Member Gaber confirmed with Mr. Kahm that the proposed apron on Dutton Road |
|
to the west of the proposed development is required by the Road Commission for |
|
Oakland County, even though it is a Natural Beauty Road. It is similar to what exists |
|
for Phase I. It seemed to be an extreme requirement for only 5 lots that would be |
|
using the road, but it is required. Perhaps some type of variance should be |
|
researched. Regarding the request for the bikepath waiver on the east side of the |
|
entrance road, Mr. Kahm explained that Phase I has a bikepath; Phase II has no |
|
bikepath as requested by City Council at the time; there was debate, perhaps not yet |
|
resolved, on whether or not a bikepath was desirable on Dutton Road. The current |
|
request for a waiver is a continuation of that earlier one by City Council. They are |
|
willing to install a bikepath if necessary. The tree count may be affected if they are |
|
required to install the bikepath. |
|
Member Ruggiero pointed out that the tree removal table needs to be revised to be |
|
consistent with the plan. Mr. Kahm stated their preference is to plant replacement |
|
trees in the North Oaks developments; Member Ruggiero concurred. Mr. Rizzardi |
|
pointed out that replacement trees cannot be planted in a wooded site as they simply |
|
will not grow. The alternative would be to plant replacement trees on individual lots |
|
outside the building envelopes and somehow assure they would not be cut down. Mr. |
|
Kahm offered to place in the deed restrictions that a certain number of trees would be |
|
required to be planted so landscapers would not remove them indiscriminately. |
|
(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated October 1, 1997; |
|
Preliminary Plan Sheets prepared by Giffels Webster and dated received by the City |
|
of Rochester Hills Planning Department on September 23, 1997; letter from Linda |
|
Lemke & Associates dated August 1, 1997; North Oaks Phase III Tree |
|
Replacement Cost Estimate prepared by Singh Development Co., Inc. dated |
|
September 23, 1997; letter from G. Michael Kahm dated December 16, 1996; letter |
|