece said they could use a split face, CMU product at

the base, for the first two and a half feet, and then add

masonry on top. Mr. Haley said they would be more than

happy to work with Mr. Anzek to come up with a design for

the wall. Mr. Reece said he would be available to come in

and work with Staff also.

Mr. Anzek said that at the Council meeting regarding

American House, they were informed that REDICO was

buying 18 of the 24 American Houses in southeast

Michigan, and they were going to begin an improvement

campaign to upgrade facades. He thought that Mr. Haley

could perhaps meet with someone from REDICO, and Mr.

Haley said he had no problem with that. He liked the idea

of stone below and brick above it. Mr. Reece said they

would have to have some type of base or substructure to

support the brick anyway, and they could sort of “kill two

birds with one stone.” Mr. Haley thought that would make

the American House owners happy, too.

Mr. Hooper brought up the size of the flag, and said that

based on the pictorial, the flag was scaled at about 10 x 14

feet. Mr. Haley had mentioned 24 feet by 36 feet, which

would be significantly different from the picture included.

Mr. Haley said they did not do the photos, but he knew the

flagpole in Westland was 120 feet, and he believed the flag

was at least 20 x 30 feet or larger. Mr. Hooper thought there

should be an expected size for the flag as a condition. Mr.

Anzek asked if the Planning Commission would accept

Staff seeking input from Mr. Leafdale from the City, who

was very much into patriotism and flags, to see what might

be an appropriate size. The bigger they were, the more

they would catch the wind and tatter. Mr. Reece said it

would be much harder to raise and lower a 24 x 36 foot flag.

He mentioned that his daughter was on the honor guard for

the Girl Scouts and they raised and lowered flags on

Mackinac Island, and the big flag took the whole troop to

keep it off the ground. Mr. Haley said there was a guideline

that dealt with flag etiquette and proportionality, so that x

amount of feet up equaled x amount of feet for the size of

the flag. The flags they always provided had evidently met

those guidelines. Mr. Hooper did not want to see

something too large or too small.

Ms. Brnabic referred to the flag and the possibility of putting

a condition on American House. She thought it would be

likely that they would keep the flag flying rather than

bringing it up and down everyday. If it were possible, she

would like it conditioned as part of the approval, and she

reminded that American House was the lessee. They

would profit from having the cell tower on their property.

She did not feel it was unreasonable to require that the flag

remained flying unless there was a good reason, and that it

be lit at night. If there was a practical difficulty and they had

to bring it down, that would be different. Chairperson

Boswell agreed they could add a condition. Mr. Anzek

wished to retract his earlier statement, and he felt they

could condition American House because they were part of

the application, and they had entered into a lease. He

thought the City’s Code Enforcement could take care of a

tattered flag. He felt it was perfectly within the

Commission’s rights to condition how the flag was flown

and lit. If American House was not in agreement with that,

they would have to discuss it further.

Mr. Kaltsounis proposed that Condition two be stricken and

replaced with “Timed light to illuminate the flag shall be

supplied for night time illumination.” Mr. Reece asked Mr.

Haley if he was sure that the FAA had approved the pole

without any lighting. Mr. Haley said he could not represent

for sure that he knew that, but at this stage, if the FAA had a

concern, he would have normally heard about it. Mr. Reece

said he would rather leave the Condition in and add a tenth

condition that added lighting for the flag. Mr. Kaltsounis

read that, “No signs, signals or other means of illumination

shall be permitted at all.” Mr. Reece added that it would not

be, unless required by Federal or State Law. Mr. Kaltsounis

said the condition meant that nothing could be there unless

the State allowed it. Mr. Anzek believed the Condition only

dealt with monopoles and regular towers, but because it

was a stealth pole with a flag on it, they could add wording

to require the lighting. Mr. Schroeder suggested that they

add, “except as noted in Condition 11,” so as to avoid

confusion.

The Commissioners discussed Condition three regarding

the design of the brick wall, and reworded it as presented in

the following motion. Mr. Hooper wanted to make sure that

the brick matched the newly approved building, which had

a more current look. Mr. Anzek said he would get Mr. Haley

in touch with the architect for that building to get the colors

of the brick. Mr. Schroeder moved the following motion:

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Yukon, in the matter

of City File No. 99-007.5 (T-Mobile American House Cell

Tower), the Planning Commission approves the Site Plan,

based on plans dated received by the Planning Department

on June 6, 2008, with the following eight (8) findings and

subject to the following eleven (11) conditions.

Findings:

1. The applicant has demonstrated that collocation on an

existing structure is not reasonably feasible.

2. The facility support structure is a single, vertical

monopole designed to accommodate at least two

wireless telecommunication arrays of antennas.

3. At 120 feet, the facility does not exceed the maximum

height requirement (165 feet), per Section 138-1075 of

the Zoning Ordinance.

4. The telecommunications facility is not located in the front

or side yard abutting a street.

5. The side yard setback measured to the edge of the

facility and adjacent to residential zoning (134 feet), is

greater than the height of the facility.

6. The proposed location of the flagpole tower does not

conflict with any existing underground utilities of

public water main, sanitary sewer or private storm

sewer.

7. The Site Plan and supporting documents demonstrate

that all applicable requirements of the Zoning

Ordinance, as well as other City ordinances,

standards, and requirements, can be met.

8. The proposed project, with appropriate screening, should

have a satisfactory and harmonious relationship with

the development on-site.

Conditions:

1. The facilities shall be installed and maintained in

accordance with the City’s Building Code.

2. No signs, signals, lights or other means of illumination

shall be permitted on the facility unless required by

State or Federal law, except as noted in Condition 11.

3. The facility shall be designed in such a fashion as to

blend in and match the new American House

residence to the north, and shall also provide

architectural elements so as to break up a flat split

face masonry base with a complimentary matching

masonry upper section and a limestone cap, to be

reviewed and approved by Staff prior to Final

Approval.

4. All plans must be signed and sealed by a Registered

Engineer, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

5. Provide pedestrian crosswalk markings to the westerly

building, which will replace existing sidewalk on

island, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

6. Provide note on plan stating that the support structure

shall be erected and available for collocation, and

show proposed location of collocators’ equipment

shelters.

7. Correct Parcel Number on Sheets T-1 and SS-2, and on

project summary to 15-31-301-038.

8. Submit an affidavit signed by a Registered

Design/Structural Engineer stating that the support

structure can support at least two wireless

telecommunication arrays of antennas.

9. Replace two existing trees to be removed from the island

elsewhere on site, to be approved by the City’s

Landscape Architect, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

10. Flag to be appropriately sized, as determined by Staff

prior to Final Approval.

11. The flag shall be flown continuously and illuminated

at night.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if everyone was o.k. with how the

traffic would flow around the base in the middle of two

buildings. Mr. Anzek said that the Fire Department looked

at it and did not have a problem with the access around the

wall.

A motion was made by Schroeder, seconded by Yukon, that this matter be

Approved.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece,

Schroeder and Yukon

9 -

2007-0324

Extension of the Tentative Preliminary Plat Until May 17, 2009 - Rochester Meadows, a

47-lot subdivision development on approximately 22 acres, located east of Rochester

Road and south of Avon, zoned R-3, One Family Residential, Rochester Meadows LLC,

applicant

This next item had been moved from the beginning of the

Agenda. No one was present for the applicant, and hearing

no objections, Chairperson Boswell decided the

Commissioners could discuss the request.

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated

June 17, 2008 and Tentative Preliminary Plat stamped

approved on May 17, 2006, had been placed on file and by

reference became part of the record thereof.)

Mr. Delacourt stated that it was the applicant’s (Mr. Roy

Rathka) second request for an Extension. He had been

slowly working with the Engineering Department and

moving the project forward.

Mr. Kaltsounis brought up a question raised to him by Mr.

Reece, and he asked how many Tentative Extensions they

were allowed to grant. Mr. Delacourt said they could grant

two. Mr. Kaltsounis asked what happened after that, and

Mr. Delacourt advised that, according to the Subdivisions

Ordinance, the applicant would have to then apply for a

Revised Tentative Preliminary Plat. Mr. Kaltsounis

suggested that they might have to reconsider that with the

Zoning Ordinance update because of the economic times.

Mr. Delacourt said if they came back with the same Plat,

that the motion would be to grant a Revised Tentative

Preliminary, and the intent would not change. Mr. Anzek

added that the basis for having expirations for a Plan, Plan

or condo was because of the possibility that the Ordinance

could be changed, and there would be new standards to

apply. If the standards did not change, he did not feel there

was a reason not to grant an Extension. He gave the Steep

Slope Ordinance as an example of something new they

used to re-evaluate plans. Mr. Schroeder agreed that there

certainly could be environmental and drainage changes.

Mr. Delecourt mentioned that the Oakland County

stormwater standards had changed, and Rochester

Meadows was fortunate enough to have gotten an

exemption beforehand from the Drain Commissioner’s

office, so they were not required to meet the 100-year

standard. He indicated that Rochester Meadows almost

was not going to be able to apply for an Extension.

Hearing no further discussion, Mr. Yukon moved the

following motion:

MOTION by Yukon, seconded by Reece, in the matter of

City File No. 99-011 (Rochester Meadows Subdivision), the

Planning Commission recommends a one-year Approval of

an Extension of the Tentative Preliminary Plat, approved by

City Council on May 17, 2006 until May 17, 2009.

A motion was made by Yukon, seconded by Reece, that this matter be

Recommended for Approvalto the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece,

Schroeder and Yukon

9 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion

had passed unanimously.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2008-0301

Rayconnect Project

Mr. Anzek conveyed that for two years, the Planning and

Development Department had been working tirelessly with

a company in town, called Rayconnect, that was under the

threat of leaving. He noted that they were a very successful

company that was growing, and they needed new facilities.

The State was in stiff competition with South Carolina. The

company had been in Rochester Hills for 20 years and had

spun off and grown and they were still growing.

Rayconnect was a spinoff of A. Raymond, another

company in the industrial park. In Lansing that morning, a

MEGA grant had been approved for Rayconnect, which

boosted incentives. Also, a State law had been changed

on behalf of the company, which included incentives for the

retention of jobs rather than the attraction. He explained

that through a series of efforts from Senator Bishop’s office,

there was legislation amended to support keeping the

company in Michigan. The City was now on a fast track to

get approvals for the company. Their initial goal had been

to occupy a new building by January 2010. They bid high

on a job because they did not really need the work, but they

were awarded the contract anyway, which was due at the

end of February 2009. Staff had several discussions with

Council about it, and there were things the City had to put in

place to support the project. Mr. Anzek showed a concept

for the site, and said that Staff was going to bring it forward

as fast as possible to the Planning Commission. The City

would like to show the State and the Country that it can

compete. He stated that keeping quality jobs in the City

was important - the effect would be people buying quality

homes, attending schools here and spending money on

other businesses in the City. It was very important to the

City Council that there was an active approach to the

retention and attraction of quality jobs.

Mr. Anzek next referred to the 1998 Master Land Use Plan,

which talked about extending Austin Ave. (which relates to

the Rayconnect project) as far back as 1973. Austin Ave. is

located off of Crooks just south of the McDonalds and

Wendy’s, and it went into the industrial park area. It was

always proposed to be extended upward through vacant,

35-acres of industrial land. The areas were currently only

serviced by Devondale, which was a gravel road through a

residential neighborhood. The City had attempted the

Austin Ave. extension through a CIP project. They worked

with the property owners to get right-of-way, but they

needed a user for the site because it did not make

economic sense to expend the money. They waited until

there was a firm commitment for the site, and Rayconnect

bought the property. The City would buy the right-of-way

from them and Austin Ave. would now be extended. They

were pursuing the possibility of a payback agreement with

the developer, whereby they would build the road under the

City’s guidance and the City would reimburse them once

completed. Mr. Anzek advised that the proposed building

would be 64,000 square feet with a planned expansion to

111,000 square feet; there would be a wetland crossing,

and they were filing an application with the DEQ; and the

site would be done in two phases, with the eastern side

first. Devondale would also be improved. He realized that

people questioned tax abatements, and they assumed the

City was giving away taxes, but that was not the case. The

City would be giving up half of the taxes for an extended

period, and they would still get half the taxes.

Mr. Anzek advised that there had been a press conference

at City Hall at 3:00 p.m. to announce the company. The

Governor held one at noon, also. Mr. Anzek claimed that it

was pretty attractive for the State and a real coup for the

City. There would initially be 70 jobs, which would grow to

110 immediately, and ultimately to 200.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked about their product. Mr. Anzek

explained that they built quick-connect fuel line systems for

cars. A. Raymond built fasteners, where the cabling was

hooked to the cars and about five years ago, they

developed plastic mold injection systems for quick snap

together for fuel lines and hydraulic hoses. Mr. Kaltsounis

said he used to work for similar companies. He was happy

to see that they were doing well, because a lot of

companies were moving away from those systems. Mr.

Anzek said they were doing extremely well; it was a

French-owned company that started in 1895. They were in

18 countries around the world, and there were three or four

in the U.S. Mr. Dettloff asked what their investment would

be, and Mr. Anzek advised that the building and equipment

would cost $14 million dollars.

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled that the City extended the water

main in the southeast portion of the City, and that there was

a lot of development that came from that. He thought it

definitely was a benefit to do that type of thing. Mr. Anzek

said that in 2002, when that was proposed, it was really

contrary to Council policy. They estimated that there would

be a four to seven year payback from capital and other

charges and taxes generated for the City. There were two

office buildings there, and Beaumont was coming. Just

from the two buildings (Wellpointe and Executive Place) the

City had a six-year projected payback. It was a

$600,000.00 expense, but it would pay back the City

tremendously. There were many jobs created also. Mr.

Kaltsounis agreed that the buildings and the jobs were

significant. Mr. Anzek said that an annual study showed

that a payroll dollar paid in the City was re-spent 5.18 times.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked about improvements for Devondale,

which showed a cul-de-sac. He noted that it was about two

blocks from his house. Mr. Anzek felt they had to keep the

road open for emergency access and it was really just in

the conceptual stage. They did not want everything

dependent upon Austin. They would require all truck traffic

to use Austin, and they might not cul-de-sac Devondale.

Mr. Kaltsounis said it was a SmartZone area, and it would

possibly help take the area to the next step. Mr. Anzek

agreed, and said the City already had other interest when

the road happened. Mr. Kaltsounis said it did not make

sense to cul-de-sac the road. Mr. Anzek said that the

reason it had been in the plans since 1973 was to reduce

the employment and truck traffic on Devondale. Mr.

Kaltsounis asked if Devondale connected to the road by the

storage facility and to the road by McDonald’s. Mr. Anzek

said it did not. Mr. Anzek said there was a security gate by

McDonald’s, but not a real road. Mr. Kaltsounis said he

would like to see something done with Leach and

Devondale. Mr. Anzek said that Leach was a tough one; it

had been in the LDFA Master Plan for about four years.

They amended the LDFA to include the area, primarily for

funding sources from LDFA capture. Leach had also been

identified for improvement, but the northern part of Leach

was improved by Adams, connecting to Waterview, and

they were going to put Technology Drive to Adams, so the

heavy traffic could move directly to Adams, rather than to

Auburn. The remainder of Leach, from Auburn up to

Waterview, was a gravel road. There was a mixture of

single-family homes and some contractors, and they were

not sure they wanted to pave the rest of it. They thought the

entire corridor could eventually be redone by someone

looking for a large track of land, and they would not want to

tear up the road after they built it. They would have to

watch the market. Mr. Kaltsounis said that people might be

staying away because it was not done, and Mr. Anzek

agreed, and said they had been talking with Council for

several years because other companies had been looking

at the area.

Mr. Anzek summarized that when the Rayconnect plans

came forward, Staff wanted to take them through technical

compliance as quickly as possible and get it before the

Planning Commission. Rayconnect wanted to occupy the

building in six months, which was an extremely fast track.

They needed the road built and many Permits, and Staff

was going do everything to keep it moving. He added that it

was amazing to see what other states were giving away.

When they first started in discussions, there was a $6

million dollar gap in incentives, and the State closed the

gap considerably. It came out to be less than what their out

of pocket moving costs would be. Mr. Anzek mentioned

another economic development accomplishment, and said

that a company called Raval, Inc. was coming to Rochester

Hills. They did not have a plant in the U.S. anywhere. They

worked with fuel tanks and filtration systems, and he was

pleased to announce that their first plant would be in

Rochester Hills.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the July 1, 2008 meeting had

been postponed until July 29, 2008, and that the next Regular Meeting was

scheduled for July 15, 2008.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Commission, the Chair

adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:05 p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary