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, March 2, 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

John Gaber‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Paul Corneliussen‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Director of Planning‎

Linda Lemke, Linda Lemke & Associates‎

Robert Kagler, McKenna Associates‎

Katherine Beebe, Katherine Beebe & Associates‎

Barry Murray, JJR, Inc‎.‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1938

February ‎2‎, ‎1999 ‎Regular Meeting‎

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

February ‎2‎, ‎1999 ‎be accepted as printed‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Krupa, Nowicki ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Speak Up‎! ‎flyer regarding the Strategic Planning process seeking citizen ‎

input‎.‎

B‎.‎ Two letters from Melinda Denninger regarding Agenda Item IV‎.‎A‎.‎, ‎

Powerhouse Center to be discussed during that item‎.‎

C‎.‎ Memo from Mayor Snell to Directors Dinnan, Dohr, and Goodwin ‎

regarding recent complimentary comments made at a recent City ‎

Council meeting about the Planning Commission‎.‎

D‎.‎ Two handouts distributed by Member Gaber to be discussed under ‎

Agenda Item V‎.‎A‎.‎, Master Land Use Plan Update‎.‎

E‎.‎ 2000‎ Capital Improvement Plan ‎(‎CIP‎) ‎Timeline‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1909

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎012 ‎- ‎Powerhouse Center, a ‎

26‎,‎375 ‎square‎-‎foot retail center comprising a gymnasium, retail sales area and ‎

restaurant on ‎5‎.‎825 ‎acres, located on the south side of Auburn, east of ‎

Rochester Road, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎35‎-‎100‎-‎043‎, zoned B‎-‎3‎, Shopping Center ‎

Business, Minoru Yamasaki, Inc‎.‎, ‎6841 ‎North Rochester, Suite ‎300‎, Rochester ‎

Hills, MI ‎48306‎, Applicant‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated December ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎has ‎

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

Philip Vestevich, property owner, and Robert Szantner, architect with Minoru ‎

Yamasaki were present‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin informed the Commission that she did meet with the applicant after the ‎

last meeting on January ‎5‎, ‎1999 ‎regarding the specific items requested by the Planning ‎

Commission at that meeting‎. ‎The three major items to review were to look at the ‎

impact of moving the building ‎25 ‎feet to the west, to look at the potential for ‎

reorienting the building to face the east, and to reduce the size of the building in order ‎

to provide the required number of parking spaces based on the overall square footage ‎

of the proposed building‎. ‎The applicant has provided two additional alternatives ‎

addressing those three options in addition to the option on the table‎. ‎The original ‎

submitted plan has been labeled ‎"‎Alternative A‎"‎; ‎"‎Alternatives B and C‎" ‎illustrate the ‎

three specific items requested by the Commission‎.‎

[ ‎Enter Beebe ‎7:44‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that, from a technical standpoint, the site plan that was originally ‎

presented, Alternate A, meets all the technical minimum requirements of Zoning ‎

Ordinance ‎200‎.‎

The Chair verified with Ms‎. ‎Goodwin that the subject site is zoned B‎-‎3‎, Shopping ‎

Center Business‎. ‎The Chair reviewed the principal permitted uses allowed in the B‎-‎3‎, ‎

Shopping Center Business district, which would include any retail business or service ‎

establishment, with some exceptions; also any retail business or service establishment ‎

or processing uses, including the sale of new merchandise in any enclosed business; ‎

restaurants or other places serving food or beverage, except those having the ‎

character of a drive‎-‎in as defined in the ordinance; office buildings for executive, ‎

administrative, professional, accounting, writing, clerical, stenographic and sales ‎

occupations; bus passenger stations; new car office, sales or showroom, including ‎

customary service center, except bump shop operations shall be subject to Planning ‎

Commission approval; commercially used outdoor recreational space for adult or ‎

children's amusement parks, etc‎.‎; indoor theaters; banquet halls or conference centers; ‎

health or exercise clubs; cellular telephone system towers and antennas; accessory ‎

buildings and uses customarily incidental to the principal permitted uses‎. ‎

If the subject site plan is approved as requested, Ms‎. ‎Goodwin did not believe there ‎

would be any ability for the development to expand in the future based on the acreage ‎

of the site, setback and parking requirements and still meet development requirements ‎

of the ordinance‎. ‎However, she has not studied that in detail‎. ‎A small expansion of a ‎

couple hundred square feet might be possible, but the site is pretty well maxed out‎. ‎

[ ‎Enter Murray ‎7:47‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich indicated they have not considered and do not expect to consider a ‎

future expansion‎. ‎He also believes the site is maxed out‎. ‎Expanding would not result ‎

in a functional or attractive outcome‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Vestevich stated that the building could not ‎

be expanded, based on the parking configurations‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich reviewed Alternatives B and C and gave reasons why they are not ‎

acceptable ‎-- ‎they would require parking behind the retail building on the east which ‎

would result in traffic activity and increased lighting closer to the subdivision homes; ‎

parking on the east side of the building would mean more asphalt on the east than with ‎

Alternative A; parking at the rear of the building would create unnecessary public ‎

safety concerns; retail customers would not use parking behind the building which ‎

would result in poor economic viability for the project and lead to possible blight in the ‎

future; moving the building and having no parking on the east side would mean a net ‎

loss of a substantial number of parking spaces, which would require a reduction in the ‎

building size; the applicant could not accept a building reduction because of the ‎

economics involved; as it is, the site will be underdeveloped because of its irregular ‎

shape‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Szantner explained by placing parking on the east side of the building would mean ‎

more asphalt on the east than presently proposed and why that would be a negative ‎

result‎. ‎Shifting the building ‎25 ‎feet to the west would provide room for the drive aisle ‎

on the east side of the parcel as well as an additional row of parking along the east ‎

property line adjacent to the residential homes‎. ‎The additional asphalt, traffic ‎

concerns, the aesthetics of the additional asphalt, and the possibility that the additional ‎

asphalt may be visible to homeowners from second stories of homes were major ‎

concerns‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich explained how parking at the rear of the proposed building would ‎

create unnecessary public safety concerns‎. ‎The activity at the rear of the building ‎

would be minimal‎. ‎The rear of the proposed building would probably be darker than ‎

the front entrances, the activity would be minimal with fewer people around, and it ‎

could create a public safety issue during evening hours‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich repeated a point he has made at previous meetings that they are not ‎

seeking any variances for the proposed building, which would be appropriate with an ‎

oddly shaped site, even though the gross square footage of the site would justify a ‎

larger building‎.‎

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

The following letters have been received in opposition to the proposed project ‎

and will be appropriately entered into the record‎:‎

Letter from ‎Kirsten Duchardt,‎ dated March ‎1‎, ‎1999‎, opposed to the ‎

proposed development as it is grossly out of proportion to the space available, ‎

and shared all the concerns outlined in the Wildflower Subdivision ‎

homeowners submission‎.‎

Letters from ‎Melinda Denninger,‎ dated January ‎26‎, ‎1999‎, and February ‎

24‎, ‎1999 ‎urging rejection of the original plan‎.‎

The following persons spoke in opposition to the proposed project‎:‎

Melinda Denninger, ‎3136 ‎Primrose Drive,‎ stated she wished the residents ‎

had had a chance to review Alternatives B and C as there appeared to be ‎

elements that would be acceptable to the residents‎. ‎She asked that ‎

Commissioners keep in mind that the residents are the ones who best ‎

understand what is visible from their backyards and rear windows‎.‎

Armeda Dee, ‎511 ‎Buttercup Drive, ‎was not opposed to development on ‎

the subject parcel, just the proposed development‎. ‎She did not think many ‎

residents would object to three or four small stores adjacent to their homes; ‎

but for someone to maximize what can be built on an oddly shaped parcel ‎

does not make sense‎. ‎They do not presently get water in their basement, but ‎

who will get the blame if they do when the subject project is built? Following ‎

the March ‎1998 ‎heavy rains there was very deep water for a long time in the ‎

retention basin‎. ‎She heard that when people complained about the odor, the ‎

basin was drained at ‎3‎:‎30 ‎a‎.‎m‎. ‎She asked why at that time and who ordered ‎

it‎. ‎The traffic is another big concern at the intersection of Auburn Road and ‎

Barclay Circle with drivers ignoring the existing traffic signs and signals‎. ‎She ‎

would ask that the Planning Commission do what was best for their ‎

community and for the city‎. ‎She still does not understand why Meijer was ‎

allowed to sell the subject property‎. ‎Meijer has always been a good ‎

neighbor, but now it appears that they and the applicant are only concerned ‎

with the bottom line‎. ‎

Robert Lahiff, ‎607 ‎Shelby, ‎7‎th Floor, Detroit,‎ attorney for a group of ‎

Wildflower Subdivision homeowners, was not aware of any contact with ‎

adjacent residents by the applicant‎. ‎Fundamentally the plans have not changed ‎

in any meaningful way‎. ‎The few modifications proposed do not resolve any of ‎

the overall problems with the project which are a result of the shape of the lot‎.‎

Adrienne Przybysz, ‎3120 ‎Primrose Drive,‎ was not sure the subject lot was ‎

buildable because of perceived drainage problems‎. ‎She was not sure the ‎

detention pond was constructed properly to begin with‎. ‎She urged denial of ‎

the site plan‎.‎

There were no more comments from the public‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich responded to the public comments‎. ‎Regarding what will be seen by ‎

adjacent property owners‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szantner displayed renderings illustrating the line of ‎

sight from adjacent properties‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szantner explained that they will not decimate the ‎

berm‎. ‎If someone had looked at the drawings, they would have noticed that they are ‎

not coming up to the top of the berm at all ‎-- ‎they are ‎2 ‎feet, ‎4 ‎inches below the top of ‎

the berm‎. ‎The berm is a constant height from the top to the back‎. ‎The site slopes ‎

from the front to the back where the drainage inlet is located‎. ‎They are pulling the site ‎

up the least amount possible because they do not want to create unnecessary fill ‎

situations on the site‎. ‎They obviously want to encourage positive drainage to the site‎. ‎

Also, the trees that are being eliminated on the site are identified on the plan and are ‎

being replaced one‎-‎for‎-‎one and are additionally being enhanced by the number shown ‎

on the plan‎. ‎The buffer will be supplemented with additional conifers to match what ‎

was removed but at different calipers and height‎. ‎They are also supplementing the ‎

buffer with deciduous trees to create infills between the conifers‎. ‎What will be seen ‎

from the adjacent homes will be the front of the berm, the existing conifers beyond ‎

that, then the supplemental conifers and deciduous trees behind that, and then the ‎

masonry wall‎. ‎The proposed height of the building has already been reduced‎. ‎

Regarding the draining of the pond at ‎3 ‎o'clock in the morning, Mr‎. ‎Vestevich ‎

explained this is the first he has heard of it, and he knows nothing about it‎. ‎It was not ‎

done at their direction or request‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich also indicated that they have not spoken with the adjacent property ‎

owners since the last meeting‎. ‎They have had a number of meetings prior to that, and ‎

he does not think he can accommodate their primary goal which is to make the ‎

applicant go away or to shrink the building in a significant way‎. ‎He did not think it ‎

would be productive to talk to them about it‎. ‎They have not ignored any efforts to ‎

meet with any of them‎.‎

Regarding the drainage concerns, Mr‎. ‎Vestevich stated that they must rely on their ‎

civil engineers‎. ‎They have been assured that the site will be self‎-‎draining, the runoff ‎

will go to the south as the plans show, and not a drop of water should leave the ‎

subject property onto adjacent properties‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that Engineering Services has reviewed the concept drawings ‎

and calculations, and they are satisfied that the concept is sound at this point‎. ‎

However, the next level of review will get into more detail in terms of grading and ‎

utility placement and the actual drainage system that is proposed‎. ‎The construction ‎

phase is the time when more information will be provided and reviewed by ‎

Engineering Services‎. ‎And at that point they will either issue a Land Improvement ‎

Permit or they will require that the design be made acceptable per our ordinance ‎

regulations and those of the county‎. ‎It is possible that the Planning Commission could ‎

approve the subject site plan, or it is possible that City Council could approve the ‎

subject site plan if the Planning Commission denies it, and Engineering Services could ‎

still end up saying the applicant can't do this because of drainage or grading concerns‎. ‎

If for some reason the drainage design significantly impacts the overall concept that the ‎

Planning Commission has reviewed, then it would be required to come back to the ‎

Planning Commission for a revised site plan approval‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero thanked the applicant for providing Alternates B and C as ‎

requested‎. ‎Noting that the applicant has referenced reducing the size of the building, ‎

Member Ruggiero commented that Alternates B and C show larger buildings than the ‎

original submittal, Alternate A‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szantner responded that placing the parking ‎

behind the building allows for an increased density on the site‎. ‎Their intention was not ‎

to increase the density, it was just what the parking generates in terms of square ‎

footage‎. ‎They would maintain the original proposed building size‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szantner ‎

apologized for the confusion‎.‎

Member Ruggiero still had concerns about the changes to Auburn Road adjacent to ‎

the subject site and the eastbound taper lane and how traffic would be managed near ‎

the Brooklands Elementary School to the east of the subject site and the adjacent ‎

Wildflower Subdivision‎. ‎

When Member Nowicki called the Chair to inform him that he would not be in ‎

attendance at tonight's meeting due to his recuperation from surgery, Member ‎

Nowicki sent word that he has reviewed Alternatives B and C and feels that the ‎

building is too big for the site‎. ‎Member Nowicki had explained to the Chair that he ‎

knew the subject site was a very difficult site to develop because it was not developed ‎

at the time that Meijer's was developed; Member Nowicki knew that the people who ‎

moved into the adjacent Wildflower Subdivision not only knew that Meijer's was there ‎

but had some cognizance that eventually the subject site would be developed as ‎

something; Member Nowicki knew that the shape of the subject site dictates certain ‎

limits and is at odds with what otherwise would be a much more developable site if the ‎

total allowed gross footage could be utilized; Member Nowicki struggled with it but ‎

has determined that the proposed building is too big for the site‎. ‎

Member Rosen confirmed for everyone that there are ‎70 ‎extra parking spaces ‎

provided on the proposed plan‎. ‎He surmised that it would be possible to expand the ‎

building by ‎7000 ‎square feet and still meet ordinance requirements‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szantner ‎

stated that would be allowable for straight retail space but not for the proposed ‎

restaurant use‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Szantner clarified that Alternatives B and C do not have revision dates on them ‎

but reflect the original submittal date‎.‎

Planning Commissioners made no comments regarding the proposed number or ‎

location of handicap parking spaces or proposed compaction or trash provisions‎.‎

The Chair proposed a possible finding to any motion of approval of the subject site ‎

plan, that the applicant agrees there shall be no expansion or further development on ‎

the site predicated on the applicant‎’‎s statement to that effect‎. ‎It could be ‎

accomplished as a deed restriction‎. ‎Member Gaber stated there is no definitive way ‎

that the city can prohibit expansion as long as it meets ordinance requirements‎. ‎

Member Gaber was not sure that the site plan could be conditioned to say there ‎

would never be an expansion, because the site plan could be amended to remove that ‎

condition‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Vestevich would be very hesitant to make such a commitment today ‎

even though they have no plans to expand the building in the near or long‎-‎term future‎.‎

Member Ruggiero noted that Alternate A, the original plan, shows ‎211 ‎parking ‎

spaces; Alternate B shows ‎228 ‎and Alternate C shows ‎220‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szantner confirmed ‎

that those numbers are correct and are what is generated by the reconfiguration of the ‎

building‎. ‎Member Ruggiero believed that Alternates B and C are very doable and ‎

would not cause any undue hardship on the property owner‎. ‎She could support ‎

Alternates B and C‎.‎

Member Rosen said that it boils down to a question of balance and whether or not the ‎

site is in harmony and compatibility with the neighbors‎. ‎

The Chair discussed the harmonious and compatible criteria upon which a decision on ‎

the subject site plan cannot solely be based ‎-- ‎the amount of money the developer is ‎

willing to invest in the site; or the amount of land the developer desires to develop and ‎

the amount of tax money that would be generated; or the number of the immediately ‎

adjacent neighbors who appear at meetings and state they do not want the ‎

development; or the fact that the applicant made a poor business decision by buying a ‎

piece of land difficult to develop; or the adjacent homeowners might have anticipated ‎

a development such as the proposed one; or the size of the proposed development is ‎

bigger or smaller than all the adjacent interested persons; or how much more money ‎

could be generated by the developer if a different use were placed on the site; or how ‎

much money would be lost if different uses were not placed on the site‎. ‎A decision ‎

has to be made by some equation that determines whether or not the proposed ‎

development will or will not work‎. ‎The Chair is personally disturbed about the subject ‎

request because he can envision other uses on the site that would be much more ‎

intrusive than the proposed uses‎. ‎The Chair also pointed out that the Master Land ‎

Use Plan identifies commercial nodes, one of which the subject site is a part‎.‎

Member Gaber agreed with Member Rosen and the Chair but still preferred Alternate ‎

A because it would make much more sense to potential users of the building, and ‎

parking placed behind the proposed building would put more traffic, lighting, and noise ‎

closer to the adjacent residents‎.‎

Member Boswell leaned toward Alternate A and asked why a bank was shown on ‎

Alternates B and C and a restaurant is shown on Alternate A‎. ‎

Member Ramanauskas suggested the building be wider in front and skinnier in the ‎

back‎.‎

The Chair suggested that an approval of the proposed site plan be conditioned upon ‎

obtaining the requested tree removal permit, and a landscape bond in the amount of ‎

$‎94‎,‎450‎.‎00 ‎be adjusted according to the recommended conditions for trees‎.‎

Postponed

2000-1910

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎012 ‎- ‎Powerhouse Center‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Ramanauskas, in the matter of File No‎. ‎

98‎-‎012 ‎(‎Powerhouse Center‎)‎, to ‎deny Site Plan Approval,‎ based on discussions ‎

and review during three meetings before the Planning Commission, the proposed site ‎

plan as presented does not satisfy Section ‎21‎.‎16‎g of Zoning Ordinance ‎200 ‎in its ‎

entirety, there are alternatives that would not cause undue hardship to the developer ‎

and would be more harmonious with the adjacent neighborhood, and based on site ‎

plans dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on October ‎

15‎, ‎1998‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Ramanauskas, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Kaiser‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Krupa, Nowicki ‎MOTION FAILED DUE TO A TIE ‎

VOTE‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

The Chair entertained a motion to approve the subject site plan, and no such motion ‎

was made‎.‎

The Chair ‎postponed‎ until the next regular meeting scheduled for March ‎16‎, ‎1999 ‎the ‎

requests for a Tree Removal Permit and Site Plan Approval for File No‎. ‎98‎-‎012 ‎

(‎Powerhouse Center‎). ‎The Chair affirmed that there will be no presentations by the ‎

applicant or the public at the March ‎16‎, ‎1999 ‎meeting, only discussion and vote by ‎

the Planning Commission‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Site Plans prepared by Minoru Yamasaki & Associates dated received ‎

October ‎15‎, ‎1998 ‎by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department, revised ‎

landscape plans and utility plans dated received by the City of Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Department November ‎10‎, ‎1998‎; revised building elevations and tree survey ‎

dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department December ‎23‎, ‎

1998‎; Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated December ‎28‎, ‎1998‎;‎ ‎Staff report ‎

prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated November ‎10‎, ‎1998‎; Letters from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke ‎

& Associates dated December ‎8‎, ‎1998 ‎and November ‎6‎, ‎1998‎; Letters from Minoru ‎

Yamasaki & Associates dated February ‎12‎, ‎1999 ‎and December ‎23‎, ‎1998‎; ‎

Attachment #‎1‎, Revised Faxed Plan by Gibbs Planning Group, Inc‎.‎; Attachment #‎2‎, ‎

Our Conceptual Proposal For Northern Portion Of East Property Line; Attachment ‎

#‎3‎, Our Conceptual Proposal For Mid Portion Of East Property Line; Letter from J ‎

& L Consulting Services dated ‎2 ‎November ‎1998‎; Legal Descriptions prepared by ‎

Nowak & Fraus, PLLC with Exhibit A; Letter from Foster Meadows & Ballard, P‎.‎C‎. ‎

dated October ‎30‎, ‎1998 ‎including Homeowners' Petition Objecting To The Proposed ‎

Powerhouse Center; Letters dated June ‎29‎, ‎1998 ‎and June ‎25‎, ‎1998‎, June ‎17‎, ‎1998‎, ‎

and ‎2 ‎undated letters from Residents of Wildflower Subdivision; Letters dated ‎

February ‎24‎, ‎1999‎, January ‎26‎, ‎1999 ‎and June ‎8‎, ‎1998 ‎from Melinda Denninger; ‎

Letter from Kirstin Duchardt, dated March ‎1‎, ‎1999‎; newspaper articles ‎"‎Steroid ring ‎

busted‎" ‎and ‎"‎Unchecked steroid use dangerous‎"‎; Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Commission Notice of Meeting regarding Tree Removal Permit; Land Use and Tree ‎

Removal Permit Application; Wetland and Watercourse Boundary Determination ‎

Application; Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January ‎5‎, ‎1999 ‎and ‎

November ‎17‎, ‎1998‎.)‎

_____________________________________‎

[ ‎Recess ‎9.05‎ p‎.‎m‎. - ‎9:12‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Postponed

2000-1823

Master Land Use Plan Update ‎- ‎Review Recommendations for Rochester Road ‎

Final Report‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Draft Report ‎"‎Residential Land Use Strategy for Rochester Road‎" ‎

prepared by KBA‎/‎JJR has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the ‎

record hereof‎.)‎

Member Gaber distributed two handouts regarding the subject discussion‎.‎

Present were Dr‎. ‎Katherine Beebe and Barry Murray‎. ‎

The Chair announced that no decisions would be made this evening regarding ‎

Rochester Road, the dynamics of the study will be discussed as well as some of the ‎

alternatives and options that were considered by the consultants‎. ‎Tonight's meeting is ‎

the result of a series of workshops held over the last twelve months, meetings with ‎

general citizens, and some past meetings with the Planning Commission‎. ‎A public ‎

hearing regarding the Master Land Use Plan Update will be held around the middle or ‎

end of April at which there will be opportunity for full public input‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe reported that the Planning Commission will not see any policy decision ‎

making until they consider the Master Land Use Plan Update‎. ‎The subject report puts ‎

together the consultants' findings and recommendations on a level to aid in decision ‎

making and with other issues that come before the Planning Commission‎. ‎The ‎

consultants are not recommending adoption of specific policies in the subject report‎. ‎

The conclusions are consistent with previous discussions‎. ‎The report looks at the ‎

Rochester Road corridor from the city's south limit at South Boulevard to the southern ‎

city limit of the City of Rochester‎. ‎It is a corridor analysis because they are looking at ‎

the corridor as well as the right‎-‎of‎-‎way and immediately adjacent frontage properties ‎

and their land use‎. ‎When considering transportation improvements, right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

improvements and land use issues which will come up in the Master Plan, there will be ‎

a consolidated comprehensive notion of how the corridor will function between traffic ‎

requirements, right‎-‎of‎-‎way requirements, and frontage properties‎. ‎Two alternatives ‎

for the thoroughfare have been discussed previously‎. (‎Note‎: ‎The adopted Master ‎

Thoroughfare Plan describes a residential boulevard requiring a ‎150 ‎foot ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎.) ‎

The report contains three parts ‎-- ‎existing conditions of Rochester Road and ‎

alternative recommendations for the South Boulevard to Auburn Road segment, and ‎

then up to Hamlin, and then to north of Avon‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Beebe stressed that these concepts ‎

were presented from a planning perspective without consideration of engineering ‎

requirements or funding‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe explained that the Rochester Road corridor originally developed as a farm ‎

or rural area with some single family homes fronting on Rochester Road‎. ‎It is only in ‎

the last ‎20 ‎years that the commercial development has occurred‎. ‎One of the issues ‎

will be the nature of the adjacent land uses‎. ‎The two basic commercial developments ‎

are the malls and the car dealerships which have longer frontage areas and have a ‎

more consistent approach in their right‎-‎of‎-‎way treatment, and have a greater setback ‎

from the road‎. ‎It is the smaller, single commercial establishments on a single lot which ‎

sit closer to the road‎. ‎There are also some newer residential developments that have ‎

come in the last ‎20 ‎years which tend to have a greater setback and a better ‎

relationship with the commercial corridor than the older, rural properties‎.‎

The consultants have outlined two alternatives for the Rochester Road corridor with a ‎

180 ‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way, one is to take an equal amount of right‎-‎of‎-‎way from either side ‎

of the road‎. ‎More properties or buildings will be impacted with this alternative‎. ‎In ‎

addition, there are also more properties whose landscaping area or parking area ‎

would be impacted with this alternative‎. ‎

Alternative two, which is the recommended alternative, snakes the right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

through while maintaining smooth traffic movements, and providing for turn lanes and a ‎

transition to the City of Rochester‎. ‎This alternative would minimize the number of ‎

properties affected overall as well as the number of buildings affected‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe explained that the consultants have met with City Traffic Engineer Steve ‎

Dearing who has been very helpful, especially with regard to the intersections, left turn ‎

lanes, and the identification of properties that would most likely be impacted‎. ‎The ‎

study is intended to help everyone understand the nature of the impact of the Master ‎

Thoroughfare Plan on land use‎. ‎

The purpose of the subject study is not to adopt a specific road alignment‎.‎

Member Rosen was encouraged by the fact that the impact on small and large existing ‎

buildings was less than expected‎. ‎He also recognized that some buildings would ‎

become nonconforming, either legally or illegally, but is a separate issue‎. ‎The ‎

consultants likewise were surprised at the relatively smaller impact than expected‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Murray added that the impact will most likely be on the general character and ‎

appearance of front yard setbacks‎. ‎But more than compensating for that would be the ‎

fact that a boulevard will provide a parkway look‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Murray stated that they have ‎

matched the right‎-‎of‎-‎way that the City of Troy is using for Rochester Road‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the effect of the increase in right‎-‎of‎-‎way width would be to ‎

require every new site plan that is submitted to use a setback of up to ‎90 ‎foot instead ‎

of ‎75 ‎feet, in addition to the possibility of requiring buffers of ‎50 ‎feet and more‎. ‎This ‎

may reduce the potential for redevelopment based on a long‎-‎term vision that maybe ‎

Rochester Road will be six lanes wide‎. ‎The day that the plan is adopted is the day ‎

the Planning Department has to require greater setbacks‎.‎

Member Gaber asked how would a property owner know what his setback was since ‎

it could vary from ‎75 ‎feet to ‎105 ‎feet, and that would be difficult to determine without ‎

engineering drawings‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin responded that it is done now on a ‎

parcel‎-‎by‎-‎parcel basis using the Assessor's maps‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe believed it would be better to snake the road due to the difference in cost ‎

and impact‎. ‎Another issue to consider is what is it reasonable for the city to do given ‎

there is no project plan‎. ‎There are not that many properties left that are developable‎. ‎

That may help the situation‎. ‎An issue that could arise is during the plan review process ‎

if someone wants to put a structure closer than ‎105 ‎feet to the road‎. ‎Then weigh the ‎

possibility that the project will occur in ten years with the cost if the city has to take the ‎

property versus just letting it go through‎. ‎What is reasonable is to have some feel for ‎

where this situation might occur and to enter in discussions with MDOT‎. ‎Then ‎

property owners can be informed that the road improvement project might be ‎

occurring during the life of a given building‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the city gets a ‎

lot of requests from lenders asking the city to certify that properties are conforming to ‎

current zoning‎. ‎She would be concerned what affect that would have on the current ‎

tax base‎. ‎Member Gaber pointed out that it would not be an ordinance change that ‎

would create a nonconformity; this is a plan change‎. ‎

Member Gaber would feel more comfortable getting a legal opinion on this issue‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Beebe pointed out that the Master Land Use Plan does not deal with ‎

transportation issues, so there will not be an recommendation for a ‎180 ‎foot ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎What they did was take the assumption from the Master Thoroughfare ‎

Plan and applied it to land use issues in the Rochester Road corridor‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin summarized that currently there is an adopted right‎-‎of‎-‎way plan ‎

adopted as part of the ‎1989 ‎Transportation Plan, and those right‎-‎of‎-‎way widths are ‎

the widths used to determine setbacks for any projects adjacent to major roads or ‎

collector roads throughout the community‎. ‎Rochester Road is shown at ‎150 ‎feet in ‎

the adopted Master Transportation Plan, so each parcel of land is required to set ‎

back in such a way that there will be a total of ‎150 ‎feet‎. ‎So if the Master Plan Update ‎

does not change that and the city still only requires properties to meet the ‎150 ‎foot ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way, there is no probability that this plan will be accomplished‎. ‎The whole ‎

purpose of the Update is to determine the feasibility and impact of the change on ‎

adjacent parcels of land along Rochester Road‎.‎

It was clear to the Chair that adopting the Master Land Use Plan would require the ‎

150 ‎right‎-‎of‎-‎way to be changed to ‎180 ‎feet‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified that Member Gaber's request for a legal opinion would be to ‎

determine what The city's standing would be in requiring site plans to reflect the ‎

changed right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. .‎

‎

The Chair asked if there was any reason to not move forward with the public hearing ‎

on the topic‎.‎

Discussion turned to Residual Properties, or Areas of Opportunity‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Murray ‎

identified two residual properties, with the preferred version of each contained in the ‎

report‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Murray identified the properties on a displayed graphic ‎-- ‎one near ‎

Juengel Drive and one near Bordine's and the subdivision to the north‎. ‎Regarding the ‎

first property they tried to make efficient use of the frontage on parcels that are not ‎

very deep‎. ‎This is the recommended version based on discussions from previous ‎

meetings, containing a desire to match the commercial area on the east side of ‎

Rochester Road so the area previously identified as a child care center or other ‎

residential amenity has been added to the commercial category‎. ‎The remainder of the ‎

area is represented by office use‎

Member Gaber would like to see buildings similar to the Regal Office Colony‎. ‎But his ‎

fear is that what will result is four lots per block with each lot having its own little ‎

building and individual curbcuts‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Beebe responded that can be addressed in their ‎

guidelines and report, but it would not be binding‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that someone ‎

could assemble all the properties and develop them as one‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Murray added the ‎

curbcuts could be limited on Rochester Road in terms of safety‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Murray discussed the second Residual Area which represents an opportunity for ‎

multiple use PUD‎. ‎In previous meetings commissioners have discussed several ‎

different ways of combining uses with single family housing, higher density attached ‎

housing along the Rochester Road corridor, some office space and higher density or ‎

senior housing, and some retail‎. ‎This version is an illustration of the recommended ‎

principles‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin asked what would be the potential for including the ‎

Wayside Park property in the PUD? Dr‎. ‎Beebe responded that would be possible‎. ‎

Comments were made regarding its historic value and current enforcement issues‎.‎

Member Gaber explained the documents he distributed‎. ‎He presented them as ‎

concepts for commissioners to ponder and the implications of land use on the future ‎

tax base‎. ‎For example, why do townhouses have to go on Rochester Road as it is ‎

primarily a commercial corridor‎. ‎That would generate some of the tax revenue the city ‎

is looking for‎. ‎There would be buffers between the commercial uses and residential ‎

areas behind it‎. ‎Regarding senior housing, how much does the city want to provide in ‎

terms of the amount of tax generated as opposed to straight commercial uses‎. ‎

Member Gaber thought it should be considered as a whole rather than as individual ‎

parcels‎. ‎He asked for feedback from his fellow commissioners‎.‎

The Chair accepted the following comments from the public‎:‎

Letter and photograph from ‎Charles and Florence Price‎, regarding Area ‎

One, provided to Dr‎. ‎Beebe for consideration in her recommendations‎. ‎

Jim Ball, ‎1083 ‎N‎. ‎Livernois,‎ owner of Wayside Park, shared some ‎

interesting characteristics of the property‎. ‎The R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential property ‎

was built in ‎1910 ‎and contains four duplexes and six single residences‎. ‎The property ‎

is currently nonconforming in setbacks‎. ‎A high water table exists in the area and the ‎

structures have short basements‎. ‎The floor areas range from ‎625 ‎square feet to ‎850 ‎

square feet‎. ‎A cemetery borders the property on two sides, and Bordine's borders ‎

the remainder‎. ‎He would ask that the Planning Commission consider these unusual ‎

characteristics and have the property yield no less than the current ‎14 ‎units when ‎

recommending the Master Plan Update‎.‎

Discussed

2000-1737

Tree Conservation Ordinance Amendment Update‎

Present were Linda Lemke of Linda Lemke & Associates and Rob Kagler of ‎

McKenna Associates‎.‎

The Chair announced that the subject discussion does not include a public hearing or a ‎

determination, but only a discussion of the proposed ordinance changes that were ‎

included in commissioners' packets‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that tree ordinance amendments have been discussed for ‎

some time‎. ‎She asked Mr‎. ‎Kagler to work on a concept that would offer an ‎

alternative to the current provisions in Chapter ‎4‎-‎12 ‎of the Code of Ordinances‎. ‎It ‎

would offer an option similar to the Open Space Plan Option in the Zoning Ordinance ‎

that is provided for platting purposes‎. ‎It allows for a basic ‎25 ‎percent reduction in lot ‎

area and width in exchange for a ‎4‎-‎acre minimum open space area that is outside of ‎

swamps and such on unbuildable uplands‎. ‎That option was instituted to encourage ‎

open space neighborhood park, playlot amenities within the newer subdivisions in the ‎

early ‎1980‎s‎. ‎What happened was the open space plans really did not evolve as they ‎

were originally conceived and really did not offer true recreation settings or ‎

environmental preservation‎. ‎The proposed tree ordinance option is structured to ‎

provide for true woodland preservation‎. ‎The context of it is the Open Space Plan ‎

Option in Section ‎20‎.‎01 ‎of the Zoning Ordinance‎. ‎It is a tool that the developer could ‎

either go with the current standard of ‎37 ‎percent tree preservation or to focus ‎

development on areas outside a woodland area‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler explained the framework of the proposed amendment which would create ‎

a new section within the Zoning Ordinance‎. ‎It would be set up so that the approval ‎

mechanism would remain the same‎. ‎Language has been added to include site ‎

condominiums and new residential components of PUDs as well as one family ‎

subdivisions‎. ‎The current tree ordinance does not necessarily encourage tree ‎

preservation‎. ‎The proposed ordinance amendment was structured for a ‎2 ‎acre ‎

minimum total woodlands set‎-‎aside, which could be by actual set‎-‎aside parcels or by ‎

tree preservation or conservation easements over land that would be on parcels, so ‎

that the actual ‎2 ‎acre area could occur in places throughout a development, or on a ‎

portion of a lot that is actually outside the building envelope‎. ‎The proposed ordinance ‎

amendment would also require a companion ordinance to amend the tree ordinance‎. ‎

The actual lot sizes and densities are identical to those permitted in the traditional ‎

existing open space development option‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler pointed out the formula for preserving trees which he thought would make ‎

the proposed ordinance amendment appealing to developers‎. ‎For example, for every ‎

number of trees preserved in a woodland area by virtue of easement or set‎-‎aside ‎

parcel, a reduction in the minimum preservation percentage would be allowed‎. ‎As ‎

drafted, for every ‎10 ‎trees so preserved, the minimum preservation percentage could ‎

be reduced by one‎. ‎The problem with tying it to a number of trees is that there is not ‎

necessarily the same impact on large parcels as on small parcels, and there is not the ‎

same impact on heavily treed parcels as on less heavily treed parcels‎. ‎So, as an ‎

alternate formula or bonus, would be for every percentage of trees preserved in a ‎

set‎-‎aside area the minimum tree preservation percentage could be reduced ‎

accordingly‎. ‎The proposed ordinance amendment also provides for flexibility in the ‎

minimum single dimensions of parcels so that an area could be snaking through, or an ‎

area that is a cluster, or an area that is possibly for just one specimen tree‎. ‎The ‎

proposed ordinance amendment also discusses areas that are set aside by having a ‎

depth or width whether it is on a buildable parcel or a set‎-‎aside parcel‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Lemke thought this was a good first cut on an amendment, but there are a number ‎

of items that need to be addressed‎. ‎One was the make the standards of the front yard ‎

setbacks more flexible so that a single tree or a stand of trees can be preserved, as ‎

stated on page ‎2 ‎of the proposed ordinance amendment‎. ‎Referring to page ‎3 ‎and ‎4 ‎

Ms‎. ‎Lemke recommended setting up criteria to address quality rather than just broad ‎

statements and to define the mechanisms for preservation easements, kinds of ‎

requirements in terms of grading‎. ‎One of the problems with the current ‎37 ‎percent is ‎

there is not a lot of emphasis on the quality of trees and most developers focus on the ‎

37 ‎percent‎. ‎There are some contradictions in the ordinance that need to be changed, ‎

such as what areas to include ‎-- ‎wooded wetlands and such‎. ‎A few minor things also ‎

need to be cleaned up in the ordinance‎. ‎The purpose of the ordinance amendment is ‎

to move away from the current ‎37 ‎percent tree preservation percentage which ‎

presents some problems‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Lemke is still in the process of evaluating the proposed ‎

ordinance amendment to see if it would sufficiently entice a developer to choose this ‎

proposed option‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified for Member Rosen that this would be part of the tentative ‎

preliminary plat process, as the Open Space Plan Option is, and ultimately receives ‎

City Council approval‎. ‎Currently, by the time the city gets a plat it is not really ‎

conceptual‎. ‎The proposed amendment would force the developer and city to work ‎

together before the developer has a flushed out plan, so that areas of tree preservation ‎

can be identified‎. ‎this would also encourage flexibility in design‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler pointed out that the proposed amendment would provide for tree ‎

conservation along with the open space option‎.‎

It seemed to Member Boswell that enforcement would be made more difficult with the ‎

proposed ordinance amendment‎. ‎He would be a lot happier if the ‎37 ‎percent could ‎

be eliminated‎. ‎Member Rosen suggested setting aside, for example, ‎40 ‎percent and ‎

fence it off so it does not become impacted‎. ‎At the end of the development it is ‎

already accounted for and the issue would be decided‎.‎

Member Rosen wondered if there was enough vacant residential areas left to make ‎

this effort worthwhile as the city is virtually built out‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Lemke and Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

surveyed the city and discovered there is much more vacant land than there appears to ‎

be‎. ‎They could be plotted on a map‎. ‎

The Chair summarized that all comments will be evaluated by the administration and ‎

consultants and brought back to the Planning Commission for further review and ‎

discussion‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin dated February ‎24‎, ‎1999‎; ‎

Proposed Ordinance Amendment prepared by McKenna Associates dated Rev‎. ‎

2‎/‎24‎/‎99‎; Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July ‎29‎, ‎1997 ‎and May ‎

20‎, ‎1997‎.) ‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business to come before the Planning Commission‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for March ‎9‎, ‎1999‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎11‎:‎15 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎