Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic

Members: Gerard Dettloff, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, Nathan Klomp, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Planning Commission

Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Nicholas Kaltsounis,

Nathan Klomp, David Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

8 -

Greg Hooper

Absent

1 -

Quorum present.

Also Present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Dan Casey, Manager of Economic Development

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2008-0649

December 2, 2008 Regular Meeting

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

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Kaltsounis, Klomp, Reece, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Hooper

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) 2009 Planning Commission meeting schedule

B) Planning & Zoning News dated November 2008

NEW BUSINESS

2008-0581

Zoning Ordinance Re-write - Proposed Zoning Map outline; to be discussed at the

January 27, 2009 Public Hearing.

Chairperson Boswell stated that there was a Public Hearing, but there

would not be a vote, and he commented that hopefully by the January

meeting, the Commission would be ready to vote.

Mr. Anzek spoke first, advising that Mr. Breuckman would walk the

Commissioners through the Ordinance changes and then answer any

questions. He felt there would be items for future discussion, and he

mentioned that there would be another meeting on January 20th. They

would talk about the structure of and substantive changes to the

Ordinance and solicit input from the Commissioners.

Mr. Breuckman turned to his power point presentation. He noted his

memo in the packet, which highlighted items that had changed or were

added to the Ordinance. He stated that by and large, the proposed

Ordinance contained all of the parts of the existing Ordinance. They had

taken a lot of the organizational components, and tried to put it together

so that it flowed better. They added and modernized some standards and

other items that reflected changes since the Ordinance was last updated.

He planned to underscore areas he thought they would want to further

discuss.

Mr. Breuckman advised that the RE, Residential Estate, MR, Mixed

Residential Overlay and FB, Flex Business Overlay districts were added,

which were recommended changes from the Master Plan that needed

implementation. New regulations were added to the landscaping chapter,

and a section on alternative energy was included. There would be a new

Zoning Map included, which would be brought forward at the next

meeting. In terms of the structure of the Ordinance, there were now 13

Articles, beginning with Administration. They reviewed the procedural

and technical aspects in the first three chapters. The middle three

chapters dealt with zoning districts and uses. In Article 4, the zoning

districts were established, and they put in a table of permitted uses.

Rather than each zoning district having its own Article and list of uses, he

noted that they had been rolled into one table, which he felt would be

easier to use. He added that Article 5 was the Schedule of Regulations

and Article 6 was Supplement District Standards. That was where they

moved certain standards and uses that were repetitive. Article 7 was

Planned Unit Development, which had not changed. Article 8 was the

new Flex Business overlay districts. Article 9 included the steep slope

and natural features regulations, which had not changed. Article 10,

General Provisions, collected a lot of management regulations and

included parking, loading, and landscaping and screening definitions

toward the end.

Mr. Breuckman referred to Article 1, Administration and Enforcement,

and explained that they were mostly standards that had been scattered

throughout the existing Ordinance. It was organized into a number of

chapters. Chapter 2 listed procedures for amendments to the Ordinance

and the review process to be followed. Section 1.204 regarded Public

Hearing procedures, which had changed with the Zoning Enabling Act,

PA 110, which established consistent Public Hearing requirements. Mr.

Hooper had suggested adding a list of items that required Public

Hearings, which was added at the end of Section 1.204. Mr. Breuckman

next discussed Article 2, which included Site Plan and Conditional Land

Use Approval and Variance procedures. He stated that the Site Plan

review was one of the biggest changes. In Section 2.201, he tried to better

describe what activities required Site Plan review, who did the reviewing,

and the different kinds of review. The existing Ordinance dated from a

time when Site Plan review was getting started. The procedures the City

followed, as a practical matter, did not really fit with what the old Ordinance

required. They added a two-stage Site Plan review process, with the idea

of getting Site Plans before the Planning Commission earlier, before a lot

of expensive Engineering was sunk into the plan. This would give the

Planning Commission more input into the layout of a site. Once an

applicant spent a lot of money developing plans, they were a lot less

likely to change things. The Ordinance also established Administrative

Review, Sketch Plan Review and Site Plan Review, based on the intensity

of the development. If a developer were adding onto a building that was

below the threshold, for example, a Sketch Plan would be required. They

were trying to ease the burden of submittal requirements for activities that

required less information. Mr. Breuckman referred to Section 2.204,

which added standards for Site Plan Approval, and Section 2.209 added

a table that listed all the requirements, which had been from some of the

earlier drafts.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if Preliminary and Final Site Plan reviews were

similar to the review for platted subdivisions. Mr. Breuckman agreed

they were. Mr. Kaltsounis presumed that they were making the

Preliminary process more formal. Mr. Breuckman stated that the idea

was for a developer to negotiate the layout of the site and then do the

engineering and detail work. The Commission would be granting

Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Chairperson Boswell questioned whether

it would be different from a subdivision review, because when the

Commission gave Preliminary Approval, and then the Final came before

them, unless it was substantially different, they were almost locked into

giving approval. He asked if that would be the same as the proposal for

Site Plan review.

Mr. Delacourt agreed that it would be very similar. If a Plan came back

consistent with what was approved at Preliminary, it should be approved

at Final. The only time there would be an issue would be if the

Engineering work caused major changes and inconsistencies. If the

Commission did not like the Preliminary, they would not approve it. He

reiterated that they were trying to give everyone a comfort level up front,

before a lot of money had been sunk into a project.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if they would see landscaping and a lot of the

details that would affect the development at Preliminary. He liked the

informal, conceptual meetings they had been having beforehand, where

they were asked what they thought about the driveways, layout, etc. He

was concerned that for the Preliminary review, the applicants would have

to do a lot more work than they would like. Mr. Delacourt said they could if

they wanted. They still had the option of requesting a discussion first, and

there was nothing in the Ordinance that prevented showing a conceptual

idea. Mr. Kaltsounis wondered if they would be adding an extra step. He

liked having the basic concept meeting and then having the applicant

come back with the details. He felt they would have to do a lot of work at

the beginning. Mr. Delacourt reminded that they still had the option of

coming for a conceptual discussion.

Mr. Dettloff asked if the Commission would have to give another approval

if the applicant had to come back because of changing something due to

cost factors or something else. Mr. Delacourt said it would depend on the

level of detail they reached. If they did not finish all the work and noticed

a change soon after Preliminary Approval was granted, they would need

to come back and discuss the change at a Revised Preliminary stage. If

they had all the other information and it could be reviewed as a Final, they

could point out the changes. It would be very similar to the Site Condo

process.

Mr. Breuckman added that an applicant was not required to get

Preliminary Approval before they got Final Approval. If they wanted to

come in with a very informal plan for an informal review, they could do that

and then they could get plans ready that met the Final Site Plan Approval

requirements and simply ask for Final Approval. Mr. Kaltsounis asked

how that would work when the Ordinance said the Final had to match the

Preliminary. Mr. Breuckman explained that the Ordinance said an

applicant could skip the Preliminary.

Mr. Reece clarified that for a relatively straightforward Site Plan, an

applicant could choose to come in one time and take a chance his plans

would be approved. The Preliminary Stage let an applicant come in for a

conceptual review. If it was a complicated site, they would want to know

the Planning Commission would go for it, especially if they were going to

spend the next year engineering the plans. The Planning Commission

would have the opportunity to move things around or talk about the

number of lots before the applicant put a lot of money into it. Mr.

Breuckman said that at the Preliminary, there would not be full landscape

or engineering plans. They would not know there would be 49 trees on the

property line; they would just show that they would add a buffer consistent

with the Ordinance requirements.

Mr. Klomp asked if the Commission would be obligated to approve the

next review if the applicant showed some trees, but not a lot of the detail.

Mr. Breuckman said it would depend on what was required for Preliminary

Approval. If it were an item of information that was not required for

Preliminary, the Commission would not be approving that item. He noted

that what was required was listed in Section 2.209.

Mr. Anzek said that oftentimes, a concept was more than just an idea

sketched on a piece of paper. It was more about how it would look and

how it would fit. The Preliminary would give the opportunity to identify

whether the applicant needed to discuss any Buffer Modifications. There

would be nine different people looking at a project as a functioning Site

Plan, and if they saw things they felt could be better, they could be caught

at Preliminary. Mr. Kaltsounis said he would be concerned because if the

applicant said he wanted a Buffer Modification, he would like to see what

they were going to do. Mr. Breuckman did not think the Commission

would approve a Buffer Modification without seeing the details. Mr.

Kaltsounis suggested that it would be something they would learn more

about as they went forward.

Mr. Reece asked how many communities had the Preliminary step. Mr.

Breuckman said that most that he worked in did. Mr. Reece’s concern,

from a business development and attraction standpoint, was that the City,

in the past, did not have the best reputation relative to Site Plan Approval.

People would now have to see the Commission twice. Mr. Delacourt said

they did not have to, which Mr. Reece realized, but he said he hoped it

was not perceived as a negative in the business community. Mr.

Delacourt said that an applicant would like to know he was somewhat

vested, and that he would not have to deal with another Planning

Commission in a year. So far, Mr. Delacourt said he had gotten positive

feedback regarding it.

Mr. Anzek agreed that they wished to cut red tape and to expedite things.

They had heard for many years that applicants would like to know a little

sooner that there would be support for a plan. Mr. Reece agreed, but he

was a little concerned about adding another step, when it took a year or so

now to get approval. He stated that those were the things that had to

change in the community to attract business.

Mr. Casey noted that almost a year ago, the City established a Permit

and Processes Subcommittee out of the Mayor’s Business Council. That

involved architects, engineers and developers. They suggested that it

was a problem that they were required to provide so much detail before

they were even vested with their project. They would at least have some

surety earlier in the process that they could do the project, as long as they

met the requirements of the Ordinance at Final. Mr. Anzek added that it

would also help with the financing and leasing.

Ms. Brnabic agreed that having a concept plan meeting had been helpful

in the past year. Concepts were very basic, though, and she would rather

see a Preliminary Plan because they could iron more things out before

the Final. They would want to see more details, because if the

Commission did not have a grasp of them, when the Plan came back for

Final, there could be frustration on both sides. She did not think the

Preliminary would add too much time to the process, and she did not feel

it was a bad idea. She was still concerned that because a concept was a

concept, it could be scary to go from concept to Final because a lot of the

details would not be worked out. Mr. Yukon thought that the Preliminary

step would help to fast track a development because of the discussion

that would take place, and he was all for it. Mr. Breuckman said that

hopefully, it would result in more dialogue throughout the review process,

and he concluded discussion about the Site Plan review process.

Mr. Breuckman referred to Article 2, Chapter 3, Conditional Land Use

Review, and said that not much had changed, but some procedures were

now spelled out. Article 3, Nonconformities, was basically the same, and

he pointed out 3.105 because they had discussed it earlier. It regarded

expanding nonconformities, especially where a structure was considered

nonconforming to the required side or rear year setbacks and where the

extension of the existing side or rear building line would be permitted. It

could occur if it were a one-family dwelling if the extension did not

increase the nonconformity beyond the existing nonconformance. Mr.

Delacourt explained that in the past, if there was a building that

encroached three feet into the side yard setback and the owner wanted to

build an addition, he was not allowed to unless the ten-foot side yard

setback was met. That was an issue for the Zoning Board of Appeals

(ZBA). They felt that as long as it did not encroach any closer than seven

feet, that the wall should be allowed to be extended, but by their

interpretation of the Ordinance, they could not allow it. The new

Ordinance would allow it. A person could extend a wall along the setback

line, if the setback was created prior to the existing Ordinance. The ZBA

wanted to see that flexibility. They were tired of denying Variances for

what they felt were acceptable additions, and he stated that it was a

significant change.

Ms. Brnabic added that there were many existing, nonconforming

conditions. If a house was built in 1930, the house might have had a

four-foot setback from the property line. If someone wanted to add on,

and the other setbacks were correct, they had to start the addition at the

currently required side yard setback of ten feet, and it caused an

odd-looking structure. Mr. Anzek thought that it was just common sense

to allow an addition to look orderly and like it was part of the original

structure. The little jogs they were making people do made those

additions look very piecemeal. Mr. Delacourt said that the ZBA had

always interpreted it to be nonconforming. The Ordinance did not clarify it

one way or the other, so the ZBA wanted that flexibility in it. It was up to

the Planning Commission and City Council whether that should be a

change to the Ordinance.

Ms. Brnabic maintained that the ZBA had no choice but to deny the

requests based on the interpretation of the Ordinance as it was written.

They felt the Ordinance needed to be changed for clarity. Mr. Delacourt

said that the ZBA could choose to interpret the Ordinance any way they

wanted, but they wanted the matter identified so that it was not up to

interpretation. Different ZBAs could have changed the interpretation to

allow the extensions, but the City’s did not.

Mr. Breuckman indicated that each community’s ZBA was different.

Some were strict and some were more liberal. In a strict reading, it was

probably correct that they would be increasing a nonconformity if they

allowed an extension at the lesser setback line. Ms. Brnabic stated that it

was the job of the ZBA to strictly interpret the Ordinance. Mr. Delacourt

believed that the previous Ordinance was silent about it. It did not say

whether adding on at the lesser setback (where the house was originally

built) was an increase in nonconformity, but he related that the new

Ordinance stated that it was not.

Ms. Brnabic wanted to make sure the Planning Commission was clear

about what was being changed. She gave an example of a house that

was built with a four-foot side yard setback, which was allowed in the year it

was built. She noted that the current Ordinance required a ten-foot

setback, so the ZBA had to ask people to do something with their

structures that did not work. They were creating a bigger problem by

asking people to build something that did not have a proper layout. If

someone wanted to add on to their kitchen, they were being asked to

move over six feet and start the addition to the kitchen from that point, for

example. The new Ordinance was saying that if the house was

nonconforming because of when it was built, someone would not be

increasing the nonconformance if they wanted to add onto it. She thought

they had been creating some atrocities by making people design

according to the current setbacks, and it was a problem for the ZBA. They

did not want to have to consider that adding onto something that was built

a long time ago, and according to the Ordinance, was increasing the

nonconformance. If someone wanted to make their house larger, and

they stayed along the four-foot setback and all other setbacks were

current, the ZBA did not feel someone should have to abide by the

ten-foot setback of the current Ordinance.

Mr. Delacourt asked if anyone had a concern with the change. Mr. Klomp

asked in what instance they would regret accepting the Ordinance

change. Mr. Delacourt thought that the worst-case scenario would be a

house located very close to a property line. He thought that 95% of the

requests the ZBA saw were minor - it should be 15 feet but they were

asking for 13. He could not recall one where the request involved more

than 50%. Mr. Breuckman said they could put it “half,” or a minimum

setback of five feet. Mr. Klomp asked if they could re-craft the language

to give the ZBA a little more latitude to interpret something. Mr. Delacourt

said that the ZBA was the board that had the least latitude in the City.

They reviewed appeals to denials and reviewed Dimensional or Use

Variances. He stressed that the ZBA would be the least appropriate

board to have that type of latitude. Mr. Kaltsounis recalled that it was the

most contested subject during the Tech Committee meetings. Mr.

Delacourt agreed, and said that the ZBA had debated the interpretation

for years.

Mr. Anzek referred to “worst-case” scenario and wondered about the

impact if a house were at the lesser setback and the addition went vertical.

The neighbor would now be looking at a two-story house that was really

close. He felt that could be somewhat oppressive, and he wondered if

they needed to rethink it and limit it to one-story. He noted that the

bottom third of the City was full of those types of scenarios, and he

wondered if it would be creating a big-foot situation for the neighbors.

Mr. Breuckman questioned how much of a difference it would be if

someone were to go to two stories with a ten-foot setback or a seven-foot

setback. Mr. Delacourt added that currently, a vertical increase was not

considered an increase in nonconformance. A person could already go

to two stories at the seven-foot setback line. Mr. Reece commented that a

lot of communities were adding on vertically and horizontally, and that it

did make it worse. Mr. Delacourt did not feel it would be a bigfoot impact,

because that would involve a teardown and someone would have to go

back to the original setbacks. Mr. Anzek said he understood, but he still

wondered about it having an adverse affect.

Mr. Breuckman said that in most cases, there would not be a vertical

expansion associated with the horizontal expansion. Mr. Anzek agreed

that would be rare and expensive. Mr. Breuckman said they could add to

3.105 B. something about the closest an addition could be. They could

put something in that prohibited vertical expansions unless the setback

was current. Ms. Brnabic questioned whether the five-foot minimum

would be for someone who wanted to go vertical and horizontal. Mr.

Breuckman said that the number could be worked out.

Chairperson Boswell suggested adding that an applicant could not go

over “50% of the required setback.” Mr. Delacourt said they would look at

the language and come back with something. Ms. Brnabic said she

would be concerned with that because there were some people whose

homes were less than five feet from the property line. She recalled that

when the ZBA reviewed a previous request, they determined that an

addition would not interfere because it was in the backyard. Many people

had plenty of room because they have a large backyard and would have

no problem meeting the required rear yard setback, so it was feasible and

no other Ordinance was broken. The problem would arise for a home that

had been originally built three or four feet back from the side lot line. She

did not think 50% would quite work for all situations, and she suggested

that perhaps they had to consider the circumstances and the surrounding

environment. Mr. Breuckman said they would review the past requests to

get a basis for deciding how it should be written and what was reasonable.

Ms. Brnabic said they might want to think about special circumstances.

Mr. Breuckman said that out of the Tech Committee meetings, and at the

ZBA’s request, it was decided that it would be non-discretionary, and that

there should be an automatic clause. Mr. Delacourt agreed that since the

items would not go before the Planning Commission, they could not build

in criteria for the standard. It was either a can or cannot. If they were

deciding about the impact to the neighbors, somebody would have to

make the discretionary decision to approve it.

Mr. Klomp asked if the prior appeals had been denied by the ZBA. Ms.

Brnabic said that, unfortunately, they were. The ZBA did not have a

choice; they were in charge of interpreting the Ordinance, which was not

discretionary regarding this. There had been many times when several of

them sat at the meeting and on a personal level, felt that it was not fair,

but that was the job. That was why the ZBA members spoke up as the

Ordinance was being rewritten and mentioned the problems they were

having. They felt the Ordinance needed to be changed. Mr. Anzek

remarked that there were Variances denied that involved a matter of

inches, but the ZBA did not want to step over the line and set a

precedence.

Mr. Breuckman referred to Article 4, Zoning Districts and Permitted Uses,

and said that three new zoning districts had been established. He

advised that the old Ordinance had each zoning district in its own Article,

and that it had now been streamlined to be user-friendly. The Purpose of

the districts had been moved to the new Chapter 2. It would be referred to

for rezonings or for making decisions about a use. The Purpose

Statements of the zoning districts were not used too often, but the

Committee felt that it was good to have them all in one place. Chapter 3

had the Land Use table, and he felt it was a big improvement because all

of the zoning districts and all of the uses were in one place. In the past, if

someone wanted to see where a typewriter store was permitted, he or she

had to flip back and forth to hunt that down. There was also a table of the

specific standards applicable to each use, rather than being listed under

each use. He encouraged the Commissioners to take a look at it and

identify any they wanted to talk about. Mr. Anzek said they tried to be

comprehensive with the use list, and they felt they got everything covered,

but if someone found a use they thought should be added, they should let

Staff know.

Mr. Breuckman referred to Chapter 4, Design Standards for Specific

Uses, and said that most of them were existing standards. A few were

new, such as Chapter 4.415, State Licensed Residential Facilities, which

was referred to in the Zoning Enabling Act. Section 4.419 was for Pet

Boarding Facilities, and he recalled that the Commission had

recommended an amendment to the Ordinance in 2007 to include them.

There were some new standards for nursing homes and assisted living

facilities. Mr. Yukon said that 4.419 did not include the maximum

number of animals that could be housed at one time, and he asked Mr.

Breuckman to explain that. Mr. Breuckman said there was no maximum

because the use was different than kennels, and dogs did not live there. It

was hard to establish a maximum that made sense because the uses

were very wide-ranged. Some of the uses had taken over industrial

spaces with 20,000 square feet, and some were at Pet Smart in a little

corner of the store. There were many different forms and contexts it could

take, and since the dogs did not live there or stay long, he did not think it

was practical to establish a maximum.

Chairperson Boswell referred to the Table of Uses, and said it allowed

helipads only in Industrial areas. He noted that he saw a helicopter land

at Crittenton Hospital the other day, which was in a Special Purpose

district. Mr. Breuckman commented that it was in the existing Ordinance

only in Industrial areas, but he felt it was a good point. Mr. Delacourt said

that as a primary or conditional use, he would not want helipads in a

Special Purpose district without a hospital attached. A helipad was

allowed in a Special Purpose district now as an accessory use to a

hospital. It was a hospital use, not a helipad use, per se. Mr. Breuckman

thought they should take the word helipad out of the Industrial district to

eliminate confusion, and support the argument that it was an accessory

use.

Mr. Anzek explained that a lot of the use changes were driven by unique

questions the Planning Department had received over the last several

years. Someone would ask if they could do a certain thing in a certain

district, and Staff could not always find clear, definitive statements to

answer them.

Mr. Breuckman indicated that the current Ordinance listed some

requirements for nursing homes, but he did not feel they accomplished

much, so they were replaced with standards that made more sense.

Open-air business uses were accessory uses such as outdoor sales area

space. It was limited to 1,000 square feet in the B-1 district and 2,500

square feet in the B-2 and B-3 districts. More than that required a

Conditional Land Use Approval. He brought up outdoor dining, and said

that the new Ordinance allowed those areas as permitted uses with

appropriate limitations. Mr. Dettloff asked if they should include the

timeframe the Commission had agreed upon, which was April 15 to

October 31st. Mr. Anzek said the condition was initially driven out of a

neighbor concern. He did not think there would be a concern on a cold

winter night, and he thought the weather would take care of the issue. Mr.

Breuckman said that his first instinct was to not have unnecessary

regulations. He was not part of the discussion, and he was not sure of the

intent or purpose limiting the timeframe. He thought the seasons would

eliminate it. He did not know if having outdoor dining after Nov. 1 would

create any more problems than it would on July 1st. Mr. Yukon recalled

that the Commissioners made several approvals where they had asked

the applicants to agree to a condition limiting the dates of operation. Mr.

Delacourt clarified that they had done it as a requirement of Conditional

Land Use, and it was now a permitted use. They could add it as a

condition of Site Plan Approval. If outdoor dining was added onto an

existing development, it might fall under Administrative Approval. He did

not feel there was a need to limit the operations in writing, but if the

Commission was uncomfortable with that, they could add it in for next

time. Mr. Dettloff indicated that he would not want to tie a business’s

hands, and he suggested that it should be handled on a case-by-case

basis.

Mr. Schroeder asked about 4.425, Use and Occupation of public

right-of-way. He asked if they wanted to allow use of a public right-of-way.

Mr. Breuckman said that in practical terms, they would not because

buildings were set back from the right-of-way in most cases. Mr.

Schroeder asked if he considered the setback public right-of-way, and Mr.

Breuckman said it was just the street right-of-way. He said it would be

more for a downtown area, such as the Commercial Improvement district.

If they wanted to have a few tables and chairs right at the front property

line, technically, the tables would be in the right-of-way. The text was

giving the City leeway to manage that. Mr. Delacourt suggested adding

language that would allow it with a permit from the appropriate agency.

Mr. Yukon recalled approving Chapman’s Mill outdoor seating, and that

the pathway would be extended to the Clinton River Trail. He asked if that

would be on right-of-way. Mr. Delacourt said it would be reviewed by the

Engineering Department, and any pathway connection would be

approved by them with the Site Plan. Mr. Anzek noted that there were two

pathways involved. The applicant agreed to build a pathway as part of the

public right-of-way, extending it from its terminus point down to the Trail.

In addition, they would create one from the parking lot to the Trail. They

had no objections to do it, and it was made part of the Conditional Land

Use. Mr. Anzek thought it was more about getting approval from the City

than them being forced to do it.

Mr. Dettloff mentioned that some communities were being approached by

businesses asking for permission to do gambling, such as offering a

Texas Hold ‘Em Tournament, as a way to generate business in a facility.

He wondered if there was anything in the new Ordinance that would restrict

that or what the current policy was. He gave the example of an existing

banquet hall that was down on rentals and was approached by someone

to run tournaments for six months. He wondered if there was anything to

prevent that currently.

Mr. Anzek said it was a good question, and he thought that it fell under

another Ordinance - perhaps one regarding State gambling licensing.

He was not sure how it worked with charitable organizations. He was not

aware that it was typically handled in a Zoning Ordinance. When it was

inside a space, it was very difficult to regulate and enforce something, and

he said he would have to look into it. Mr. Dettloff said there were a lot that

appeared to be very legitimate, especially if a charity was involved.

Mr. Breuckman stated that Article 5, Schedule of Regulations, was mostly

unchanged from the existing Ordinance. It had been updated to include

standards for the Residential Estate district. The Industrial districts of I-2

and I-1 had been merged and there was no longer an I-2, Heavy

Industrial, district, recognizing the changing nature of industrial uses, and

that there was not much I-2 land in the City. The Industrial district

standards had been relaxed a little, and the front yard setbacks had been

reduced somewhat. It was mostly an economic development item, to

allow easier redevelopment and reinvestment in existing Industrial areas.

He cautioned that the City should not be a roadblock. Mr. Delacourt

added that the front yard setback was changed from 75 to 50 feet, also

requiring a 30-foot greenbelt. Mr. Kaltsounis talked about the different

types of Industrial uses, from the concrete crusher to companies like

Webasto, which manufactured components for vehicles. He was not sure

what that was zoned, and Mr. Anzek said that Webasto was in the Tan

Industrial Park and it was zoned Light Industrial. Mr. Delacourt said that

Light Industrial encompassed mainly warehousing, manufacturing and

assembly. The I-2 district was where the concrete crusher would be.

There were very few parcels that were I-2, and the Tech Committee

recommended discontinuance of those uses. They would be allowed to

continue operating as long as they did not expand, and they would be

nonconforming uses. Mr. Kaltsounis asked if all of the office complexes

in the Industrial areas were I-2, and he was told they were I-1. He thought

companies like Dana, which actually was no longer there, would be the

wave of the future. Mr. Anzek agreed that those companies were

evolving, and the City was looking for ways to accommodate that type of

employment with more flexibility for expansion and parking.

This matter was Discussed

Mr. Breuckman talked next about Article 5, Chapter 2, Supplemental

Provisions and Exceptions. It collected a lot of things that were previously

scattered throughout the Ordinance, such as lot size variation and

subdivision open space plan options. It was where permitted

encroachments, corner clearance, building grades and standards and

measurements were arranged, and a lot of the language was from the

existing.

Mr. Klomp asked about street frontage. Mr. Breuckman responded that a

parcel had to have frontage on a street. Mr. Klomp asked if it had to be

an architecturally or interestingly defined front. Mr. Breuckman said that

was not necessarily the case; a parcel just had to have street frontage so

it was not landlocked.

Mr. Breuckman noted that there was new language about building grades

to protect adjacent properties from draining water. It put in writing the

things the City already did. He continued that Article 6, Supplemental

District Standards, collected some special districts, such as the

Manufactured Home Park district and Commercial Improvement district

that were scattered. The Multiple Family district showed dimensional

standards because it was a little more complicated and too complex to fit

in the Schedule of Regulations. There was a new Mixed Residential

district in Article 6 also. The Multiple Family district standards were

mostly unchanged with the addition of a few design standards. It included

architectural details, requiring some interesting facades that faced

streets. A lot of times they saw nothing but garage doors facing streets in

attached housing, so there was a standard that limited the orientation

toward the street. They would like to make the front door entrance more

prominent, which he said had an effect of “humanizing” the front façade.

The new Ordinance required some recreational areas, and also permitted

on-street parking to count toward the minimum parking requirement.

There were no changes to density or other fundamental issues. Mr.

Schroeder asked if the on-street parking addressed not allowing parking

in front of fire hydrants. Mr. Delacourt replied that the Fire Code

prevented any obstruction, and that the Fire Department reviewed all

plans.

Mr. Breuckman advised that the RCD, Residential Cluster District was

completely unchanged. The one change to the Commercial

Improvement district was that no side yard setbacks were required. He

said that the changes to the Manufacturing Home Park district were made

as a result of changes in State law. The City had to be consistent with the

current requirements of the Mobile Home Commission. He noted that

Chapter 5 was for the new Mixed Residential option. It implemented the

Master Plan, and the intent was to provide design flexibility without

increasing density. A lot of the areas were located on major roads.

Article 7, Planned Unit Development, was unchanged. Article 8 was for

the Flexible Business districts. Those areas were planned for

commercial areas of the City, and they were intended to facilitate

redevelopment. They were discussed in detail during the Master Plan

process. Article 8 was about form-based zoning regulations to implement

the Flex Business overlay districts. Article 8 sort of worked like a Zoning

Ordinance within a Zoning Ordinance because of the overlay districts,

and any property owner could choose to develop under the current zoning

district or the flex overlay standards. There were some tradeoffs using the

overlay districts. Article 8 was much more specific about where a building

should be located and how sites should be laid out, but there would be

greater flexibility in terms of use. There was a broad table of permitted

uses included that listed things like general commercial, places of

assembly and restaurants. There was only one Office designation, and it

did not matter if it was Medical or Professional Office. The standards

started at the street and moved onto the lot. When setting up the site,

someone would lay out the street network and then they would start

building within the blocks. There were dimension and design standards

regarding where the building should go in relation to the streets. They

wanted to create character by the building placement. Putting the

building up to the property line would create more of a downtown, walkable

area. Setting a building farther back would create a more residential

context. They were all appropriate in the form-based districts, but there

were guidelines for building height, building mass and element standards

but not architectural standards. If there was a building right up to the

property line, there should be a certain percentage of the first floor area in

windows, for example. There were general provisions for parking, amenity

space and signs. Signs should be legible to people driving by, but in the

flex districts, they would not need the same type of signs, because

different kinds of signs would be appropriate for people walking by.

Mr. Schroeder mentioned that the clear vision standard applied to the

right-of-way but not to private property. There could be a problem at a

triangle corner, if shrubs and trees blocked the view. Mr. Breuckman

explained that there were different standards for the clear vision area in

the Flex districts because the buildings were going to be located a lot

closer to the street, and there would be more on-street parking and wider

sidewalks. It would be a lot more pedestrian in character. Mr. Schroeder

asked if a building could actually be at the property line, which was

confirmed. Mr. Breuckman said that people would be more aware of

pedestrians in more constrained situations, so that was the idea for the

smaller corner clearance.

Ms. Brnabic asked Mr. Breuckman if he had received her question

regarding the height of monument signs at seven feet. Mr. Delacourt said

that an earlier version allowed monument signs to go to eight feet, but

they decided to make them equal in all districts, which was changed in the

latest version. Mr. Delacourt asked if there were any further questions

regarding Article 8. He suggested that if the Commissioners thought of

anything subsequently, since it was the biggest change to the Ordinance,

that they email him with comments. Mr. Breuckman mentioned that the

Village of Rochester Hills would be the type of design permitted by Article

8. Mr. Anzek noted that the Bordine’s proposal would also use that tool to

redevelop. Mr. Kaltsounis commented that as they went forward, there

would be some parts of the Zoning Ordinance that they would have to

tweak. They might not really know about something until that first

development came in front of them. Mr. Anzek said that he was sure Staff

would be back in front of the Commissioners with tweaks. Mr. Delacourt

recalled the visual preference surveys that were done with the Master

Plan, and said that the sites that scored the least highest now had overlay

zoning districts. Some of the strip mall sites or larger retail development

sites were where the Flex Overlay was now identified as an option. People

identified that if something was going to be retail, they wanted it to look a

little different than it did now. They did not want to impose that every site

had to redevelop under that option, however. He noted that in the future,

the Planning Commission might have a large role to play if someone

wanted to look at specific site-driven modifications if something in the

Article did not quite work. The Commission had the ability to work within

the Ordinance to modify small parts of it to adapt to certain sites. He

asked them to take a good look at it to make sure they were comfortable

with it.

Mr. Breuckman stated that Article 10, General Provisions, was broken

down into four chapters: Accessory Structures, Exterior Lighting, General

Provisions and Sustainable Energy Generation. He advised that there

was a change to the maximum height for accessory structures. It would

be the same as the maximum height for the principal structure in the

zoning district, and someone’s garage could not be higher than his

house. There was some flexibility built in for detached accessory

structures. They could go up to 16 feet tall if the roof pitch was four on 12

or greater. In the past, if someone wanted to match the roof pitch on a

house but it was greater than four on 12, the City would not allow it. Mr.

Delacourt explained that the previous Ordinance allowed only a 14-foot

height for detached structures. There would be a 35-foot tall colonial, for

example, but the garage would look much flatter. There was concern

about “mother-in-law” suites over a garage, so they did not want to allow

enough room for conversion.

Mr. Breuckman advised that Exterior Lighting was a new section, which he

thought was important. Chairperson Boswell remarked that the Burger

King on Crooks Rd. looked like a place for spaceships to land. Mr.

Delacourt asked if anyone had a question about the lighting section, and

Mr. Schroeder asked if it was a standard provision that had been proven

over time. Mr. Delacourt said it was similar to what the Commission

required now. Mr. Breuckman said that the Illuminating Engineering

Society of North America was a great resource, and he added that they

were not trying anything new. Mr. Delacourt said that lighting had been

handled by the Planning Commission previously based on individual

Site Plans. Now they were saying what was acceptable in all

circumstances, and he wanted to make sure it was acceptable to the

Commissioners. Mr. Kaltsounis liked that it said 20 feet for lightpoles was

desirable. He did not think it addressed parking structures, and he

wondered if they should add something about it. For example,

Crittenton’s parking structure originally had too much glow, and he

wondered if there should be a certain standard for those. Mr. Anzek said

that the poles on the upper deck were lowered from 20 to 15 feet and were

internal to the deck. The perimeter had low-mounted wash lights across

the deck, and they required a non-reflective surface. He thought that a

lightpost on top of a parking deck could be bright. Mr. Kaltsounis

reminded that the City was being built out, and they were starting to pack

in a lot more to what was left. Mr. Delacourt said the footcandles would be

the same requirements, and no light would be allowed to project over a

residential lot line. Mr. Kaltsounis thought that a 20-foot pole on top of a

parking structure would shine into someone’s house more than one on

the ground would. Mr. Breuckman did not think that was necessarily true,

because it would be so much higher than someone’s window. If someone

could not see the hot spot, it should be acceptable. Mr. Delacourt said

they would look into it to see if something needed to be added regarding

parking deck lighting. Mr. Anzek commented that exterior lighting was a

big issue. He recalled that a community he worked in was involved in a

major lawsuit over a molestation that occurred because, they claimed, the

lighting was insufficient. He would like the standards to be comparable to

other communities and not too restrictive. He thought they did a good job

to brighten up the City, but they had to be cautious. Mr. Breuckman said

he had used the light levels in other communities. One section allowed

up to 20 footcandles under gas station canopies. Some gas station

owners wanted 80 to 100 footcandles, which he felt was actually

dangerous because it could cause transient adaptation, or night

blindness.

Mr. Breuckman pointed out that General Provisions contained a lot of the

existing standards, and he said that not a lot had changed. He pointed

out Section 10.311, which were Performance Standards. It had the

biggest update because a lot of the standards were from 1974, so they

wanted to reflect modern practice. Chapter 4 was new and addressed

wind and solar energy. Wind energy dealt with small wind and utility wind.

Small wind was something that an individual house or small business

might put up to serve their needs. The intent was not to generate

electricity, but to provide energy for someone’s use on the site. The

height of the wind energy system would depend on the acreage of the

parcel. A 45-foot tower would not be sufficient to generate a lot of

electricity, so he did not feel they would see a lot of them. A half-acre to

an acre parcel would permit up to a 45-foot tower - not that much taller

than a tree. The alternative would be that if it was something the City

wanted to promote, they could increase the maximum tower height for the

smaller parcels. It was something for discussion before they made any

decisions. On a one to five-acre parcel, there could be up to a 65-foot

tower; five to ten could have a 100-foot tower. That would allow a decent

system to offset a good deal of household needs. More than ten acres

would have no maximum. There would be setbacks associated with the

height, and those standards were used elsewhere. Mr. Schroeder was

concerned that it could generate a lot of opposition from the neighbors.

Mr. Casey mentioned a business in one of the industrial parks that

inquired about it recently. He would like them to look at the possibility of

allowing towers to go higher in industrial parks as long as the parcel did

not border residential use. The cost of energy was high in Michigan and

business owners were looking for alternatives to generate electricity on

site. Mr. Schroeder asked about the noise, and Mr. Casey felt that in an

Industrial or Office district that noise was less of a concern. Mr.

Kaltsounis remarked that they would be the next version of cell towers.

Mr. Casey agreed, and said that the technology for wind turbines was

changing so rapidly that whatever they put in the Ordinance today would

likely be somewhat obsolete in a couple of years. He had seen designs

for wind turbines that mounted on the roof of a building. They were

proposing those in urban areas, such as Chicago, and that made a lot of

sense. He felt the City should be prepared for that.

Mr. Klomp thanked Mr. Breuckman and Staff for writing it into the

Ordinance. He felt it was smart and ahead of the curve, and he was glad

to see it. Mr. Breuckman said that if they went along with it, it would be

something they would have to grow with, and Mr. Delacourt felt it was a

good place to start. If all of a sudden they got a lot of requests for towers,

they would be more prepared, but if they got requests for more than what

the Ordinance allowed, they would be back in front of the Commission

recommending a different set of standards. Mr. Breuckman said they

would look again at the non-residential areas. He referred to utility wind

systems, and said those regarded the types of wind turbines seen in farm

fields. They would be allowed on sites of 20 acres or greater, but he

wondered if they needed this part in the Ordinance because Rochester

Hills was not located in a particularly great wind zone. If they took it out,

however, it would discount the technology factor of the future, so he

suggested that they leave it in. Mr. Reece asked if there was anything in

the Ordinance about manure processing facilities and conversion to

bio-diesel, as such operations were increasing. Mr. Breuckman said that

would be handled under the use table as a type of industrial use. He said

he would look at that. He was not sure that use would be appropriate in

the City.

Mr. Dettloff asked Mr. Breuckman if there were any communities that were

well into the sustainable energy issue. Mr. Breuckman said a lot of

places were just really starting to look at it. Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids

would be the closest. He outlined that the Ordinance would allow solar

energy systems in the front yard, up to a maximum height of

three-and-a-half feet tall. Mr. Anzek asked if they should add a screening

requirement for those that might be close to the street. Mr. Breuckman

said that was a good point, and that some communities did not want them

in the front yard at all. He disagreed with that, because if the front yard

was someone’s only southern exposure, they could not discourage that,

and screening would be a way to address it. He pointed out Section

10.403 and asked the Commissioners to review it. He said it was their

choice whether or not to add it. It was an Ordinance that a few other

communities had adopted (outside of Michigan). It was about a solar

access permit and neighbors could not plant massive trees or a building

that would block a solar system someone put in. The permit protected an

investment. There was a procedure to let the neighbors know what was

happening, but he cautioned that it could put the City in the middle of

neighbor fights. Mr. Yukon asked what would happen if a house was sold

to a new owner and they wanted to plant trees. He wondered if they would

be made aware prior to the sale. Mr. Breuckman said that a copy of the

permit would be recorded with the Registrar of Deeds for Oakland County;

however, some people did not read everything. Mr. Anzek said it was a

big step that could become very problematic and cumbersome. He

thought they should have more discussion about it at the next meeting.

Mr. Breuckman said that it did not prevent someone from planting

everything. There was a measurement that went along with it, based on a

hypothetical 10-foot wall along the property line and the 30-degree angle

above the wall where the sun was lowest in the sky on December 21st.

That line was the limitation, so someone could plant a ten-foot tall green

wall. Mr. Yukon asked what would happen if that were planted on private

property and the owner did not maintain it. Mr. Delecourt said it would

become a civil issue between the neighbors. He imagined that Council

would really consider that section.

Mr. Breuckman next discussed parking and loading. He summarized the

changes philosophically, and said they tried to simplify the parking

requirements to reduce the number of standards, which would eliminate a

roadblock for the reuse of buildings. If there was parking provided for a

very specific use and someone wanted to reuse the building and it

required a different parking standard, it could create problems. They went

to more general, criteria-based parking standards to help minimize

unused impervious surface and unnecessary parking spaces. They

included shared parking and deferred parking, and allowed the

Commission the ability to modify parking standards.

Mr. Kaltsounis referred to the width of nine feet for the parking spaces. He

said they were currently at ten and he would prefer that, as an owner of a

large vehicle. He stated that nine was tight. Mr. Anzek thought it was a

good discussion point, and that he was the owner of a large vehicle as

well. He noted that the Somerset Mall had nine-foot spaces. In the

Village of Rochester Hills, he recalled that half were nine and half ten as

part of the Consent Judgment. He felt that if people got centered in a

space, that nine feet would be plenty. He believed that a two-door car had

a wider door swing than a four-door did. Mr. Kaltsounis said he was not

worried about the swing; he was worried about getting in and out. In a

one-way lane, he could back out easier, but in a two-way, it was very

difficult. Mr. Anzek said that using dual stripes helped people get

centered in a space, but he acknowledged that would add more paint on

the ground.

Mr. Reece said that the trend was going to smaller cars, but there would

always be people that still bought larger. If they decided to use the

smaller spaces, perhaps they could reserve some spaces for large cars

only. Mr. Anzek said that Home Depot and Lowe’s did that, and put in

bigger spaces for contractors. He suggested that as a solution. Mr.

Delacourt said that if the building owners saw an issue, they would come

back and request a parking change to ten feet. Staff looked at all the pros

and cons, and the Tech Committee was split on the issue, and they

ended up at nine, which was a common space size. There would be less

impervious surface, and that was the deciding issue. Mr. Kaltsounis

restated that nine in a one-way would be manageable, but that it would be

too tough in a two-way lane. Mr. Anzek said they could all think about it,

look around at various parking lots, and tell Staff if they found places too

tight. He noted that in some of the industrial areas, which were employee

intensive, that ten spaces at ten feet could become 11 spaces at nine.

That was becoming the deciding factor about whether a building was

leased. Mr. Delacourt said that if it had to go back to ten in the retail

areas, he would like the Commission to consider leaving it at nine in the

industrial areas or where there were more “all day” parking situations.

Mr. Dettloff referred to Section 11.201(d), General Provisions, which

discussed uses meeting more than one category and asked how that had

been handled in the past. Mr. Anzek said that the predominant use or

space was parked first. Mr. Dettloff clarified that the Ordinance specified

that each component would have a set parking requirement. Mr.

Breuckman said they would come up with an aggregate number. Mr.

Delacourt added that gas stations were always based on square footage,

and if they expanded with a convenience store, it was required that more

spaces would be added. Mr. Anzek indicated that a two-bay service

station converted to a convenience store had always been problematic for

parking.

Mr. Breuckman next referred to Article 12, Landscaping and Screening,

and advised that the existing standards had been updated. He remarked

that landscape requirements science had advanced by leaps and

bounds. The City’s Landscape Architect offered a lot of comments, which

had been incorporated. The Ordinance talked about was permitted with

regards to plant materials and ground cover requirements. The bigger

change was in 12.205. It allowed existing vegetation to provide the same

effect as a landscape requirement. In the past, there were a lot of

questions about adding trees to a buffer that already did the job. He

referred to 12.206, which was the requirements for plant species. People

could only plant up to 20% of one kind of species on site. They added a

part about a green wall, and the notes and table were added. They

wanted to encourage a green wall and applicants now had the flexibility to

do so. He asked the Commissioners to read through it to make sure it

did what they wanted it to. Mr. Delacourt joked that they should never

again hear the term “landscaping to meet the intent of the six-foot opaque

screen.”

Mr. Breuckman talked about parking lot landscaping requirements,

noting that they were trying to get some green into the seas of asphalt.

There was something added about right-of-way trees. Mr. Reece asked if

irrigation systems would be required. Mr. Delacourt said that the City

required that now. He agreed that they might need to add something that

allowed modification for LEED points. Staff had been administratively

waiving that requirement for buildings that sought LEED certification, but

the Ordinance should have something stated. Mr. Breuckman pointed

out that 12.106 required irrigation, and item (a) said that the “Planning

Department may approve an alternative form of irrigation or may waive

this requirement by determining that underground irrigation is not

necessary.” The determined that something specific should be added

regarding LEED, however.

Mr. Delacourt asked if there were any other general comments, and Mr.

Kaltsounis said he disagreed when an applicant replaced a tree with a

bush. He talked about the bushes lacking at the Walgreen’s at Auburn

and Crooks.

Mr. Delacourt reported that there would be 11 map amendments to the

Zoning Map. He advised that the I-2 district was being removed, and that

there were some large areas proposed for rezoning to Residential Estate.

There would be a few recommendations that came from the Master Land

Use Plan. He said they would send the information as soon as it was

formalized, in advance of the next meeting. He asked that if anyone had

questions, they should contact Staff to talk about it before the Public

Hearing in January. He wanted the Commissioners to be clear about

everything before making a recommendation to City Council. Mr. Reece

asked for a .pdf of the power point presentation. Upon asking, he was

assured that the next meeting would be noticed as a Public Hearing. Mr.

Anzek mentioned that the crushing operation, which was currently zoned

I-2, would be put in a nonconforming situation by going to I-1.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at 9:48 p.m. Seeing no

one come forward, he closed the Public Hearing. Upon no further

discussion from the Commissioners, he thanked Mr. Breuckman and

Staff.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Appointment of two representatives to the Capital Improvement Plan

(CIP) Policy Team for 2009.

Chairperson Boswell noted that the representatives for last year were Ms.

Hardenburg and himself. Mr. Anzek believed that Chairperson Boswell

had been on since the inception of the CIP program. Mr. Kaltsounis

clarified that they met during the day. Mr. Anzek explained that the Policy

Team was a seven-member group with two Planning Commissioners, one

Council member, himself, Ms. Jenuwine, the Finance Director, Mr.

Dawson, the City Assessor, and Mr. Rousse, Engineering Director. The

group reviewed the standards and criteria for CIP projects and evaluated

forms of the projects. There would be a meeting where the projects were

submitted, and then the Policy Team scored the projects independently.

The scores were assembled and they got back together to discuss them.

The scores did not necessarily mean something would be built because

of the timing and availability of funds. The Planning Commission was the

approving body for the CIP.

Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Yukon were interested in being on the committee

and by acclamation, they were appointed to the Policy Team.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked about the awning added to the A&A Liquor store,

claiming that it did not, in any way, shape or form go with the style to which

the Commission agreed. He asked if they just put it up. Mr. Anzek

responded that the Building Department always presented something like

that to the Planning Department for approval because it was a

commercial change, but it did not. Mr. Kaltsounis noted that it was a steel

construction awning, about six feet tall and ten feet out. He said it stuck

out like a sore thumb. Mr. Delacourt promised to find out if they got a

permit.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting was

scheduled for January 20, 2009.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Commission, and upon

motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:00

p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary