Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, October 5, 1999

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Eric Kaiser called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in ‎

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Greg Hooper ‎

Leah Potere‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Director of Planning‎

Deborah Millhouse, Deputy Director‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1974

July ‎6‎, ‎1999 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Ramanauskas, that the Minutes dated ‎

July ‎6‎, ‎1999 ‎be accepted as printed‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

2000-1975

August ‎17‎, ‎1999 ‎Regular Meeting‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Ruggiero, that the Minutes dated August ‎

17‎, ‎1999 ‎be accepted as printed‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Memo from Katherine Beebe & Associates dated September ‎23‎, ‎1999‎ ‎

regarding corrections to the Master Land Use Plan Update‎.‎

B‎.‎ "‎Getting there from here‎"‎, a presentation by Paul Tait, SEMCOG‎

C‎.‎ Letter from Andrew Coden regarding Avon Woods, requesting ‎

postponement of Agenda Item V‎.‎A‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1038

Request for a Buffer Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎84‎-‎496‎.‎3 ‎- ‎Crissman ‎

Lincoln‎-‎Mercury, a renovation of existing parking lot and related detention basin ‎

facility, located on the east side of Rochester Rd‎.‎, south of Avon, Parcel No‎. ‎

15‎-‎23‎-‎151‎-‎001‎, zoned B‎-‎3‎, Shopping Center Business, Charles Crissman, ‎

Crissman Lincoln Mercury, Inc‎.‎, ‎1185 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Rd‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48307‎, Applicant ‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated September ‎30‎, ‎

1999 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record hereof‎.) ‎

Member Rosen announced to the Planning Commission that he works for General ‎

Motors but has nothing to do with marketing and believes his employment will not ‎

affect his decisions or actions regarding the subject item, and he has no financial ‎

connection to the approval or disapproval of the subject requests other than the ‎

continued viability of the automobile industry in Southeast Michigan which most ‎

people are subject to in one way or another‎.‎

Member Potere revealed that Mr‎. ‎Crissman is a close personal friend of hers, but she ‎

did not believe that would color her decisions this evening‎. ‎If it did get to that point ‎

she would say so‎. ‎No Planning Commissioners indicated a necessity for her to abstain ‎

from discussion and‎/‎or vote‎.‎

Present were Bob Walton of AES Engineers and Charles Crissman, owner and ‎

developer‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added some information that was not included in the staff report‎. ‎The ‎

total area of the new paving is ‎110‎,‎958 ‎square feet or ‎2‎.‎55 ‎acres of the site‎. ‎There is ‎

no expansion of the existing building that was approved in a previous approval‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Crissman stated that the dealership was owned previously by another individual ‎

who leased it to Ford Motor Company‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Crissman had a long‎-‎term contract with ‎

them in which they were allowed to exercise their option in April to purchase the ‎

property‎. ‎They are the ‎31‎st largest Lincoln‎-‎Mercury dealer in the country‎. ‎Their ‎

concern is for parking at the present time‎. ‎Even before they owned the property they ‎

did some expansion with a used car office and a building office‎. ‎The former used car ‎

office was a stand‎-‎alone building which was moved at the request of the city‎. ‎They ‎

intend to use the adjacent vacant property next to the Chrysler dealership for ‎

additional parking‎. ‎They have brought in city water to the site, which was very ‎

expensive‎. ‎The previous owner would not give them an easement which would have ‎

enabled them to hook in to water very easily‎. ‎The fire hydrant operates off city water, ‎

but the building still operates off a well‎. ‎They plan to close one of the existing ‎

entrances and open a new one to improve traffic flow and relieve congestion‎. ‎They ‎

have done a wetland study and installed a detention pond‎. ‎The Leader Dogs for the ‎

Blind would like to expand their property and has concerns with water detention‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Crissman thought they have done a good job of protecting the view from the adjacent ‎

subdivision‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that a landscape cost estimate in the amount of $‎10‎,‎400 ‎could ‎

be a condition of revised site plan approval‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified the recommended ‎

condition that a note should be added to the plan to specify how the plant material will ‎

be watered‎. ‎There is a note on the plan stating that the owner is to water the trees in ‎

the detention pond area‎. ‎There is irrigation noted elsewhere on the site, but there is no ‎

irrigation line indicated for the area where the trees are‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Crissman thought there ‎

would be plenty of water flowing naturally into the area where the trees will be ‎

planted; in addition, employees will be assigned to water the plant material with a hose ‎

on a regular basis‎.‎

Regarding the recommended condition in Linda Lemke's letter dated September ‎28‎, ‎

1999 ‎for ‎3 ‎inch caliper trees to avoid difficulty in parking, Mr‎. ‎Crissman stated that ‎

most of the trees are protected such that cars would not be able to damage them‎. ‎He ‎

has been to several greenhouses and found that ‎3 ‎inch trees are not available‎. ‎The ‎

ordinance only requires ‎2 ‎inch caliper trees‎. ‎He has agreed to plant ‎2‎.‎5 ‎inch trees ‎

because the ‎3 ‎inch trees are very difficult to find‎. ‎

This was the first time that Mr‎. ‎Crissman had heard about the requirement to retain the ‎

existing trees east of the disturbed areas in a conservation or preservation easement‎. ‎

He would have a difficult time agreeing to that until he knew how that would affect the ‎

mortgage or any covenants‎. ‎However, he would be inclined to save the trees‎. ‎He ‎

would want to keep his land as he is paying taxes on it‎. ‎He had no objection to saving ‎

the trees‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Walton added that the trees all fall within the wetland area, and they ‎

are protected by the Wetland Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Walton did not think the city would ‎

want to tie up the area with a preservation easement if it is susceptible to change in the ‎

future due to neighborhood flooding‎. ‎The Chair added that the reason for the ‎

proposed condition was to assure that the visual obstruction would be maintained ‎

even if the ownership of the property changed‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Walton pointed out on the plan, almost in the center of the subject site, the ‎24 ‎

foot opening with a wood gate which would provide access to the detention area‎. ‎

The grades are such that equipment will be able to get in there to maintain the ‎

detention basin‎.‎

Member Hooper questioned if bumper blocks were required along existing parking ‎

spaces on the north face since they appear in other areas‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained ‎

that the required parking for the subject site is based on the number of employees and ‎

amount of floor space in the sales area of the building‎. ‎The parking along the north ‎

face is not part of the required parking requirement; it is actually storage and is outside ‎

the ordinance requirements for bumper blocks‎. ‎The ‎10 ‎foot buffer width applies ‎

because the subject site abuts residential zoning‎. ‎

Member Hooper visited the site and checked the line of sight from the existing ‎

subdivision with the trees removed from the wetland area to the east of the proposed ‎

detention pond‎. ‎He presumed that the proposed light fixtures on the east side of the ‎

existing building would provide sufficient light to enable the existing lights on the east ‎

face to be removed to reduce the amount of light that might shine into the subdivision‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Crissman responded that the lights will be shielded downward and away from ‎

residential properties as required by ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Crissman explained that he ‎

expects to spruce up the existing masonry wall on the north face, preferably with ‎

cultured stone or a split face block type‎. ‎It appeared to Member Hooper that the ‎

existing light pole bases might be in conflict with the pathway, considering the way the ‎

proposed parking would be oriented‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Walton explained that the pathway has ‎

been moved out of the way of the light poles, and pointed it out on the plan‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified that the buffer requirements are imposed because of the zoning ‎

to the north of the subject site‎. ‎Buffering is required all along the property line that is ‎

being improved where it abuts residential zoning; it is required against SP, Special ‎

Purpose zoning‎. ‎A screenwall is proposed along the north property edge and along ‎

the east property edge‎. ‎Eric Olson has addressed that in his letter dated Revised ‎

September ‎3‎, ‎1999‎. ‎A ‎50 ‎foot buffer width, the wall, and a requirement for an ‎

Intermittent Visual Obstruction ‎20 ‎feet in height within two years of planting‎. ‎The ‎

landscape area along the north edge is intended to satisfy the ‎10 ‎foot buffer ‎

requirement of the Type 'C' buffer‎. ‎The Type 'C' buffer does not require a wall but ‎

does require the IVO‎. ‎

Member Rosen noticed that the landscape area on the north property line did not ‎

extend all the way to the edge of the existing asphalt line where a fire hydrant is ‎

indicated‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Crissman was agreeable to extending the landscape area to that point‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified that the applicant has not shown the ‎20‎-‎foot Intermittent Visual ‎

Obstruction on the site plan and has represented that the basis for the buffer ‎

modification is the existing vegetation on the adjoining property to the north and a ‎

letter from the property owner‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Walton pointed out that ‎20‎-‎foot trees would ‎

interfere with the existing overhead wires‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin again referenced Mr‎. ‎Olson's letter dated Revised September ‎3‎, ‎1999 ‎

which states that the wetland vegetation and the existing trees could be counted for ‎

IVO height requirements along the east property line if they were placed in some sort ‎

of easement to guarantee their continued existence‎. ‎The wetland vegetation, however, ‎

is seasonal and would not satisfy the requirement of ‎40 ‎percent opacity in Winter‎. ‎In ‎

the absence of an easement the IVO requirement is not being met and would require a ‎

waiver by the Planning Commission‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that the proposed vinyl fence does not meet ordinance ‎

requirements as it is not redwood, cedar or pressure treated‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Crissman pointed ‎

out that it is very similar to the type used along Livernois‎. ‎However, Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

responded, the Road Commission for Oakland County planned the Livernois ‎

improvements, not the city‎. ‎Member Rosen summarized that the existing off‎-‎site ‎

vegetation on the north property line provides the screening; the applicant is offering ‎

the existing ‎6‎-‎foot masonry wall in lieu of a ‎40‎-‎foot IVO; the proposed vinyl fencing is ‎

proposed on the east property line‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated these points have been ‎

discussed many times between the applicant and staff, and staff has agreed to bring ‎

the plan forward as proposed‎.‎

Member Potere understood that anything that grew in a regulated wetland could not ‎

be changed‎. ‎It appeared that some trees are in the wetland buffer and would be ‎

protected also‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that a permit is required to remove any ‎

vegetation in a wetland or the buffer area‎. ‎A conservation easement would not ‎

necessarily be redundant to protect those trees‎. ‎It would be an added layer of ‎

protection because someone could come forward and ask for a permit to do things in ‎

the wetlands‎. ‎The preservation easement would preclude a wetland permit‎. ‎Instead ‎

of creating an easement Member Gaber suggested a condition that none of the ‎

vegetation could be changed‎. ‎If a subsequent property owner wanted to do anything ‎

with the property, they would be forced to come back to the Planning Commission ‎

and ask for a change to the site plan‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin responded that the natural feature ‎

setback provision allows certain activities to occur in the wetland buffer with ‎

administrative permission‎. ‎Without a conservation easement any future reduction to ‎

the natural feature setback after site plan approval would have to come to the Planning ‎

Commission; if it occurred during the land improvement or construction phase that did ‎

not involve a site plan, then it would go to the city engineer‎. ‎A conservation easement ‎

would preclude any activity or tree removal in the wetland area or natural feature area‎. ‎

Member Rosen pointed out another complication that could occur if the city were to ‎

put a sewer through the area and removes the trees‎. ‎Then Mr‎. ‎Crissman would be in ‎

the unenviable position of being in violation of his approved site plan‎. ‎If the city did ‎

decide to do that, it would create havoc according to Ms‎. ‎Goodwin‎.‎

Member Boswell wondered why the Planning Commission would want to encumber ‎

the applicant further with a conservation or preservation easement if the buffering ‎

along the east property line, adjacent to residential zoning, could be satisfied with ‎

better integrated plantings per Linda Lemke's letter‎. ‎The IVO requirement can be ‎

easily satisfied along the east property line‎. ‎The greater problem is on the north ‎

property line because the trees proposed to be used for the IVO are off site‎. ‎The ‎

Chair understood the letter to mean that the easement would not be needed if the IVO ‎

requirement along the east property line were satisfied‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Crissman stated he will make every effort possible to try and find and plant ‎3 ‎inch ‎

caliper trees‎. ‎If he cannot find them, he will submit documentation to that effect‎. ‎The ‎

Chair suggested planting a larger quantity of ‎2‎.‎5 ‎inch caliper trees instead of ‎3 ‎inch ‎

calipers‎. ‎Member Corneliussen thought the consultant's recommendation for ‎3 ‎inch ‎

caliper trees was somewhat subjective‎. ‎Member Corneliussen also thought that the ‎

applicant had laid out a plan that is literally inches away from an acceptable plan‎. ‎A ‎

literal application of the IVO requirements may not be necessary for the subject site‎. ‎

To require an easement would be overkill in his opinion‎.‎

Regarding the fencing on the east property line Member Corneliussen challenged ‎

anyone to be able to tell the difference between PVC and wood from the distance ‎

between the fence location and the residential area‎. ‎He acknowledged the ordinance ‎

requirement for wood but added he would prefer something that is maintenance free‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Crissman stated they chose the type of fencing used along Livernois because of ‎

appearance and economics‎. ‎The fence is not directly facing the residential homes and ‎

residents will not have a direct view of the fence‎. ‎The fence along the southern ‎

property line adjacent to George Fetsco's property is substantially hidden also from ‎

the subdivision‎. ‎It would appear to be a moot point in his opinion‎. ‎Member Hooper ‎

stated that a buffer modification cannot be granted based on economics according to ‎

the ordinance‎. ‎The Chair reviewed the ordinance requirements of Section ‎21‎.‎12‎.‎h‎. ‎of ‎

Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Crissman stated he would have no trouble installing a ‎

pressure treated fence if that is what the Planning Commission wants, but he just ‎

thought the proposed fencing would look nicer over the years‎. ‎The Chair added that ‎

it is not a question of what the Planning Commission wants; it is a question of what the ‎

law allows‎.‎

The Chair reviewed the findings required for granting a buffer modification‎. ‎

Regarding the north property line Member Rosen pointed out that the Planning ‎

Commission has approved buffer modifications in the past using vegetation on ‎

adjacent properties for screening, such as railroad right‎-‎of‎-‎way or Clinton River ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎Such public sites are not subject to change as properties under private ‎

ownership are where the vegetation is subject to change, particularly considering that ‎

the Leader Dogs for the Blind has already indicated their intention to expand‎. ‎What ‎

might make sense today does not satisfy the requirements and cannot be guaranteed in ‎

the future‎.‎

The Chair accepted comments from the public although this was not a public hearing‎.‎

Dan Keifer, ‎719 ‎S‎. ‎Fieldstone,‎ recalled that City Council adopted a ‎

Strategic Plan last week that came out of the Speak Up‎! ‎process‎. ‎A significant part of ‎

that plan relates to land use and community character‎. ‎Two issues stand out that the ‎

Planning Commission has dealt with‎: ‎one, trying to speak to the letter of the law and ‎

two, the intent of the people that the city hires for their professional opinion‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Keifer urged the Planning Commission to adhere to the letter of the law regarding ‎

values and aesthetics‎. ‎

Letter from ‎Leader Dogs for the Blind, ‎1039 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Road,‎ dated ‎

July ‎7‎, ‎1999 ‎stating their concurrence with the buffer along the common property line‎. ‎

Letter was included in commissioners' packets‎.‎

There were no further comments from the public regarding File No‎. ‎84‎-‎496‎.‎3 ‎

(‎Crissman Lincoln Mercury‎).‎

[ ‎Recess ‎9‎:‎39 ‎p‎.‎m‎. - ‎9‎:‎50 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Buffer Modification‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, in the matter of File No‎. ‎84‎-‎496‎.‎3 ‎(‎Crissman Lincoln ‎

Mercury‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎approve the Buffer Modification‎ on the ‎

east and north property lines incorporating the staff report dated September ‎30‎, ‎1999 ‎

and Linda Lemke's letters dated September ‎28‎, ‎1999 ‎and August ‎27‎, ‎1999 ‎Revised ‎

September ‎3‎, ‎1999‎; and the discussion on October ‎5‎, ‎1999‎; based on plans prepared ‎

by AES Engineers, Inc‎. ‎dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Department on September ‎14‎, ‎1999‎.‎

FINDING‎:‎

1‎.‎ The Planning Commission can waive the buffer requirement due to the fencing ‎

being compatible with the site improvements per Section ‎21.12‎.‎h‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Trees along the east property line be ‎2.5‎ inch caliper‎.‎

2‎.‎ Three ‎(‎3‎) ‎trees be added to the east property line with the trees centrally located ‎

and mixed in type to maximize the IVO requirement‎.‎

3‎.‎ A condition be added to the site plan that the landscaped area on the north ‎

property line be extended westerly to where the pavement ends, and in that ‎

area eight ‎(‎8‎) ‎ornamental trees be planted of a type to be decided by staff in ‎

conjunction with the applicant and Linda Lemke‎.‎

4‎.‎ That the site plan approval incorporate a condition that all natural features, ‎

particularly those to the east, be retained‎.‎

5‎.‎ A ‎6-‎foot high PVC Norfolk fencing is approved in lieu of the fence requirement‎. ‎

MOTION FAILED FOR LACK ‎

OF A SECOND‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that a photometric plan has been done and submitted; ‎

proposed lighting on the subject site conforms to Section ‎21‎.‎11‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

reminded commissioners that a photometric plan is not required by ordinance‎. ‎A ‎

condition could be included that existing lights be properly shielded and downward‎. ‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Buffer Modification‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Ruggiero, in the matter of File No‎. ‎84‎-‎496‎.‎3 ‎

(‎Crissman Lincoln Mercury‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎approve the Buffer ‎

Modification‎ on the east and north property lines incorporating the staff report dated ‎

September ‎30‎, ‎1999 ‎and Linda Lemke's letters dated September ‎28‎, ‎1999 ‎and ‎

August ‎27‎, ‎1999 ‎Revised September ‎3‎, ‎1999‎; and the discussion on October ‎5‎, ‎

1999‎; based on plans prepared by AES Engineers, Inc‎. ‎dated received by the City of ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Department on September ‎14‎, ‎1999‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Trees along the east property line be ‎2.5‎ inch caliper‎.‎

2‎.‎ Three ‎(‎3‎) ‎trees be added to the east property line with the trees centrally located ‎

and mixed in type to maximize the IVO requirement‎.‎

3‎.‎ A condition be added to the site plan that the landscaped area on the north ‎

property line be extended westerly to where the pavement ends, and in that ‎

area eight ‎(‎8‎) ‎ornamental trees be planted of a type to be decided by staff in ‎

conjunction with the applicant and Linda Lemke‎.‎

4‎.‎ That the site plan approval incorporate a condition that all natural features, ‎

particularly those to the east, be retained‎.‎

5‎.‎ The proposed fence be made of materials consistent with Section ‎21.12‎.‎k‎. ‎of ‎

Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Gaber, Rosen ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

2000-1976

Request for Revised Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎84‎-‎496‎.‎3 ‎- ‎Crissman Lincoln ‎

Mercury‎

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the location of handicap parking ‎

spaces and the dumpster were satisfactory‎.‎

Item ‎2‎. ‎Revised Site Plan Approval‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Ruggiero, in the matter of File No‎. ‎84‎-‎496‎.‎3 ‎

(‎Crissman Lincoln Mercury‎)‎, to ‎grant Revised Site Plan Approval ‎ incorporating ‎

the findings and conditions in the staff report dated September ‎30‎, ‎1999‎, plus ‎

additional conditions; and based on plans prepared by AES Engineers, Inc‎. ‎dated ‎

received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on September ‎14‎, ‎1999‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The proposed plan can be developed in accordance with the provisions of Zoning ‎

Ordinance ‎200‎ and all other applicable ordinance requirements and ‎

development policies of the City of Rochester Hills‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed development can be developed so as to promote safe vehicular ‎

circulation on and around the subject site, and the off‎-‎street parking plan has ‎

been so laid out to promote safety and efficient maneuvering for customers ‎

and others‎.‎

3‎.‎ The proposed plan can be developed so as to be compatible and harmonious with ‎

abutting and adjacent development; landscaped islands, additional greenbelts ‎

along the Rochester Road right‎-‎of‎-‎way, and effective screening treatments ‎

and buffering can be constructed on the site to mitigate any negative impacts ‎

of the proposed improvements on neighboring properties‎.‎

4‎.‎ The proposed plan can be developed so as not to adversely affect public services ‎

and will be adequately served by existing and planned infrastructure ‎

improvements in the vicinity‎.‎

5‎.‎ There appear to be no negative impacts to existing natural features in the area‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ That the natural features on the site, particularly those to the east, be retained‎.‎

2‎.‎ The landscaped area on the north property line be extended westerly to where the ‎

pavement ends, and in that area eight ‎(‎8‎) ‎ornamental trees be planted of a ‎

type to be decided by staff in conjunction with the applicant and Linda ‎

Lemke, as conditioned by the buffer modification‎.‎

3‎.‎ Three ‎(‎3‎) ‎trees at ‎2.5‎ inch caliper be added to the east property line with the trees ‎

centrally located and mixed in type to maximize the IVO requirement as ‎

required with the buffer modification, with Linda Lemke's and staff's ‎

cooperation‎.‎

4‎.‎ The proposed fence be made of materials consistent with Section ‎21.12‎.‎k‎. ‎of ‎

Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎, as conditioned by the buffer modification‎.‎

5‎.‎ The applicant has agreed that the existing lights on the building be properly ‎

shielded and downward facing consistent with existing ordinance ‎

requirements‎.‎

6‎.‎ The applicant shall provide a landscape plan guarantee in the form of a bond, ‎

letter of credit or surety in a minimum amount of $ ‎10,400.00‎ to be increased ‎

with staff's approval to incorporate the additional eight ‎(‎8‎) ‎ornamental trees on ‎

the north property line, and the three ‎(‎3‎) ‎2.5‎ inch caliper trees on the east ‎

property line, and the additional three trees‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Gaber, Hooper, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas, ‎

Rosen, Ruggiero ‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Site Plans prepared by AES Engineers, Inc‎. ‎dated received September ‎

14‎, ‎1999 ‎by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department; Staff report prepared ‎

by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated September ‎30‎, ‎1999‎; Letters from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & ‎

Associates dated September ‎28‎, ‎1999 ‎and August ‎27‎, ‎1999 ‎Revised September ‎3‎, ‎

1999‎; Letter from Leader Dogs for the Blind dated July ‎7‎, ‎1999‎; sample of Privacy ‎

PVC fencing, Norfolk style‎.)‎

Granted

2000-1810

Exterior Lighting Proposed Ordinance Amendment‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated September ‎29‎, ‎1999 ‎has ‎

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

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse reviewed that the first draft of the subject proposed text amendment ‎

was presented to the Planning Commission in September ‎1997‎. ‎After receiving ‎

review comments from McKenna Associates, staff prepared a memo to the Planning ‎

Commission dated November ‎10‎, ‎1997‎. ‎A second draft of the text amendment and ‎

examples from other communities was subsequently submitted‎. ‎After discussion at the ‎

March ‎3‎, ‎1998 ‎Planning Commission meeting the text amendment was sent to the city ‎

attorney for review‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran has recently forwarded the proposed ordinance‎. ‎

Since it has been quite a while since the Planning Commission initially considered it, ‎

the ordinance amendment is being brought back for further discussion prior to ‎

proceeding with a public hearing‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse summarized the three changes recommended to Sections ‎21‎.‎08 ‎to ‎

require compliance with the requirements of Section ‎21‎.‎11‎; to replace the existing ‎

Section ‎21‎.‎11 ‎with new text; to Section ‎21‎.‎16 ‎regarding the potential requirement for ‎

a photometric plan‎.‎

In spite of lacking background on the subject ordinance amendment because of her ‎

short tenure with the city, Ms‎. ‎Millhouse noted certain items in the previous minutes‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi had recommended removing the language ‎"‎or similarly designed metal ‎

halogen fixtures‎"‎,‎ but it still appears in the proposed ordinance‎. ‎Also, Ms‎. ‎

Millhouse found the comments in Johnson & Anderson's letter very interesting‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Millhouse was not prepared to give a recommendation due to her short contact with ‎

the proposed ordinance amendment‎. ‎

The Chair remarked that the existing lighting standards in Section ‎21‎.‎11 ‎are rather ‎

subjective‎.‎

And the West Bloomfield ordinance, included in the packets, is not much more ‎

detailed‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out there is another standard in Section ‎21‎.‎08 ‎

referencing candle‎-‎power at the property line‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin offered to invite a lighting expert to make a presentation to the Planning ‎

Commission as part of the public hearing‎. ‎The Chair would like to have some ‎

education occur sometime other than the public hearing so that discussion can be more ‎

useful‎. ‎The Planning Commission should educate themselves first and then deal with ‎

the ordinance‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added there is also a need for education for the staff as ‎

well in terms of reading photometric plans‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin volunteered to arrange an exterior lighting presentation to be a basic ‎

Lighting ‎101 ‎course‎. ‎It might be possible to have Johnson & Anderson present‎. ‎

Member Corneliussen offered to supply names of possible presenters, such as a ‎

lighting planner or a lighting consultant‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated September ‎29‎, ‎1999‎; ‎

Letter from Beier Howlett dated September ‎10‎, ‎1999‎, Proposed Ordinance ‎

Amendment dated ‎09‎/‎10‎/‎99‎; Letter from Johnson & Anderson, Inc‎. ‎dated November ‎

11‎, ‎1997‎; Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated November ‎10‎, ‎1997‎; Second ‎

Draft‎-‎November ‎10‎, ‎997 ‎(‎sic‎)‎; West Bloomfield Exterior Lighting ordinance; Sterling ‎

Heights Exterior Lighting Requirements; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of ‎

March ‎3‎, ‎1998‎.)‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2000-1583

Follow‎-‎up Report on Status of Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎94‎-‎428 ‎- ‎Avon ‎

Woods Subdivision, a ‎75‎-‎lot subdivision on ‎30‎.‎7 ‎acres, located on the south ‎

side of Hamlin, west of Dequindre, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎25‎-‎201‎-‎001‎, zoned R‎-‎4‎, One ‎

Family Residential, Fraser Fieldstone Limited Partnership, ‎20520 ‎Vernier, ‎

Harper Woods, MI ‎48225‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated September ‎30‎, ‎

1999 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

The Chair referenced the letter from Andrew M‎. ‎Coden dated October ‎4‎, ‎1999 ‎in ‎

which Mr‎. ‎Coden requested that the subject item be postponed until a later date in ‎

order to afford the applicant adequate time to reasonably assess, and be available to ‎

address, the issues‎.‎

The Chair ‎postponed‎ at the applicant's request a discussion on the follow‎-‎up report ‎

on the status of the Tree Removal Permit for Avon Woods Subdivision, File No‎. ‎

94‎-‎428‎, until a later date in order to afford the applicant adequate time to reasonably ‎

assess, and be available to address, the issues‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated September ‎30‎, ‎1999‎; ‎

Letter from Andrew M‎. ‎Coden dated October ‎4‎, ‎1999‎; Letters from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke ‎

dated September ‎7‎, ‎1999 ‎and February ‎18‎, ‎1999 ‎plus Attachment‎: ‎Tree Preservation ‎

Inspection dated February ‎18‎, ‎1999‎; Letter from Fraser Fieldstone Limited ‎

Partnership dated June ‎30‎, ‎1999‎; Excerpt from Tree Conservation Ordinance ‎

Chapter ‎4‎-‎12‎.‎17 ‎Enforcement‎; Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes of July ‎6‎, ‎

1999‎; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April ‎29‎, ‎1997‎.)‎

Discussed

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for October ‎19‎, ‎1999‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairperson ‎

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎10‎:‎58 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎