Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, September 5, 2000

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Kaiser called the meeing to order at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Greg Hooper, James Rosen, Eric Kaiser, Leah Potere and ‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

Present

6 -

Audrey Ruggiero

Absent

1 -

Also Absent Commission‎: ‎Paul Corneliussen‎

Also Present‎: ‎Ed Anzek, Planning Director‎

Deborah Millhouse, Deputy Director‎

Rob Kagler and Amy Neary, McKenna Associates, Inc‎.‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

John Staran, City Attorney‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-0318

April ‎18‎, ‎2000 ‎Regular Meeting‎

This matter was Approved as Amended. The motion carried.

COMMUNICATIONS

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-0311

Recommendation to Re‎-‎issue Wetland Use Permit ‎(‎previously granted by City Council ‎

9‎/‎22‎/‎99‎) - ‎City File No‎. ‎98‎-‎051 ‎- ‎Hazelwood Condominium‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated August ‎31‎, ‎

2000 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record ‎

hereof‎.)‎

Present was Jerry Kisil, one of the members of Hazelwood Condominium ‎

Development,‎

L‎.‎L‎.‎C‎.‎, and also its general counsel‎. ‎

The Chair acknowledged the presence of a new face in the subject ‎

development, as Mr‎. ‎Kisil has only recently become involved with the ‎

subject project‎. ‎One thing the Chair alerted members to, and asked Mr‎. ‎

Staran's thoughts on, was the fact that Mr‎. ‎Galvin, the previous counsel for ‎

the subject agenda item, had brought up both on and off the record, the ‎

question of any impropriety in the Chair's participating in the discussion ‎

and eventual vote because he lives across the street from the proposed ‎

entrance to the subject development and would have landscaping placed ‎

on his property as a result of a condition placed on the previous approval‎. ‎

And ultimately the decision was made that the Chair would not need to fail ‎

to participate in the agenda item‎. ‎The Chair had voted ‎"‎no‎" ‎on the item, so ‎

it was not like he voted to support something that would benefit him‎. ‎The ‎

Chair's position regarding the subject development then and now is ‎

perfectly clear‎. ‎On the other hand arguably now there is some benefit to ‎

him that attends to this agenda item because there may be shielding put on ‎

his property if it is approved, and he has met with representatives of the ‎

applicant to discuss what it is going to be if it is going to be there‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran stated this has been discussed before, and it is certainly a close ‎

call‎. ‎However, Mr‎. ‎Staran was hard pressed to tell the Chair, after he has ‎

participated in probably two years worth of deliberations on this particular ‎

item, that suddenly the circumstances have changed and he no longer is ‎

able to participate‎. ‎So he was not going to do that‎. ‎Rather, Mr‎. ‎Staran did ‎

not think the circumstances have changed in any significant way that the ‎

Chair should now, after being deeply involved in this, have to step aside, ‎

unless of course the Chair felt that his objectivity would be compromised‎.‎

The Chair responded honestly he did not, and in this case, he can do that ‎

without any reluctance‎. ‎Having some trees put on my property would not ‎

influence his decision making one way or the other‎. ‎On the other hand if ‎

others have thoughts or in any way are uncomfortable with his participation ‎

in the discussions, they should say so and he probably would honor their ‎

thought process‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran pointed out one other thing‎. ‎The condition was not designed to ‎

necessarily bestow some benefit on the property owner across the street in ‎

terms of adding to the value of the property, but rather was intended and ‎

designed to offset a condition that might reduce or diminish the value or ‎

enjoyment of that property‎. ‎

The Chair did not want to drag this out too long, but the preference to him ‎

between having trees and having projects would be, don't have the project‎. ‎

And as a homeowner the Chair could say that‎. ‎As a Planning ‎

Commissioner, the Chair has always articulated only one objection to this ‎

plan, and that it is that it doesn't have a comprehensive development plan, ‎

and it doesn't have a safe way for access through other means‎. ‎The Chair ‎

recalled that previous representatives of the applicant have always said ‎

they would prefer to have an entrance from Livernois or Auburn but just had ‎

some problems accomplishing that‎. ‎If they could do that, and there was a ‎

drive ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎9‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

facing the Chair's house, he'd vote yes till the cows come home, because ‎

then it would be the right kind of project‎. ‎Putting some trees on his property ‎

really is a non‎-‎issue for him‎. ‎

The Chair then asked staff if they had anything to present‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse ‎

stated basically the staff report stands as is and summarized the subject ‎

project from the beginning‎. ‎Since the subject requests are identical, or ‎

nearly identical, to those previously approved, Staff is recommending that ‎

the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the reissuance of ‎

the Wetlands Use Permit, regrant the Natural Feature Setback ‎

Modification, and reapprove the preliminary plan‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse added that ‎

Staff and counsel have learned that the Tree Conservation Ordinance is not ‎

applicable to the subject development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran stated from the time the ordinance was adopted in ‎1987‎, it was ‎

never intended to apply to land that was platted, regardless of whether it ‎

was developed or not‎. ‎That was by design and also by definition in the ‎

ordinance‎. ‎The term ‎"‎undeveloped‎" ‎refers to land that is unplatted and ‎

substantially unapproved‎. ‎The subject request, for whatever reason, got ‎

through the process with a Tree Removal Permit Application‎. ‎Now that it is ‎

coming back again and has been reviewed by a new Planning Director and ‎

the Deputy Director, that previous oversight was picked up‎. ‎As Ms‎. ‎

Millhouse mentioned, it may be more of an academic issue than a ‎

substantive one in the sense that the Tree Conservation plan as well as the ‎

Environmental Impact Statement indicate that the intention is to conform to ‎

the Tree Conservation Ordinance even though it does not apply‎. ‎One ‎

principal difference would be that the applicant could not be required to ‎

contribute to the City Tree Fund because the ordinance does not apply‎. ‎

Since the applicant is voluntarily complying with the Tree Conservation ‎

Ordinance, and since the Planning Commission is being asked to approve ‎

a plan that shows trees being removed and saved, then Mr‎. ‎Staran thought ‎

the Planning Commission would be able to enforce compliance, other than ‎

the City Tree Fund‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran clarified that the fact that the subject property is platted does not ‎

deter the applicant from seeking condominium plan approval‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse clarified that the lot along Hazelton is part of Supervisor's Plat ‎

of Avoncroft's Subdivision #‎1 ‎which was recorded in ‎1941‎. ‎The remainder ‎

of the subject site, the rear triangular portion, consists of Lot ‎30 ‎and part of ‎

Lots ‎31 ‎through ‎36 ‎of Supervisor's Plat #‎5 ‎recorded in l‎939‎. ‎The ‎

condominium plan that was approved last year is identical to this except for ‎

allowing for the entire ‎80‎-‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way for the boulevard access‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran added what is before the Planning Commission is a ‎

condominium plan, which is effectively being, overlaid on top of the plat‎. ‎

Technically the plat lines are not being changed‎. ‎It is not re‎-‎dividing or ‎

re‎-‎platting the property‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran recalled that a map was prepared in conjunction with the ‎

creation of the Tree Conservation Ordinance but did not know its ‎

whereabouts‎. ‎The map showed the platted lots, which would be subject to ‎

the Tree Conservation Ordinance‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse left the auditorium to search for the map‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kisil stated basically he was in agreement with Ms‎. ‎Millhouse's ‎

presentation‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kisil commented that since the approval of the ‎

preliminary site plan on August ‎3‎, ‎1999‎, they and the prior applicant who ‎

still retains an interest in the property have diligently pursued achieving final ‎

plan approval, which requires full engineering design approvals‎. ‎They have ‎

retained engineers to prepare that work and are now on their fourth review ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎10‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

with Engineering‎. ‎They anticipate that they are very, very close to finalizing ‎

the physical improvement to the property‎. ‎That is the only reason they have ‎

not gone to final plan approval‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kisil felt the ordinance is very limiting as ‎

far as time is concerned‎. ‎Given the complexity of engineering design and ‎

review, one year makes it almost impossible to obtain such final plan status ‎

within a twelve‎-‎month period‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse returned to the auditorium with the subject map and ‎

circulated it to interested Commissioners‎. ‎

The Chair accepted comments from the public even though this was not a ‎

public hearing‎. ‎

Jamie Dolmage, ‎3695 ‎Hazelton‎, voiced her objection to the Chair's not ‎

recusing ‎

himself from participation‎. ‎She did not know if other residents in this ‎

particular part of our City or in Shortridge Estates were given the same ‎

opportunity to have trees put on their lots, but she hoped so‎. ‎She ‎

acknowledged that land will get developed one way or the other, but the ‎

thing we need to do is to make it appropriate development‎. ‎Her concern ‎

tonight was the new pavement on Hazelton in the Martin Farms Subdivision ‎

and Flowing Springs‎. ‎The second layer of asphalt was put on this spring, ‎

and just the removal of landscaping equipment has marred and chewed up ‎

some of the pavement‎. ‎She urged that some way be found to protect the ‎

asphalt that has just been laid‎. ‎

David Niedbalski, ‎3403 ‎Hazelton, ‎the property directly to the west of the ‎

proposed entrance, asked that the Commission reject the Wetland Use ‎

Permit and do not grant the re‎-‎approval of the preliminary site plan‎. ‎He ‎

raised questions about approving the Wetland Use Permit in the context of ‎

the necessity to vacate the plat‎. ‎He provided some history regarding the lot ‎

proposed to be used for access‎.‎

Rich Mahut, ‎3700 ‎Hazelton‎, pointed out the incredible amount of ‎

construction traffic and noise that will be seemingly unending with ‎

Shortridge Estates in back of him and the proposed development‎. ‎He was ‎

also concerned for the condition of the newly paved Hazelton‎. ‎

The Chair addressed a couple of the comments‎. ‎The condition on ‎

providing appropriate landscaping for selected homeowners is not a ‎

unique condition‎. ‎It was also done for Shortridge Estates, and it has been ‎

done elsewhere‎. ‎It is part of making a development compatible and ‎

harmonious with adjacent properties‎. ‎Both ends of Hazelton have been ‎

paved for the first time and were repaved after the drains and water piping ‎

went through a year ago, so both ends stand to suffer from construction ‎

anywhere as do any neighborhoods in the community‎. ‎At no point was it ‎

made a condition of approval that construction traffic come in from the ‎

shorter end‎. ‎It may have happened at Council‎. ‎There is already a condition ‎

that reads that the applicant pave Hazelton at the end of the current ‎

pavement west of the proposed entrance through the east edge of the ‎

entrance boulevard to City standards‎. ‎The applicant has since indicated to ‎

the Chair that they would pave to the east of their property line instead of ‎

just the east end of the boulevard entrance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kisil indicated they would be happy to continue the asphalt paving to the ‎

east edge of the subject property‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran responded to the issues raised by Mr‎. ‎Niedbalski by stating that ‎

the issues have been addressed previously‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran referenced the City ‎

Council minutes of October ‎27‎, ‎1999‎, page ‎8‎. ‎It had been previously ‎

determined a number of years ago that there was no need to vacate the ‎

parcel abutting Hazelton Road‎. ‎There appears to be misunderstanding ‎

about the Attorney General's position on whether a site ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎11‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

condominium project such as Hazelwood located on vacant Supervisor's ‎

Plat lots must first vacate the Supervisor's Plat‎. ‎The Attorney General's ‎

office has not taken a formal position on this issue‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran was not ‎

aware of any legal requirement to vacate the plat before laying out the ‎

condominiums, which apparently are regulated under the Condominium ‎

Act, not the Subdivision Control Act‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse clarified that the Wetlands Use Permit and the Natural ‎

Features Setback Modification are directly tied to the preliminary plan that ‎

was approved on August ‎3‎, ‎1999‎. ‎When the preliminary plan expired, so ‎

did the Wetlands Use Permit and the Natural Features Setback ‎

Modification, and technically the Tree Removal Permit as well‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper questioned the third condition of approval by the city of a ‎

Conservation Easement for Outlot B prior to consideration of the final plan ‎

of the Planning Commission‎. ‎Was that ever a condition of approval or in ‎

any of the site plans before?‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse clarified the conservation easement for Outlot B in the ‎

proposed conditions for approval‎. ‎A year ago the Wetland Use Permit and ‎

MDEQ permit were valid‎. ‎When Dr‎. ‎Jaworski did his most recent review, ‎

he was not sure if the MDEQ permit was still valid or if it had also expired‎. ‎

So he advised that it be included as a condition‎. ‎Regarding the ‎

conservation easement for Outlot B, it is shown on the Tree Conservation ‎

Plan‎. ‎It was added because it needs to be reviewed and approved by the ‎

City prior to recording‎. ‎That is identical to what was approved last year‎. ‎

Staff just thought it good to put a condition on it so the applicant is aware ‎

there is a particular easement requiring approval by the City‎. ‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Recommendation to Re‎-‎issue Wetland Use Permit‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎051 ‎

(‎Hazelwood Condominium‎) ‎that the Planning Commission ‎recommend ‎

that City Council re‎-‎issue‎ the Wetland Use Permit, based on the three ‎

findings and three conditions in the Staff Report dated August ‎31‎, ‎2000‎, ‎

and based on the Preliminary Plan prepared by Urban Land Consultants ‎

received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department ‎(‎Sheets ‎1 ‎of ‎2 ‎

dated received August ‎21‎, ‎2000 ‎and Sheet ‎2 ‎of ‎2 ‎dated received August ‎

22‎, ‎2000‎).‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The wetland fill volume is estimated to be ‎55‎ cubic yards, and the total ‎

wetland loss is ‎0.1‎ acres‎.‎

2‎.‎ The wetland loss of ‎0.1‎ acre is acceptable in regard to Section ‎4-13.09‎ ‎

of Ordinance ‎#355‎ and is associated with an unavoidable road ‎

crossing‎.‎

3‎.‎ The MDEQ granted a wetlands use permit for the road crossing ‎(‎and ‎

the ‎0.1‎ acre wetland loss‎) ‎and did not require any wetland mitigation ‎

(‎replacement‎). ‎See MDEQ Permit ‎97-10-1394‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The actual crossing be of the type and in a location indicated on the ‎

Preliminary Plan dated received by the Planning Department on ‎

August ‎21‎, ‎2000‎.‎

2‎.‎ Submittal by the applicant of a valid wetlands permit from the Michigan ‎

Department of Environmental Quality indicating no required wetland ‎

mitigation prior to action on the Wetland Use Permit by City Council‎.‎

3‎.‎ Approval by the City of a conservation easement for Outlot B prior to ‎

consideration of the Final Plan by the Planning Commission‎.‎

Discussion on the motion‎

The Chair stated that the whole issue of access to the subject site has been ‎

significant ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎12‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

from the outset in two different ways ‎- ‎one, from the safety to not only the ‎

entire community but also those future residents of the development‎. ‎The ‎

Chair recalled that a stub street was proposed in one of this plan's ‎

incarnations, which the applicant admitted would never go anywhere‎. ‎So a ‎

road could have been put anywhere along the western boundary‎. ‎That is ‎

not consistent with developing in harmony with the surrounding ‎

neighborhood‎. ‎The place where they put the road goes through church ‎

property and other properties that are never going to have access to ‎

Livernois Road‎. ‎And that's the safety issue‎. ‎The other issue is that this site ‎

had to go from a subdivision to a site condominium because it finally ‎

occurred to the applicant that they were in violation of the State Subdivision ‎

Law‎. ‎Because they were using an existing subdivision to require access to ‎

a new one‎. ‎Case law says you can't do that, and it is inconsistent with how ‎

we want to develop our communities‎. ‎So the applicant has latched on to a ‎

concept recognized by some as legitimate but by others as a legal ‎

loophole, to call it a site condominium‎. ‎But it is a subdivision by any other ‎

name‎. ‎And there is a pending case in Oakland County that apparently is ‎

bogged down somewhere‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran clarified that the case against the City of Troy has been ‎

dismissed and the ‎

developer has simply abandoned the project‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran was not aware of ‎

any litigation in this state on this issue‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Hill, Hooper, Potere‎

Nays‎:‎ Kaiser, Ramanauskas, Rosen‎

Absent‎: ‎ Corneliussen, Ruggiero‎

MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

2000-0312

Preliminary Site Condominium Plan Re‎-‎Approval ‎(‎previously granted by Planning ‎

Commission ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎99‎. ‎Previous approvals of the Preliminary Site Condominium Plan and ‎

associated requests have expired‎.) - ‎City File No‎. ‎98‎-‎051 ‎- ‎Hazelwood Condominium, a ‎

35‎-‎unit site condominium development on ‎19‎.‎55 ‎acres located at the southwest corner of ‎

Auburn and M‎-‎59‎, zoned R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎34‎-‎126‎-‎029‎, ‎

Hazelwood Condominium Development, LLC, applicant‎.. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kisil stated that they have continued efforts to purchase property ‎

surrounding the proposed development, specifically the Raffler property‎. ‎

Obviously their emphasis has been to seek approval of their engineering ‎

improvement design based upon the originally approved preliminary site ‎

plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kisil clarified that the stub street originally proposed does have a ‎

somewhat logical layout if they could acquire that piece and continue the ‎

roadway‎. ‎Negotiations have not proceeded very far‎. ‎

Regarding the placement of weight limits on Hazelton for construction ‎

traffic, Mr‎. ‎Staran stated that a developer can meet any weight limit, but ‎

there is an expense to it‎. ‎Instead of using one truck for all the equipment, ‎

they may use several trucks‎.‎

Commissioners discussed, clarified and modified the proposed conditions ‎

regarding re‎-‎approval of the preliminary site condominium plan‎. ‎

Item ‎3‎. ‎Preliminary Site Condominium Plan Re‎-‎Approval‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Potere, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎051 ‎

(‎Hazelwood Condominium‎) ‎that the Planning Commission ‎grant ‎

Re‎-‎Approval of the Preliminary Site Condominium Plan‎, incorporating ‎

the findings and conditions as modified in the Staff Report dated August ‎

31‎, ‎2000‎, plus ‎2 ‎additional conditions, based on plans dated received ‎

August ‎21‎, ‎2000 ‎(‎Sheet ‎1 ‎of ‎2‎) ‎and August ‎22‎, ‎2000 ‎(‎Sheet ‎2 ‎of ‎2‎).‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The Planning Commission has recommended approval to reissue the ‎

Wetland Use Permit on September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎.‎

2‎.‎ The Planning Commission has regranted a Natural Features Setback ‎

on September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎.‎

3‎.‎ The applicant is willing to adhere, as closely as possible, to the Tree ‎

Conservation plan previously approved by the Planning Commission ‎

and the same as that dated received August ‎22‎, ‎2000‎.‎

4‎.‎ There are adequate public utilities available to service the proposed ‎

development‎.‎

5‎.‎ The proposed preliminary plan presents an acceptable comprehensive ‎

development plan‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎14‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

1‎.‎ The applicant pave Hazelton Road from the end of the current pavement ‎

west of the proposed entrance drive through to the east edge of the ‎

applicant's property that fronts Hazelton‎.‎

2‎.‎ All required protective snow fencing for all of the trees on the property ‎

on all property lines adjacent to existing residential properties be ‎

installed and maintained until build out‎.‎

3‎.‎ The City not issue any approval or permit for construction plans and that ‎

there be no grading or construction on the site until approval of the ‎

Final Plan by the Planning Commission‎.‎

4‎.‎ No work or construction on the property shall be commenced pursuant ‎

to an approved Wetland Use Permit and Floodplain Use Permit until ‎

approval of the Final Plan by the Planning Commission‎.‎

5‎.‎ Appropriate measures be taken with the homeowner immediately south ‎

of the entry drive on Hazelton to ensure adequate screening of ‎

headlights or alignment of the boulevard entrance to provide ‎

adequate relief for the homeowner, to be agreed upon between the ‎

homeowner and the developer, to be presented at the time of Final ‎

Plan approval‎.‎

6‎.‎ At the time of final Plan approval, an appropriate landscape ‎

performance and maintenance bond be ascertained and provided‎.‎

7‎.‎ The applicant obtain permission from the Michigan Department of ‎

Transportation to plant trees within the M‎-59‎ right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎.‎

8‎.‎ The minimum rear yard setback for Units ‎28‎, ‎29‎, and a portion of ‎30‎ be ‎

corrected on the Final Plan‎.‎

9‎.‎ The Development Application and Wetland Use Permit Application be ‎

amended by the applicant to reflect the correct parcel number and ‎

acreage‎.‎

10‎.‎ Sheet ‎2‎ of ‎2‎ (‎Tree Conservation Plan‎) ‎of the Final Plan be corrected as ‎

follows‎:‎

a‎.‎ The site boundary, unit lines, and minimum setback lines be the ‎

same as those depicted on Sheet ‎1‎ of ‎2‎ (‎Final Plan‎).‎

11‎.‎ The applicant obtain Wetland and Flood Plain Use Permits from City ‎

Council‎. ‎

12‎.‎ The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Tree Conservation ‎

Ordinance excepting the provision requiring payment to the Tree ‎

Fund‎. ‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Hill, Hooper, Potere ‎

Nays‎:‎ Boswell, Kaiser, Ramanauskas, Rosen ‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Ruggiero‎

MOTION FAILED‎.‎

[ ‎RECESS ‎10:20‎ p‎.‎m‎. - ‎10:27‎ p‎.‎m‎.]‎

Item ‎3‎. ‎Preliminary Site Condominium Plan Re‎-‎Approval‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File #‎98‎-‎051 ‎

(‎Hazelwood Condominium‎) ‎that the Planning Commission ‎deny ‎

re‎-‎approval of the Preliminary Site Condominium ‎Plan with the ‎

following findings‎:‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The plan before the Planning Commission as proposed does not ‎

include reasonable plans for future connections of this development ‎

to Auburn or Livernois Road which, in the case of the development ‎

as proposed, are more appropriate connection points‎.‎

2‎.‎ The lot sizes and the lot shapes are inconsistent with the developments ‎

to the east, south, and west, and thereby substantially change the ‎

character of the neighborhood‎. ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎15‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

3‎.‎ The density of development exceeds the density in the surrounding ‎

areas by a substantial amount, and also substantially changes the ‎

character and capability ‎*‎compatibility of this proposal with that of ‎

surrounding existing development‎. ‎

4‎.‎ The plan as proposed, even with the boulevard entrance, does not ‎

provide sufficient safeguards for safety and security within the ‎

development because of the density‎.‎

5‎.‎ Alternatives to the proposed development exist that would provide safer ‎

and more appropriate access‎.‎

6‎.‎ Hazelton Road was not designed and, once M‎-59‎ was constructed, is ‎

no longer amenable to the increased traffic from a safety point of ‎

view either for existing or future residents‎. ‎

A motion was made by Rosen, seconded by Boswell, that this matter be ‎

Granted‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Kaiser, Potere and Ramanauskas

4 -

Nay

Hooper

1 -

Absent

Rosen and Ruggiero

2 -

2000-0313

Re‎-‎grant Natural Features Setback Modification ‎(‎previously granted by Planning ‎

Commission ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎99‎) - ‎City File No‎. ‎98‎-‎051 ‎- ‎Hazelwood Condominium‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse clarified that the proposed natural features loss occurs in two ‎

areas ‎-- ‎in the right‎-‎of‎-‎way of the proposed Secretariat Drive at the ‎

crossing of Wetland A, and between Units ‎6 ‎and ‎7 ‎north of Wetland B near ‎

Hazelton‎.‎

‎

Item ‎2‎. ‎Natural Features Setback Modification‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎051 ‎

(‎Hazelwood Condominium‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎re‎-‎grant‎ the ‎

Natural Features Setback Modification for that portion of the natural ‎

features setback of Wetland A located within the right‎-‎of‎-‎way limits of the ‎

proposed Secretariat Drive and between Units ‎6 ‎and ‎7 ‎north of Wetland B, ‎

based on the four findings as modified and two conditions in the Staff ‎

Report dated August ‎31‎, ‎2000‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The proposed natural features setback is located within the right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

of the proposed Secretariat Drive across Wetland Area 'A' and north ‎

of Wetland Area 'B'‎. ‎The submitted plans indicate that no portion of ‎

Wetland Area 'B' is located within this right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed construction of the streets can be accommodated without ‎

impacting Wetland Area 'B'‎.‎

‎

3‎.‎ The applicant is providing curb and gutter along the proposed street‎. ‎

Therefore, no direct discharge of storm water will be entering the ‎

wetlands from where the natural features setback modification is ‎

proposed‎.‎

4‎.‎ Based upon the above, the construction of the roads and storm water ‎

runoff from ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎13‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

the roads is not expected to adversely impact the wetlands if the ‎

natural features setback modification is granted‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The construction plans shall not indicate any greater amount of natural ‎

features setback within the right‎-‎of‎-‎way of Secretariat Drive than the ‎

plans dated received by the Planning Department on August ‎21‎, ‎

2000‎.‎

2‎.‎ That no direct storm water runoff shall be permitted to flow from ‎

Secretariat Drive into the wetlands and that the applicant agrees to ‎

provide curb and gutter along Secretariat Drive‎.‎

A motion was made by Hooper, seconded by Boswell, that this matter be ‎

Granted‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Hooper, Rosen, Potere and Ramanauskas

5 -

Nay

Kaiser

1 -

Absent

Ruggiero

1 -

NEW BUSINESS

2000-0310

Rezoning Request ‎(‎Public Hearing‎) - ‎City File No‎. ‎00‎-‎021 ‎- ‎An amendment to Zoning ‎

Ordinance ‎200 ‎to rezone one parcel of land totaling ‎9‎.‎5 ‎acres, located north of ‎

Meadowfield Road, west of Rochester Road from SP, Special Purpose to RM‎-‎1‎, ‎

Multiple Family Residential, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎22‎-‎226‎-‎016‎, Singh Development Co‎.‎, Ltd‎.‎, ‎

applicant‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Ed Anzek dated August ‎30‎, ‎2000 ‎has ‎

been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Present were Paul Rizzardi and Michael Kahm of Singh Development‎.‎

The Chair reviewed the requirements of rezoning requests and pointed out ‎

that the Planning Commission only makes a recommendation and City ‎

Council will make the final decision‎. ‎While the Chair knew that the ‎

applicant had spent considerable time developing some concept plans, ‎

which were included in commissioners' packets, the Chair reminded ‎

commissioners and the audience that the Planning Commission cannot ‎

consider what the specific project will be‎. ‎The Planning Commission has to ‎

decide whether the current zoning is improper or at least less useful to the ‎

community as a whole, not just the property owner, than the proposed new ‎

zoning, understanding that once it is rezoned, any use allowed under that ‎

zoning classification is allowed‎. ‎What the applicant has in mind right now is ‎

a concept plan‎. ‎It may be completely different than that‎. ‎The applicant ‎

cannot be bound to any particular concept at this particular time‎. ‎On the ‎

other hand, the uses under the proposed zoning change to SP, Special ‎

Purpose are not that broad‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek reviewed all the possible principal uses and conditional uses ‎

permitted under the RM‎-‎1‎, Multiple Family Residential District‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek ‎

also reviewed the uses permitted under the current SP, Special Purpose ‎

zoning district for the subject site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek presented the staff report and recited the principal permitted ‎

uses in the RM‎-‎1 ‎Multiple Family Residential District, and the SP, Special ‎

Purpose District‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated they are proposing to change the zoning to what they ‎

believe is a lower or less intense zoning classification than the current SP, ‎

Special Purpose Zoning District‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that Singh ‎

Development currently owns the property next door called North Ridge ‎

Apartments, and they would like to use the subject property for a multiple ‎

family dwelling use‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi noted that the City's current Master Plan ‎

identifies the subject property for senior housing‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi commented ‎

that the SP, Special Purpose Zoning District is kind of a catchall‎-‎zoning ‎

district in Rochester Hills, with many miscellaneous uses that are more ‎

appropriate in commercial and industrial zoning districts‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi ‎

thought by going to the RM‎-‎1 ‎zoning district it would help the City in terms of ‎

knowing what would be going in there‎. ‎RM‎-‎1 ‎would be more consistent with ‎

the existing adjacent land uses‎. ‎The adjacent properties on all four sides ‎

are currently developed‎. ‎Two sides are zoned RM‎-‎1 ‎and are developed for ‎

tract residential, and the other two sides are zoned commercial and ‎

developed as commercial‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi compared the permitted building heights in the SP, Special ‎

Purpose District and the RM‎-‎1‎, Multiple Family Residential district, stating ‎

that permitted building height and length would be less in RM‎-‎1‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rizzardi though they would meet the intent of the master plan with the ‎

change in zoning‎. ‎Knowing how the demographics are changing in the ‎

future, Singh Development would like to have the ability to be able to allow ‎

alternative housing for seniors‎. ‎Their proposed product is called the ‎

stacked ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎3‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

ranch‎. ‎The building design will be very compatible for conversion to senior ‎

housing in the future if it were necessary‎. ‎There will be no stairs inside the ‎

units, and they will all ‎

have direct entry garages for security purposes‎. ‎They also put extra mounts ‎

in the shower walls for grab bars‎. ‎So as the population demographics ‎

change, the proposed development would provide another opportunity for ‎

seniors for a different type of housing in which seniors could start reducing ‎

the responsibilities of a single family home but still remain independent‎. ‎In ‎

terms of developing RM‎-‎1 ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi believed they would still meet the ‎

intent of the master plan‎. ‎

The Chair asked the applicant to list the reasons for his assertion that the ‎

RM‎-‎1 ‎use would be less intense than SP, Special Purpose‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi responded one of the ways is to consider the impact on the ‎

property itself in developing under the SP‎. ‎Most of the uses under SP, ‎

Special Purpose are large uses that require a lot of land area; and with ‎

congregate care senior housing requirements kitchen areas, dining areas, ‎

connecting corridors have to be provided to service that, which, in essence, ‎

clear‎-‎cuts the property to support this single use‎. ‎With RM‎-‎1 ‎it is possible ‎

to design around the site features‎. ‎The subject property is approximately ‎

50‎% ‎wooded, and more of the woods can be saved in RM‎-‎1‎. ‎There is also ‎

a wetland less than ‎2 ‎acres in size, but the City's Wetland Consultant has ‎

opined that it should be regulated as a recharge area‎. ‎All those features ‎

can be saved more easily in developing under RM‎-‎1 ‎than under SP‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rizzardi was not sure any SP uses could be located on the subject property ‎

if all the natural features were to be preserved‎. ‎Finally, RM‎-‎1 ‎is less intense ‎

because it is more similar to the adjacent residential uses of the Avon Hills ‎

Cooperative to the west and Meadowbrook Condominiums to the south‎. ‎

The proposed buildings would be the same size and scale as those ‎

existing buildings‎. ‎

The Chair opened the public hearing‎.‎

The Chair began by reading a letter dated August ‎31‎, ‎2000 ‎from ‎Mrs‎. ‎Jean ‎

A‎. ‎Polus, ‎69 ‎Meadowood Drive‎, in disfavor of any development on the ‎

subject site as it houses hundreds of trees, birds, and small wild animals‎. ‎

No persons came forward to speak ‎

The Chair ‎closed the public hearing‎.‎

The Chair responded to the public hearing comments by stating that the ‎

owner of the land does have an opportunity to use it within whatever zoning ‎

classification it is‎.‎

The Chair hates when Singh Development comes forward with a request ‎

because they invariably do such a great job everywhere they have gone, ‎

that it is difficult to say ‎"‎no‎" ‎to them‎. ‎Nor can the Chair just say ‎"‎yes‎" ‎for the ‎

same reason‎. ‎

The Chair asked commissioners to focus discussion on the subject ‎

request's consistency with the Master Plan and should we care?‎

Member Rosen thought, yes, we should care‎. ‎His sense is that a rezoning ‎

to RM‎-‎1 ‎is sufficiently different than the Master Plan that he did not think it ‎

fell under it‎. ‎He was thinking of it in terms of a nursing home or assisted ‎

living or congregate care, and that made sense throughout the discussion‎. ‎

Member Rosen recalled that the Planning Commission has been talking ‎

about for the last three or four years that the demographics of the ‎

community are changing‎. ‎He thought the city was in good shape in terms of ‎

completely independent living facilities such as condominiums and ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎4‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

apartments‎. ‎So he was not sure that multiple family apartment style would ‎

add as much to the community as a more formal form of senior housing ‎

would‎. ‎Member Rosen also cautioned that once it is rezoned to multiple ‎

family, it could be anything‎. ‎This multiple family would be at much greater ‎

odds with the Master Plan, even though it ‎

would be unlikely to get a stadium or YMCA or a Boy Scout Headquarters ‎

or anything very large on the site‎. ‎Member Rosen still thought it was a ‎

suitable area and a suitable parcel for at least one or possibly more of the ‎

permitted uses in SP‎. ‎Even a community theater group would make sense‎.‎

The Chair remarked that when we went through the previous master plan, ‎

the Planning Department and City Council immediately embarked on ‎

making the necessary zoning changes in the ordinance as well as specific ‎

districts; then we held our public hearings and recommended one way or ‎

the other‎. ‎In the recent Master Plan Update there hasn't been much ‎

movement, in part I suspect because of the changes in the Planning ‎

Department and the lack of opportunity to get up to speed and try to bring ‎

about these changes‎. ‎The subject request certainly brings home very ‎

clearly that we need to start moving on these changes‎. ‎The Chair ‎

proceeded to review the history of the master plan update process and the ‎

sequence of events that occurred‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that the current zoning of the subject site has been in ‎

the master plan since ‎1992 ‎when all the commercial property was ‎

downzoned‎. ‎The subject property was previously zoned B‎-‎3‎, Shopping ‎

Center Business ‎

Member Hooper stated that the report prepared by Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi is one of ‎

the most thorough that he has ever seen for statements indicating why, and ‎

he really could not disagree with any of them‎. ‎Member Hooper thought it ‎

could still be developed with senior housing under RM‎-‎1‎. ‎Member Hooper ‎

would be in favor of the rezoning request‎.‎

In response to questions from Member Rosen, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that ‎

Waltonwood on Walton Boulevard was about ‎10 ‎acres in size, and ‎

Waltonwood North on Main Street was five and one half acres‎

Member Rosen did not find the size argument compelling considering the ‎

size of the wetlands‎. ‎It is easier to develop this with less intrusion into the ‎

area‎. ‎He did understand the concept that there is more common area and ‎

you have to have a more tied together facility that is physically larger in one ‎

lump than you would with a series of smaller buildings‎. ‎It did not surprise ‎

Member Rosen that that parcel could be much more extensively developed ‎

than it would be under multiple family, multiple residential, and he did not ‎

find that a problem‎. ‎He was not convinced that it is particularly a compelling ‎

reason to say it ought to be multiple‎. ‎And in fact it makes sense‎. ‎

Member Hill thought the size depended exactly on what the development ‎

would be‎. ‎The question is, are we looking for more retirement living as far ‎

as independent living spaces within this community or are we looking to ‎

add to our assisted care within this community‎. ‎We do have a number of ‎

facilities that have gone in, the one on Adams now connected with ‎

American House is independent living, but it is connected into that facility‎. ‎

What actually are the needs we are trying to fill? She knew this property ‎

has been considered for quite a long time for some type of senior housing‎. ‎

Exactly what that would contain is somewhat the question‎. ‎She thought a ‎

single independent dwelling unit would be less intrusive than some type of ‎

more complex care‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added under the SP in order to have anything other than ‎

low‎-‎rise senior housing, you have to have the ancillary and accessory ‎

areas‎. ‎So you would be forced into the assisted living or congregate care ‎

type of building‎. ‎Otherwise, you are looking ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎5‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

at an Avon Towers type of use here‎. ‎In order to get the smaller field, you ‎

have to take it out of the SP zoning and go to something else‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi also responded to Member Rosen's comments‎. ‎Because of ‎

the size of the building requirements, where do you locate the building on ‎

the property with the one acre of wetlands and buffer areas? There is still ‎

plenty of area to do a congregate care, but the wetland is in the middle of ‎

the property‎. ‎In addition none of the plans show the ‎

sanitary sewer line bisecting the property just north of the day care area‎. ‎

And that also becomes a location feature on the property‎. ‎The sewer runs ‎

from the day care into Avon Hills Cooperative‎. ‎Under the concept plan to ‎

be submitted there are four buildings at the southern portion just north of the ‎

second building up on each side of the road‎. ‎That is where the sanitary ‎

sewer runs due east ‎/‎west through the property‎. ‎And that also shows up in ‎

the title commitment, which was submitted as part of the rezoning ‎

application‎.‎

Member Rosen's recollection of why SP was chosen for the subject site ‎

was that it was for some form of senior housing‎. ‎

Member Boswell stated he did not recall one way or the other whether that ‎

was the reason or not‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse clarified it was staff's understanding that ancillary facilities as ‎

well as common facilities pertain in the SP district to convalescent homes ‎

and nursing homes as well as low rise‎. ‎It is consistent with all types whether ‎

nursing, convalescent, or low rise‎.‎

The Chair's recollection was basically the same as Member Rosen's that ‎

when we were going through all those notes and places for rezoning that ‎

this one was very conscious of Winchester, we were conscious of the ‎

apartments and we wanted to reduce the commercial acreage‎. ‎His ‎

recollection was basically it would probably be a nice transition between the ‎

multiple and commercial particularly for seniors‎. ‎How married we were of ‎

that he was not sure‎. ‎Our Master Plan is supposed to mean something and ‎

we are not here to say yes to something even if it is a great something‎. ‎

Actually it is interesting‎. ‎The Chair thought if there were a person who ‎

developed a cure for cancer who decided they wanted to build a lab to ‎

produce that cure in one of our R‎-‎1 ‎zoning districts, and this would be ‎

something that would save a lot of lives for a long time to come, it would be ‎

a wonderful thing to do, but we could not‎. ‎We need to really identify what ‎

the Master Plan means, what our ordinances mean, and what the goals of ‎

those were when they were adopted‎. ‎But there is the urgency to say yes ‎

because it is a great plan, but it is inconsistent with the Master Plan‎. ‎

Member Hill suggested a PUD zoning and concurrently rezone to RM‎-‎1 ‎as ‎

an alternate‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi clarified that their intention was to market stacked ranch ‎

apartments that would have the ability to allow seniors to move in‎. ‎Their ‎

intention is not to build a dedicated senior project‎. ‎As demographics ‎

change this is a product they feel would be a great alternative for seniors ‎

especially as the senior population increases‎. ‎Secondly under the PUD ‎

ordinance you have to be zoned residential or master planned for ‎

commercial‎. ‎This property is neither, so it does not qualify under the PUD ‎

ordinance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran clarified that Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi appeared to be correct‎. ‎There does ‎

not appear from the way the ordinance is set up that there is any provision ‎

for a PUD in an RM‎-‎1 ‎zoning district‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler added the initial zoning is not a permissible district for a PUD, ‎

but what we ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎6‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

had raised in our review was that there could be a request by the applicant ‎

to rezone the property to a district that would permit a PUD concurrent with ‎

the request for a PUD‎. ‎So there could be a request to rezone the property ‎

to a B‎-‎1 ‎concurrent with a request to request an approval of a PUD‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated they haven't really considered a PUD‎. ‎It seemed the ‎

long way to go around something‎. ‎He thought the RM‎-‎1 ‎provisions were ‎

pretty straightforward and you would know what you'd get with building size ‎

and mass‎. ‎The only other change they might look for might be to condition ‎

it as a stack ranch product‎. ‎He was not sure if the ‎

means really necessitated the ends in this case where he thought the RM‎-‎1 ‎

zoning district has enough protection for the Planning Commission plus ‎

their normal discretionary reviews to make sure it is a good development ‎

that goes with this property‎.‎

The Chair responded except that the Master Plan and several hours of ‎

discussion and a number of surveys designate it as senior housing which ‎

RM‎-‎1 ‎does not accommodate‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi commented they would not want to lock themselves into a ‎

senior product‎.‎

Member Rosen stated that is where he came out earlier, that the change to ‎

RM‎-‎1 ‎would be a fundamental master land use change‎. ‎He did not think ‎

given the change in demographics, the change in the community in the last ‎

five to ten years, that we have necessarily given the property enough ‎

chance‎. ‎There is a time value of money and it works both ways‎. ‎Some ‎

investments aren't ripe until a period of time has elapsed‎. ‎It doesn't mean ‎

that everyone has to develop everything right now‎. ‎Sometimes it may not ‎

make sense now, but it will make sense in the future‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kahm added this may be of no value whatsoever, but one of the things ‎

that is playing a part in our desire to go RM‎-‎1 ‎is there are market forces ‎

that are a reality in the marketplace‎. ‎And if you will notice something, not ‎

only in this community but throughout the metropolitan area one thing is ‎

really common in all senior housing projects, and that is they are located on ‎

a main thoroughfare‎. ‎This piece of property is not‎. ‎And one of the ‎

fundamental market forces that we have to deal with in the private ‎

enterprise is that we have to have exposure for our product‎. ‎What made ‎

sense to us, for this property to be rezoned RM‎-‎1‎, was the proximity of ‎

Northridge to it‎. ‎One of their intentions is to make a physical connection ‎

into our Northridge so that there is access through our apartment project for ‎

this development as well‎. ‎But the product that we are choosing lends itself ‎

very readily toward empty nesters and above, because it is at grade with ‎

direct entry garages, so it is very attractive to people who are not yet ready ‎

to go into typical Waltonwoods, but people will still need a level of security ‎

to be able to enter from a garage direct into their unit and not have any ‎

stairs‎. ‎So this is a transitional type of housing that is really a supplement to ‎

what we already have at Northridge‎. ‎One of the reasons why this property ‎

has been vacant for such a long time is that it is not on a major thoroughfare ‎

like other senior housing projects are‎. ‎They would not consider building a ‎

conventional senior housing project like our Waltonwoods in this location for ‎

that reason‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated that recent proposals for senior housing in Rochester ‎

Hills, such as the American House on Adams Road, the consent judgment ‎

at the Spectrum Properties on Rochester Road, Marriott at Rochester ‎

Road and Yorktowne, have all passed over the subject site‎. ‎Marriott ‎

specifically went a quarter of a mile down the street just to be on Rochester ‎

Road‎. ‎The Master Plan has also identified a fantastic location on South ‎

Boulevard and Crooks for senior housing‎. ‎It is difficult for the subject site to ‎

be viable in the market place for a senior housing use‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎7‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

Member Ramanauskas commented that it is a very difficult site‎. ‎But he ‎

wondered what the urgency was‎. ‎The city is built out now, and do we need ‎

this right away instead of apartments because that is what the proposal ‎

looks like‎. ‎Looking at the Master Plan and the hours that have been put into ‎

it and the approach to build out, he did not see the urgency for it‎. ‎Maybe ‎

down the line when land is even scarcer a little better project or maybe an ‎

RM‎-‎1 ‎will come along‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi put his planner's hat back on and looked at it in terms of the ‎

zoning ‎

scheme and the master plan scheme‎. ‎The master plan is intending to ‎

provide senior housing on this property‎. ‎The SP zoning in place does allow ‎

senior housing‎. ‎He thought the city will come to realize that this property ‎

cannot probably be best developed without really impacting the wetlands ‎

and the trees‎. ‎And if the Wetlands Ordinance is going to control in this ‎

case, the property cannot be used as zoned and for the intended purpose ‎

of senior housing‎. ‎Probably the only use that could be used on this property ‎

is a fraternity house or a sorority house or maybe a community theater‎. ‎But ‎

the City also needs to look at and make sure the property can be used as ‎

zoned‎. ‎The point he would raise is, how is the current zoning not the best ‎

zoning on this property?‎

The Chair thought it was a little extreme to state that senior housing could ‎

not happen or would not happen on this site‎. ‎Singh might not be interested ‎

in it, but somebody else might‎. ‎The Chair noted that his father moved to a ‎

senior facility that was not on a main thoroughfare and did provide all the ‎

kinds of amenities that Ms‎. ‎Hill and Mr‎. ‎Rosen had talked about‎. ‎

A motion was made by Rosen, seconded by Ramanauskas, that this matter be ‎

Recommended for Denial to the City Council Regular Meeting‎. ‎The motion ‎

carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Rosen, Kaiser and Ramanauskas

4 -

Nay

Hooper and Potere

2 -

Absent

Ruggiero

1 -

2000-0314

Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎99‎-‎032 ‎- ‎Boulevard Office Park, a ‎36‎,‎750 ‎square foot ‎

office building on ‎7‎.‎29 ‎acres located north of South Boulevard, east of Michelson, zoned ‎

O‎-‎1‎, Office Business, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎35‎-‎477‎-‎002‎, Mukesh Mangla, Premium ‎

Construction, applicant‎.‎

Item ‎2‎. ‎Natural Feature Setback Modification‎, ‎

Item ‎3‎. ‎Buffer Modification‎, ‎

Item ‎4‎. ‎Site Plan Approval‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Potere, in the matter of File No‎. ‎99‎-‎032 ‎

(‎Boulevard Office Park‎) ‎that the Planning Commission ‎postpone‎ requests ‎

for a Natural Feature Setback Modification, Buffer Modification, and Site ‎

Plan Approval until City Council has made a decision regarding the request ‎

for a Wetland Use Permit‎.‎

Roll call vote‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Hill, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas, Rosen‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Ruggiero‎

This matter was Postponed. The motion carried.

2000-0315

Wetland Use Permit Recommendation ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎99‎-‎032 ‎- ‎Boulevard Office Park‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Staff Report prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated September ‎1‎, ‎

2000 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record ‎

hereof‎.)‎

Present for the applicant were Doug Necci, architect, and Herve Henry, civil ‎

engineer, Aimee Kay, wetland specialist, with JCK & Associates‎. ‎Also ‎

present were Mukesh ‎

Mangla, developer and owner of Premium Construction; the owner of the ‎

project; Dave Mishad, turtle specialist with JCK; Earl Hall, architect with ‎

JCK‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse presented the staff report and offered to answer any ‎

questions that may arise‎.‎

‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci distributed to commissioners miniature versions of the proposed ‎

site plan and the architectural rendering‎. ‎He also had overheads prepared‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci described the proposed two‎-‎story office building of ‎

approximately ‎36‎,‎000 ‎square feet, very similar in appearance to the ‎

Henderson Glass building immediately to the east‎. ‎This building will house ‎

a computer service company called Expert Computer Systems, Inc‎.‎, which ‎

is a fast growing company anticipating having approximately two hundred ‎

employees‎. ‎The building is proposed to be built in two phases‎. ‎But under ‎

present plans it will be built as one building‎. ‎The site is a very challenging ‎

site environmentally‎. ‎They believe they have developed a plan that is ‎

extremely environmentally friendly by staying completely out of all the natural ‎

features of this site‎. ‎The issues of ingress and egress have been ‎

discussed at length and agreed upon with the traffic consultant and the ‎

Road Commission‎. ‎They have spent one‎-‎year of hard work and very ‎

detailed planning on this plan; mostly regarding the environmental issues‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci gave an overview of the site‎. ‎The M‎-‎59 ‎corridor is on the north, ‎

and there is a ‎25‎-‎foot natural feature setback along the northerly boundary ‎

in which they propose a Type D planting‎. ‎They have gone on the ‎

assumption along this line that there are no existing trees on the property ‎

within that ‎25 ‎foot area when, in fact, there are many trees; so the proposed ‎

plantings are very generous‎. ‎The exact planting arrangement will be ‎

agreed upon between their landscape final designer and the City's ‎

Landscape ‎

Consultant‎. ‎The Gibson Drain bounds the site to the east, and the entire ‎

area is proposed to be a compensatory storage area‎. ‎That area will be ‎

excavated and planted with seed mix that will essentially allow it to return to ‎

its natural condition‎. ‎They are asking for the ‎25‎-‎foot setback buffer that ‎

would ordinarily be required along the Gibson Drain‎. ‎It is a natural feature ‎

setback to be relocated to immediately east of the parking‎. ‎It would remain ‎

the same width; it would remain equal in all respects; all existing plant ‎

material within that ‎25 ‎foot buffer would remain and would be supplemented ‎

with additional plantings as shown on their landscape plan‎. ‎Along the ‎

southerly boundary is South Boulevard, where they are basically preserving ‎

the existing visual appearance of the site‎. ‎The existing woodland would ‎

serve to buffer the site substantially in this area‎. ‎The vision of the site in the ‎

summertime would probably be about as it is now; the parking lot would not ‎

be visible, and in winter there would be a screened view of the parking area ‎

from both South Boulevard and Michelson Drive‎. ‎They are asking that the ‎

wooded area and wetland in the area immediately in front of the building be ‎

allowed to be thinned out selectively to remove some of the small ‎

understory and brush‎. ‎The only intent of this would be just to achieve some ‎

visibility of the building‎. ‎They have been told this is completely consistent ‎

with the wetland preservation requirements‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Necci believed they have ‎

designed a building with a very nicely enhanced entrance area‎. ‎They would ‎

put some very specific detailed landscaping later on the entrance‎. ‎The ‎

building is raised up slightly above the parking area due to floodplain ‎

issues on the site so there is some ramping in specific areas‎. ‎There are ‎

ramps to provide barrier free access to all the doorways into the building‎. ‎

They are proposing a predominantly dark red brick fa‎ç‎ade with two granite ‎

columns on either side of the arched entrance‎. ‎Some of the staff reviews ‎

have mentioned there is too much EFIS‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Henry clarified the reason for proposing to move the ‎25‎-‎foot natural ‎

feature area on the easterly side‎. ‎They have to provide compensatory ‎

storage for the floodplain for the amount that is lost, as a result of raising the ‎

building two feet above the flood elevation‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Henry explained that this is ‎

shown on the engineering plan‎. ‎

The Chair commented that he did not know if the Planning Commission had ‎

ever modified the natural feature setback by moving it‎. ‎And he couldn't ask ‎

anybody from the Planning Department because they haven't been around ‎

long enough to know‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse believed that the Crittenton Outpatient project, File No‎. ‎

99‎-‎024‎, modified the buffer requirement, which was an opaque screen, by ‎

moving the wall to the west of the eastern property line because of the ‎

existing topography and to increase drainage‎. ‎Also the Church of the ‎

Nazarene moved the screening away from the property line due to the ‎

topography‎.‎

The Chair responded that those were screenings‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Henry stated if they left the ‎25 ‎foot buffer on the east, they would end up ‎

with a berm alongside and then immediately west they would excavate ‎

about ‎2 ‎feet to provide a channel to make the hydraulic connection between ‎

that area and the drain‎. ‎From a flood management standpoint it made the ‎

most sense to the Engineering Department and Dr‎. ‎Jaworski, the city's ‎

Wetland Consultant‎. ‎

Member Rosen commented in a sense they were creating a detention area ‎

for a ‎100‎-‎year flood‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Henry added under normal circumstances it would ‎

remain dry‎. ‎It will have a very flat slope from the edge of the drain back to ‎

the new wetland setbacks‎. ‎

Member Rosen said it really is not a detention area‎. ‎It is intentionally a low ‎

area to flood when there is a ‎100‎-‎year rain‎. ‎And if there were a berm, it ‎

would be underwater at the ‎100‎-‎year point anyway‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Henry concurred‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse described a portion of the natural feature setback ‎

modification is for the ‎

road crossing that is associated with the required bikepath along South ‎

boulevard on the easterly side of the site‎. ‎

The Chair said construction of the compensatory floodplain has just been ‎

described and a motion to approved the modification should contain a ‎

condition requiring the provision of the ‎25‎-‎foot landscape area immediately ‎

east of the parking area‎. ‎

Regarding the turtles, the Chair asked Ms‎. ‎Kay why the Planning ‎

Commission has to do what the applicant is proposing to do‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Mishad explained the design of the wildlife culvert is to facilitate better ‎

movement of spotted turtles as well as other wildlife that would move ‎

between the Gibson Drain to the wetland on the subject site‎. ‎The location ‎

of the road would impede that‎. ‎The culvert would provide a means for the ‎

wildlife to pass underneath, actually move through the road without ‎

impacting road access for pedestrians or vehicles, but would also allow the ‎

wildlife to cross underneath without feeling vulnerable to predatories ‎

including humans‎. ‎The cobblestone design of the culvert would encourage ‎

wildlife to use it‎. ‎A combination of cobblestone and native plantings would ‎

corral the wildlife through it, so they have basically designed a natural tunnel ‎

for them to move through it‎.‎

It sounded to Member Rosen that the applicant had already applied for an ‎

MDEQ permit for the road crossing‎. ‎One of the criteria the Planning ‎

Commission uses is that no reasonable alternatives are available for the ‎

wetland crossing‎. ‎Member Rosen suggested having the entrance at the ‎

east end and reorient the site accordingly‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Kay responded that orientation was considered and rejected based on ‎

engineering and traffic issues‎. ‎If the access drive were east of the wetland, ‎

there would be site ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎18‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

distance problems for traffic, and this was discussed with the City ‎

engineers and traffic consultants‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Henry added the main problem with that is an existing culvert under ‎

South Boulevard‎. ‎The design requirements of the Road Commission and ‎

the city's traffic engineers created a conflict which would basically require ‎

rebuilding and widening South Boulevard over to the Gibson Drain‎. ‎After ‎

discussions with the traffic engineers, Dr‎. ‎Jaworski and the Road ‎

Commission they arrived at the current location based on the safety criteria ‎

for South Boulevard‎. ‎

The Chair did not accept that safety issue with the location, despite the ‎

many meetings and discussions with engineering and traffic people‎. ‎This ‎

is the first time the applicant is meeting with the Planning Commission‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci described many generations of designs involving tapers and ‎

approaches that would interfere with the existing culvert of the Gibson Drain ‎

going under South Boulevard‎. ‎It would have required basically completely ‎

rebuilding the bridge to accommodate the lane tapers associated with the ‎

approach‎.‎

From the rendering Mr‎. ‎Necci described the existing guardrails, culvert, the ‎

narrow road, small amount of shoulder between paved road and the edge ‎

of the actual bridge over the Gibson Drain, which would have to be widened ‎

substantially to encompass the additional lane required for the accel‎/‎decel ‎

lane‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Necci continued with additional engineering descriptions‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Henry explained that it would be more costly to use a bridge for their ‎

drive approach‎. ‎And Dr‎. ‎Jaworski was quite agreeable with the culvert ‎

approach‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci had asked the same question about the turtle crossing that the ‎

Chair had‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Necci believed turtles would actually prefer a culvert to a ‎

bridge because they do ‎

not go into dark places; they need light‎. ‎It apparently is important that they ‎

have continuous light, so the turtle crossing is a grating, not a tube‎.‎

Member Rosen suggested that a Wetland Use Permit recommendation ‎

should ‎

include a finding that alternatives have been considered such as locating ‎

the entrance at the east property line; however, the existing Gibson Drain ‎

and associated culvert, bridge and road configuration precluded that, or ‎

similar language‎. ‎It was not clear from the staff report‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Henry clarified that the selective clearing would be in the wetland area, ‎

alongside the roadway‎. ‎And there will be some wetland mitigation just west ‎

of the driveway‎. ‎The wetland mitigation area would be excavated, cleared, ‎

and then replanted with wetland materials‎. ‎The selective clearing would be ‎

outside the buffer they propose for Segment One‎. ‎The mitigation area will ‎

be excavated, cleared, and then replanted with wetland planting material‎. ‎A ‎

portion will be maintained in its existing state completely‎. ‎To the east they ‎

would request that they be allowed to thin the understory selectively‎. ‎They ‎

would retain all of the overstory and larger trees‎. ‎Instead of a lawn, people ‎

would see a wetland; they will not disturb that area at all‎. ‎The stumps of any ‎

trees they cut would have to remain‎. ‎They would simply thin out some of the ‎

small underbrush so the building would be visible‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Henry explained in Segment Two they are requesting to use a ‎

proposed conservation easement of existing vegetation along the southerly ‎

portion of the west property line abutting Michelson to meet the IVO ‎

requirements‎. ‎Segment Three is similar‎. ‎The conservation easement ‎

along the northern portion of the west property line ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎19‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

to meet the ‎6‎-‎foot opaque screen and IVO‎. ‎The existing forest will not be ‎

disturbed in either Segment Two or Three‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci discussed the proposed conservation easement‎. ‎Although it is ‎

an option that the owner could vacate at any time, the concept is that they ‎

are providing the ‎40 ‎and ‎50‎-‎foot wide conservation preservation easement ‎

in lieu of the ordinance requirements for berms‎. ‎The language just means ‎

that, in the future, if they were to meet the ordinance requirement, they ‎

would replace, vacate, or whatever the appropriate word would be the ‎

agreed upon preservation easement‎. ‎It just seemed logical to provide for ‎

that‎.‎

The Chair was not sure it could be done like that because an easement ‎

usually runs to the benefit of the other person, not the property owner‎. ‎

That's the whole point of an easement‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran added generally conservation easements and preservation ‎

easements are written to be permanent and they run with the land, can be ‎

abandoned or vacated only with the consent of the grantor or grantee‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci stated they would not want that to become an issue that would ‎

prevent an approval‎. ‎It was merely a thought but certainly not an item they ‎

would hold firmly to‎. ‎It just seemed to make sense considering the wetland ‎

constraints on the site‎.‎

Member Hooper's point of view was if Segment Three were left a forest, ‎

there would be no reason to put a wall or anything up‎.‎

The Chair stated the applicant could request an amended site plan, but he ‎

did not know of a term that would allow them to vacate the easement and ‎

still comply with the buffer requirements‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci stated they would withdraw that request‎.‎

Regarding Segment Four, Mr‎. ‎Necci explained they would use existing ‎

vegetation along the north property line of M‎-‎59 ‎to meet the required IVO‎. ‎

However, that comment is a bit inconsistent with their actual design ‎

because they have proposed all the planting material required for Type D ‎

screening with the assumption that there are no trees along that ‎25 ‎foot line‎. ‎

In fact, they knew there were; they just did not know exactly where they are‎. ‎

He was puzzled by Condition No‎. ‎4 ‎of the buffer modifications, which ‎

requires provision of an inventory of existing vegetation along Segment ‎

Four‎. ‎Such action of the City if the existing vegetation is not adequate for ‎

screening, the proposed screen must be planted‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse clarified that the landscape consultant's letter states by ‎

providing an inventory of what exists, it would be possible to meet the intent ‎

of the ordinance by using existing vegetation‎. ‎But he did not have the ‎

information available to determine whether or not the requirement can be ‎

met with the existing vegetation‎. ‎So if, after surveying and providing the ‎

necessary information to the landscape consultant, it is not adequate, then ‎

the plantings that are proposed would be necessary‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse also ‎

suggested that the landscape consultant may be inferring, given the nature ‎

of the subject site, that it is better to retain the existing vegetation than to ‎

take it down and plant new‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci clarified they are still proposing to supplement the existing plant ‎

material as needed‎. ‎But they are not at a point where they can do a ‎

detailed tree‎-‎by‎-‎tree design of those supplements‎. ‎In lieu of that they ‎

committed to a complete Type D screening ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎20‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

design, which far exceeds what they would need to supplement the existing‎. ‎

So if we build the landscape plan as shown, we will meet the Type D screen ‎

required‎. ‎

Continuing, Mr‎. ‎Necci explained that the submitted design shows the ‎

quantity and size needed for Type D‎. ‎It really doesn't lend itself to a ‎

supplemental type planting that reacts to existing vegetation‎. ‎It would have ‎

to be a more individual size‎. ‎They have talked with the landscape ‎

consultant and offered a field inspection to gain his input at a point in time ‎

when the landscaping was being contemplated‎. ‎They were hoping to leave ‎

a few very large specimen trees within the buffer and they would work ‎

around them‎.‎

Member Hooper recommended modifying the condition to say permission ‎

to utilize the existing vegetation along with new plantings as specified on ‎

the landscape plan to meet the intent of the IVO requirement‎.‎

Member Rosen stated since the applicant will be meeting the IVO ‎

requirement for Segment One, it is really not a buffer modification‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler clarified that the ordinance requires the planting of trees to meet ‎

the IVO requirement‎. ‎Technically, even if there is existing vegetation that ‎

meets the intent of the IVO requirement, a buffer modification is necessary ‎

because they are not going to be planting trees‎. ‎All the screening ‎

requirements are predicated on planting vegetation‎.‎

The Chair discussed the modification in front of the building‎. ‎He ‎

understood the applicant's request was to thin the vegetation so that the ‎

building would be visible‎. ‎Ordinarily the purpose of the screening is to ‎

shield it totally from residential‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci compared the appearance of the Spalding DeDecker building to ‎

the proposed site by stating that the building is visible‎. ‎It has a berm and a ‎

lawn area and the existing vegetation has been preserved‎. ‎The proposed ‎

site on the other hand would keep the existing wetland terrain below the ‎

trees‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Kay added that the interior of the wetland is very think, forested, and ‎

there is not a lot of understory north of the buffer along the existing roadway‎. ‎

In the interior of the ‎

wetland they are proposing to only selectively cut, not every tree, only ‎

smaller ones and thick shrubs and a few large ones along the border of the ‎

forest edge‎.‎

Member Hill had a problem because wetlands are supposed to remain ‎

undisturbed‎. ‎It didn't matter that the reason was to be able to see the ‎

building‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Kay responded that the subject site presents a difficult situation to ‎

design around‎. ‎The overall acreage of the wetlands is ‎1‎.‎65 ‎acres, and they ‎

will be impacting only ‎.‎09 ‎acres, just to put it in perspective‎. ‎She agreed ‎

that in a perfect world the wetlands would not be impacted‎. ‎She assured ‎

the commission they would not be frivolous; it was not their intent to have an ‎

open field‎. ‎Also, some of the values and benefits of wetlands were studied ‎

throughout the planning process, and some of the actual benefits of the ‎

subject wetland obviously are some absorption for rainfall events‎. ‎But ‎

obviously wildlife issues were also taken into consideration‎. ‎Surely, they ‎

would not have gone to the extent of designing a turtle crossing which is ‎

very much out of the ordinary if they planned to clear‎-‎cut the area‎. ‎To put it ‎

in perspective, this is not an open ponded wetland system where typically ‎

one sees mallard ducks or herons and which has a higher value from a ‎

scientific standpoint‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci confirmed for Member Hooper that a tree survey has not been ‎

performed‎. ‎They will have to do one in order to develop a detailed ‎

landscape plan, for sure‎. ‎There ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎21‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

is just not one available at this moment‎. ‎And they would do it in the exact ‎

areas that are being targeted rather than the entire site‎.‎

That made Member Hooper feel like he was not sure what he was ‎

approving or not approving‎.‎

Member Rosen clarified with Ms‎. ‎Millhouse that a Type C buffer is required ‎

across from residential zoning if there is a street in between‎. ‎The IVO is to ‎

be at least ‎20 ‎feet measured from the ground which shall be a screen ‎

having no completely, unobscured openings within two years of planting ‎

more than ‎10 ‎feet wide‎.‎

In hearing that definition, Mr‎. ‎Necci stated that is consistent with what they ‎

are trying to do visually with the building‎. ‎They are not trying to open a ‎

complete view; they want a screened view of the building‎. ‎They just don't ‎

want the building completely obscured by what essentially is underbrush ‎

material‎. ‎Along the woodland edge there is just a mass of scrub brush that ‎

has grown up and that is what they want to clear out‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Kay added this is not in the regulated wetland; it is in the natural feature ‎

setback‎. ‎There is no brush in the interior of the wetland‎. ‎The brush is along ‎

the fringe buffer and the larger trees are in the interior of the wetland‎. ‎They ‎

have approval from the State to do selective cutting of the smaller trees in ‎

the wetlands‎. ‎The City's Wetland Consultant has recommended approval ‎

of this‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas was also concerned about disturbing the wetland‎. ‎

When the applicant says the brush cutting would be done periodically, ‎

some type of ordinance enforcement would be required‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci stated they have no problem complying with any monitoring ‎

requirements‎. ‎As he has already stated, the edge of the underbrush is all ‎

they want to selectively clear out‎. ‎It is fast growing and will probably have to ‎

be done every few years‎. ‎They would like the building to have some ‎

degree of visibility from South Boulevard‎. ‎They don't want to have a ‎

building in the woods, but rather have a building screened by the woods‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas appreciated the sense the applicant was trying to ‎

achieve by having visibility of a beautiful building‎. ‎But at the same time it is ‎

self‎-‎imposed because ‎

of the site that the applicant has selected‎. ‎The wetland is already being ‎

disturbed, and now the applicant wants to disturb it some more with ‎

accessories and aesthetics‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci was confident the particular underbrush referenced was not really ‎

in the wetland but in the wetland buffer‎. ‎A more precise mapping would ‎

confirm that‎. ‎But they were hindered by that lack of precision now‎.‎

The Chair responded so are the commissioners‎. ‎It is open ended‎. ‎The ‎

Chair asked the applicant why the building would need to be visible from ‎

South Boulevard‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci responded to achieve consistency with the surrounding buildings ‎

that have almost no screening‎.‎

But the other buildings don't have the other features that are present on the ‎

subject site, such as a wetland crossed by a road, intruding into the ‎

wetlands, the difficulty of widening South Boulevard at the bridge, dealing ‎

with a culvert‎. ‎The proposed plan is inconsistent with what the City's Traffic ‎

Engineer has taught them, that is, to line up the road with one on the ‎

opposite side‎. ‎All of these issues have to do with quality of life, quality of ‎

the environment, aesthetics and safety‎. ‎It is the wetland that keeps coming ‎

back‎. ‎And to top that off, the commission has not been presented with ‎

anything specific enough to allow the commission to say ‎"‎yea‎" ‎or ‎"‎nay‎". ‎

The Chair did not see why the wetland kept giving way especially in such a ‎

vague way‎. ‎Nobody is going to care if the building is visible or not, except ‎

those that are already scheduled to visit it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci added the underbrush is the sort of thing that one would thin out ‎

of their backyard that is not permanently damaging but will regrow very ‎

quickly‎. ‎It has little value and it would not be detrimental to thin and remove ‎

it‎.‎

In that case the Chair asked to at least be able to identify it, not knowing ‎

whether the applicant would get approval or not this evening‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci attempted to focus the language more precisely‎.‎

Member Rosen reviewed chapter ‎4‎-‎13‎.‎02 ‎of the Wetlands Ordinance, ‎

understanding it to say that nothing can be done in the wetland without ‎

getting approval from the MDEQ and the City‎. ‎Member Rosen even would ‎

have trouble approving a Wetland Use Permit even though the MDEQ ‎

approved it‎. ‎He was not convinced that the vegetation in the wetland should ‎

be thinned‎. ‎And he certainly was not convinced that it should go into a ‎

conservation easement that is revocable by the applicant at their discretion‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse responded that staff reviewed the recommendation and the ‎

lengthy letter from J & L Consulting, who has been the wetland consultant ‎

for the City for many years‎. ‎

The Chair responded that Dr‎. ‎Jaworski doesn't set policy‎. ‎The City makes ‎

the rules and regulations, the Planning Department administers it, and the ‎

Planning Commission puts their name on it‎. ‎The proposed project goes far ‎

beyond what he has seen in the past‎.‎

After reviewing Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's letter again, Ms‎. ‎Millhouse and the Chair ‎

realized that the letter referenced only removing trees six inches in diameter ‎

or larger‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse and the Chair concurred that Dr‎. ‎Jaworski ‎

misspoke‎.‎

Since Mr‎. ‎Necci was confident that the selective clearing would only be in ‎

buffer area, he would agree to a proposed condition that says there shall be ‎

no removal of plant materials in the wetland‎.‎

Member Rosen and the Chair reviewed the requirements of the Wetland ‎

Ordinance and summarized that the subject activity is not a reduction of the ‎

natural features; it's more ‎

an allowance to cut or remove plant materials in the natural feature and is ‎

prohibited‎. ‎Member Hooper commented that you would only be allowed to ‎

reduce it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran's interpretation of the ordinance was the same‎.‎

That was daunting to Ms‎. ‎Kay‎. ‎Her interpretation of the ordinance was a ‎

little different‎. ‎But another issue she raised was the necessity for providing ‎

an area for mitigation‎. ‎She apologized for not mentioning that earlier‎. ‎

Obviously they are going to have to go excavate a few feet out to put the ‎

wetland plantings in‎. ‎Since Mr‎. ‎Necci has already said he would agree to ‎

revise the plan and not have any cutting in the interior of the wetland, they ‎

just need to address cutting the shrubbery on the southern edge of the ‎

wetland itself, excavate for the wetland, and compensate for the wetland fill‎. ‎

They can work that around in their design and resubmit some shrubs for the ‎

commission's satisfaction‎. ‎They will have to take machinery in there to ‎

excavate the soil and there would be no way they could work around the ‎

shrubbery‎. ‎She certainly would not ‎

recommend going any further west because the forest there is quite mature‎. ‎

They would actually be modifying the natural feature area to provide for the ‎

wetland mitigation‎.‎

Member Rosen understood the difficulty but did not believe the ordinance ‎

would allow the Planning Commission to approve what the applicant was ‎

requesting‎. ‎The Planning Commission would grant a distance setback to ‎

allow for the bikepath‎.‎

The Chair suggested a condition that would say there shall be no removal ‎

of plant material in the wetland or natural feature setback anywhere on the ‎

site other than during construction of the wetland mitigation area, which ‎

areas would then be restored as closely as possible to their original status ‎

as approved by City Staff and the Consultant‎. ‎

In that case Ms‎. ‎Millhouse suggested a condition of site plan approval to ‎

delete the note from the site plan regarding selective cutting‎.‎

The Chair could not find anywhere in the wetland ordinance where the ‎

Planning Commission could approved the disturbing of anything in a ‎

wetlands so that a building would be visible‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Kay believed it was a matter of what was reasonable or not‎. ‎From a ‎

professional wetland perspective she felt some selective cutting along the ‎

buffer would not impair the wetland system‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler commented it comes down to a matter of policy‎. ‎The subject ‎

project has gone through four separate reviews by all the consultants and ‎

departments‎. ‎A lot of the things that commissioners are bringing up tonight ‎

in terms of what the wetland ordinance says were brought up at the very ‎

beginning‎. ‎This is an example of something where the consultants and the ‎

staff have done their best to convey to the applicant to best ways to reduce ‎

impacts to the wetlands‎. ‎But it doesn't tell the full story of the past nine ‎

months of review‎. ‎This just clarifies that the ball was not dropped‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Henry clarified that the amount of fill in the wetlands requested is a ‎

maximum of ‎500 ‎cubic yards‎. ‎The mitigation is ‎4‎,‎200 ‎square feet‎. ‎And the ‎

total wetland lost would be no greater than ‎4‎,‎200 ‎square feet‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse clarified that the Wetland Use Permit only deals with the ‎

crossing and does not deal with anything beyond that‎.‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Wetland Use Permit‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎99‎-‎032 ‎

(‎Boulevard ‎

Office Park‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎recommend approval‎ of the ‎

Wetlands Use Permit to fill as much as ‎4‎,‎200 ‎square feet of wetlands with a ‎

maximum of ‎500 ‎cubic yards of fill, to construct the road over the wetland ‎

through which there will be a turtle crossing, subject to the three findings as ‎

modified in the Staff report dated September ‎1‎, ‎2000‎, plus a fourth finding, ‎

and Conditions ‎1 ‎through ‎9 ‎with Condition ‎8 ‎modified, plus a tenth ‎

condition‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The wetland fill volume is estimated to be a maximum of ‎500‎ cubic ‎

yards, and the total wetland loss be no greater than ‎4,200‎ square ‎

feet‎.‎

2‎.‎ The wetland loss is associated with an unavoidable road crossing‎.‎

3‎.‎ The requested permit is necessary to realize the benefits to be derived ‎

from a proposed lawful activity‎.‎

4‎.‎ Alternatives were considered but not deemed to be available under the ‎

circumstances regarding the road‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Submission of a revised plan clarifying the proposed amount of wetland ‎

loss due to the entrance road crossing, as well as the proposed ‎

amount of wetland fill, to the satisfaction of the City's Wetland ‎

Consultant‎. ‎The quantity of wetland loss shall not exceed ‎4,200‎ ‎

square feet‎.‎

2‎.‎ An updated MDEQ wetlands permit consistent with the current revised ‎

site plan drawings be provided by the applicant prior to ‎

consideration of the Wetland Use Permit by City Council‎.‎

3‎.‎ Monitoring of the entire wetland development, including the preserved ‎

wetlands and Gibson Drain, erosion control, and stormwater ‎

discharge be the responsibility of the applicant‎. ‎A note so indicating ‎

needs to be added to the Wetland Site Plan‎.‎

4‎.‎ Clarification on the Wetland Site Plan, to the satisfaction of the City's ‎

Wetland Consultant, of the quantity of roof water being directed into ‎

the east end of Wetland A‎.‎

5‎.‎ The clean‎-‎out capability of the underground stormwater detention ‎

system be established‎. ‎Also, the oil and gas separator and other ‎

pre‎-‎treatment measures must be implemented in order to achieve ‎

the pre‎-‎treatment of stormwater required by the MDEQ wetlands ‎

permit, as approved by the City‎.‎

6‎.‎ A construction sequence be established with regard to minimizing ‎

wetland and drain impacts during construction‎. ‎As part of this ‎

sequencing, consideration be given to use of the compensatory ‎

flood plain basin as a temporary sedimentation basin in a manner ‎

acceptable to the City‎.‎

7‎.‎ All drawings, as well as the ‎"‎as built‎" ‎drawing of the constructed wetland ‎

mitigation area, regarding the udpated MDEQ Wetlands Permit be ‎

made available by the applicant to the City for its monitoring ‎

purposes‎. ‎A note so indicating needs to be added to the Wetland ‎

Site Plan‎. ‎The mitigation area is to be at least equal to or greater ‎

than the used wetland area‎.‎

8‎.‎ All other items agreed upon by the applicant, as expressed in the June ‎

30‎, ‎2000‎ letter by JCK & Associates, be implemented, excluding ‎

bullet point ‎#9‎, as approved by the City‎. ‎A note so indicating needs ‎

to be added to the Wetland Site Plan‎.‎

9‎.‎ Spot checking of the construction of this project is required by J & L ‎

Consulting at the expense of the applicant, particularly as regards ‎

potential wetland and Gibson Drain impacts‎. ‎A note so indicating ‎

needs to be added to the Wetland Site Plan‎.‎

10‎.‎ There be no removal of plant material in the wetland or natural features ‎

setback area other than during the construction of the wetland ‎

mitigation area, which area is to be restored as closely as possible ‎

to its original state as approved by city staff and consultants‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Hooper, Kaiser‎

Nays‎:‎ Hill, Potere, Ramanauskas, Rosen‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Ruggiero ‎

MOTION FAILED‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Wetland Use Permit Recommendation‎

MOTION‎ by Ramanauskas, seconded by Rosen, in the matter of File No‎. ‎

99‎-‎032 ‎

Approved as Corrected at the October ‎3‎, ‎2000 ‎Planning Commission Meeting‎.‎

Minutes‎/‎Regular Rochester Hills Planning Commission Meeting‎ Page ‎25‎

Tuesday, September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎

(‎Boulevard Office Park‎) ‎the Planning Commission ‎recommends denial‎ of ‎

a Wetland Use Permit, based on the following finding‎.‎

FINDING‎:‎

1‎.‎ Reasonable alternatives were not considered or utilized, such as an ‎

entrance along the eastern area of the parking lot, or a bridge ‎

arrangement over the wetland so there is less wetland impact‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Hill, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas, Rosen‎

Nays‎:‎ Boswell, Hooper‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Ruggiero‎

MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

A motion was made by Rosen, seconded by Potere, that this matter be ‎

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

carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Rosen, Kaiser, Potere and Ramanauskas

4 -

Nay

Boswell and Hooper

2 -

Absent

Ruggiero

1 -

2000-0316

Natural Features Setback Modification ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎99‎-‎032 ‎- ‎Boulevard Office Park‎

This matter was Postponed. The motion carried.

2000-0317

Buffer Modification ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎99‎-‎032 ‎- ‎Boulevard Office Park‎

This matter was Postponed. The motion carried.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular ‎

Meeting is scheduled for September ‎19‎, ‎2000‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Planning Commission, ‎

Chairperson Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎12‎:‎45 ‎a‎.‎m‎.‎, ‎

Wednesday, September ‎6‎, ‎2000 ‎Michigan time‎.‎