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, Dale Hetrick, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O‎. ‎Kaltsounis,‎

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

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎00 ‎

p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Dale Hetrick, Greg ‎

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

Yukon‎

Present

9 -

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Economic Development‎

James Breuckman, Manager of Planning‎

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2012-0059

February ‎7‎, ‎2012 ‎Regular Meeting‎

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

Approved as Presented‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hetrick, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece, Schroeder ‎

and Yukon‎

9 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎)‎ Planning & Zoning News dated February ‎2012‎

B‎)‎ Letter from David Nagel, dated February ‎28‎, ‎2012‎ re‎: ‎Avon Lakes ‎

Condo‎

C‎)‎ MDOT Rochester Rd‎. ‎Reconstruction Notice for April‎-‎November ‎

2012‎

NEW BUSINESS

2012-0056

Request for Preliminary Site Condominum Plan Recommendation and Public ‎

Hearing ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎11‎-‎011 ‎- ‎Avon Lakes Condominium, a two‎-‎unit ‎

development on Mackwood, west of Dequindre, zoned R‎-‎4‎, One Family ‎

Residential, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎25‎-‎202‎-‎040‎, Hamlin Associates, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Ed Anzek, dated March ‎6‎, ‎2012 ‎

and Preliminary Plan had been placed on file and by reference became ‎

part of the record thereof‎.)‎

Present for the applicant was Dale Garrett, Hamlin Associates, ‎5877 ‎

Livernois, Suite ‎103‎, Troy, MI ‎48098‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek advised that Mr‎. ‎Garrett had submitted a single‎-‎family ‎

detached site condominium plan, which was required, under State law, if ‎

someone wished to divide property that had been previously platted‎. ‎The ‎

parcel was part of the Mac Kary Subdivision‎. ‎The site was ‎1‎.‎25 ‎acres and ‎

proposed to be divided into three parcels, one of which would be a ‎

Limited Common Element, or preserved area‎. ‎The other two would reflect ‎

two single‎-‎family lots, which would meet the City‎’‎s R‎-‎4 ‎zoning ‎

requirements for width, depth and lot size‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek further advised that ‎

the Tree Conservation Ordinance did not apply to the site because it ‎

applied to subdivisions platted after ‎1988‎. ‎A small piece of land was split ‎

off of a lot in Avon Lakes No‎. ‎3 ‎and made part of the subject parcel‎. ‎Avon ‎

Lakes No‎. ‎3 ‎also received approval prior to ‎1988‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek noted that ‎

the plan had been approved by the reviewers, and that subject to City ‎

Council approval, the next step in the process would be to develop ‎

construction documents for engineering‎-‎related work‎. ‎Once that was ‎

completed, the applicant would be entitled to come back to the Planning ‎

Commission for a Recommendation for the Final Plan‎. ‎As with any site ‎

condo development, a Master Deed and Exhibits would have to be ‎

recorded with the County‎. ‎He said that without calling it a lot split, it was ‎

basically a lot split, but the procedure for that would not be applicable‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garrett noted that they would be doing minimal work to the site‎. ‎There ‎

were already two existing sanitary sewer leads that would service each of ‎

the lots, a watermain on the same side of the street which was easy to tap ‎

into and a small amount of storm sewer to install‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at ‎7‎:‎06 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎

Gerald Turgeon, ‎1711 ‎S‎. ‎Shore Drive, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48307‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Turgeon stated that he was speaking for the Avon Lakes Homeowner‎’‎s ‎

Association, for which he was a Board member‎. ‎He said that they had no ‎

objection per se, although they were a little unsure at first because of site ‎

condos on platted property‎. ‎He did not think it would be a problem and ‎

asked if they would be treated as homesites, which Mr‎. ‎Garrett confirmed‎. ‎

He noted the trees in the commons area, and said he hoped they would ‎

not be deeded to their Association because they did not want to have to ‎

maintain the trees‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garrett had informed him that they would actually ‎

be deeded to the homeowners who would be responsible for them‎. ‎They ‎

would also like the new homeowners to be members of the Avon Lakes ‎

Homeowner‎’‎s Association and pay dues, rather than having a separate ‎

Association, because they would be allowed to use the lake and the Avon ‎

Lakes Association maintained the lake‎. ‎They believed they understood ‎

the difference between platting and the site condo rules‎. ‎He asked if ‎

storm sewers would be maintained the same as for other homes on the ‎

site, which Mr‎. ‎Garrett confirmed‎. ‎

Martin Goschnick, ‎2059 ‎Baron Dr‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48307‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Goschnick stated that he was from Avon Woods, to the west of the subject ‎

parcel‎. ‎He said that his was one of three houses that abutted the subject ‎

property‎. ‎He spoke with all three property owners and they had objected ‎

to the proposal‎. ‎He acknowledged that he was hearing better information, ‎

and that there would be two houses following the correct ordinances, and ‎

the applicant would not be crowding two homes on the parcel to get ‎

around things‎. ‎He asked if the parcel would remain part of the Mac Kary ‎

Subdivision, which was a non‎-‎ruling entity‎. ‎He pointed out that people in ‎

that subdivision were capable of doing a lot of things, like parking motor ‎

homes in their driveways, and he would be concerned if the proposed ‎

homes did not fall under the rules and regulations of the subdivisions on ‎

both sides‎. ‎He asked if the proposed homeowners would have to pay ‎

maintenance fees that most condos required‎. ‎He would be concerned if ‎

there were a two‎-‎person condo association, which he thought would be ‎

completely useless‎. ‎He would be concerned if it failed‎. ‎He questioned ‎

whether a two‎-‎person association would hire a lawyer to oversee the ‎

mandatory association‎. ‎He mentioned that he had walked up and down ‎

the streets talking to neighbors‎. ‎He wondered the rules as to how many ‎

people had to be informed of the meeting, because he was amazed at the ‎

number of people on Mackwood that had no clue‎. ‎He had collected ‎

signatures from people that were against it ‎“‎until they had more ‎

information‎.‎” ‎

Seeing no further people that wished to speak, Chairperson Boswell ‎

closed the Public Hearing at ‎7‎:‎12 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎He asked Mr‎. ‎Anzek about the ‎

notification requirements‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek advised that in accordance with State law passed in ‎2008‎, ‎

notification requirements must go to those property owners adjacent or ‎

contiguous‎. ‎It was somewhat new for the City and only the second time it ‎

had been done‎. ‎Prior to that, site condos and plats did not require any ‎

notification‎. ‎He said that Mr‎. ‎Goschnick raised good legal questions ‎

about the structure of the association‎. ‎It was more of a private contract ‎

between property owners, and the City did not get involved‎. ‎He would ‎

defer to Mr‎. ‎Garrett as to how they would structure their Master Deed, ‎

which might become part of the Avon Lakes overall Homeowner‎’‎s ‎

Association‎. ‎Some mechanism would need to be in place, because the ‎

Limited Common Element would be a taxable parcel, and a tax bill would ‎

be submitted to the property owners‎. ‎Whether that burden became a cost ‎

to the Avon Lakes Homeowner‎’‎s Association, he was not sure‎. ‎As far as ‎

the Mac Kary requirements, if there were Deed Restrictions, the City did ‎

not enforce them‎. ‎If there were issues with RVs or boats or other things, ‎

the City would enforce its ordinances for property maintenance and code ‎

compliance‎. ‎He realized that the term ‎“‎site condo‎” ‎did cause confusion, ‎

and some people did not understand it‎. ‎It was basically a way of dividing ‎

property that was once platted‎. ‎The State put that into play many years ‎

ago, and it was the only tool available to the Garretts to divide the ‎

property‎. ‎The minimum lot size was ‎9‎,‎600 ‎square feet, and the proposed ‎

lots were about ‎19‎,‎000 ‎square feet‎. ‎He believed that the Limited ‎

Common Element was intended to be preserved in its natural state‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garrett agreed that was correct‎. ‎It had always been their intent to ‎

include the parcel as part of the Avon Lakes Homeowner‎’‎s Association‎. ‎

(‎They built that subdivision also‎). ‎The two new owners would be subject to ‎

the same rules and access and be required to pay the same dues‎. ‎

Regarding the common area, it was supposed to stay in its natural state‎. ‎

They could walk a dog there, but the point was to leave it as it was‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell asked how large the common area would be, and ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garrett replied that it would be ‎16‎,‎217 ‎square feet‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis asked when the property was originally platted, and Mr‎. ‎

Anzek said it was the fifties‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis asked if it had been put aside ‎

as open space‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek said that in the Mac Kary Subdivision, the ‎

frontage along Mackwood was one large parcel and it had been split into ‎

five parcels‎. ‎It could not be split into more than five from the original ‎

parcel‎. ‎The subject parcel was the remaining parcel and could only be ‎

split using the site condo rules‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis agreed, and he remarked ‎

that open space rules probably were not around in the fifties‎.‎

Hearing no further discussion, Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis moved the following ‎

motion, which was seconded by Mr‎. ‎Yukon‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Kaltsounis, seconded by Yukon, in the matter of City File ‎

No‎. ‎11‎-‎011 ‎(‎Avon Lakes Condominium‎)‎, the Planning Commission ‎

recommends that City Council ‎grants Tentative Approval‎ of‎ ‎the ‎

Preliminary Site Condominium Plan‎, based on plans dated received by ‎

the Planning Department on November ‎3‎, ‎2011‎, with the following five ‎(‎5‎) ‎

findings and subject to the following two ‎(‎2‎) ‎conditions‎.‎

Findings‎:‎

1‎.‎ Upon compliance with the following conditions, the preliminary ‎

plan meets all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance ‎

and One‎-‎Family Residential Detached Condominiums Ordinance‎.‎

2‎.‎ Adequate utilities are available to properly service the proposed ‎

development‎.‎

3‎.‎ The preliminary plan represents a reasonable lot layout and ‎

orientation‎. ‎

4‎.‎ The Environmental Impact Statement shows that this development ‎

will have no substantially harmful effects on the environment‎.‎

5‎.‎ The proposed use will not create additional requirements at public ‎

cost for public facilities and services that will be detrimental to the ‎

economic welfare of the community‎.‎

Conditions‎:‎

1‎.‎ Provision of ‎$200‎ per unit for street trees, payment made prior to ‎

obtaining a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

2‎.‎ That the applicant receives all engineering‎-‎related permits, including ‎

a Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Permit and approved ‎

Construction documents required by Public Services prior to Final ‎

Plan Approval‎.‎

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

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting,‎. ‎The motion ‎

carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hetrick, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece, Schroeder ‎

and Yukon‎

9 -

2012-0060

Request for Conditional Land Use Recommendation and Public Hearing ‎- ‎City ‎

File No‎. ‎12‎-‎002 ‎- ‎To construct a drive‎-‎through for a proposed ‎2‎,‎640 ‎square‎-‎foot ‎

Taco Bell at Campus Corner Plaza, on one acre on Walton Blvd, east of ‎

Livernois, zoned B‎-‎3‎, Shopping Center Business, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎15‎-‎101‎-‎026‎, ‎

WT Development Corp‎. ‎for Taco Bell of America, LLC, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by James Breuckman, dated March ‎2‎, ‎

2012 ‎and associated Site Plan and review documents had been placed ‎

on file and by reference became part of the record thereof‎.)‎

Present for the applicant was Bill Beckett, WT Development Corp‎. ‎for ‎

Taco Bell of America, LLC, ‎10223 ‎E‎. ‎Cherry Bend Rd‎.‎, Suite A, Traverse ‎

City, MI ‎49684‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman advised that the request was for a Conditional Land Use ‎

and Site Plan Approval for a Taco Bell with a drive‎-‎through at the ‎

southeast corner of Walton and Livernois‎. ‎He explained that the zoning ‎

was B‎-‎3‎, and drive‎-‎through restaurants required a CLU Approval‎. ‎He ‎

noted that the proposed location for the Taco Bell was currently in a ‎

parking area next to the gas station‎. ‎There were no new driveway ‎

accesses proposed; it would use the existing internal parking lot ‎

circulation system and the existing access to Walton‎. ‎

Regarding specific Site Plan review considerations, Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said ‎

that parking was probably the biggest thing‎. ‎The plans noted that ‎79 ‎

people would be the maximum allowed, and the Zoning Ordinance ‎

required one parking space for every two people at maximum occupancy‎. ‎

That would require ‎40 ‎spaces, and they were proposing ‎24 ‎on site; ‎

however, it would be a land lease, not a separate parcel, and the applicant ‎

had submitted terms of the lease which provided for cross access ‎

between the shopping center and the Taco Bell site‎. ‎He went to the site, ‎

and the parking requirement was ‎381 ‎spaces for the shopping center, but ‎

the total spaces on site was ‎501‎, so there was plenty of parking according ‎

to Ordinance‎. ‎The applicant had oriented the site so that stacking could ‎

be accommodated within the lease area without interfering with the ‎

circulation aisles‎. ‎He had listed some comments for landscaping ‎- ‎a ‎

landscape bond and irrigation plan was to be provided, and there were ‎

some minor comments in Parks and Forestry‎’‎s review about substituting ‎

a few ornamental tree species and the spacing requirements for trees‎. ‎

He felt that those conditions were easily met‎. ‎The applicant was ‎

proposing ‎400‎-‎watt fixtures‎. ‎The Ordinance specified a maximum of ‎250 ‎

watts, with the exception that the Planning Commission could permit ‎

400‎-‎watt fixtures in cases where there was some hardship‎. ‎He did not feel ‎

there was a hardship ‎- ‎they would probably have to add one more pole ‎

with ‎250‎-‎watt fixtures, and it would actually end up as more even and ‎

consistent lighting within the site‎. ‎The lighting plan needed to be revised ‎

because it exceeded the maximum light intensities permitted by ‎

Ordinance, and they also needed cut sheets of the proposed fixtures‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman continued that there was existing stormwater ‎

management, and the Engineering Dept‎. ‎had reviewed it and ‎

recommended approval‎. ‎There was less impervious surface with the ‎

proposal than existing, so it should reduce stormwater runoff‎. ‎The ‎

restaurant would be a custom adaptation of Taco Bell‎’‎s standard design ‎

with some raised parapets‎. ‎The site sat about nine feet below Walton ‎

Blvd‎.‎, and the parapets were raised to screen the rooftop‎. ‎There were a ‎

couple of site detail items, including the spikes on the proposed fences ‎

and the dumpster enclosure at the south of the Mobil station, which was ‎

currently oriented to the south‎. ‎With the width of the circulation aisle, he ‎

was not sure if that would be easy for garbage trucks to get in and out‎. ‎It ‎

would require a ‎90‎-‎degree turn, and he did not think that was possible, so ‎

he was recommending that the applicant rotate the dumpster enclosure ‎

towards the east‎. ‎They should submit a turning radius with that to ‎

demonstrate whether it was feasible‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman referred to the memo from the Fire Department which was ‎

marked Disapproved‎. ‎He noted that the four comments were very minor ‎

in nature, and they would not impact the site design or site layout‎. ‎The ‎

Fire Department would not do an ‎“‎approved with conditions‎” ‎memo‎. ‎He ‎

did not think it was fair to hold up the applicant for another month to ‎

submit revised plans with four notes and no layout changes‎. ‎Staff was ‎

recommending any approval be conditioned so that the Fire Department ‎

would be able to re‎-‎review the plans prior to Staff Approval of the plans‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman advised that the motions in the Staff Report addressed all ‎

of the comments made with conditions, and he said he would be happy to ‎

answer any questions‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Beckett noted that the only Taco Bell in close proximity was the one at ‎

Hampton Village on Rochester Road‎. ‎It was a very popular location, and ‎

Taco Bell was anxious to relieve some of the pressure on that store‎. ‎

They had looked at the proposed location for quite some time, and they ‎

were able to create a development lease parcel out of the existing ‎

shopping center‎. ‎The center had ample parking‎. ‎The site was able to be ‎

developed without providing any new curb cuts‎. ‎They would use the ‎

shopping center accesses off Walton and Livernois‎. ‎The street was ‎

elevated about nine feet above the site, so there would be no headlight ‎

glare‎. ‎There were no residents in the area, so any noise would be ‎

muffled‎. ‎The building was about ‎2‎,‎640 ‎square feet with ‎46 ‎interior seats ‎

and stacking space for ‎10 ‎cars‎. ‎He showed building elevations, noting ‎

that it was not a typical Taco Bell, but a ‎“‎Rochester Hills Special‎.‎” ‎They ‎

had designed the building footprint to work specifically with the parcel, ‎

which was fairly tight‎. ‎They looked at Taco Bell‎’‎s standard exterior ‎

elements and enhanced them‎. ‎The materials on the building would be a ‎

stone wainscot around the base of the building and on the columns on the ‎

towers‎. ‎The balance of the walls would be four‎-‎inch face brick‎. ‎At the top ‎

of the towers would be a minor EFIS, stucco‎-‎type system‎. ‎The building ‎

would be elevated so that pedestrian traffic on Walton Blvd‎. ‎would not be ‎

able to see the roof top mechanical units‎. ‎He added that the primary ‎

dining room entrances faced east and south‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Beckett stated that in terms of employment and impact on the ‎

community, Taco Bell would hire between ‎35 ‎and ‎50 ‎new employees‎. ‎

The hours of operation would be similar to the Rochester Rd‎. ‎store, but ‎

Taco Bell would like to open it with no restrictions on the hours‎. ‎They ‎

were introducing breakfast across the country, and it was slowly moving ‎

from west to east, so they expected some deviation from the typical ‎

business hours‎. ‎They did not have an indication yet that it would be a ‎

24‎-‎hour business‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Beckett said that the primary access would be from the south side ‎- ‎

the shopping center ‎- ‎where there was a single driveway‎. ‎There would be ‎

perpendicular parking along the south and east property lines and going ‎

north towards Walton, someone could enter the drive‎-‎through lane and it ‎

would become one‎-‎way traffic at that point‎. ‎He noted that the order ‎

station would be fully screened with nice landscaping‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper said that he was not really crazy about the location of the ‎

dumpster at the southwest corner‎. ‎He asked Mr‎. ‎Beckett if he had looked ‎

at any other locations on site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett said that at one point, the ‎

dumpster was facing east‎. ‎The drawback was that everyone who entered ‎

and exited the site would do so in full view of the dumpster‎. ‎He offered ‎

that they might be able to look at the dumpster in relation to the setback ‎

along the common property line with Mobil and see if the depth of the ‎

trash enclosure could be deepened, which might allow them to orient the ‎

dumpster at a ‎45‎-‎degree angle‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper asked if he had looked at the far north property line, inside the ‎

footprint of the site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett said they did not look at that, but he ‎

thought that it could perhaps be a consideration‎. ‎He noted that there was ‎

a ‎75‎-‎foot building setback to address‎. ‎The dumpster would be an ‎

accessory structure, and he would need some guidance on how that ‎

might work‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that he would typically look for dumpsters to be in the ‎

rear or side yard and because of the access from the internal, the front ‎

yard was acting as a rear yard‎. ‎He did not think moving it closer to ‎

Walton was something they would normally do‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett said that ‎

there were a row of parks immediately south of the drive aisle with a small ‎

landscape belt there‎. ‎They might be able to work with the shopping ‎

center owner and open ‎25‎-‎30 ‎feet of curbing that would allow the truck a ‎

more perpendicular access‎. ‎That could cause the loss of three or four ‎

parking spaces, but there were ample spaces on site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper said that he did not see a great solution one way or the other‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that there was actually a grade differential between ‎

the Mobil and the Taco Bell site, so that would actually help hide the ‎

dumpster because people would not see the back of it‎. ‎It would only be ‎

seen from the side‎. ‎He suggested that some additional landscaping ‎

would help conceal the sides and soften the appearance‎. ‎He agreed that ‎

there was no really good answer for it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper clarified that they did ‎

not want to put it closer to Walton because they considered it the front ‎

yard, even though it was the rear of the Taco Bell‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett said that if ‎

someone was using the sidewalks along Walton, he or she would have a ‎

direct view of the dumpster‎. ‎He felt the southwest corner was the optimal ‎

location‎. ‎He reminded that the enclosure would be masonry and match ‎

the building materials, and there would be no EFIS‎. ‎The gates would be ‎

solid metal‎. ‎They could enhance the landscaping, but he felt that the ‎

issue was truck access‎. ‎He thought they could reorient the dumpster or ‎

work with the landlord to gain direct access‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper emphasized that the front loading trash vehicles in Rochester ‎

Hills would not be able to make that turn, so he recommended that it ‎

would have to be changed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yukon asked how many patrons Mr‎. ‎Beckett felt Taco Bell would be ‎

serving at its facility each day‎. ‎He asked that because in looking at the ‎

footprint of the development, they could see the cars queued in the ‎

drive‎-‎up lane, but they could not see the cars coming into the site‎. ‎He ‎

was concerned about traffic flow through the development‎. ‎He mentioned ‎

that he went to the shopping center at least once a week to shop at ‎

Kroger, and there was a lot of traffic there and a lot of congestion in the ‎

parking lot‎. ‎He asked if there had been a traffic study done for the area‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Beckett responded that they had not done a traffic study‎. ‎He felt that ‎

the internal dynamics of the site lent itself well to the existing shopping ‎

center‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yukon referred to the Taco Bell on Rochester Rd‎. ‎and said ‎

that it had a tremendous amount of cars serviced every day, and the ‎

traffic flow at the proposed site was a concern‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett pointed out ‎

that there were three access ways to and from the shopping center‎. ‎There ‎

could be a long stacking space; he showed where the tenth car would be ‎

from the window‎. ‎He realized that the Rochester Rd‎. ‎site stacked up fairly ‎

well internally, and they had a similar situation where they backed up to ‎

the shopping center access drive‎. ‎He was not aware of ongoing issues at ‎

that location‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yukon reiterated that at this point, he had concerns ‎

about potential traffic congestion‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked Mr‎. ‎Beckett how long the land lease would go‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Beckett said that he was not the owner or operator, but he expected that it ‎

would be a ‎20‎-‎year lease with an option‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked how the ‎

proposed site compared to the site on Rochester Rd‎.‎, dimension‎-‎wise‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Beckett said there was a little less parking at the proposed site, but he ‎

did not know how many acres the Rochester Rd‎. ‎site was‎. ‎The proposed ‎

site was an acre for Ordinance purposes‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman advised that ‎

the Rochester Rd‎. ‎site was comparable in size, but it laid out better‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Dettloff asked if it would be corporate‎-‎owned and operated, which was ‎

confirmed‎. ‎He asked if that was standard for all Taco Bells or if they had ‎

franchises‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett said that there was a substantial franchise base ‎

throughout the country‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked what the standard hours would ‎

be‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett advised that they would generally be ‎10 ‎a‎.‎m‎. ‎until ‎2 ‎or ‎3 ‎

a‎.‎m‎.‎, except for the weekends, when they would usually stay open until ‎4 ‎

a‎.‎m‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked about employee parking‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett answered ‎

that the employee parking would be offsite‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic indicated that she was glad that the employees would park ‎

offsite‎. ‎She was concerned regarding safety because there would only be ‎

24 ‎spaces, and people would come in from Walton and Livernois just for ‎

the restaurant, so there would be traffic flowing from all over‎. ‎She realized ‎

some people would walk in from Walton, but she felt it was unrealistic to ‎

expect other people to park offsite‎. ‎She was not sure if it would be safe for ‎

pedestrians and vehicles trying to use the site‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic asked if they planned to install an automatic sprinkler ‎

system in the building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett advised that they planned to follow ‎

the International Building Code, and that did not require one for the ‎

occupancy load‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic felt it would be a good idea to go over and ‎

above, even if it was not a requirement‎. ‎She thought it would better ‎

protect the customers and people in the building‎. ‎She referred to the ‎

condition about having an additional light pole and addressing the ‎

illumination‎. ‎She clarified that it would only require one pole‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman said it would most likely require one, but it depended how ‎

close to ten footcandles the applicant wanted to get‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic ‎

maintained that she would like to have seen several of the issues ironed ‎

out before it came to the Planning Commission ‎- ‎and noted the issues ‎

with the dumpster and the lighting‎. ‎She mentioned the fact that a garbage ‎

truck might not have the turning radius required at the proposed dumpster ‎

location‎. ‎She also mentioned that the site was short on parking‎. ‎She did ‎

think there were a few issues that could have been straightened out ‎

beforehand‎. ‎She realized there were some minor issues, such as adding ‎

notes to the plans, but there were issues that were too important not to ‎

have been worked out‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece felt that the big difference between the proposed site and the ‎

Rochester Rd‎. ‎site was the fact that a lot of the volume for the proposed ‎

site would come from the high school across the street‎. ‎That would ‎

change the dynamics regarding safety and the site circulation‎. ‎He could ‎

see kids racing through the parking lot‎. ‎He would consider a one‎-‎way flow ‎

through the site, so there was not someone trying to back out of a ‎

perpendicular space and into the opposite direction of the traffic coming ‎

in to the drive‎-‎through‎. ‎He felt they should either do angled parking or ‎

make it a one‎-‎way flow, although they might lose a few spaces‎. ‎That was ‎

one concern‎. ‎When the lot was full, kids would not be cautious walking ‎

across the entrance drive off of Walton or the internal circulation drive‎. ‎

He would also be tempted to add some kind of curb cuts to give people a ‎

safe place to cross the access drives to get in to the site‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Beckett explained that they were extending the sidewalk from the ‎

public sidewalk from Walton, and there would be safety rails and barrier ‎

free access‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece asked how someone would get into the building if ‎

they parked in the southern portion of the lot‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett clarified that ‎

there was a southern entrance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece asked the percentage of ‎

drive‎-‎through to dine in, and Mr‎. ‎Beckett advised that drive‎-‎through was ‎

typically ‎60‎-‎70‎% ‎of volume‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece said that he agreed with Mr‎. ‎

Hooper about the dumpster location‎. ‎He felt that needed some work and ‎

wondered if it could be turned to face east‎. ‎He assumed trash pick‎-‎up ‎

would be at an off hour, to which Mr‎. ‎Beckett agreed‎. ‎If it were facing east, ‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece said that a truck could back in and access the dumpster, and ‎

they would not have to worry about the lack of an appropriate turning ‎

radius‎. ‎He felt that the dynamics of the site, because of the high school, ‎

would change the project‎. ‎He summarized that Mr‎. ‎Beckett was given a ‎

lot of concerns about safety, and he felt that was a reason why it needed to ‎

be looked at in greater detail relative to the circulation and the kids ‎

getting from the parking lots surrounding the building into the site safely‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis agreed with his colleagues about the project being brought ‎

forward with a lot of loose ends‎. ‎He noted that the stores on Rochester ‎

and Opdyke each had a dumpster next to their buildings on the north ‎

side‎. ‎He recommended that it would be a better place for it for the ‎

proposed building‎. ‎People might be able to see it from Walton, but ‎

people driving down Rochester could see the same thing, and he had not ‎

heard any complaints‎. ‎People drove by it in the drive‎-‎through and never ‎

smelled anything‎. ‎He would not like to see workers taking the garbage ‎

through the front lobby down into the middle of the road where there was ‎

no good sidewalks into a dumpster‎. ‎He thought it would be safer to walk ‎

out the back door and put trash into the dumpster‎. ‎He would like to see it ‎

moved to the north side, against the building‎. ‎The other thing that ‎

concerned him was that people walking from the Kroger mall would have ‎

to walk in the street to get to Taco Bell‎. ‎If he parked in front of Kroger, he ‎

would have to cross a median and the Taco Bell site was cut off from the ‎

rest of the development‎. ‎He wished it would be more pedestrian‎-‎friendly‎. ‎

There was a stop sign at the end of the entrance from Walton, but the road ‎

in front was sort of a drag strip‎. ‎He would like to see a ‎3‎-‎way stop at the ‎

intersection and a walkway across to the Taco Bell‎. ‎Someone using the ‎

parking spaces directly to the south would have to get around the berm‎. ‎

He thought it would be nice to put a walkway through the berm to go to the ‎

site‎. ‎They should try to keep the pedestrians away from the cars in the ‎

driveways‎. ‎He remarked that he would be afraid to take his children to ‎

Kroger‎. ‎He was not sure if Mr‎. ‎Beckett would have to talk to the owner of ‎

the shopping center about it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Beckett thought there were some good comments‎. ‎They would have ‎

to work with the landlord and the traffic safety staff‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis ‎

stressed that if there was one incident, the insurance rates would be more ‎

expensive than adding a sidewalk or stop signs‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett noted that ‎

the sidewalk they were installing would be in compliance with ADA ‎

access‎. ‎Their survey might not extend far enough off site to determine ‎

whether ADA could be compliant through the shopping center, and there ‎

were existing grades and traffic patterns to work with‎. ‎In terms of ‎

pedestrian access to and from the main shopping center, it was not much ‎

different than the Rochester Rd‎. ‎store, and there was actually less ‎

distance from the proposed building to Kroger than from Taco Bell to the ‎

primary anchors on Rochester Rd‎. ‎He did not see the drive becoming a ‎

drag strip‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said he could verify that it was because he ‎

visited the site a lot‎. ‎He would like to see a stop sign at the intersection ‎

and perhaps red brick to delineate the walkway from the Panera and the ‎

Kroger sites‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick echoed the comments about pedestrian traffic, which he felt ‎

should be a high priority, considering the fact that the parking spaces ‎

inside the area were below standard‎. ‎It also suggested to him that if it ‎

could be one‎-‎way, although that might lose some parking spaces ‎

internally, it would be safer for traffic flow‎. ‎Given that the drive‎-‎through ‎

business would be greater than the in‎-‎store business, the number of ‎

parking spaces might become less of an issue‎. ‎He asked why they ‎

chose this location versus the recently demolished Big Boy location at ‎

the south end of the shopping center, which seemed to have far better ‎

access for vehicles and pedestrians‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Beckett said that he could not honestly answer that‎. ‎The proposed ‎

was the site brought to him and what he had to work with‎. ‎Chairperson ‎

Boswell asked if anyone of interest had looked at the old Big Boy site‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek said that someone looked at it and had discussions with the ‎

owner of the property, but the owner did not want a Taco Bell there, and he ‎

was pursing something else‎. ‎He added that there were two separate ‎

owners of the shopping center‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder asked if there would be exterior signage on the building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Beckett said they had rights to utilize the existing shopping center ‎

sign; however, there was no space available currently‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schroeder ‎

recommended that the internal traffic be a one‎-‎way loop‎. ‎They would not ‎

lose any parking spots; they would just have to move the transition area ‎

down to the second parking spot from the bottom and angle all the rest of ‎

the spaces‎. ‎He thought it would be too congested to have two‎-‎way traffic ‎

on the east and the south of the building‎. ‎The cars would stack up past ‎

the door, and it would make it difficult for people to get out‎. ‎He thought it ‎

was a very difficult site, but he felt that it would work better with the ‎

recommendations suggested‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked about peak hours‎. ‎He assumed they would be at lunch ‎

and dinner and perhaps after hours, but because it was by the school, it ‎

might be different‎. ‎He asked if there were defined peak hours for the ‎

restaurant‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett said that for the typical Taco Bell, it would be ‎

11‎a‎.‎m‎. ‎to ‎1 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎for the lunch hour and about ‎5‎-‎7 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎for dinner‎. ‎He did ‎

not know if the campus was an open campus, and he did not know if ‎

people were allowed off campus for lunch‎. ‎He was informed that seniors ‎

were allowed to leave‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett agreed that the lunch hours could ‎

vary‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked about the late night‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Beckett said that late ‎

night varied by location and proximity to generators‎. ‎He knew that ‎

because Crittenton was nearby, there would probably be more late night‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dettloff mentioned that the Kroger used to be open ‎24 ‎hours, but he ‎

believed it closed at midnight now‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at ‎8‎:‎07 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

Stacy Bruglio, on behalf of Panera Bread, ‎37 ‎S‎. ‎Livernois, Rochester ‎

Hills, MI ‎48307‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Bruglio stated that one of her particular concerns ‎

was the congestion in parking‎. ‎They had been at that location for ‎

approximately l‎2 ‎years, so they had seen a lot of traffic patterns in the ‎

area, and it was terribly congested‎. ‎Regarding the high school, they did ‎

come over for lunch, and it got a little scary in the parking lot‎. ‎The lot ‎

proposed for the Taco Bell had been used for overflow parking‎. ‎At times ‎

of the day it was ‎50‎-‎60‎% ‎full with overflow parking‎. ‎There were other ‎

businesses next to Panera that shared their lot‎. ‎There were times where ‎

there were near misses and almost accidents because there was only one ‎

stop sign entering the plaza‎. ‎There was also a drive behind the Panera ‎

Bread for traffic coming into the plaza‎. ‎Their biggest concern was ‎

parking, and it was mentioned that there was ample parking, but most of ‎

the parking occurred on the north side of the plaza‎. ‎At the peak times, ‎

that area was incredibly busy with school traffic at lunch, with business ‎

people during the day, and most people entered from Livernois‎. ‎They ‎

appreciated and welcomed new businesses into the area, but she had ‎

been District Manager of Panera for a while, and it could be a nightmare ‎

during the day‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell closed the Public Hearing at ‎8‎:‎09 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis recommended that the matter be postponed to a later ‎

meeting so some of the issues could be worked out‎. ‎Chairperson ‎

Boswell asked if he wished to make a motion‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, in the matter of City File ‎

No‎. ‎12‎-‎002 ‎(‎Taco Bell at Campus Corners Plaza‎) ‎that the Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Commission hereby postpones the requests for ‎

Recommendation of a Conditional Land Use and Site Plan Approval ‎

until the April or May ‎2012 ‎meeting to work out the issues as discussed at ‎

the March ‎6‎, ‎2012 ‎meeting‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece said that in light of the comments from Ms‎. ‎Bruglio, he thought ‎

it would be a good idea for Mr‎. ‎Beckett to sit by the site and get a feel for ‎

the traffic patterns and the kids coming and going to get a better idea of ‎

what they were talking about‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper mentioned traffic calming and said that if there was truly a ‎

race way, he thought speed humps might be something to consider‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell summarized the issues, and said he thought that ‎

some speed humps and stop signs would be excellent ideas‎. ‎The ‎

dumpster location needed to be reviewed and walkways were proposed‎. ‎

He said it seemed odd to him that the code for a fast food restaurant ‎

would not require sprinklers‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell remarked that Mr‎. ‎Beckett had his assignment‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Beckett added that he had noted the comments, and he would work on ‎

those and bring something back‎. ‎

Discussed

2012-0061

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎12‎-‎002 ‎- ‎Taco Bell Restaurant ‎

Postponed

2012-0057

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎10‎-‎005 ‎- ‎Alan D‎. ‎Liquor Addition, a ‎

proposed ‎875 ‎square‎-‎foot addition to the existing ‎1‎,‎971 ‎square‎-‎foot store on ‎.‎5 ‎

acres located at ‎2300 ‎W‎. ‎Auburn, at the northwest corner of Auburn and ‎

Midvale Rd‎.‎, west of Crooks, zoned B‎-‎1‎, Local Business, Parcel No‎. ‎

15‎-‎29‎-‎453‎-‎024‎, Alan D‎. ‎Liquor, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by James Breuckman, dated March ‎2‎, ‎

2012 ‎and Site Plan and review comments had been placed on file and by ‎

reference became part of the record thereof‎.)‎

Present for the applicant was Bushra Dallo, Alan D‎. ‎Liquor, ‎2300 ‎W‎. ‎

Auburn, Rochester Hills, MI, ‎48309 ‎and Ziad El‎-‎Baba, Ziad El‎-‎Baba ‎

Engineering, ‎674 ‎Gauthier, Tecumseh, Ontario, N‎8‎N‎3‎P‎8 ‎Canada‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman advised that the applicant wished to add a ‎925 ‎

square‎-‎foot addition to the existing party store on the north side of Auburn ‎

at Midvale ‎(‎west of Crooks‎). ‎He referred to the aerial photo in the packet ‎

which showed the existing site conditions‎. ‎It was a rather old site, and ‎

there were some constraints‎. ‎The applicant received a Variance from the ‎

Zoning Board of Appeals a little over a year ago for a rear yard setback ‎

Variance of ‎6‎.‎5 ‎feet to allow the cooler to extend off the rear of the ‎

building, and the rear yard setback was now ‎43‎.‎5 ‎feet‎. ‎The plans showed ‎

a ‎42‎-‎foot rear yard setback, and he and the applicant had a number of ‎

discussions, and he was sure that ‎43‎.‎5 ‎feet was achievable‎. ‎All other ‎

setback requirements had been met‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman commented that ‎

Site Plan review was required proportionally‎. ‎All requirements of the ‎

Ordinance could not be met at the site, and it was a balancing act ‎

between what was reasonable and what would improve the site‎. ‎The ‎

applicant was proposing some shrubs along the frontage‎. ‎His comments ‎

were more about aesthetics than anything else‎. ‎They would cluster the ‎

shrubs, and the applicant was also proposing a couple of Maple trees ‎

along the east property line‎. ‎There was really no room on Auburn to add ‎

trees, and there was also a ‎30‎” ‎storm sewer that ran along that location‎. ‎

The applicant was proposing ‎9 ‎x ‎18‎-‎foot parking spaces, but there was ‎

plenty of space to accommodate ‎10 ‎x ‎18‎-‎foot spaces, so they just needed ‎

to be re‎-‎dimensioned on the plans‎. ‎One improvement he asked was that ‎

the dumpster enclosure be brought up to current Ordinance standards‎. ‎It ‎

could be vinyl fence or split face block to match the material of the ‎

addition‎. ‎They were proposing split face block for the building addition, ‎

which was actually better than what was on the rear and west facades now, ‎

which was a smooth face block‎. ‎He was asking that the east elevation be ‎

done in brick to match the current brick‎. ‎There were the same four minor ‎

comments from the Fire Department as with Taco Bell, and they were ‎

listed as conditions of approval‎. ‎There were other minor details; plans ‎

had to be signed and sealed by a registered architect or engineer; ‎“‎not to ‎

be used as construction drawings‎” ‎had to be added to the plans; some ‎

grading information for ADA parking needed to be addressed; and the ‎

name of W‎. ‎Auburn Rd‎. ‎on the plans needed to be correctly referenced‎. ‎

He stated that it was a fairly minor request, and all of the items were ‎

minor, as well‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎El‎-‎Baba said that he received a call this afternoon that there was a ‎

meeting today ‎(‎the applicant received the staff report and agenda the ‎

week prior‎). ‎He received copies of the review comments and tried to ‎

improve the plans‎. ‎He passed out a sketch that showed the shrubs ‎

added to the front‎. ‎He said that the existing parking spaces, which were ‎

nine feet, were changed to ten feet wide, and there were enough spaces‎. ‎

The existing spaces would be restriped‎. ‎The dumpster gate would be ‎

replaced to comply with the Ordinance‎. ‎The east elevation addition would ‎

be changed to brick to match the building, and the setback was corrected ‎

to ‎43‎.‎5 ‎feet‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis indicated that if the project went forward, he would like to ‎

see a lighting study done‎. ‎There were some poles that shined down, and ‎

there was a lot of light, and he would like that evaluated and a plan ‎

approved by Staff‎. ‎Other than that, he had no further issues‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder said that the plans showed that they would address storm ‎

water, and he asked what they were going to do‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎El‎-‎Baba said there ‎

had been a storm system‎/‎catch basin on site‎. ‎Over the years, it must ‎

have been covered, because they could not find it‎. ‎They put that system ‎

back and introduced some trenches at the bottom of the approaches to ‎

collect water coming off the site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schroeder asked if the Engineering ‎

Dept‎. ‎had worked with him‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎El‎-‎Baba said that he had talked with them ‎

four or five times, and they were pursuing it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece said that it appeared that most of the comments in the packet ‎

were addressed, but he questioned whether Mr‎. ‎Breuckman wanted just ‎

the gate changed on the dumpster or for the entire enclosure to be ‎

redone‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that the gate was in very bad shape‎. ‎The enclosure ‎

was in salvageable shape‎. ‎If they were to commit to sprucing up the three ‎

sides, he would be o‎.‎k‎. ‎with them just replacing the gate‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece ‎

noted that the legal description said it was in the City of Chichester Hills‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎El‎-‎Baba said that was corrected on the new sketch and so was Auburn ‎

Rd‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece asked if the intent was that the other two sides of the addition ‎

should be single Wythe masonry‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎El‎-‎Baba said it would be split face‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece acknowledged that, but asked if it would just be eight‎-‎inch ‎

block‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎El‎-‎Baba agreed, and said that it was a very low building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Reece asked if they could meet the energy code with that material‎. ‎He ‎

believed there were plumbing fixtures on an outside wall now, and he ‎

would be concerned‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎El‎-‎Baba said they would match the existing; ‎

they were not changing the system‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece said they might do that, ‎

but he did not think it was good practice‎. ‎He realized that if the applicant ‎

wanted to build the building that way, it would be up to him‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎El‎-‎Baba ‎

said that the back wall was already an eight‎-‎inch block‎. ‎They were not ‎

adding any windows or doors‎. ‎The interior, beyond the cooler, would have ‎

insulation inside, and they would achieve at least an R‎-‎13 ‎on the walls‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece asked if it was a pre‎-‎packaged cooler that was just being ‎

moved back into the new location‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎El‎-‎Baba said it would be a new ‎

cooler‎. ‎The old cooler had a curved front and they could not use that‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Reece asked if they should look at the barrier‎-‎free ramp‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎El‎-‎Baba ‎

advised that there was an existing barrier‎-‎free ramp‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece noted ‎

that Building made a comment about it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman agreed, and said ‎

it would be addressed prior to any Building permits being approved‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick said that the revised drawing showed the setback at ‎43‎.‎5 ‎feet, ‎

and the original drawing had ‎42 ‎feet‎. ‎He asked what was changed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

El‎-‎Baba said something about ‎“‎degree‎” ‎and that they re‎-‎measured and ‎

achieved ‎43‎.‎5‎. ‎They found a mistake with the original measurement‎.‎

Hearing no further comments, Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis moved the motion in the ‎

packet, adding one condition, which was seconded by Yukon‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Kaltsounis, seconded by Yukon, in the matter of City File ‎

No‎. ‎10‎-‎005 ‎(‎Alan D‎. ‎Liquor Building Addition‎)‎, the Planning Commission ‎

approves ‎the ‎Site Plan‎, based on plans dated received by the Planning ‎

Department on Feb‎. ‎9‎, ‎2012 ‎and the updated sketch presented at the ‎

March ‎6‎, ‎2012 ‎meeting, with the following six ‎(‎6‎) ‎findings and subject to ‎

the following eleven ‎(‎11‎) ‎conditions‎.‎

Findings‎

1‎.‎ The revised 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 subject ‎

to the conditions noted below‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed addition will not impact circulation patters on or near the ‎

site, maintaining existing levels of safety and convenience of ‎

vehicular traffic both within the site and on adjoining streets‎. ‎There ‎

is a ‎7-‎foot sidewalk on Auburn Road‎.‎

3‎.‎ The proposed improvements should have a satisfactory and ‎

harmonious relationship with the development on‎-‎site as well as ‎

existing development in the adjacent vicinity‎.‎

4‎.‎ The proposed development will not have an unreasonably detrimental ‎

or injurious effect upon the natural characteristics and features of ‎

the site or those of the surrounding area‎.‎

5‎.‎ The applicant received a ‎6.5-‎foot Variance from the Zoning Board of ‎

Appeals to allow a rear yard setback reduction‎.‎

6‎.‎ The improvements will allow the applicant to better utilize the building ‎

and help business operations‎.‎

Conditions‎

The following conditions shall be addressed on a revised site plan for ‎

final review and approval by Staff‎.‎

1‎.‎ A minimum ‎43.5‎ foot rear yard setback must be provided‎.‎

2‎.‎ Additional spirea shrubs to total ‎30‎ along the Auburn Road frontage ‎

and ‎6‎ along the Midvale Drive frontage shall be provided, ‎

clustered in groups of ‎3‎ or ‎5‎.‎

3‎.‎ Provide cost estimate for landscaping to determine landscape bond ‎

amount‎.‎

4‎.‎ All parking spaces shall be ‎10‎ feet by ‎18‎ feet, minimum‎.‎

5‎.‎ The dumpster enclosure shall be brought up to current standards, with ‎

a decorative fence or split face block enclosure‎.‎

6‎.‎ The east fa‎ç‎ade of the addition shall be faced in brick to match that ‎

used on the existing east fa‎ç‎ade‎.‎

7‎.‎ Appropriate approvals from the Oakland County Water Resources ‎

Commissioner, including a Soil Erosion Permit, must be obtained ‎

prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit for this project‎.‎

8‎.‎ Address comments from Fire Department memo dated February ‎14‎, ‎

2012‎ for re‎-‎review by the Fire Department, prior to Final Approval ‎

by Staff‎.‎

9‎.‎ Address comments from Building Department memo dated February ‎

29‎, ‎2012‎ prior to obtaining Building Permits‎.‎

10‎.‎ Address the ‎4‎ miscellaneous detail items noted in comment ‎10‎ ‎

under site plan review considerations‎.‎

11‎.‎ Tilt the pole mounted lights downward to be mounted ‎90-‎degrees from ‎

the pole‎. ‎Replace the two wall‎-‎pac fixtures with full cutoff fixtures‎. ‎

Alternately, the wall‎-‎pacs could be removed or replaced with one ‎

fixture‎. ‎New wall‎-‎pac fixtures may have a maximum of ‎250‎W‎.‎

12‎. ‎That the applicant submits a lighting plan, to be verified and ‎

approved by Staff for compliance with the lighting Ordinance‎.‎

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

Approved‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hetrick, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece, Schroeder ‎

and Yukon‎

9 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion had passed ‎

unanimously, and he thanked Mr‎. ‎Dallo for expanding his business in ‎

Rochester Hills‎. ‎

DISCUSSION

2012-0062

Presentation regarding proposed ‎3500 ‎Ton Salt Storage Facility at the City's ‎

DPS Facility on Auburn Road ‎(‎DPS Staff Members and rep from OHM, ‎

Engineering Consultant‎)‎

Presenters were Allan Schneck, Director of DPS‎/‎Engineering and Paul ‎

Davis, City Engineer‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schneck thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to present ‎

the proposed facility at ‎511 ‎E‎. ‎Auburn Rd‎. ‎He recalled that in ‎2002‎, there ‎

was a feasibility study performed at that location for the redevelopment of ‎

the DPS building, where highway maintenance and water and sewer crews ‎

were housed‎. ‎In ‎2004‎, the Yamasaki architectural firm was retained to ‎

develop a new DPS building‎. ‎The campus was divided into east and west ‎

sides; the DPS building was constructed on the east half, but the ‎

improvements proposed for the west side were deferred‎. ‎The ‎

presentation would involve development of a portion of the west side‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis introduced Wayde Hoppe and Rhett Gronevelt from Orchard, ‎

Hiltz and McCliment Advisors ‎(‎OHM‎)‎, the project managers and ‎

engineers that would design the project and move it forward on behalf of ‎

the City‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis said that they would like to get some feedback before ‎

returning with the Site Plan‎. ‎He introduced Ms‎. ‎Tracey Balint from DPS, ‎

who was in the audience‎. ‎He noted that Ms‎. ‎Balint was the Division ‎

Manager for water and sewer projects, and she also handled Site Plans‎. ‎

He introduced Bud Leafdale, also in the audience, who was the General ‎

Superintendent and Leader at the DPS building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis believed that most of the members were on the Commission ‎

when the DPS was reconstructed, and he showed an aerial of the campus ‎

for the newer members‎. ‎There were two parcels, and the westerly site was ‎

intended to provide material storage‎. ‎The old DPS building still existed ‎

on the site, as did a fueling station‎. ‎On the far westerly side, there was a ‎

three‎-‎sided wooden structure used for material storage‎. ‎He pointed out ‎

the area west of the old DPS building, which was used for equipment ‎

storage‎. ‎The equipment was now housed in the new DPS building, and it ‎

was more efficient to handle bulk materials now‎. ‎The main hours of ‎

operation were ‎7‎:‎00 ‎a‎.‎m‎. ‎to ‎3‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎, but if an emergency occurred, such ‎

as a snowstorm or watermain break, the efficiency in responding was key‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis zoomed into the three‎-‎sided structure, and said there were ‎

seven compartments in it used for salt storage‎. ‎Each compartment could ‎

house about ‎300 ‎tons of material, so full capacity was about ‎2‎,‎100 ‎tons of ‎

salt storage‎. ‎They used tarps and tires to cover the salt‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis reminded that the proposal for a salt storage facility was not a ‎

new concept, and it actually went back to ‎2002‎. ‎When the new DPS ‎

building was constructed, there was consideration for developing the full ‎

campus, which included a salt storage facility‎. ‎In November ‎2006‎, City ‎

Council decided to defer some items and just build the DPS building‎. ‎

How they would handle the existing building was also deferred‎. ‎There was ‎

another CIP project, called ‎“‎Conversion to Cold Storage‎” ‎of the old DPS ‎

building along with the salt storage facility‎. ‎The two projects would be the ‎

basis for going forward, to try and complete some of the development of ‎

the westerly side of the campus‎. ‎The fuel island was reconstructed ‎

already‎. ‎They were trying to get back to the Master Plan that was ‎

originally envisioned through the Maximus Facility Study Report and ‎

later through the Yamakasi and DeMattia construction for the campus‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis showed a picture of the infrastructure in place, which included ‎

the storm sewers and watermains‎. ‎He pointed out a storm sewer line that ‎

was just east of the three‎-‎sided structure, and advised that they used to ‎

store salt more out in the open‎. ‎Staff from the Michigan Department of ‎

Natural Resources reviewed public works buildings and their operations ‎

to see if things were in compliance with State laws, and the City had a ‎

couple of violations that were corrected‎. ‎One of the concerns was that the ‎

open pile of salt had the ability to be affected by the elements and run off ‎

into the storm sewer systems and receiving drains, and there was a storm ‎

sewer along Auburn Rd‎. ‎Although they corrected one issue the DNR had ‎

with an open pile by placing it in the three‎-‎sided structure and tarping it, ‎

there was still concern about runoff from the storm sewer so close to that‎. ‎

The DNR considered it a temporary solution‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis showed a table of the historical amount of salt that had been ‎

used‎. ‎There was quite variability, and ‎2011‎-‎2012 ‎was a light year‎. ‎In ‎

2006‎, they only used about ‎1‎,‎800 ‎tons, but a couple of years later they ‎

used ‎5‎,‎100 ‎tons‎. ‎The City was in a consortium and in order to get good ‎

pricing, they went in with a number of other communities and the Road ‎

Commission to purchase salt in bulk‎. ‎The City had to commit to a certain ‎

level of salt, and it was usually ‎5‎,‎500 ‎tons each year‎. ‎Using a nine‎-‎year ‎

average, it appeared to be too much, but they would rather have more on ‎

hand than not enough‎. ‎They had to guarantee ‎70‎%‎, or about ‎3‎,‎850 ‎tons ‎

they were committing and taking possession of each year‎. ‎In a light year, ‎

they would have to store a lot of salt that was not used‎. ‎The sheds were at ‎

total capacity at ‎2‎,‎100 ‎tons‎. ‎Assuming that the salt storage facility was ‎

approved and constructed, it would not negate a future use for the ‎

three‎-‎sided shed, because there were other uses intended‎. ‎Street ‎

sweeping material was something that had recently come up from a ‎

review of the site‎. ‎Historically, it was kept in an open area, and they were ‎

told that it needed to be covered‎. ‎The piles could have some ‎

contaminants and if it rained, it could run into the storm sewer, so the ‎

DNR wanted it covered‎. ‎They would use one of the compartments for ‎

street sweeping material‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis continued that they were envisioning efficient circulation for ‎

traffic‎. ‎When it snowed, there were a lot of vehicles that might leave in the ‎

morning at the same time‎. ‎Throughout the day, they returned to load salt, ‎

and they needed to get back on the roads as quickly as possible‎. ‎The ‎

City wanted to increase its level of service during snow response, and ‎

they had done that with the new DPS building‎. ‎They did not have to warm ‎

vehicles first, and they had received a number of compliments last year ‎

about how much better the response to snow was‎. ‎He believed that a new ‎

salt storage facility would also improve the level of service‎. ‎They wanted ‎

to make sure the height of the salt storage facility did not exceed the ‎

height of the DPS building‎. ‎They wanted it to blend well with the DPS ‎

building‎. ‎The salt facility should match the colors of the DPS building, ‎

and they believed that the shape should be rectangular to eliminate a ‎

dome‎. ‎They were not planning to purchase a conveyer belt to load, and a ‎

dome shape would not be as good as rectangular‎. ‎The materials for the ‎

salt storage facility needed to be resistant to salt corrosion‎. ‎Regarding ‎

the size of the facility, they decided to design it to accommodate ‎3‎,‎500 ‎

tons of salt‎. ‎Within the structure, they did not want to exceed a salt pile ‎

height greater than ‎20 ‎feet, and that would set the dimensions of the ‎

building‎. ‎As a rule of thumb, one ton of material was equivalent to one ‎

cubic foot of volume‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis said that regarding cold storage, the CIP project was to remove ‎

the southerly portion of the existing DPS building and utilize a portion of it ‎

on the north end for cold storage‎. ‎They planned to construct the salt ‎

storage facility on the southerly end of the old DPS facility and it would be ‎

partitioned with an interior concrete wall from the cold storage‎. ‎

Operationally, one of the things they were trying to eliminate was ‎

unnecessary work for the crews‎. ‎When there was a pile of material that sat ‎

awhile, it sometimes locked up and needed to be broken down with ‎

equipment‎. ‎They thought it would be efficient to compartmentalize the ‎

proposed structure to where they fully emptied out one‎-‎half of the building ‎

and worked on the other half‎. ‎That would reduce the tendency for some of ‎

the back piles to clump up and require them to break it down during the ‎

off season months‎. ‎The first ‎8‎-‎12 ‎feet vertically would be concrete wall‎. ‎

Instead of having large concrete panels up, they were going to transition ‎

to more of a panel‎-‎type material that would be more consistent with the ‎

existing building to the east‎. ‎The new facility would have a rubber ‎

membrane, flat roof‎. ‎In the original proposals, they were looking at a high ‎

arch gambrel, which was basically a barn‎-‎type structure‎. ‎They did not feel ‎

that appearance would be consistent with the new building‎. ‎They would ‎

also look at where it made sense to incorporate some of the more ‎

commonly accepted practices for green buildings‎. ‎It might include LED ‎

lighting, for example‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis showed some renderings that Mr‎. ‎Breuckman had done for the ‎

DPS building, which showed how the proposed facility might look on the ‎

site‎. ‎He pointed out the existing building and the shape and location of ‎

the proposed salt structure‎. ‎He showed some views from Auburn Rd‎. ‎

There was landscaping that paralleled Auburn Rd‎. ‎on the back side of the ‎

pathway‎. ‎When the DPS building was built, they also added berms‎. ‎The ‎

berm would help offset the height of the proposed structure‎. ‎That ‎

concluded his presentation, and he said that they were open to any ‎

suggestions from the Planning Commission for the Site Plan‎. ‎He ‎

advised that they hoped to bring something back in the next month or two‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis stated that the biggest difference between the new DPS ‎

building and the proposed salt storage facility was the distance to the ‎

road‎. ‎It would seem taller than the DPS building, although it was the ‎

same height‎. ‎He was not sure if angling it might help‎. ‎He was happy the ‎

building was rectangular, because he did not like the dome‎-‎styles‎. ‎He ‎

asked if they had ever considered building a salt facility in the middle of ‎

the City so trucks did not have to travel from one corner of the City to the ‎

other‎. ‎He thought having it more centrally located might be better for the ‎

roads also‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis said they had not, at least since he had been with the City‎. ‎

They looked at reconstructing the Hamlin Rd‎. ‎building, but the Auburn ‎

site was the headquarters and where all the equipment was stored‎. ‎If Mr‎. ‎

Kaltsounis was referring to a secondary site to store salt, that was a ‎

possibility‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis claimed that something could be paid off ‎

pretty quickly with the savings from using less diesel fuel‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis ‎

thought it was better to be consolidated on the existing site‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schneck felt that it also meant having to maintain and insure another ‎

facility, and they would have to store equipment there‎. ‎As Mr‎. ‎Davis had ‎

indicated, having all the assets, from an operations standpoint, on one ‎

campus worked the best‎. ‎If the vehicles needed fuel, they would have to ‎

go to the DPS site to refuel‎. ‎There were also scales on site to weigh the ‎

trucks to make sure they were within legal load limits‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis added ‎

that when the equipment loaded and returned, it would collect brine and ‎

add it to the salt‎. ‎They had been pre‎-‎wetting the salt so it would stick onto ‎

the roadway‎. ‎There was salt, brine, fuel and the scale at the DPS ‎

location‎. ‎It would be redundant to have another building or loader offsite‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis wondered if they could add something to the building to ‎

make it a little more stylish‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis said that was the kind of feedback ‎

they were looking for‎. ‎On the east side of the building, there would be two ‎

overhead doors, one for each compartment‎. ‎If they needed to make it ‎

aesthetically better by putting on windows or something so it would not ‎

look so industrial, they could do that type of thing‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder asked what they did with vactor waste‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schneck said ‎

that currently, they transferred vactor spoils to the wastewater treatment ‎

plant in Mt‎. ‎Clemens‎. ‎They had reached out to a number of communities ‎

that were closer and that had the capacity, including Pontiac and Troy‎. ‎

They were talking with Troy and trying to make that opportunity happen‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder said that he could not think of any place where the City ‎

could practically do it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schneck agreed that it might not be too cost ‎

effective to build a sludge pad‎. ‎They had to be cognizant of the odor and ‎

the MDEQ regulations as far as containment‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schroeder clarified that ‎

vehicles could get between the two sites without going onto Auburn Rd‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick asked where the exits and entrances to the building were, and ‎

if one was on the east and one on the west to drive through and head to ‎

the scales‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis said that the proposed building would have two ‎

overhead doors on the east side of the building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hetrick questioned if ‎

the trucks would go into the building and back out‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis explained ‎

that the trucks did not actually go into the building‎. ‎Someone with a ‎

loader would fill the trucks‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schneck noted that the doors were on the ‎

east side because the prevailing weather came from the west‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hetrick ‎

concurred with Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis that adding some windows would help with ‎

the lighting, look and feel‎. ‎He asked the estimated cost for the building, ‎

and presumed it was in the CIP‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis said the preliminary estimate ‎

included a ‎10‎% ‎contingency and the consulting, engineering and design ‎

fees, and it would be about $‎850‎,‎000‎.‎00‎. ‎The salt and cold storage ‎

projects in the CIP were budgeted for $‎740‎,‎000‎.‎00‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hetrick asked if ‎

the $‎850‎k included the cold storage conversion‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis said it would ‎

include demolishing the existing building, which was part of the cold ‎

storage CIP project, and it would include doing some improvements to ‎

make it a stand‎-‎alone building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick asked what cold storage meant‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis said that DPS had ‎

a lot of items that did not necessarily need to be in a heated building, ‎

such as barricades or fire hydrants‎. ‎The Parks Department had some ‎

items there, too‎. ‎It was better to get them out of the elements, but they did ‎

not need a heated building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece asked what the fa‎ç‎ade structure would be above the concrete‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Davis said that it would be a panel construction; he was not sure if it ‎

would be a composite wood or a treated wood‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece asked about ‎

the roof structure‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis answered that it would be a membrane‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Reece asked if there would be bar joists or what would support the roof‎. ‎

He was concerned about the metal and asked if it would be a steel frame ‎

building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis was not sure, and he deferred to Mr‎. ‎Hoppe from ‎

OHM‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hoppe explained that the proposed structure would be ‎

reinforced concrete walls up to ten feet high, and above that it would be ‎

wood framed the rest of the distance and then there would be flat, wood ‎

framed trusses‎. ‎All of the metal connectors inside would be galvanized ‎

coated to resist decay‎. ‎There would be a low sloped roof, EPDM ‎

membrane, and they would collect some of the water‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Davis pointed ‎

out that a truss that exceeded ‎50 ‎feet was not readily available, so that ‎

drove the rectangular shape of the building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hoppe considered that ‎

when there was a flat wood truss rather than a pitched one, as the distance ‎

went longer, the depth would increase more heavily, and it would be much ‎

more expensive‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece added that it was much harder to transport‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hoppe cautioned that they needed to be careful about the ‎

dimensions of the building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece said that as far as the windows on ‎

the east fa‎ç‎ade, he was not sure if they would be ‎“‎putting lipstick on a pig‎” ‎

by doing that‎. ‎He would have to think about it ‎- ‎normally he would be in ‎

favor of dressing it up ‎- ‎but the building was what it was in this case‎. ‎He ‎

joked that it almost sounded blasphemous coming from him‎. ‎He ‎

complimented the presenters‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper asked if the existing windows on one or two sides of the new ‎

DPS building were Jalousie‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schneck asked if he meant on the ‎

overhead doors‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hoppe said that the type Mr‎. ‎Hooper was referring to ‎

had a series of blades that turned‎. ‎He thought he might be referring to ‎

clear story windows, which were a strip of windows along the top‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hooper clarified that they were not proposing those for the salt storage ‎

building, which was confirmed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper asked if it would be a ‎

significant cost‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hoppe said anytime glazing was added, it would cost ‎

much more than regular panel construction‎. ‎It also posed an issue ‎

because they were proposing an industrial use for the facility, with front ‎

loaders moving in and out, so they might use laminated glass‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hooper expressed that he raised the issue to see if they could somewhat ‎

match the DPS building with the proposed building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman suggested that there might be a way to dress the corners ‎

with masonry to break the mass of the panel‎. ‎There was also an ‎

overhang on the DPS building with columns, and using that might cast a ‎

shadow on the front fa‎ç‎ade, which would be a relatively low cost‎. ‎He ‎

thought a combination would be more of what they would like to see‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hooper agreed that some type of architectural relief would look better, but ‎

he would rather see something low cost on a plain, square building‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis agreed that there should be something to break up the ‎

sides‎. ‎When they approved the original building, comments were made ‎

that they could not make another company do something and not require ‎

it of the City‎. ‎If there was a way to break up the wall and make it look ‎

presentable from the street, it would enhance it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece recalled that ‎

the Commissioners went to great length with the sound walls on M‎-‎59‎, ‎

and he was not sure if they had looked at precast concrete or a tilt up wall, ‎

but they might be able to incorporate some of those types of elements for ‎

relief‎. ‎He suggested that they could paint them or add the City‎’‎s emblem‎.‎

Hearing no further comments, Chairperson Boswell thanked the ‎

presenters and said they looked forward to seeing them in a month or two ‎

with the Site Plan‎.‎

Discussed

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2010-0462

Request for Approval of the M‎-‎59 ‎Corridor Plan‎

Chairperson Boswell advised that this item had been discussed in detail ‎

at last month‎’‎s meeting, and he asked if there was any further comments‎. ‎

Hearing none, Mr‎. ‎Schroeder moved the following Resolution, seconded ‎

by Mr‎. ‎Hetrick‎:‎

Whereas‎, in early ‎2007‎, the Planning Commission approved the Master ‎

Land Use Plan update which included created a Regional Employment ‎

Center land use category that is intended to accommodate a range of ‎

technology, innovation, office, and commercial uses; and‎

Whereas‎, the Regional Employment Center includes the City‎’‎s Local ‎

Development Finance Authority which is charged with completing ‎

infrastructure improvements in support of private development; and‎

Whereas, ‎the LDFA‎’‎s ‎1996 ‎Master Infrastructure Plan has served as the ‎

guide for project and funding decisions until recently when the list of ‎

projects was exhausted; and‎

Whereas‎, in ‎2009 ‎the City selected a consultant ‎(‎McKenna Associates‎) ‎

to evaluate existing infrastructure and provide a combined study for the ‎

M‎-‎59 ‎corridor area and updated Master Infrastructure Plan for the LDFA; ‎

and ‎

Whereas‎, the Planning Commission has reviewed the completed draft of ‎

the M‎-‎59 ‎Corridor Plan in detail‎.‎

Resolved‎, that the Rochester Hills Planning Commission hereby ‎

supports the City‎’‎s efforts to ‎

further its economic development objectives in the M‎-‎59 ‎Corridor Plan ‎

and finds the development objectives and recommendations appropriate ‎

to serve as the LDFA‎’‎s new Master Infrastructure Plan to guide public ‎

improvements‎.‎

Be It Further Resolved‎, that the Planning Commission intends to adopt ‎

the M‎-‎59 ‎Corridor Plan into the Master Land Use Plan as part of the next ‎

Land Use Plan review and update process‎.‎

Be It Finally Resolved,‎ that this Resolution shall be sent to the Local ‎

Development Finance Authority at its first meeting in ‎2012‎.‎

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

Adopted‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hetrick, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece, Schroeder ‎

and Yukon‎

9 -

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2012-0054

Request for Appointment of a Planning Commission Representative to the ‎

Zoning Board of Appeals for a one‎-‎year term to expire March ‎31‎, ‎2013‎.‎

Upon questioning by Mr‎. ‎Schroder as to whether Ms‎. ‎Brnabic would ‎

accept the nomination, which she did, Mr‎. ‎Schroeder moved the following ‎

motion recommending that she serve another term as the Planning ‎

Commission Representative to the Zoning Board of Appeals‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Schroeder, seconded by Kaltsounis, the Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Commission hereby recommends to City Council that Deborah ‎

Brnabic shall serve as its representative on the Zoning Board of Appeals ‎

for a one‎-‎year term to expire March ‎31‎, ‎2013‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell mentioned the Parliamentary training the night ‎

before in the Auditorium, and that Mr‎. ‎Beaton had complimented the City ‎

on the Minutes from meetings‎. ‎At the training, the presenter said that ‎

Minutes should just reflect what was done, not what was said‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell disagreed, and said that he liked to be able to look ‎

back ‎15 ‎years and find out why something was done‎. ‎

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

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting,‎. ‎The motion ‎

carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hetrick, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece, Schroeder ‎

and Yukon‎

9 -

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Boswell reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular ‎

Meeting was scheduled for April ‎3‎, ‎2012‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Planning Commission and ‎

upon motion by Kaltsounis, Chairperson Boswell adjourned the Regular ‎

Meeting at ‎9‎:‎18 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

___________________________ ‎

William F‎. ‎Boswell, Chairperson ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Commission ‎

_____________________________‎

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary‎