Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, October 24, 2000

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Greg Hooper, James Rosen, Audrey Ruggiero, Eric ‎

Kaiser, Leah Potere, Christian Ramanauskas and Melinda Hill‎

Present

8 -

Also present Commission‎: ‎Paul Corneliussen‎

Also Present‎: ‎Ed Anzek, Director of Planning‎

Deborah Millhouse, Deputy Director of Planning‎

John Staran, City Attorney‎

Dr‎. ‎Eugene Jaworski, J & L Consulting Services‎

Judy Bialk, Recording Secretary‎

COMMUNICATIONS

NEW BUSINESS

2000-0315

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

Joseph Galvin, representing the applicant, together with Doug Necci of JCK ‎

& Associates, Herve Henry, from JCK & Associates, Civil Engineer, and Amy Kay, ‎

from JCK & Associates, Environmental Department, Wetlands Consultant, came ‎

forward and identified themselves‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser asked whether there was ‎

anyone else present on behalf of the applicant‎. ‎Also present on behalf of the applicant ‎

were Mr‎. ‎David Misfueg, Environmental Consultant with JCK & Associates, Mukesh ‎

Mangla and Ramesh Reddy, the purchasers and developers of the property, and ‎

Robert Solgan, and current property owner‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser requested Ms‎. ‎Millhouse update the Commissioners with ‎

respect to the Boulevard Office Park Project‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse reviewed for the benefit ‎

of the Commissioners what had occurred at the September ‎5‎, ‎2000‎ Planning ‎

Commission meeting‎. ‎She noted at that meeting the Planning Commission had ‎

recommended denial of the Wetland Use Permit finding that there were reasonable ‎

alternatives that could be pursued‎. ‎She further explained that consideration of the ‎

other three Agenda items for this project, specifically, the Natural Features Setback ‎

Modification, Buffer Modification and Site Plan Approval, were postponed‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Millhouse explained the applicant has made modifications relative to the wetlands issue ‎

and was now coming back before the Planning Commission for consideration of all ‎

four issues‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek further reminded the Commissioners that at the September ‎5‎, ‎

2000 ‎Planning Commission meeting, several issues surfaced which were a matter of ‎

considerable discussion with the Planning Commission‎. ‎He explained the issues ‎

focused on the selective clearing of trees in the wetlands and the natural features ‎

setback buffer area‎. ‎He noted there was also considerable discussion on the location ‎

of the access drive to the office complex, mainly the use of a bridge versus a ‎

two‎-‎culvert pipe system ‎- ‎two relatively small culverts‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated the ‎

applicant had taken those issues at hand and had contacted Dr‎. ‎Jaworski, the City's ‎

Wetlands Consultant, the following day to seek a solution, remedy and guidance as ‎

how to best go about resolving the issues‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek noted the City Staff had also ‎

contacted Mr‎. ‎Stephen Dearing, who was the City's Traffic Engineer at that time, as ‎

well as currently being the City's Traffic Engineer on a contractual basis‎. ‎He explained ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dearing provided a letter explaining the history of how the access point came ‎

about and how the Oakland County Road Commission and the City Traffic Engineer ‎

felt this was the best location for the access point to service this sight‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek further explained a third issue was the use a bridge or a span to ‎

preserve and protect the wetlands further‎. ‎He noted the applicant, in working with ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski, had come up with a solution that meets the intent of the preservation ‎

and also works to service the issue of the spotted turtle that has been documented to ‎

be on site‎. ‎He explained there has been a series of meetings with the consultant team ‎

and with the applicant team, noting they had met earlier today in dealing with some of ‎

these issues, and stated Dr‎. ‎Jaworski was present tonight to address any issues the ‎

Commissioners may have regarding the proposed changes‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse brought up as a point of clarification, as the Planning Commission ‎

goes through the subject project, based upon the meetings that have occurred ‎

subsequent to the preparation of the Staff Report, she noted Staff will point out any ‎

recommended modifications‎.‎

Applicant Galvin explained to the Commissioners that the principle change made ‎

since the last consideration of this property by the City's Planning Commission, was ‎

that they took all of the comments which were made by the Commissioners and have ‎

attempted to present tonight a plan which meets each of those comments‎. ‎

Specifically, the applicant noted they understood they were dealing with a site that the ‎

Planning Commission gave specific consideration to in it's master planning‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Galvin ‎

explained they are seeking to develop it for office use, which is the use the City has ‎

determined is the appropriate use for the property‎. ‎He noted they have treated each ‎

of the physical issues which were raised with what the applicant believed to be was ‎

the maximum sensitivity attainable to obtain a project which is both physically ‎

attractive and environmentally sensitive‎. ‎

Applicant Galvin then addressed the specific comments they had started with‎. ‎He ‎

explained there was a note added to the plan concerning the discussion regarding the ‎

selective clearing in the wetlands and natural features setback buffer areas‎. ‎He ‎

explained the issue has been dealt with and there was a note on the plan stating it will ‎

not happen‎. ‎The applicant noted Mr‎. ‎Doug Necci will show the Commissioners the ‎

efforts that were made, explaining one of the principle items discussed at the last ‎

Planning Commission meeting was whether or not alternatives had been considered, ‎

specifically with the location of the drive‎. ‎He stated the motion contained a suggestion ‎

that there had not been an attempt made to look at a road location farther to the east‎. ‎

He also noted there were suggestions for treating the crossing for the wetland area and ‎

dealing simultaneously with the issue of animal crossing, together with the wetlands ‎

issues that are implicated by that crossing‎. ‎The applicant explained they have ‎

developed a ‎4‎x‎6‎ box culvert with a grate which will allow light and air to permeate, ‎

which meets and provides what they feel is the best possible solution‎. ‎The applicant ‎

explained during their presentation tonight, they would like the Commissioners to ‎

understand they have considered all of the alternatives and have physically gone ‎

through each available alternative to each problem that the site raised, and explained ‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci, Mr‎. ‎Henry and Ms‎. ‎Kay will describe how their conclusions were reached ‎

and why they feel this is the most prudent, reasonable solution for each of the issues‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin explained Mr‎. ‎Necci would explain how they dealt with the location of the ‎

road and the box culvert‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci used an overhead projector to supplement his presentation‎. ‎He ‎

explained to the Commissioners his first overlay depicted a scheme that was revised ‎

pursuant to the last Planning Commission meeting‎. ‎He noted they added some ‎

additional graphics showing the extent and character of the Crake and Gibson Drain‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci noted this area of the site was not very well depicted at the last meeting, ‎

noting this may have caused some confusion as to the interference effect with respect ‎

to the ingress road‎. ‎He pointed out the added notations at the west end of the site, ‎

explaining that property was not owned by the applicant‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Necci then discussed ‎

the other options for the ingress road‎. ‎He stated one option was the westerly ‎

approach from Michelson Drive; however, it wasn't feasible due to the lack of ‎

ownership of that property‎. ‎He explained they were blocked off from the road at a ‎

point adjacent to where there was an apparent opening between the wetland buffer ‎

and the natural features setback along the north edge of the property‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci explained the more possible of the ingress options was to fit the road ‎

between the buffer west of the easterly edge of the buffer and the Gibson drain‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Necci presented a second overlay depicting this option, which shows a significant ‎

interference between the road and the structures associated with the bridge over the ‎

Gibson Drain‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Necci provided a brief description of the Gibson Drain, explaining ‎

it consists of guardrails, concrete culverts, approximately an ‎8-‎foot diameter steel ‎

elliptical culvert pipe under the road, and the Crake Drain is at an intersecting angle, ‎

retaining walls with a ‎48-‎inch pipe coming in, creating an intersection of two drains at ‎

that point‎. ‎Using the overlay depicting the approved ‎"‎accel‎/‎decel‎" ‎lanes he explained ‎

there was a fundamental conflict between the two‎. ‎He explained it would require ‎

massive re‎-‎working of that bridge to accommodate the road at that location‎. ‎He ‎

further noted this would also involve work in both Drain Commission and Road ‎

Commission properties and would involve approvals and issues with both of these ‎

Commissions‎. ‎He explained it was indicated by Mr‎. ‎Steve Dearing's letter that the ‎

bridge was of relatively new construction and the Road Commission would not ‎

consider any improvements to the bridge in the foreseeable future‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Necci noted ‎

there was a fundamental conflict between the two designs with respect to this option‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci then presented another option to the Commissioners‎. ‎He provided ‎

overlays depicting a second option they had considered of putting a road more toward ‎

the easterly end of the wetlands, which in theory would have minimized or at least put ‎

the wetland impact at a more desirable location‎. ‎He explained this option caused an ‎

interference with the Gibson Drain culvert as well‎. ‎He further explained they ‎

considered locations moving westerly and arrived at the current location‎. ‎He ‎

explained the actual impact on the wetlands is about the same in terms of area and fill ‎

area as what it would have been with the second option discussed previously‎. ‎He ‎

provided some details of how they designed the ingress road, noting the unique design ‎

of the culvert, and stated they felt they had come up with an ingenious combination of ‎

a bridge and a turtle crossing‎. ‎He explained the unique requirement of daylight to ‎

reach the earth below the bridge; otherwise, the turtles will take the upland route and ‎

go over the road and theoretically be hit by cars‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci presented another overlay depicting the actual culvert and pointed out ‎

the elliptical culvert under South Boulevard, and the outlet of the Crake Drain going ‎

the west‎. ‎He explained this was quite a deep area, noting the banks are held by ‎

boulder walls and noted it was a massive engineering undertaking to build a road over ‎

something like that‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci's presented his next overlay noting they had considered a span bridge‎. ‎

He explained the span bridge would have consisted of two pre‎-‎cast, reinforced ‎

concrete spans of about ‎60‎ feet each‎. ‎He stated the span was just too great to ‎

actually span it all in one span, which explained the need for an intermediate support‎. ‎

He explained the beams were approximately ‎27‎" ‎deep, leaving only about ‎12‎" ‎

between the bottom of the concrete beam and the existing level of the wetlands‎. ‎He ‎

stated since they can't change the level of the wetlands, they could only change the ‎

beams or the elevation of the road‎. ‎He explained there were engineering constraints ‎

as to the slope and limitations as to how high they can actually build the road up‎. ‎He ‎

explained that after a few seasons of growth, the ‎12‎" ‎space under the bridge would be ‎

obscured completely‎. ‎He also noted this option did not address the turtle crossing ‎

issue‎. ‎There was no light reaching under the bridge at all and would require a separate ‎

turtle crossing‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci presented another overlay depicting the current design‎. ‎He explained it ‎

consists of an inverted concrete box culvert and a steel grating cover‎. ‎He noted it was ‎

approximately ‎6‎ feet wide, explaining the concrete culvert is partially buried below ‎

grade so that they maintain the natural topography of the wetlands underneath the ‎

grating‎. ‎He stated they felt this was a perfect solution for both of their problems‎. ‎He ‎

explained the continuity of the wetlands is maintained just as it would have been with a ‎

bridge, and it also solves the wildlife connectivity of the two wetland areas, with ‎

respect to letting natural light in through the top‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked the applicant what the height was that now would be ‎

allowed between the road surface and the wetlands‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci stated the height between the road surface and the wetlands is about ‎

three and one‎-‎half feet‎. ‎He explained the thickness of the steel grating is about three ‎

inches; whereas in the other option it's about ‎27‎ inches‎. ‎He stated the depth of the ‎

element, whether it is steel grating or concrete pre‎-‎cast member, is in direct proportion ‎

to the length of the span‎. ‎He noted it was a balance between how wide the bridge is, ‎

how much continuity is provided with respect to the width, and the depth of the ‎

structure‎. ‎He noted this option was an excellent balance, indicating it was an ‎

improvement over the two ‎15‎" ‎diameter steel culverts introduced in the last design‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Necci explained they had an environmental specialist with them who was a ‎

specialist with respect to spotted turtle habits and habitat‎. ‎He noted people didn't ‎

understand that the turtle issue was a real issue‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether this method had been utilized before and ‎

whether it was known that the turtles would use this method as opposed to another ‎

method‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎David Misfueg introduced himself and explained this method has been tested ‎

in numerous studies‎. ‎He explained they have used this system in New England quite a ‎

bit for both spotted turtles, as well as other amphibians and reptiles‎. ‎He clarified he ‎

felt it was important to note that at the start of this discussion there was made mention ‎

that spotted turtles were ‎"‎documented‎" ‎at this location‎. ‎He stated that was false‎. ‎He ‎

explained it has been proposed and believed that they potentially would utilize this ‎

area and that is why it became a State issue‎. ‎He explained the Michigan Department ‎

of Natural Features Inventory is informed of areas where potential threatened and ‎

endangered species located in Michigan occur‎. ‎In this case, there is a known ‎

population both to the north and to the south of this wetland and that is why this area ‎

became a red flag for them‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Misfueg explained by utilizing the culvert, the ‎

applicant was addressing the issue of allowing the wildlife, specifically the spotted ‎

turtle, to utilize this wetland in the event the turtle does use this wetland‎. ‎He stated this ‎

design will function well, almost as efficiently as if the road was not there‎. ‎He noted ‎

the bridge would not function as well because the turtles require open light in order to ‎

pass through things‎. ‎He explained certain species of wildlife can pass through dark ‎

tunnels, but it causes an effect of insecurity because they don't know if predators are ‎

on the other side, therefore, many species won't use the tunnels‎. ‎He noted this would ‎

leave the potential open for road accidents‎. ‎

Applicant Galvin explained the important thing from the applicant's perspective is ‎

that the Planning Commission be persuaded that they have really looked at and taken ‎

each option and really tried to solve each problem‎. ‎Specifically, as noted from Steve ‎

Dearing's letter, the location of the entryway is fixed by the constraints of the traffic ‎

engineers and by safety considerations‎. ‎That being a given on this site, the applicant ‎

has examined the environmental issues carefully and has dealt with all the issues which ‎

were presented and came up with a solution which has a precendential value, while ‎

being unique to the State of Michigan‎. ‎He noted he was not personally aware of ‎

anyone else dealing with this combination of issues in this particular way‎. ‎He ‎

explained from the Planning Commission's perspective, he noted they felt they had ‎

established the basis or the predicate for a finding there is not a reasonable, prudent ‎

alternative for the proposal‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin explained they have worked carefully with the City's consultants, ‎

the staff and with the Commission itself‎. ‎He stated their presentation tonight is a plan ‎

which implements the decision that this site be developed as an office site‎. ‎He ‎

explained they have taken the site as it is, they have been sensitive to its constraints, ‎

and they have dealt with its constraints‎. ‎He reminded the Commissioners that Amy ‎

Kay is a wetlands specialist; Herve Henry is an engineer, David Misfueg is an expert ‎

in turtles, and Doug Necci is an architect‎. ‎He noted they were able to answer any ‎

questions the Commissioners may have‎. ‎He respectfully requested the Planning ‎

Commission recommend to the City Council the applicant's wetland permit favorably, ‎

based upon the specific Ordinance required factual findings‎. ‎He also asked for site ‎

plan approval, buffer modification and natural features setback modification as ‎

requested, noting they were prepared to deal with any questions‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked the applicant to address the question of what kind of ‎

plant growth will occur under the grate in the wetland, and if any growth, how it would ‎

be dealt with as the years go by‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Kay responded they didn't anticipate much significant vegetative growth with ‎

regard to wetland vegetation‎. ‎She noted they initially discussed it because it is ‎12‎ ‎

inches, with regard to the sub grade under the span bridge, and inquired whether that ‎

was what they were referring to‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted it was stated with the span bridge that sooner or later ‎

there would be so much wetland buildup through growth or otherwise, that the turtles ‎

wouldn't go through‎. ‎He questioned whether there would be plant growth or any ‎

other kind of buildup with the applicant's proposed alternative that would have to be ‎

dealt with as time goes by‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Kay responded that they were not looking for plant growth under the span ‎

bridge‎. ‎She explained there would not be enough light under that bridge and the ‎

turtles needed light‎. ‎She stated under the proposed alternative, there is enough of the ‎

required light and if they found there were some maintenance problem with regard to ‎

the vegetation coming in, then they would have to address that problem‎. ‎She noted ‎

otherwise with a culvert situation, where vegetation and sediment sometimes do cause ‎

a problem, they will have a maintenance program to address that‎. ‎She further ‎

explained they needed access to get in there and the turtles required light as well‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked for Mr‎. ‎Misfueg's input‎. ‎He noted that light would ‎

generate growth in the area under the grate, probably more as time goes by‎. ‎He ‎

questioned whether that growth would have to be dealt with and how it would be ‎

dealt with‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Misfueg responded the current location where the culvert is going in, ‎

or the wildlife passage, there is a heavy enough canopy‎. ‎He explained one of the ‎

major functions of this wetlands is that there is not a great deal of under‎-‎story ‎

vegetation because not a great deal of sunlight can actually pass through‎. ‎He noted ‎

this was one of the things they anticipated they will maintain throughout‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Mr‎. ‎Misfueg to look at the drawing depicted on the ‎

easel and noted he wasn't sure how much canopy would be left‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Misfueg ‎

explained in the event vegetation does start to come in, that is something that can be ‎

easily corrected by using environmentally‎-‎friendly chemicals such as ‎"‎Rodeo‎". ‎He ‎

noted ‎"‎Rodeo‎" ‎is an environmentally‎-‎friendly wetland herbicide that breaks down in ‎

one to two weeks‎. ‎He explained if the wetland vegetation or any vegetation grew to ‎

the point of inhibiting wildlife passing through, then they might have to consider using ‎

something like that‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser then asked what the applicant would be allowed to do under ‎

the Ordinance to control that problem‎. ‎The applicant responded in the case of the ‎

span bridge, it is basically going to be dark under the bridge with no light and nothing ‎

will grow, there will just be dirt or mud underneath‎. ‎He further explained in a canopy ‎

area, unless there is adequate light, nothing will grow‎. ‎He explained very little light will ‎

come in from the sides, so while there may be some growth a foot or two underneath ‎

from the edges, beyond that, there won't be anything‎. ‎He noted the grating solution ‎

solves that problem‎. ‎It allows whatever would have otherwise grown to grow‎. ‎He ‎

noted he didn't believe things would grow up through the grate because there would ‎

be traffic going over it‎. ‎He explained there would be growth underneath that would be ‎

consistent with a wetland environment‎. ‎He stated they didn't want to do anything with ‎

that growth‎. ‎They would want it to return to nature, just as the growth outside the ‎

grated area would return to nature‎. ‎He indicated there may be a small amount of ‎

shading, noting it was only a three foot high wall, so there will be some shading on the ‎

southerly wall; however, it wouldn't have a detrimental impact on the growth in that ‎

area‎. ‎Especially in comparison to the span bridge, which has no light at all‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser clarified the applicant's answer was they don't expect there ‎

will be an issue with growth under the grate‎. ‎The applicant responded he didn't‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Kay added the grate can be lifted up due to the way it's built and someone could ‎

conceivably go in there and remove a shrub or something else like that if it were to ‎

take hold in a year's time‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen clarified that the grate was removable so that if ‎

it gets bad, it can be cleaned out‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill noted she was curious about how the spotted turtle and other wildlife ‎

would do with salt and road runoff going directly into the wetlands area or whether ‎

there was an intention not to salt that area‎. ‎She also questioned whether water was ‎

being diverted off that towards the parking area, then to be drained into the ‎

appropriate drains, or towards South Boulevard and then into the appropriate drains‎. ‎

She expressed her concern about what would happen in the grated area‎.‎

The applicant responded there might be a small amount of water that may have ‎

clung to the bottom of a vehicle that would drip down through the grating‎. ‎He ‎

explained the grating up to the structure, on either side of the structure, will be ‎

designed so there will be no runoff going into it‎. ‎He noted there would be a very small ‎

amount of salted water entering‎. ‎The applicant stated it would be designed so the ‎

grades on either side of the curb line would be sloped gradually away‎. ‎They wouldn't ‎

allow any water to go into the grate other than what fell directly into it‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill questioned whether, if that section were salted that definitely would go in ‎

versus if the area was not salted‎. ‎Applicant Mangla noted they could use sand and ‎

they can plow, they don't have to use salt in that particular area‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

asked Attorney Staran if that could be part of the Conditions‎. ‎Attorney Staran noted ‎

it could be, but it would be a difficult matter to police‎. ‎He further noted the applicant ‎

would not have any control over what is being put down on South Boulevard‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked if there could be a condition specifying the grated ‎

crossing is to be sloped in a manner to direct runoff away from the wetland, as that ‎

might cover the situation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen questioned the prior reference to Mr‎. ‎Dearing's comments and the ‎

Road Commission‎. ‎He referred to Mr‎. ‎Dearing's letter of October ‎5‎, ‎2000‎ (‎Page ‎2‎, ‎

the last bulleted item‎) ‎which indicates that the Road Commission approved a slight ‎

reduction in the offset dimension to try to minimize impacts of the driveway on the ‎

wetlands‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen explained his question had to do with the previous plan and the ‎

current proposed plan‎. ‎He asked whether Mr‎. ‎Dearing's letter referred to the ‎

previous plan or to the current proposed plan, or whether they were the same‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Henry explained the location of the driveway was the same as what they saw ‎

previously‎. ‎He noted although some of the alternatives presented had a different ‎

location, this one was the same‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen clarified the original proposal included this ‎

consideration and the current plan didn't change that‎. ‎The applicant confirmed that ‎

was true‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser requested the Commissioners to stick with the Wetland Use ‎

Permit issues before moving on to other matters‎. ‎He indicated their decision later ‎

would be determinative on their decision regarding this issue‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen commented that although he did not have the opportunity to ‎

witness the last presentation, he was very impressed with the presentation tonight‎. ‎He ‎

complimented the applicant on their creative solution and the fact they had researched ‎

the other options‎. ‎He asked Dr‎. ‎Jaworski for his comments on the proposed design ‎

from his standpoint‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski explained he had been very much involved with this particular plan, ‎

as well as the changing plans‎. ‎He stated the alternative of a span bridge doesn't ‎

necessary provide more protection for the wetlands‎. ‎He noted he liked the current ‎

plan because it provided for the turtle and minimized the wetland loss‎. ‎He explained ‎

the wetland loss was down to less than a ‎10‎th of an acre‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski stated that ‎

had to be considered very strongly because if there was an alternative, it should be ‎

considered‎. ‎He agreed the applicant had gone through the alternatives, looking at the ‎

roadway next to the Gibson Drain, and then across from the driveway that is already ‎

there, and then the current proposal, as well as the one on the west‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski ‎

stated he found the current proposal to be very acceptable with regard to the ‎

Wetlands Ordinance‎. ‎He further noted he liked the crossing‎. ‎He noted the fact the ‎

bridge is elevated at the center where the grating is so the drainage goes in both ways ‎

away from the grating, so they wouldn't have much impact‎. ‎He stated the salt issue is ‎

important; however, most of the time during that issue, the turtle will be hibernating so ‎

there won't be that much of an impact on the turtle‎. ‎He explained they were also ‎

bringing water in from the roof into this wetland so they could dilute some of that‎. ‎He ‎

explained that was important to him to make sure the wetland stays wet‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski ‎

concluded in general it was a much improved plan and it was acceptable with regard ‎

to the Wetlands Ordinance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted Dr‎. ‎Jaworski had indicated there was a reduction in the amount ‎

of wetland fill between this plan and the previous and questioned whether that was ‎

correct‎. ‎The applicant noted there was a slight reduction just by the fact they now had ‎

the six foot wide span so they didn't impact as much wetlands and that also reduced ‎

the volume of fill‎. ‎He explained it was not a very large number‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen clarified it ‎

was marginally less‎. ‎The applicant stated it was about ‎300‎ square feet less‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rosen asked whether there was any reduction in the setback or the natural features ‎

setback or if it was about the same‎. ‎The applicant replied it was about the same ‎

because their approach from both ends was identical‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted because there was no clear cutting, or selective thinning, there ‎

was much less disturbance to the wetlands during the process‎. ‎The applicant agreed ‎

with Mr‎. ‎Rosen's observation‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse referred to Page ‎4‎ of the Staff Report dated October ‎19‎, ‎2000‎ ‎

and stated that both Dr‎. ‎Jaworski and the applicant had agreed on the amount of the ‎

wetland loss as well as the wetland fill‎. ‎She noted it was ‎4,150‎ square feet of wetland ‎

loss that was equal to ‎0.0953‎ acres and the fill is ‎460‎ cubic yards of fill‎. ‎Therefore, ‎

under Finding ‎#1‎, this drops the total percent from ‎5.9‎ to ‎5.8‎ disturbance of the ‎

horizontal area of the wetlands‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked what the date was of the new plans reflecting the new ‎

configuration‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse replied they were dated received September ‎28‎, ‎2000‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser questioned whether there should be change to Finding ‎#5‎ ‎

reflecting some specificity that the decision to use a ‎6‎' x ‎4‎' box culvert ‎and metal ‎

grate road surface‎ in place of two ‎15‎" ‎culverts might be useful to clarify the matter‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse brought up for the Planning Commission's consideration under the ‎

Findings just to clarify the issue, noting the Staff would like to suggest Condition ‎#2‎ be ‎

reworded simply to say ‎"‎addition of a Note to Sheet SP‎-3‎ (‎indicating that an ‎

erosion control plan including sediment trapping during the construction period‎) ‎

will be reviewed by the City's Wetlands Consultant as part of the construction ‎

review phase of this development‎"‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Ms‎. ‎Millhouse to restate her addition‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse ‎

explained it was saying the same thing, it was just clarification, with Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's ‎

permission, of what his request meant‎. ‎She reiterated the wording he has suggested to ‎

her is as follows‎: ‎"‎Addition of a note to Sheet SP‎-3‎ (‎indicating that an erosion ‎

control plan including sediment trapping during the construction period‎) ‎will be ‎

reviewed by the City's Wetlands Consultant as part of the construction review ‎

phase of this development‎"‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether it should state ‎"‎reviewed and approved‎" ‎by the ‎

City's Wetlands Consultant‎. ‎He noted reviewing was one thing, if it is not a condition ‎

to approve it as well, there isn't much meat‎. ‎He noted Attorney Staran concurred with ‎

him‎. ‎The applicant noted they agreed as they had negotiated this same issue out this ‎

morning‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse further clarified that Condition ‎#3‎ should have words added to the ‎

end of the existing sentence ‎"‎as reviewed by the City's Wetlands Consultant‎"‎. ‎She ‎

clarified ‎#3‎ is to read‎: ‎"‎Addition of clean‎-‎out sumps to the manholes of the ‎

underground detention system at selected places where sediment trapping could ‎

occur, as reviewed by the City's Wetlands Consultant‎"‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaiser suggested the addition of a ‎4‎th Condition noting that the Wetland ‎

Permit could be approved with or without Site Plan Approval‎. ‎He suggested it be ‎

stated that the grated crossing is to be sloped in a manner to direct runoff from the ‎

wetlands‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill noted there was a slight reduction regarding the fill and questioned ‎

whether this affected the mitigation ratio and whether it had changed‎. ‎She stated there ‎

was some concern or indication by Dr‎. ‎Jaworski in his letter under Item ‎#5‎ about how ‎

the MDEQ usually liked to see a ‎1-1/2‎ or ‎2‎ to ‎1‎ ratio versus a ‎1‎ to ‎1‎ ratio‎. ‎She ‎

noted the applicant had proposed a ‎1‎ to ‎1‎ ratio and questioned whether that had ‎

increased or whether there was another area they might be able to add mitigation to‎. ‎

The applicant responded that it affected it but only marginally‎. ‎He explained it ‎

was still basically a ‎1‎ to ‎1‎ ratio‎. ‎He noted they had had discussions this morning with ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski‎. ‎He further explained in situations like this, the MDEQ requires a ‎1‎ to ‎1‎ ‎

ratio and noted their permit is issued with a ‎1‎ to ‎1‎ ratio‎. ‎Based upon the particular site ‎

constraints, he explained in this particular instance, Dr‎. ‎Jaworski no longer believes ‎

anything greater would be appropriate‎. ‎The applicant noted it has been thoroughly ‎

explored‎. ‎The applicant reiterated they had dealt with every specific issue that was ‎

raised‎. ‎He stated this is what the MDEQ uses in these situations and requested the ‎

Planning Commission go forward based on the ‎1‎ to ‎1‎ ratio‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen suggested that Finding ‎#7‎ could be strengthened somewhat‎. ‎He ‎

suggested they reword it as follows‎: "‎The feasibility of alternatives relative to location ‎

and design of the proposed driveway have been adequately considered and this ‎

appears to be the most reasonable and prudent design that meets the Ordinance ‎

requirements as to compatibility, minimum impact and benefits to the community‎". ‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested adding the words ‎"‎The feasibility of alternatives ‎

relative to location and design of the proposed driveway have been adequately ‎

considered and this is the most reasonably prudent design to serve community needs ‎

and Ordinance requirements‎". ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted that was fine‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse brought up for a point of clarification that the correct amount of the ‎

wetland loss is ‎4,150‎ square feet or ‎0.0953‎ acres, and that the amount of fill is ‎460‎ ‎

cubic yards‎. ‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Wetland Use Permit Recommendation‎

MOTION‎ by Corneliussen, seconded by Hooper, in the matter of File No‎. ‎99‎-‎032 ‎

(‎Boulevard Office Park‎) ‎to ‎RECOMMEND APPROVAL of a Wetland Use ‎

Permit‎ to fill ‎4‎,‎150 ‎square feet or ‎0‎.‎0953 ‎acres of wetland with ‎460 ‎cubic yards of ‎

fill, based on plans dated received September ‎28‎, ‎2000 ‎by the Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Department, and incorporating the preprinted Findings in the staff report ‎

dated October ‎19‎, ‎2000‎, as modified, and the preprinted Conditions in the staff ‎

report dated October ‎19‎, ‎2000‎, as modified and with the addition of Condition #‎4‎.‎

FINDINGS‎

1‎.‎ Of ‎1.65‎ acres of regulated wetlands on‎-‎site, the applicant is proposing to fill and ‎

cross ‎0.0953‎ acres of wetlands ‎(‎about ‎5.8‎ percent of the horizontal area of ‎

the wetlands‎). ‎

2‎.‎ The applicant is proposing to mitigate the loss of wetlands with a ‎0.0976‎ acres ‎

wetland replacement ‎(‎mitigation‎) ‎area‎.‎

3‎.‎ The wetland loss is associated with an unavoidable crossing due to lack of a ‎

feasible and p‎

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

Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting‎. ‎The motion carried by the ‎

following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Hooper, Rosen, Ruggiero, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas and Hill

8 -

2000-0314

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

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

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

Construction, applicant‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested Condition #‎2 ‎be changed to read‎: ‎"‎The ‎

applicant is required to install the pedestrian bike path across the entire front ‎

property along South Boulevard, but is not to construct that portion east of the ‎

drive until such time as it may be connected to a continuous bike path to the ‎

east and to make a note on the site plan consistent with this Condition‎"‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted the applicant agreed with this statement‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse brought up Condition ‎#4‎, stating it should read ‎"‎Submission of ‎

revised building elevations indicating the proposed canopy material and color‎"‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse then noted Condition ‎#7‎ should be clarified to add a point in time ‎

reference to this condition so it will read‎: ‎"‎Granting of a Wetlands Use Permit and ‎

Floodplain Use Permit by City Council prior to issuance of a Land Improvement ‎

Permit‎"‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ramanauskas noted he had a question regarding the light poles‎. ‎He noted, ‎

including the base, the light poles would be around ‎26‎'‎6‎"‎, and he wondered if the ‎

applicant would consider lowering the poles‎. ‎The applicant asked Mr‎. ‎Ramanauskas ‎

to clarify his request‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Ramanauskas stated the current plan reflects light poles at a ‎

height of ‎26‎'‎6‎" ‎and noted they were trying to keep the light sources lower in the ‎

parking areas in keeping with the character of the City‎. ‎He suggested the poles be ‎

lowered to ‎25‎' if the Commissioners agreed to that height‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

suggested ‎20‎' would be acceptable‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked whether there was a photometric plan available for the project‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ramanauskas explained he hadn't seen a photometric, but he had done a count ‎

from the plan drawings‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted the applicant had agreed to Mr‎. ‎

Ramanauskas' suggestion and he appreciated their concurrence‎. ‎He explained they ‎

had been getting a lot of cooperation on this issue, noting they had determined they ‎

didn't need as much light as was previously believed‎. ‎The Commissioners conferred ‎

on whether the applicant had agreed on ‎20‎ feet‎. ‎Applicant Galvin responded they ‎

agreed‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted a Condition ‎#8‎ should be added stating that the site ‎

plan be modified or amended to show light poles at ‎20‎ feet‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen commented this site will end up being a very desirable property ‎

because of its protection from the outside‎. ‎He noted even though it was right next to ‎

the freeway, it will end up being one of those secluded sites, which will be very ‎

pleasing to anyone working there or doing business there‎. ‎He inquired, because it is ‎

hidden, where the signage would be placed‎. ‎He asked the applicant if there was going ‎

to be signage at the road and where is would be located‎. ‎

Applicant Henry noted the site plan reflected their proposed sign, noting it was ‎

obscured and hard to see‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Henry pointed out the location on the drawings to the ‎

Commissioners‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen stated he was assuming it would be a monument sign, low ‎

to the ground, and felt it was important as to how it would look‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

noted it reflected a ground sign on SP‎-2‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse brought up a point of clarification, noting one of the proposed ‎

conditions for the Buffer Modification was to delete the sign area and associated ‎

landscaping from the Preservation Easement along the front so there would not be a ‎

sign that could not be maintained‎. ‎Applicant Galvin noted they hoped the City would ‎

work with them so the sign remains the same‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill questioned where the sidewalk crosses over the entry drive on the east ‎

side of the drive, even though that is not going to connect into the bike path, whether ‎

the sidewalk actually will have the correct ramping to the entrance drive and as it ‎

comes out in front of the building, and whether it will also have the appropriate ‎

ramping so it is accessible‎. ‎Applicant Henry explained the sidewalks were shown on ‎

the site plan, although they were not all labeled‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen commented he hadn't seen any trash compactors or anything outside‎. ‎

Applicant Henry stated there was a dumpster, but no compactor‎. ‎The applicant ‎

pointed out the location of the dumpster in the corner on the display drawing for the ‎

Commissioners' benefit, noting it was obscured by the trees‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen questioned ‎

whether this site required a trash compactor‎. ‎Applicant Henry noted it was an office ‎

building so it did not warrant a trash compactor‎. ‎He explained trash compactors were ‎

usually used in warehousing areas or retail areas‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted there was no ‎

residential adjacent to the property since M‎-59‎ ran along the north and the drain ran ‎

alongside the east‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser agreed it did not appear to be an issue‎. ‎

Item ‎4‎. ‎Site Plan Approval‎. ‎

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

(‎Boulevard Office Park‎)‎, to ‎GRANT Site Plan Approval‎, based on plans dated ‎

received September ‎28‎, ‎2000 ‎by the Rochester Hills Planning Department and ‎

incorporating the five preprinted Findings in the staff report dated October ‎19‎, ‎2000‎, ‎

as well as incorporating the six preprinted Conditions in the staff report dated October ‎

19‎, ‎2000‎, as modified and with the addition of a Condition‎. ‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The site plan and supporting documents demonstrate that all applicable ‎

requirements of Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎ can be met, subject to the conditions ‎

noted below‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed project is providing safe ingress to and egress from South ‎

Boulevard by use of a single access‎. ‎Further, a sidewalk connector onto the ‎

site from the pathway along South Boulevard is being provided for pedestrian ‎

safety‎. ‎

3‎.‎ Proposed off‎-‎street parking areas appear to be designed to avoid common traffic ‎

problems and promote safety‎. ‎

4‎.‎ Because of the required buffering and preservation of existing vegetation, the ‎

proposed project appears to have a satisfactory and harmonious relationship ‎

with existing development in the area‎. ‎Further, the development will have a ‎

positive financial impact on the community by providing additional tax base to ‎

the City‎.‎

5‎.‎ The proposed development should not have an unreasonably detrimental nor an ‎

injurious effect upon the natural characteristics and features of the parcel being ‎

developed‎. ‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Deletion of reference to phasing of construction on Sheet SP‎-2‎, as well as ‎

correction of the total square footage on the building footprint to read ‎36,600‎ ‎

square feet‎.‎

2‎.‎ The applicant is required to install the pedestrian bike path across the entire front ‎

property along South Boulevard but is not to construct that portion east of the ‎

drive until such time as it may be connected to a continuous bike path to the ‎

east and to make a note on the site plan consistent with this Condition‎. ‎

3‎.‎ Submission of revised building elevations indicating the proposed canopy material ‎

and color‎.‎

4‎.‎ Correction of the Environmental Impact Statement dated June ‎2‎, ‎2000‎ to delete ‎

reference to possible vacation of the preservation easements by the owner‎. ‎

5‎.‎ Provision by the applicant of a performance and maintenance guarantee in the ‎

amount of ‎$25,019.00‎, as adjusted by the City as needed, to ensure proper ‎

planting and maintenance of plant materials‎. ‎Such guarantees to be provided ‎

to the City prior to the issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

6‎.‎ Granting of a Wetlands Use Permit and Floodplain Use Permit by City Council ‎

prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.. ‎

7‎.‎ The site plan is to be amended to show all light poles will be no higher than ‎20‎ feet‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Hooper‎ ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Chairperson Kaiser complimented the applicant on their excellent project‎. ‎

The applicant thanked the Commissioners and the Staff for their assistance‎. ‎

(‎RECESS‎: ‎8‎:‎53 ‎PM to ‎9‎:‎00 ‎PM‎)‎

This matter was Granted. The motion carried.

2000-0317

Buffer Modification ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎99‎-‎032 ‎- ‎Boulevard Office Park‎

Chairperson Kaiser then directed the discussion to the Buffer Modification item, ‎

suggesting they take a ‎"‎straw‎" ‎view of the different segments where something is being ‎

requested‎. ‎He noted then when the motion was made they could package them all ‎

together‎. ‎He pointed the segments were outlined at the bottom of Page ‎5‎ and the top ‎

of Page ‎6‎ of the October ‎19‎, ‎2000‎ Staff Report‎. ‎He explained they were basically ‎

permissions to use existing vegetation to satisfy the IVO‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse noted in one ‎

case the existing vegetation was also being used to meet the ‎6-‎foot opaque screen ‎

requirement‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse also explained that along the northerly property line, the ‎

applicant is requesting to use existing material supplemented if necessary to meet the ‎

IVO‎. ‎She explained that would be confirmed by the City's Landscape Consultant‎. ‎

She stated the Landscape Consultant had suggested one of the requirements be that ‎

he perform a field determination to determine what, if any, supplemental plantings ‎

would be necessary at the time‎. ‎She pointed out the supplemental plantings had ‎

already been included in the performance and maintenance bond, noting it was not a ‎

matter of having to come up with the money to guarantee the supplemental planting, if ‎

any‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked the Commissioners if they had any problems with ‎

this request‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen commented that he lived just across the highway from the ‎

site and he was familiar with the site and it was pretty‎-‎well screened and he had no ‎

problems with the request‎. ‎

[‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper departed the meeting at ‎8‎:‎15 ‎PM‎]‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen suggested the first Finding should read‎: ‎"‎It appears that the ‎

development ‎will‎ be compatible‎…‎"‎, noting that was the determination they were ‎

making‎. ‎Not that it ‎should‎ be, but that it ‎will‎ be given the layout they are looking at ‎

tonight, as well as given the fact the applicant is not doing as much selective cutting‎. ‎

He noted it very definitely will be much more compatible than the prior plan‎. ‎

Item ‎3‎. ‎Buffer Modification‎.‎

MOTION‎ made by Corneliussen, seconded by Ruggerio, in the matter of File NO‎. ‎

99‎-‎032 ‎(‎Boulevard Office Park‎)‎, to ‎GRANT the Buffer Modification ‎ for ‎

Segments #‎1‎, #‎2‎, #‎3 ‎and #‎4‎, as described below, based on the plans dated received ‎

September ‎28‎, ‎2000 ‎by the Rochester Hills Planning Department and incorporating ‎

the three preprinted Findings in the staff report dated October ‎19‎, ‎2000‎, as modified, ‎

as well as incorporating the four preprinted Conditions in the staff report dated ‎

October ‎19‎, ‎2000‎. ‎

Segment ‎#1‎:‎ Permission to use existing vegetation in conjunction with proposed ‎

plantings along South Boulevard to meet the required IVO height ‎

requirement‎. ‎

Segment ‎#2‎:‎ Permission to use existing vegetation along the southern portion of the ‎

west property line abutting Michelson Drive to meet the required IVO ‎

height requirement‎.‎

Segment ‎#3‎:‎ Permission to use existing plant materials along the northern portion of ‎

the west property line where adjacent to residential zoning to meet the ‎

required six feet opaque screen and IVO height requirements‎. ‎

Segment ‎#4‎:‎ Permission to use existing plant material, supplemented by proposed ‎

plantings as needed, to meet the required IVO height requirement‎. ‎

FINDINGS‎: ‎

1‎.‎ It appears that the development will be compatible with and sensitive to the ‎

immediate environment of the site and neighborhood relative to architectural ‎

design, scale, bulk, building height, disposition and orientation of buildings on ‎

the lot and visual integrity‎. ‎

2‎.‎ The site has natural existing vegetation, flood plain, and wetland areas which offer ‎

screening consistent with the standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, and ‎

as much of these natural features will be retained as feasible‎. ‎

3‎.‎ The arrangement, design, and orientation of buildings on this site lends itself so as ‎

to maximize the opportunity for privacy and isolation from negative impacts of ‎

this project‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Extension of the ‎40‎ feet Preservation Easement along South Boulevard east of the ‎

proposed driveway to the eastern boundary of the Natural Features Setback‎.‎

2‎.‎ Review and approval by the City prior to recording of Preservation Easements ‎

over Segment ‎#1‎, Segment ‎#2‎, and Segment ‎#3‎ prior to issuance of a Land ‎

Improvement Permit‎. ‎Location of proposed sign and associated landscaping ‎

to be deleted from the Preservation Easement west of the driveway along ‎

South Boulevard‎. ‎

3‎.‎ Addition of a note to Sheet SP‎-4‎ indicating that the Landscape Consultant will ‎

make a field determination prior to installation of plant material in order to ‎

determine if adequate plant materials are preserved to meet the IVO ‎

requirement and that, if existing materials are not adequate, the applicant will ‎

provide as much plant materials as are necessary to fulfill the IVO ‎

requirement‎.‎

4‎.‎ Addition of a note to Sheet SP‎-2‎ indicating that, in order to preserve those areas ‎

where existing vegetation is being used for screening requirements, the ‎

following items will be addressed on Final Engineering plans and approved by ‎

the City's Landscaping Consultant‎:‎

a‎.‎ Location of protective fencing to take into consideration the proposed ‎

wetland mitigation area‎.‎

b‎.‎ Location of protective fencing to take into account proposed utilities‎.‎

c‎.‎ Provision of fencing around the wetland area being saved east of the ‎

proposed driveway‎. ‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Hooper‎ ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

This matter was Granted. The motion carried.

2000-0373

Natural Features Setback Modification ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎99‎-‎032 ‎- ‎Boulevard Office Park‎

Chairperson Kaiser then directed the discussion to the Natural Features Setback ‎

Modification and the Buffer Modification items‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse pointed out for the Commissioners' information, the Staff suggested ‎

a ‎6‎th Finding as follows‎: ‎Temporary Natural Features Setback disturbance for ‎

installation and maintenance of the storm outlet to Crake Drain‎. ‎She further ‎

pointed out the only suggested modification to the Conditions would be to change the ‎

wording of sentence one of Condition ‎#1‎ as follows‎: ‎Revision of the proposed ‎

Wetland Conservation Easement to include as much of the natural features ‎

setback as ‎necessary‎. ‎She reiterated this was a clarification from Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's ‎

review letter‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether ‎"‎review and approval by the City‎" ‎would ‎

include the City Attorney as well as other staff‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse stated that was ‎

correct‎. ‎It was not only the City Attorney, but also Engineering Services‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser requested clarification of Mr‎. ‎Galvin's statement that there ‎

was already a note regarding the fact there will be no clearing within the remainder‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse explained there was a note dealing with the wetlands, but Staff was ‎

unable to locate anything relative to the Natural Features Setback‎. ‎Applicant Henry ‎

explained the note that was there previously had been eliminated‎. ‎He further ‎

explained the new area was shown on the drawing in the area of the wetland and ‎

buffer with a notation of ‎"‎existing wetland to remain‎". ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse stated she felt it ‎

was important a note be added putting that in black and white‎. ‎The applicant agreed ‎

they would do so‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser clarified whether they were deleting the Natural Features ‎

Setback located within the proposed bike path along South Boulevard‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Millhouse noted that was on the east side of the driveway‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser asked ‎

whether that was being deleted from the plan‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse explained one of the ‎

plans reflected the Natural Features Setback on top of the bike path‎. ‎She noted it ‎

was a minor technical clarification‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser verified they were not saying ‎

they were deleting anything, it was just drawn improperly on one of the plans‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Millhouse stated that was correct, noting the Natural Features Setback is ‎

superimposed over the bike path east of the driveway‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser suggested ‎

the wording ‎"‎correct delineation of the Natural Features Setback adjacent to the bike ‎

path‎" ‎be used‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse agreed that was fine‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen also questioned the same item, asking whether it meant they were ‎

putting the bike path in the Natural Features Setback‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse pointed out ‎

Finding ‎#3‎ of the Natural Features Setback modification states there is ‎158‎ linear feet ‎

of proposed natural features setback loss associated with the construction of the ‎

required pathway‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill wondered why they were even putting the pathway there when it can't go ‎

across the Crake Drain‎. ‎She noted it stops prior to that and questioned why they ‎

were attempting to go through that area‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse stated the requirement is to ‎

install the bike path if at all possible‎. ‎She noted the applicant is proposing to install the ‎

bike path up to the point where it interferes with the existing drain structure‎. ‎She ‎

explained one of the Conditions indicates Staff would like a note added indicating the ‎

construction will be done at the time of construction of the project and that the ‎

applicant will work with Engineering Services relative to the remainder of the bike path ‎

or deposit the necessary funds with the City for the City to construct the bike path at ‎

some point in the future‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill noted she had a problem with this situation‎. ‎She explained she had ‎

brought this up with the City eight months or more ago with another situation that ‎

happened the same way‎. ‎She stated the bike path ended basically into a creek‎. ‎She ‎

stated the City looked rather foolish putting in parts of the bike path in this manner‎. ‎

She noted if the biker can no longer use the path, the biker then uses the roadway‎. ‎

She stated this was upsetting that they don't make the path curve towards the road or ‎

don't put it in those areas where a road comes out and a path goes nowhere and then ‎

they put up a sign that says ‎"‎Path Ends‎". ‎She explained it was almost a liability issue in ‎

the other situation because if you went past the end of the path, you would fall into a ‎

very deep ravine of rocks that went into a catch basin‎. ‎She noted the current project ‎

was very similar with the drain‎. ‎She felt it was a contradiction of the Ordinance by ‎

saying they needed to grant a buffer modification so that they can put a bike path into ‎

nowhere‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether Ms‎. ‎Hill would like to see the path stopped‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill stated she just wouldn't put a path on that side‎. ‎Chairperson clarified ‎"‎past ‎

the driveway?‎" ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill agreed absolutely‎. ‎She stated it made more sense for a ‎

person on a bicycle to come off the pathway and then connect up by going in the ‎

entrance and catching back up to the pathway‎. ‎She noted even walkers would have ‎

to do the same thing, i‎.‎e‎.‎, when they get to the end of the path, they have to walk ‎

across the grass, etc‎.‎, to get back to the road‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked what was immediately to the east of the subject ‎

property‎. ‎The applicant responded it was Henderson Glass, noting they had a similar ‎

situation in that their bike path stops short of the creek, or a few hundred feet away‎. ‎

He pointed out on the display towards the east they also have an outlet pipe and a ‎

drain and their path stops short as well‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated he agreed with Ms‎. ‎Hill‎. ‎He noted they were already ‎

conceding they were stopping the path, so there won't be any continuity‎. ‎He noted if ‎

they insisted on its installation, they were also flying in the face of another Ordinance ‎

for the Natural Features Setback‎. ‎He noted if one had to give way, they should use ‎

the most common sense‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell asked whether they hadn't in the past put money in escrow in case ‎

there was ever a bridge over the area‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser confirmed he could ‎

remember doing that twice‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Boswell noted he was not necessarily advocating that ‎

because he didn't think there would ever be a bridge there‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

brought up the fact that in another case they required it to be on the site plan, but with ‎

a note that it was not to be constructed until such time as it could be connected to the ‎

next closest path‎. ‎He felt this made more sense because escrow money could be held ‎

for twenty years or more‎. ‎He noted if the applicant had no objections, there should ‎

be a note that says the applicant is responsible to construct the bike path across the ‎

front of their property, but not to construct any path east of the driveway until such ‎

time as there is a way to connect it to a continuous path to the east‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse suggested as a formality, assuming that the Planning Commission ‎

wanted to consider this option, Condition ‎#2‎ under Site Plan dealt with this issue‎. ‎She ‎

explained relative to the Natural Features Setback modification, Staff would suggest ‎

the Planning Commission consider simply eliminating ‎#3‎ of the Findings ‎(‎i‎.‎e‎.‎, not ‎

grating the natural features setback loss for the required bike path‎)‎, and then handle ‎

the specifics of the construction of the bike path as a condition of Site Plan Approval‎. ‎

After some discussion among the Commissioners, Chairperson Kaiser asked ‎

whether this would present any problems with a Certificate of Occupancy being ‎

issued‎. ‎Attorney Staran stated he didn't believe it would, noting they are addressing ‎

the requirements, and all they were affecting was the timing‎. ‎He didn't believe it would ‎

affect the Certificate of Occupancy‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted they didn't have a ‎

complaint the other time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen suggested to the Commissioners they remember the issue of treating ‎

applicants differently than they treat themselves as a City‎. ‎Thereby, with the Natural ‎

Features Setback, he suggested perhaps they consider moving the bike path to abide ‎

by their own Ordinance‎. ‎He noted although now wasn't the time, it should be ‎

addressed at some point‎. ‎He explained they had ‎"‎jogged‎" ‎bike paths in a lot of other ‎

situations‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted he suspected the issue was its proximity to the ‎

driving surface of the roadway‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted it was more than that, it was also ‎

the sewer, etc‎. ‎He stated they would have to deal with that issue at some point‎. ‎He ‎

explained they shouldn't treat development differently in that respect unless there is a ‎

good safety reason‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse noted Mr‎. ‎Rosen's point was a good point and suggested they ‎

leave Finding ‎#3‎ in but clarify it‎. ‎She explained the Chair's recommendation was for a ‎

condition of site plan approval that the bike path only be constructed to a certain ‎

point, with a note being added that the remainder of the bike path would be ‎

constructed when it could connect to something‎. ‎She stated if that was the case, ‎

unless the site plan is modified to lower the bike path outside the natural features ‎

setback modification, that modification would still be necessary whether it is five years ‎

from now or fifty years from now‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether it should be modified‎. ‎He stated he thought ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse's first suggestion to eliminate Finding ‎#3‎ was better because to modify ‎

it now means it is modified forever‎. ‎He stated he would rather see that, noting that ‎

quite frankly the chances of the bike path ever being tied up may be slim‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Millhouse advised Chairperson Kaiser that was fine, noting she had wanted to point it ‎

out so they didn't end up getting in to a ‎"‎catch ‎22‎" ‎situation‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

noted if the applicant finds they have to construct the bike path east of their drive, they ‎

could come in for a natural features setback modification for that ‎158‎ feet at that time‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted for the benefit of the Commissioners, with respect to ‎

the natural features setback modification, they were deleting Finding ‎#3‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper pointed out the issue of whether there would be any enforcement ‎

thirty, forty or fifty years down the road or whether anyone would remember the ‎

applicant owes the City a bike path on the east side‎. ‎He noted in the past they have ‎

required the applicants to contribute to the bike path fund, with the actual dollar ‎

amount being determined by City Staff‎. ‎He explained it was then up to the City to ‎

construct the path‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted they had done both‎. ‎He explained he believed the ‎

reason different alternatives were chosen was based on a rather common sense ‎

analysis of when the path would be constructed‎. ‎He noted it wasn't fair to the ‎

applicant or realistic to make them deposit a lot of money with the City that the City ‎

would earn interest on for however many decades‎. ‎He noted when they have ‎

required the deposit, it has been when they knew the adjacent site was going to be ‎

developed within a short period of time‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper questioned who would ‎

remember this and how it would be tracked‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated he believed the City Engineers will track it, explaining ‎

when they put in the bike path over the bridge that goes over the drain, they will notice ‎

there is nothing on the adjacent property which will cause them to go back and look at ‎

the site plan and they will see the note the applicant is putting on the plan‎. ‎He further ‎

explained if they included that requirement in the motion made tonight, it will be on the ‎

plan‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted he had been on the bike path committee and he knew ‎

the City Engineer paid a lot of attention to those items‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse brought up one additional item for clarification‎. ‎She noted that ‎

deducting the ‎158‎ linear feet for the bike path would reduce the amount of the natural ‎

features setback loss to approximately ‎261‎ linear feet‎. ‎

Item ‎2‎. ‎Natural Features Setback Modification‎.‎

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

(‎Boulevard Office Park‎)‎, to ‎GRANT the Natural Features Setback Modification‎ ‎

for the loss of approximately ‎261 ‎linear feet of the natural features setback, based on ‎

plans dated received September ‎28‎, ‎2000 ‎by the City of Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Department, and incorporating four of the preprinted Findings in the staff report dated ‎

October ‎19‎, ‎2000‎, deleting preprinted Finding #‎3‎, and adding a new Finding #‎5‎, as ‎

well as incorporating the preprinted Conditions in the staff report dated October ‎19‎, ‎

2000‎, as modified and with the deletion of Condition #‎3‎. ‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1.‎ 126‎ linear feet of the proposed natural features setback loss is associated with an ‎

unavoidable road crossing‎.‎

2.‎ 135‎ linear feet of the proposed natural features setback loss is associated with ‎

construction of the wetland replacement ‎(‎mitigation‎) ‎area‎.‎

3‎.‎ Approximately ‎300‎ linear feet of the natural features setback will be temporarily ‎

disturbed at the Gibson Drain when the compensatory excavation for the ‎100‎

-‎year floodplain is constructed but will be fully replaced at the western ‎

boundary of the compensatory area‎.‎

4‎.‎ There will be a temporary natural features setback disturbance adjacent to the ‎

parking area but will be fully restored after completion of construction‎. ‎Such ‎

disturbance is limited to approximately five feet beyond the edge of curb via a ‎

boulder retaining wall and special thickened edge curb detail‎.‎

5‎.‎ Temporary Natural Features Setback disturbance for installation and maintenance ‎

of the storm outlet to Crake Drain‎. ‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Revision of the proposed Wetland Conservation Easement to include as much of ‎

the natural features setback as necessary‎. ‎Such easement to be reviewed and ‎

approved by the City prior to recording and prior to issuance of the Land ‎

Improvement Permit‎. ‎

2‎.‎ Addition of a note to SP‎-3‎ indicating that there will be no clearing within the ‎

remainder of the natural features setback‎. ‎

Roll Call Vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Hill, Potere, Ruggiero, Ramanauskas, Rosen, Hooper, Corneliussen, ‎

Kaiser‎.‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ None‎ ‎MOTION CARRIED‎ ‎

‎

A motion was made by Rosen that this matter be Granted‎. ‎The motion carried by ‎

the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Hooper, Rosen, Ruggiero, Kaiser, Potere, Ramanauskas and Hill

8 -

2000-0374

Final Preliminary Plat Recommendation ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎90‎-‎253‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Butler Ridge ‎

Subdivision, a ‎157‎-‎lot subdivision on ‎117 ‎acres located south of Butler Road, west of ‎

Adams Road, zoned R‎-‎2‎, One Family Residential, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎19‎-‎300‎-‎004‎, ‎

Roscommon Company, applicant‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser explained the procedures to the audience, and asked that ‎

anyone who would like to speak on an Agenda item fill out a speaker card located at ‎

the front of the auditorium and turn them in to the recording secretary before the ‎

Agenda item has begun‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted that tonight's hearing on the Final ‎

Preliminary Plat Issue is a recommendation to City Council‎. ‎He explained the ‎

Planning Commission will not make the final determination on whether or not there is a ‎

Final Preliminary Plan Approval‎. ‎The Planning Commission will make the ‎

recommendation to City Council and City Council will make the final decision‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted they also have a Tree Removal Permit and Natural ‎

Features Setback Modification on the Agenda for this item‎. ‎He explained the order of ‎

procedure would be for the applicant's representatives to introduce themselves, then ‎

Planning Staff would present their report, then the applicant will make their ‎

presentation, and then audience speakers will come forward‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

asked the applicant to make notes of the speakers' questions and concerns, and they ‎

would address the speakers concerns after all speakers are finished‎. ‎Chairperson ‎

Kaiser then asked the applicant's representative to introduce themselves‎. ‎

Stanley Frankel, representing the developer; Don Westphal, the landscape ‎

architect for the developer; Lloyd Dubisky, landscape architect for the developer, and ‎

Tom Zeimet, Engineer for the project, came forward and introduced themselves‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether there were any other persons present on behalf of ‎

the applicant‎. ‎The applicant responded no‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek summarized the Staff Report, commenting that this project started ‎

back in ‎1998‎ and City Council had granted an extension to all approvals in April of ‎

2000‎; therefore, the project is still active and there have been no expirations‎. ‎He ‎

explained the Natural Features Setback Modification request is to accommodate the ‎

temporary disruption to the wetland areas for the installation of utilities‎. ‎He pointed ‎

out when this matter went before the City Council, it was determined that no Wetland ‎

Use Permit was required; however, he explained the City Staff had not found anything ‎

in the Code that would exempt the applicant from a buffer modification, noting that ‎

was why it was being requested tonight‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser turned the floor over to the applicant for their presentation‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel briefly explained the Planning Commission approved Temporary ‎

Preliminary in December, ‎1998‎ and City Council approved it in February of ‎1999‎. ‎

He noted there were five conditions that were sent with the Planning Commission's ‎

approval in ‎1998‎ that were included with the ‎1999‎ approval‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel indicated ‎

he would like to briefly review the five conditions with the Commissioners‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel explained the first condition was that the improvement to Butler Road ‎

be done in conjunction with the development of the subdivision‎. ‎He noted they were ‎

aware of this and they have proceeded accordingly‎. ‎He explained the second ‎

condition was the approval of a Tree Removal Permit, which was being addressed ‎

tonight‎. ‎Thirdly, he explained there was an issue with the sedimentation basins‎. ‎He ‎

noted there had been long discussions with both the Planning Commission and with ‎

City Council about the location of the basins‎. ‎He explained they made some ‎

suggestions after approval by City Council which were forwarded to the City Staff ‎

and to the City's consultants‎. ‎He further explained there were three options that were ‎

discussed‎. ‎He noted the applicant asked the City Staff and the consultants to make a ‎

recommendation which the applicant accepted and are proposing tonight‎. ‎He ‎

explained they have taken two lots that were originally numbered ‎20‎ and ‎31‎, which ‎

are no longer developable lots‎. ‎Lot ‎30‎, located in the southeast corner, which was to ‎

have the retention basin, now will be left as a outlot and which will not be buildable‎. ‎

He noted nothing will happen on that Lot ‎30‎. ‎He stated the engineers directed them ‎

to locate the sedimentation basin up to the north and the second lot‎. ‎Lot ‎20‎, which is ‎

the middle basin, will stay there‎. ‎He explained that lot is now also an outlot which is ‎

not to be built on, it will remain untouched and will eventually be owned by the ‎

homeowners association‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel reiterated one of the modifications was that ‎

they had two less lots on this site plan than what they started with‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel reminded the Commissioners they had agreed and there was to be a ‎

stipulation to the agreement drafted by the City Attorney, that the original ‎

sedimentation basins would be left and would be the last lots to be built on‎. ‎He noted ‎

the DEQ has told them that those basins are to be permanent and are not to be ‎

removed; therefore, they will stay and the issue of having a document between the ‎

City and the Developer making those lots the final lots is now moot‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel discussed the condition of having traffic ‎"‎calming devices‎" ‎within the ‎

subdivision‎. ‎He explained Mr‎. ‎Dearing requested these speed humps, not bumps, be ‎

installed and they will be there‎. ‎He stated they will be installing pavers at the ‎

intersections so there will be a visual demarcation‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel addressed the conservation easement, explaining there was to be ‎

a document prepared by the Staff and City Council in consultation with the developer, ‎

either to go to the state or to the city‎. ‎He explained that document has been agreed to ‎

by City Council, it goes to the City not to the State, and that has been completed‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel explained it has taken some time to get to this point and without going ‎

over all the history, of those five conditions, this was their current status‎. ‎He explained ‎

they have redesigned or redrawn per the request of the City, the Staff and other ‎

necessary government authorities, i‎.‎e, the Drain Commission, DEQ, etc‎.‎, and they are ‎

now present requesting the Planning Commission's approval‎. ‎

At this time, Chairperson Kaiser opened the meeting to public comments‎. ‎

Clayton Tribble, ‎3300‎ Quail Ridge Circle‎, came forward and stated he lives ‎

directly across the Clinton River from the proposed development‎. ‎He stated he was ‎

present on November ‎10‎, ‎1998‎ to make comments to the initial plat‎. ‎He stated much ‎

thought has gone into the changes presented tonight and noted some favorable results‎. ‎

He explained he has several questions and some comments‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tribble stated the ‎

developer indicated Lot ‎30‎ is now an outlot‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tribble pointed out Lot ‎30‎ on the ‎

display board, noting the developer had stated that lot would be deeded to the ‎

subdivision committee when everything was completed‎. ‎He noted the plans indicated ‎

there are trees being removed from the lot and why the trees would be removed if the ‎

lot was being deeded over as a natural lot‎. ‎

Secondly, Mr‎. ‎Tribble stated he had some concerns about the proposed ‎

retention pond that is directly along the path of the river‎. ‎He noted it appeared from ‎

the drawings that the location of the retention pond at the end of the Clinton River ‎

posed a serious and significant threat to a very environmentally sensitive area‎. ‎He ‎

explained he has walked this area and inventoried the trees and soil, noting the soil in ‎

that area is very loose and unstable and the water table is just a couple of feet below ‎

the surface‎. ‎He stated he felt the construction of a retention pond in this area could ‎

jeopardize the entire bank‎. ‎He stated in addition, the trees between the pond and the ‎

river would be severely compromised‎. ‎He noted the excavation required to construct ‎

the pond would dramatically change the surroundings for the remaining trees‎. ‎He ‎

indicated the moisture content in the soil, the sunlight conditions, temperature and ‎

erosion could easily result in the death of the remaining trees, severely compromising ‎

that bank‎. ‎He stated this location was extremely high‎-‎risk and another alternative site ‎

for the retention pond, further from the river, should be considered‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tribble brought up the retention pond along the Clinton River adjacent to ‎

River Valley Subdivision, directly across Adams Road from Quail Ridge, noting this ‎

was a perfect example of this type of retention pond that had gone bad‎. ‎He explained ‎

in that case, pristine stream‎-‎front property has been converted to what can only be ‎

described as a ‎"‎crater on the moon‎"‎, except for the fact that a crater on the moon ‎

would not be littered with rusty car parts, beer cans, broken bottles and other debris‎. ‎

He noted they have experienced severe problems with the retention ponds in Rookery ‎

Woods, explaining after every rainstorm, a trailing path of sediment emanates from the ‎

pond and flows into the Clinton River‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tribble asked the Commissioners why ‎

they would ever consider allowing a plan for construction of more retention ponds in ‎

an even more environmentally sensitive area, when the present ponds are not ‎

functioning properly‎. ‎He stated this issued needed to be brought to the ‎

Commissioners' attention and needed to be addressed immediately‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tribble concluded that because of the impact of these decisions upon the ‎

people of Rochester Hills, as well as all the people located in the watershed ‎

downstream from this development, he stated he felt it was the Commissioners' duty ‎

to be absolutely certain that they are not creating liability to the City by their actions ‎

tonight‎. ‎Since the plan is now a matter of public record, he requested they be given ‎

sufficient time to investigate in detail the removal plan and evaluate the effect of the ‎

plan on those residents nearby‎.‎

Duane Mezwa, ‎3250‎ Quail Ridge Circle‎, came forward and stated he also ‎

lived directly across from the Clinton River and is directly behind the retention ponds ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tribble just discussed‎. ‎He stated he was basing his comments upon what he has ‎

seen happen in Rookery Woods as well‎. ‎He explained that retention pond has been ‎

rebuilt three times already and the last rebuilts have been more cosmetic than ‎

functional‎. ‎He stated with two of the rains we had this season, those retention ponds ‎

still overflowed‎. ‎He expressed his concern about the location of the retention pond ‎

and the proximity to the river‎. ‎He noted directly across from him, the ground slopes ‎

up a good ‎25‎ feet straight up‎. ‎He stated he thought the pond was way too close to ‎

the river and if they are going to stay in that position, they should be pushed back from ‎

the river and put up higher, away from the river‎. ‎He noted with time and overflow, the ‎

ponds could collapse just as they have seen in Rookery Woods‎. ‎He stated he did not ‎

want to see that happen directly across from his lot‎. ‎

Deanna Hilbert, ‎3234‎ Quail Ridge‎, stated she also lives across from the ‎

proposed detention basin‎. ‎She stated during the summer they have watched the ‎

Rookery Woods retention basin be rebuilt several times, along with a large amount of ‎

trees having been removed in addition to what had already been lost due to erosion‎. ‎

She explained there is a concrete path to the river which is not conducive to a natural ‎

environment and noted she had concerns regarding that‎. ‎She stated she thought the ‎

whole development is too large for the area and creates too much impact on the ‎

environment in the area‎. ‎She stated she felt it should be pushed back a little bit due to ‎

the problems they've experienced in Rookery Woods‎.‎

Jim D'Agostini, ‎3340‎ Greenspring‎, came forward and stated he had a brief ‎

question about the outlot, the ‎1.29‎ acre outlot, which is further to the east‎. ‎He noted ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel has gone on record stating this will not be buildable and nothing will ‎

happen on that lot and eventually it will be owned by the homeowners association‎. ‎He ‎

asked for clarification as to exactly how that will come about, whether it would be ‎

through the open space agreement, a deeding process, or what exactly would ‎

document that and what exactly would be in the document to guarantee it wouldn't be ‎

built on‎. ‎

Ed Baron, ‎3310‎ Greenspring‎, stated when most of them were here a year and a ‎

half ago, they expressed their concerns about the retention basins‎. ‎He asked whether ‎

they had looked at alternatives to save trees and whether they were preserving ‎

wetlands and buffer‎. ‎He noted one common note from the prior speakers was ‎

Rookery Woods‎. ‎He noted at the last meeting he presented ‎15‎ photographs ‎

depicting the tremendous soil erosion‎. ‎He explained after that meeting the City ‎

Engineer, Mr‎. ‎Frankel and the County became more involved and they expected the ‎

problem would be resolved‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Baron gave Chairperson Kaiser ‎24‎ pictures taken ‎

by Mr‎. ‎Baron this morning, explaining this was the retention basin in Rookery Woods‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Baron described the photographs‎. ‎He stated the first photograph depicted ‎

there was finally grass growing after a year and half of soil erosion‎. ‎Photographs ‎2‎ ‎

and ‎3‎ depicted the retention basin, explaining these basins are usually blue or green; ‎

however, this one has a murky silt‎. ‎Photograph ‎4‎ depicted the hydro‎-‎seeding still ‎

being done‎. ‎Photograph ‎5‎ depicted the slope of the retention basin, which Mr‎. ‎Baron ‎

explained caused them concerns because of the angle and the velocity‎. ‎Photographs ‎

6‎, ‎7‎ and ‎8‎ depicted the tons of rock used and also reflected the number of trees that ‎

had been on the side which had been disposed of‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Baron stated the gullets had ‎

been taken care of and a trench had been created‎. ‎He stated topsoil covering had ‎

been added to prevent erosion and the miles of rocks had been added‎. ‎Photographs ‎

9‎ and ‎10‎ depict the dirt left after the barriers were put in place for the soil erosion, ‎

right in front of the rocks‎. ‎He noted in the summer there were leaves on the trees, and ‎

stated that when it rains in the fall and the spring, the rainwater falls on the dirt‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Baron stated they didn't believe the job had been done to acceptable standards‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Baron continued describing his photographs, stating pictures ‎11‎, ‎12‎ and ‎13‎ ‎

depict the rock formation where the water is starting to pool and it is getting wider and ‎

wider‎. ‎He stated the next pictures show the Clinton River and the soil erosion and silt ‎

in the water as well as the velocity‎. ‎He explained photographs ‎16‎ and ‎17‎ show how ‎

the stream has gullets going to the right and left‎. ‎Photograph ‎18‎ was taken at about ‎

125‎ feet from the river, which Mr‎. ‎Baron stated looked like a ‎"‎natural‎" ‎stream going to ‎

the Clinton River, except that it is carrying silt‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Baron stated pictures ‎19‎ and ‎20‎ ‎

depicted the velocity‎. ‎Picture ‎21‎ shows the connection of the basin to the Clinton ‎

River‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Baron explained pictures ‎22‎ and ‎23‎ were taken at the base of the Clinton ‎

River and where the water has eroded‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Baron concluded with picture ‎24‎, stating ‎

it looked like permanent stream‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Baron pointed out there had not been any major rains and wanted to know ‎

what would happen when they did get heavy rains‎. ‎He stated he believed the current ‎

construction would fulfill what the Planning Commission, Mr‎. ‎Frankel, the County and ‎

the residents in Quail Ridge desired‎. ‎He noted they had reservations and hesitations ‎

due to the Rookery Woods problems‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Baron stated he had met with Mr‎. ‎Kaiser ‎

and Mr‎. ‎Anzek during the recess‎. ‎He stated they didn't want to stop development, ‎

they wanted a voice in its creation‎. ‎He stated the land being used for this project was ‎

the last pristine area in Rochester Hills and should be protected‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Baron summarized the design of the retention basin is a concern; the outlot ‎

needs a definition to safeguard it and the others, and asked how erosion would be ‎

controlled in the spillway being created‎. ‎He explained they wanted to mitigate the ‎

damage to the land, trees and water, requesting the Planning Commission's help in ‎

addressing these concerns‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Baron thanked Chairperson Kaiser and the Planning ‎

Commission on the Volkswagen Technology Center, noting the Quailridge ‎

Environmental Committee was allowed to have input and it was satisfactory to them ‎

and the residents of Rookery Woods‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked the applicant to respond to the questions and ‎

comments of the prior speakers‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel stated he would try to respond to the ‎

questions and concerns in the order they had been brought up‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel stated there would be no trees removed from Lot ‎30‎. ‎He explained ‎

the lot will remain as it is and nothing will be removed, except what needs to be ‎

removed at the top of the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac to build the road‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel referred to the retention basin ‎(‎the southern retention basin‎) ‎which ‎

had been brought up by more than one of the speakers, and stated one of the reasons ‎

it has taken almost two years for them to come back before the Planning Commission ‎

is because that location for the basin was suggested and agreed to and recommended ‎

by the City's Engineering Staff and the City's consultants, along with the County Drain ‎

Commissioner‎. ‎He stated that was where they thought it was the best to put the basin‎. ‎

He addressed the remarks about the removal of trees and stated that due to the ‎

re‎-‎design, they would be removing ‎25‎ less trees as opposed to the original plan‎. ‎He ‎

noted he wasn't an engineer and they would build the basins the way they were told to ‎

build them‎. ‎He explained this is what they were advised to do‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked the applicant if they had seen any of the photographs ‎

provided by Mr‎. ‎Baron‎. ‎The applicant noted he had not seen the photographs‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked the applicant if he could address the Rookery Woods ‎

issues, noting the residents and the Commissioners would be interested in hearing how ‎

the applicant's development would be different than the situation in Rookery Woods‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel explained two years ago they were called by the Engineering ‎

Department of the City regarding one retention basin in Rookery Woods‎. ‎He stated ‎

they were advised there was an overflow problem‎. ‎He stated they went out and ‎

discovered one of the problems was that it hadn't been cleaned and there was too ‎

much silt‎. ‎He explained two houses had been built just to the north of the basin, which ‎

happened to be in Quail Ridge not Rookery Woods, but due to the area and the fact ‎

the property comes down the hill to the retention basin at that point, had caused part ‎

of the problem‎. ‎He stated they had not monitored the construction and the silt that ‎

came off those two houses during the construction came down to the bottom of the ‎

road where the basin is and because there was riprap on the storm, it came over the ‎

curb and into the retention basin‎. ‎He explained they then cleaned the silt out and ‎

rebuilt the basin‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel stated they were advised by the County and the City to ‎

look at the erosion that was happening over the side and the water was going down to ‎

the river‎. ‎He stated they did that‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel referred to the comment of the ‎"‎miles and miles of stone and rock‎" ‎

and stated it was there because that is what they were told to build by the County and ‎

the City Engineers‎. ‎He explained it was very expensive and very difficult to do ‎

because it was hard to get back into that area‎. ‎He stated they put the stone in at their ‎

direction‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel noted in the last six months they have rebuilt the basin twice‎. ‎

He explained the first time they took the bottom out and rebuilt the whole thing‎. ‎He ‎

stated the second was due to the big heavy rain in approximately September when we ‎

had the ‎5‎" ‎of rain ‎(‎or the Fifth Year Rain‎)‎, noting they had some overflow again off the ‎

side of the bank‎. ‎He explained they went back in and it was recommended to them ‎

that they raise the bank‎. ‎He noted the reason they were just starting to see the grass ‎

grow now was because it was just done six or eight weeks ago‎. ‎He explained they ‎

had put the matting down for the grass in order to retain it‎. ‎He further explained they ‎

have done what they were asked to do‎. ‎He noted that basin was built in ‎1995‎ or ‎

1994‎ and he couldn't speak as to whether it had been designed improperly; however, ‎

he noted every time there has been an issue, they have addressed it and they ‎

addressed it in the way they were asked to address it‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser commented he wasn't sure that Mr‎. ‎Frankel's explanation ‎

wholly addressed the question‎. ‎He asked what degree of certainty could the applicant ‎

give that the same failure of engineering would not occur on the subject site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Ziemet, the Engineer for the project, explained these ponds have been reviewed by ‎

the City Staff, keeping the problems with Rookery Woods in mind‎. ‎He explained that ‎

was one of the reasons why they were located as shown‎. ‎He referred to one of the ‎

comments about moving the basin up the hill‎. ‎He explained moving it up the hill would ‎

cause the exact same problems‎. ‎He stated by putting it down close to the river, the ‎

swales that come out of the retention areas or from the pipe are nearly flat and that is ‎

the reason they did this‎. ‎He explained the design they had before with the retention ‎

pond on the outlot was a much better location because that was a flatter area, but it ‎

was decided there were too many quality trees there, so it was moved‎. ‎He pointed ‎

out a steep bank on the display and stated the bank would be cut down to be nearly ‎

the same elevation as the river, the pipes will come out and there will be a short swale ‎

there that will be nearly flat and it will be heavily rocked as shown on the display‎. ‎He ‎

further described the rock areas using the display picture‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether by being flat, would the likelihood of ‎

overflows causing erosion be reduced‎. ‎The applicant responded that was correct, ‎

indicating by it being flat, there wouldn't be the velocity of the water going through ‎

there, which causes the erosion‎. ‎He explained there was great deal of preparing plans ‎

and lots of review and refining the plans with the staff to prevent the same problems ‎

they encountered with Rookery Woods‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked if Dr‎. ‎Jaworski would provide some input regarding ‎

this situation and whether he felt this was the best solution or if there might be another ‎

solution‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski explained under the Ordinance he dealt with wetlands and ‎

watercourses‎. ‎He noted storm water basins are usually handled by the Engineering ‎

Services Department‎. ‎He explained he had to be careful to keep the issues separate‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski stated he was concerned with what came out of the storm water basins ‎

because it goes into the wetlands or into the water course‎. ‎He noted he frequently ‎

does comment on these matters, although sometimes he may be out of bounds‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski stated when he looks at the proposed basins, two things struck him‎. ‎

One was that runoff coefficients are conservative, noting in this particular case they ‎

had a ‎.‎35‎ which he considered too low‎. ‎He suggested they should be closer to ‎.‎6‎, ‎

according to the guidebooks he uses‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Dr‎. ‎Jaworski to explain the significance of those ‎

numbers in layperson's terms‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworksi stated if the normal runoff is ‎.‎2‎, or ‎20%‎, ‎

putting that density of houses with the roofs and driveways and roads, he felt ‎.‎35‎ was ‎

too conservative‎. ‎He explained that means they are getting more runoff than they are ‎

providing for‎. ‎For example, if ‎60%‎ of the ‎

This matter was Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting‎. ‎

The motion carried‎.‎

water is running off instead of ‎35‎, you would need a much larger basin‎. ‎He stated the ‎

storm water plans used in Rochester Hills are for a ‎10‎-‎year storm instead of a ‎

100‎-‎year storm‎. ‎In his opinion, the basins are small, the runoff coefficients are too ‎

low, we're getting more water than we should, the basins can't hold it and you get ‎

overflow‎. ‎He explained what happened in Rookery Woods is a reflection of those ‎

conditions‎. ‎He stated it was his opinion that the Storm Water Management Ordinance ‎

needs to be changed and adjusted to where sufficient basins are built‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworksi noted with respect to erosion control, he suggested they needed to ‎

consider the basin as a last‎-‎ditch effort, not the only effort‎. ‎He explained projects in ‎

Oakland Township required much more sediment control on the individual lots and ‎

around the roads‎. ‎He noted if there wasn't good erosion control, the sediment gets in ‎

the catch basins, it is piped to the storm water basin and then it clogs the basins or ‎

clogs the gravel blankets around the stem‎-‎pipes, requiring repeated clean‎-‎out‎. ‎He ‎

stated in his opinion they should take a second look at the ‎"‎C‎" ‎values ‎(‎or runoff ‎

coefficients‎) ‎and again noted he felt ‎.‎35‎ was too conservative, and also the design of ‎

the ‎10-‎year storm basins don't seem to be doing the job‎. ‎He felt larger basins were ‎

called for and they also needed to be monitored, making sure there is erosion control ‎

on the site, as well as just trying to control it as it comes out of the basin‎. ‎He noted ‎

those things would help a great deal‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether the runoff coefficients would be impacted by ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's suggestion of enlarging the basins‎.‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski explained the runoff coefficient is separate from that‎. ‎He further ‎

explained if you use too small of a basin, and you underestimate the runoff, then you ‎

underestimate the size of the basin‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked how one impacted the runoff coefficient in this setting‎. ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski stated you start off with a somewhat larger coefficient, like ‎.‎6‎ which is ‎

what he would recommend for this project, go through the calculations again, which ‎

would indicate the basin that is required is a bit larger than is being planned for‎. ‎He ‎

noted this also means the outside berms would be higher‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski stated another ‎

concern of his is the construction sequencing‎. ‎He indicated the basins should be built ‎

first so they can be stabilized so they can begin to accept the runoff from the project ‎

site‎. ‎He indicated although he usually deals with just wetlands, the Ordinance says ‎

"‎wetlands and water courses‎". ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski stated he was very concerned about the sedimentation that ‎

occurs in the Clinton River because it is a fairly high quality stream with some nice ‎

rapids, noting many times the water is clear, there is a fairly good fish population, and ‎

he didn't think the stream should be treated lightly‎. ‎He stated they had a lot of relief ‎

and we are trying to protect the relief by way of protecting the trees and by preserving ‎

the trees‎. ‎He noted the location of the basin is OK in that it is low and next to the ‎

river, but he felt they should make sure it is large enough, make sure the erosion ‎

control is done on the sites, and also the outlets, and there should be some monitoring ‎

during the construction period‎. ‎He explained there are times when the catch basins ‎

have to be sucked out, clean out the detention basins, make sure silt fences are up ‎

along the roads and that the roads are swept‎. ‎He noted it was a difficult task to ‎

prevent siltation from going into the detention basins, explaining this was problem all ‎

over the country, not only here in Michigan or Rochester Hills‎. ‎He noted it really ‎

takes a coordinated effort‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Jaworski stated that was his input and he hoped he ‎

didn't overstep his bounds‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser thanked Dr‎. ‎Jaworski for his comments and asked for any ‎

responses from the applicant‎.‎

The applicant responded with respect to the runoff coefficients, these are very ‎

large lots and a ‎.‎6‎ coefficient is usually used for ‎60-‎foot lots on clay soil‎. ‎He ‎

explained these are much larger lots and they have gone through the calculations, ‎

assigned runoff coefficients to all the pavement, all the roof areas, all the paved ‎

surfaces, and all the grass surfaces, which is how the runoff coefficient is determined‎. ‎

He indicated these are approved by engineering staff‎. ‎He stated he believed ‎.‎35‎ is the ‎

proper runoff coefficient‎. ‎The applicant noted Dr‎. ‎Jaworski was referring to these ‎

basins as detention ponds‎. ‎He explained they are not detention ponds, they are ‎

sediment ponds only, and they are not having detention ponds on purpose because ‎

when the water is held for a long period of time, when you are so close to the Clinton ‎

River, you are adding to flooding problems because the flooding of the Clinton River ‎

and the time of concentration is so long, and if you hold water on the site and ‎

discharge it after a long period of time, you are adding water when the Clinton River is ‎

already in flood stage‎. ‎He further explained they are trying to clean the water up, by ‎

holding the small storms for a long time, but the larger storms can't be held for a long ‎

time or you will add to flooding problems downstream‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested Mr‎. ‎Frankel continue responding to the ‎

comments and questions‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel noted there was a comment about the stone ‎

path to the river and indicated that was what they were told to do to facilitate the ‎

reduction of the erosion at Rookery Woods‎. ‎He noted there was a comment about ‎

the size of the development‎. ‎He explained this was a ‎116 ‎acre parcel, there are ‎157 ‎

lots, noting these are very large lots and a much lower density than they could have put ‎

in and much less than either Quail or Rookery‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser suggested the ‎

applicant put some numbers to that statement, asking what the possible density could ‎

have been‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel responded it could have been about ‎200 ‎or a little over two ‎

to the acre‎. ‎He explained they had designed the project to be a upper‎-‎end, larger lot, ‎

less dense, non‎-‎starter home development‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel brought up the comment about the ownership of the lot and noted he ‎

would defer that to John Staran‎. ‎He explained that becomes commons area, the same ‎

as the boulevards, etc‎.‎, become commons area to the subdivision and are controlled ‎

for maintenance purposes, etc‎.‎, but he didn't believe anyone could build on that ‎

property‎. ‎

Attorney Staran stated, when it comes to outlots, that had been clarified by the ‎

Land Division Act ‎(‎formerly known as the Subdivision Control Act‎)‎, which had been ‎

amended just a couple of years ago to specifically provide that outlots cannot be used ‎

as a development site‎. ‎He noted additional restrictions could be added; however, that ‎

was a matter of State Law now, that they cannot be used for development sites, they ‎

can be used for utilities, parks, for other non‎-‎development purposes, but not as a ‎

building site‎.‎

Applicant Frankel noted this was a platted subdivision and no one could deliver a ‎

deed to that lot and it could not be sold to anybody‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser asked what ‎

the subdivision homeowners association could do with the lot‎. ‎Attorney Staran stated ‎

that quite often outlots are proposed or created for specific purposes so there is no ‎

mystery as what they are intended for‎. ‎He explained, absent that, the use would have ‎

to be within the authorization or authority created pursuant to the deed restrictions and ‎

could be used for a commons area park, or some type of common facility, utility, ‎

recreational or something of that nature‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser brought up the southernmost outlot on the plan, which he ‎

noted had the words printed on it ‎"‎wetland conservation easement A‎"‎, which he then ‎

described as being only a piece to the east and not part of that outlot, and asked what ‎

should or could be done if everyone was in agreement that they did not want anything ‎

to ever happen on that outlot, other than letting the trees that are there grow, so that ‎

the homeowners association could not go in and put up a playground or anything else‎.‎

Attorney Staran noted one option that has been explored previously would be to ‎

have a conservation easement covering that particular site, which could state what they ‎

wanted and would permanently restrict and limit the property to basically its passive, ‎

natural state‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser asked applicant Frankel if they had given any ‎

thought to doing that‎. ‎Applicant Frankel responded they had not because they did not ‎

believe it was an issue‎. ‎He explained they had no intention of ever building on that lot ‎

or using it or selling it, because they cannot‎. ‎He indicated he had pulled out a copy of ‎

the Conservation Easement and inquired of Attorney Staran if all they would have to ‎

do would be to change the legal and add the two outlots‎. ‎Attorney Staran agreed as ‎

they were already dealing with a Conservation Easement for this site and noted it ‎

would just be a matter of modifying the legal description to be more inclusive to pick ‎

up the additional site‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser confirmed there were two parcels, which ‎

Attorney Staran agreed that was what he was referring to‎. ‎

Applicant Frankel noted the agreement read‎: "‎The purpose of the easement is to ‎

maintain the easement premises in its natural and undeveloped condition‎. ‎Grantor and ‎

its successors and assigns shall maintain the easement in its natural and undeveloped ‎

condition‎." ‎Attorney Staran stated the language Mr‎. ‎Frankel had just read was the ‎

language used in the past and it was also language from the ‎"‎approved‎" ‎form that ‎

MDEQ uses for conservation easements granted to the state‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser confirmed with applicant Frankel they were referring to two ‎

lots, being the southernmost outlot and two others, which Chairperson Kaiser pointed ‎

out on his copy of the plan‎. ‎He further indicated it was wetlands‎. ‎The applicant used ‎

Chairperson Kaiser's copy of the plan to further describe the original buildable lots ‎

and how the legal description could be changed on Exhibit A of the Conservation ‎

Easement that would include the lots‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted the conservation easements are largely in wetlands or areas that ‎

border the wetlands‎. ‎He noted it made sense to have a conservation easement in ‎

order to protect the wetlands or the boundaries of the wetlands‎. ‎He stated he noticed ‎

a lot of the conservation easements appeared to be in back yards‎. ‎He noted what ‎

was really happening was that the wetlands were being protected from the people ‎

who live there‎. ‎He explained the outlot is a different situation because it doesn't have ‎

wetlands or boundary areas associated with it‎. ‎He stated the lot that is to the east of ‎

Lot ‎30‎, or southeast of Lot ‎29‎, is similar to an area in his subdivision called ‎

Shadowoods, which is a woods that the deed restrictions indicate shall be maintained ‎

as a wooded area for recreation and passive use by residents of the subdivision‎. ‎He ‎

explained the deed restrictions essentially served the same purpose‎. ‎He noted the ‎

difference might be the language ‎"‎maintained as a woods for passive recreation‎"‎, ‎

which would allow people to use it‎. ‎He noted ‎"‎use it‎" ‎meant walk through, look at the ‎

birds, etc‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Westphal reminded the Commissioners there was a lot of history involved ‎

with the project, noting that a good deal of the area that has been designated as ‎

conservation area had to do with wooded areas in the rear of lots that were on steep ‎

slopes and there was a concern about homeowners removing the trees from the rear ‎

of those lots‎. ‎He explained the Conservation Easement that has been drafted was not ‎

drafted just to cover the natural features setback area and the wetlands, but also to ‎

protect some woods that were considered to be significant‎. ‎He stated the addition of ‎

these two areas to the Conservation Easement would solve the problem‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted the consequence of that was that the area was not usable for ‎

passive recreation‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser asked what that meant exactly‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen ‎

clarified no one could go wandering in the woods, or they shouldn't go wandering in ‎

the woods‎. ‎He noted as an example in his subdivision, they could put a path in the ‎

woods because it is intended for passive recreation‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser asked ‎

Attorney Staran if a conservation easement meant no one could walk in that area‎. ‎

Attorney Staran stated it did not‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser then asked if it meant they ‎

could not put a path in that area‎. ‎Attorney Staran agreed that was right, stating no ‎

physical improvements could be made‎. ‎He noted in some conservation easements ‎

they are allowed to put in woodchip paths, although typically they would not want to ‎

do that because it would encourage traffic rather than discourage it‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether that conservation was in favor of the City ‎

or how it was depicted‎. ‎Attorney Staran stated in this particular case, this type of ‎

conservation easement would likely be to the City‎. ‎He explained with regard to ‎

wetlands, they have sometimes done them with the State because the State is in the ‎

wetlands protection business‎. ‎He noted they likely would not be interested in forcing ‎

conservation easements relative to preserving wooded sites‎. ‎He explained they ‎

typically left that to local government or to private land conservancies‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel advised the Commissioners that however they wanted to word the ‎

agreement, they were amenable to that‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted the Commissioners had been presented with ‎

photographs, staff recommendations, the applicant's position and the statements made ‎

by Dr‎. ‎Jaworski‎. ‎He stated it was now the Planning Commission's responsibility to ‎

make a decision‎. ‎He noted resident Tribble has asked the Planning Commission to ‎

put off this decision‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser advised the Commissioners the project had ‎

been in process for a long time and everyone was aware of what had evolved over ‎

time, and noted the Planning Commission will now have to make its decision based on ‎

the information provided to date‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen questioned who maintained the detention basins and whether ‎

there was a maintenance agreement with the City or if the applicant maintained them‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel explained they maintained them until the subdivision is turned over to the ‎

homeowners association, whereupon the homeowners association assumes ‎

responsibility‎. ‎He stated he understood the City did not maintain the storm water ‎

system, although he noted that did not mean the City did not get involved, because he ‎

knew they did‎. ‎He explained it was his understanding that typically in the City of ‎

Rochester Hills, it is the homeowners association that is eventually responsible for the ‎

maintenance of the basins‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen asked whether there was an option to turn over the maintenance ‎

as an agreement to the County on some projects‎. ‎Attorney Staran stated he was not ‎

aware of such a situation‎. ‎He stated there is a standard maintenance agreement that ‎

the City enters into with the developers of all projects involving retention or detention ‎

facilities which provides a minimum standard of maintenance that must be met‎. ‎He ‎

explained if the standards were not met, the City had the ability to come in and ‎

perform the necessary work and charge it on the tax rolls‎. ‎He noted the City seldom ‎

has to do that‎. ‎He explained there is no provision for the City or any other entity for ‎

taking over permanent control, just the amount of control to do the work‎. ‎He noted ‎

he was not aware of any instance where the County becomes involved in a private ‎

storm water retention or detention facility‎. ‎

Applicant Frankel stated Oakland Township required them to deed the storm ‎

water system detention basins to the County and they become responsible for them‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen remarked he was familiar with that for more public projects, but he ‎

didn't know if it could be applied to a private development‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen asked, ‎

noting the history of the project, how long the applicant had been advised by ‎

Engineering Services as to the design of the detention ponds‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel explained ‎

they began the redesign of this plan in March of ‎1999‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen asked whether the applicant had been given criteria and ‎

recommendations as to location and what coefficients to use, and other engineering ‎

consulting data‎. ‎The applicant responded that was correct‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen asked ‎

whether the runoff coefficient had some subjectivity or if was reviewed from day one ‎

by Engineering Services and determined by Engineering Services‎. ‎The applicant ‎

responded there were standard published runoff coefficients for pavements, roofs, ‎

grass areas and sidewalks, etc‎. ‎He explained they added up all those areas and assign ‎

the runoff coefficient to those areas, which are then added all together and divided by ‎

the total area, which gives you the runoff coefficient‎. ‎He further explained that was ‎

what had been done for this project‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen noted the coefficients were pretty specific, and asked if two ‎

different engineers looked at it, would they come up with similar coefficients‎. ‎The ‎

applicant agreed that was a correct assumption‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen referred to the ‎

Issues in the packet under Engineering and Traffic Services, noting there was a ‎

comment about a secondary access drive between Lots ‎5‎ and ‎6‎ for the maintenance ‎

of Water Quality Basin B‎. ‎He questioned if it should actually be Basin A‎. ‎The ‎

applicant responded it should be A‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel pointed out on the display map ‎

where they had to put in a second driveway and explained due to all the redesigns ‎

they had gone through over the past two years, somewhere the A and B got changed‎. ‎

He noted some of the pages reflect the correct A and B, but it was an error that ‎

occurred in their offices and they would make sure it got corrected‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen stated as a closing observation, noting the history involved in this ‎

project and giving credence to Engineering having good foresight giving ‎

recommendations to the applicant, and noting the constraints placed upon the ‎

applicants, they would have to rely on the expertise of what staff is making as a ‎

recommendation‎. ‎He believed the staff recommendation for approval is valid based ‎

on the fact the applicant has been working with the staff for the last year and a half‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked, as a direct follow‎-‎up to Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen's last ‎

comments, what the staff's response was to Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's thoughts, noting the ‎

Planning Commission and the City Staff rely on Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's opinions‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek responded although they do value Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's opinion, they ‎

consider this an Engineering ‎"‎call‎"‎, noting the Engineers have endorsed this plan as ‎

submitted‎. ‎He noted there are issues on the coefficients for runoff, etc‎.‎, and he noted ‎

the Engineers have evaluated it closely‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted there were ‎

competing interests between the issues addressed by Engineering, which are not ‎

necessarily preservation of the quality of water downstream‎. ‎He noted Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's ‎

interests are not so much engineering as they are concerns about the quality of water ‎

there and downstream‎. ‎He noted the Planning Commission would have to resolve that ‎

issue‎.‎

Applicant Frankel referred to a letter to Donna Folland of the Oakland Land ‎

Conservancy, from the Clinton River Watershed Council, who also reviewed the ‎

plans, due to the fact they own the banks of the river‎. ‎He quoted from the letter as ‎

follows‎: "‎The proposed detention basins and spillway routes appear to be generally ‎

well‎-‎designed for the site and in keeping with the Conservancy's goals of protecting ‎

the sensitive floodplain area‎. ‎The watershed council supports the improvements ‎

already made to the site plan‎". ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel offered a copy of the letter to ‎

Chairperson Kaiser for entry into the record‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser accepted a copy of ‎

the letter‎.‎

Applicant Westphal reminded the Commissioners that when this became an issue ‎

a year or so ago, they had all of the parties involved in the discussion, including the ‎

Clinton River Watershed Council, the Conservancy, who was going to end up with ‎

some of the land, the Planning Staff, and they had a meeting with all of the neighbors‎. ‎

He explained they ultimately came up with three or four alternatives that dealt with the ‎

sensitivity of the big trees along the creek, the sensitivity of the watershed, noting all of ‎

these people were involved in the process‎. ‎He stated it was important to understand ‎

what happens when you have a flood‎. ‎He explained if you retain all the water, this ‎

causes the water to hit at the same time‎. ‎He stated what happens is they try to get the ‎

projects that are closest to the river to discharge into the river soon, and to have those ‎

parcels that are further from the river hold the water back so it is metered out‎. ‎He ‎

explained if the water next to the river is held back, you don't get the big surge until ‎

everything else hits‎. ‎He noted these were not retention ponds‎. ‎The purpose of these ‎

structures is to cleanse and clean the water and to let it into the river sooner, rather ‎

than later when all of the other water that has been held back hits the river‎. ‎He stated ‎

he believed they had done a lot of work on this and have had a lot of individuals ‎

participating in the plan, and he felt they had done a good job‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen commented about the coefficients, noting he suspected Mr‎. ‎Ziemet is ‎

correct that the calculations are not what is at issue‎. ‎He noted what they may be ‎

seeing is the effect of how the retention or detention ponds are sized‎. ‎He explained ‎

the reality over the past ten or so years, there was a common misconception of what a ‎

ten year storm is or what a hundred year storm is‎. ‎He explained it is not that you ‎

expect to get it only once in a hundred years, but there is a one percent change it will ‎

exceed that amount in any given year‎. ‎Therefore, when you design for a ten year ‎

storm, what you are really saying is there is a significant chance that you can get more ‎

water than that during any given year‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted what may have happened in Rookery Woods, and his ‎

subdivision and a lot of other subdivisions, is that we have had some really heavy rains ‎

this year and a couple of years ago‎. ‎He referred to late July or early August, and the ‎

fact this area had incredible rains and also again in September‎. ‎He explained the ‎

bigger issue was whether they were designing as a City to the right number‎. ‎He ‎

explained the problem was that they were ‎85%‎ to ‎88%‎ built out, so all of that is done ‎

and behind us‎. ‎He noted the Rookery Woods situation sounded like what occurred in ‎

his subdivision in the early stages when it was not taken care of in the way it should ‎

have been‎. ‎He noted similarly Avon Meadows flooded out twenty years ago‎. ‎He ‎

pointed out it was a much larger issue than just this project‎. ‎He noted if they weren't ‎

designing it well, they may have to do it in the future and possibly go back and look at ‎

what was done over the last twenty or thirty years‎. ‎He questioned if they had met the ‎

requirements for this project, noting it sounded like they had‎. ‎He concluded this ‎

project was no different than any place else‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero noted she was going to mention some of the same issues Mr‎. ‎

Rosen had just brought up‎. ‎She stated given the history of Rookery Woods, and the ‎

fact it has caused the applicant so much time and money, she did not believe they ‎

would want to encounter the same problems with the subject project‎. ‎She asked ‎

whether they had, in fact, considered what they did in Rookery Woods when they ‎

designed this project's basins and whether they had improved the basins per a failure ‎

of the Rookery Woods situation‎. ‎

The applicant noted that was one of the major reasons it has taken so long to get ‎

the ponds designed‎. ‎He stated they were trying not to have the same problems that ‎

Rookery Woods had‎. ‎He indicated that was why the ponds were located where they ‎

are, that is why the swales are flat and that much of the design is due directly to the ‎

problems of Rookery Woods‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero stated that was her impression, that ‎

they would not want to encounter the same problems‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel noted the ‎

Engineering Department is very sensitive to this issue and they have spent a lot of time ‎

in pre‎-‎design in contemplation of location, size, depth, etc‎. ‎He noted they had spent a ‎

fair amount of time with the issue of the trees as well‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted he wasn't an expert in water removal, however, for the ‎

past fifteen years he has been driving past an area that floods seriously with almost any ‎

significant rain, specifically, a golf course that has a branch of the Clinton River running ‎

through it‎. ‎He stated it would flood quickly and once it flooded, the water would stay ‎

there for a long time‎. ‎He explained over the last five years, the golf course has ‎

re‎-‎engineered the one hole that floods so terrifically at least three times, noting there ‎

was a lot of work done‎. ‎He stated he noticed in the last two seasons, and this ‎

summer particularly when there has been a tremendous amount of rain, they did what ‎

the applicant described what they were trying to do‎. ‎In other words, they would keep ‎

flattening this out enough so the water is gone as quickly as possible‎. ‎He noted this ‎

golf hole has become a part of the river during the rains, rather than an area that floods ‎

and traps‎. ‎He indicated there was none of the erosion that used to occur, there is no ‎

downstream erosion, noting you could see the whole river where it flows after the golf ‎

course hole‎. ‎He stated there is an adjacent residential area that use to be really upset ‎

by the flooding and that does not happen any longer‎. ‎He noted the area fills up, ‎

empties out and flows away‎. ‎He stated it sounded like that was what the applicant ‎

was trying to accomplish in this project and it made sense to try to accomplish that‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper stated in following Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's comments in his review letter, he ‎

thought two of the conditions in the natural features setback needed some revision‎. ‎

He noted one of the conditions was, ‎"‎The developer shall provide construction ‎

monitoring for this phase of proposed development‎. ‎The monitoring should include all ‎

erosion control measures, storm water basins and outfalls, as well as the status of the ‎

wetlands, easements, and preservation areas‎." ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper suggest in lieu of the last ‎

sentence, that something be included such as monthly reports to be completed by a ‎

certified soil erosion technician ‎(‎noting the MDEQ has a certified class‎) ‎which shall be ‎

submitted to the City for review, verification, correction and maintenance of these ‎

basins‎. ‎He explained it was a maintenance issue‎. ‎He stated design could be argued ‎

about, as well as whether ten year storms were proper to be used, and whether the ‎

coefficients were proper or not, but he felt if the ponds were properly maintained, it ‎

would sufficiently reduce the siltation that is seen coming out of these basins‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked the applicant what their response was to that additional ‎

language‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Frankel referred to their response to staff in a letter dated October ‎10‎, ‎

2000‎, noting they stated they did not have any issue with that‎. ‎He stated they would ‎

provide the monitoring, noting one of their permits required monitoring after rain, ‎

which they do‎. ‎He stated he was looking at the letter which is in direct response to ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's letter, and pointed out their response to that was it was fine and they ‎

would report and it was not a problem‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated Mr‎. ‎Hooper suggested monthly reports should be ‎

submitted to the City for review, verification, correction and maintenance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hooper added it should also contain the language ‎"‎completed by a certified soil ‎

erosion technician‎". ‎He explained there was a certification course given by MDEQ for ‎

soil erosion employing best management control‎. ‎He reiterated he would like to see ‎

the following language added‎: "‎Monthly reports completed by certified soil erosion ‎

technicians shall be submitted to the City for review, verification, correction and ‎

maintenance‎." ‎

The applicant stated it was a State Law that they had to make these reports‎. ‎He ‎

explained what they were proposing to add was the reports shall be submitted to the ‎

City‎. ‎He pointed out it was already a requirement that the reports be made after ‎

rainfalls‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper responded it should be monthly due to the nature of the ‎

surrounding development and the sensitivity of this development‎. ‎The applicant added ‎

the person was called a Certified Storm Water Management Operator‎. ‎Chairperson ‎

Kaiser clarified the name of the position was a Certified Storm Water Management ‎

Operator‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser referred to the October ‎20‎, ‎2000‎ staff report, noting they ‎

referred to recommending the approval of a ‎"‎temporary‎" ‎natural features setback ‎

modification‎. ‎He questioned if it was temporary, is it sufficiently stated that it ends at a ‎

certain date or with the occurrence of a certain event‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek explained the actual ‎

termination was when the Engineering Department signs off on the improvements and ‎

that it has been restored with Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's inspection‎. ‎He further explained this ‎

request was for the installation of a storm sewer and they would have to cause some ‎

minimum disruption, but they need the buffer modification to enter into the area‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser questioned whether that was implied sufficiently that it was ‎

just going to end at that point or whether it should be specified‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek replied ‎

that if there were an occasion requiring repair, obviously they would have to be able to ‎

get in there to fix it‎. ‎He noted under the Ordinance as it is currently structured, they ‎

could enter on an emergency basis into wetlands for remedy‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen stated the suggested language did not indicate that it shall be repaired ‎

or restored and asked whether it should‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen read the pertinent portion from ‎

the staff report, noting it did not refer to the area being restored‎. ‎He indicated if that ‎

was the intent, it should be stated‎. ‎He further indicated, if it was not, it was not ‎

temporary‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted that was his question as well, whether there should be ‎

another condition stating at the conclusion of ‎"‎X‎" ‎amount of time, the area shall be ‎

restored to its previous condition and if so, what would ‎"‎X‎" ‎be‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated it ‎

would be the conclusion of the installation‎. ‎Applicant Frankel noted that was the ‎

normal scenario‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen suggested an additional condition that stated at the ‎

conclusion of the installation the area shall be restored‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal suggested at the ‎

conclusion of work in the natural features setback area‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek indicated ‎"‎upon ‎

restoration‎" ‎could be added‎. ‎

Applicant Frankel stated they would need approval from the Engineering ‎

Department in any event‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek noted there would also be an inspection of the ‎

BMP's for restoration‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser questioned whether it would all come ‎

under the category of storm water management measures‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated in ‎

conversations with Dr‎. ‎Jaworski previously they had discussed best management ‎

practices‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen added it comes under Natural Features Setback modifications‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser brought up the fact the Commissioners had not yet discussed ‎

the tree removal and inquired whether anyone had any comments or questions with ‎

respect to that issue‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Potere noted she had one further comment about the basins‎. ‎She stated one ‎

thing that intrigued her about the photographs presented by Mr‎. ‎Baron was the fact ‎

the basins were surrounded by grass‎. ‎She pointed out the engineer representing the ‎

applicant had indicated that grass has a coefficient that is used in runoff‎. ‎She also ‎

noted the letter from the Clinton River Watershed Council indicated it would be better ‎

served to have native vegetation in that spillway area because deep‎-‎rooted native ‎

plants are capable of preventing soil erosion, absorbing runoff and filtering out ‎

potentially harmful pollutants‎. ‎She asked whether the applicant would be willing to ‎

landscape the basins with native plants‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel responded they would be willing to do that and noted the final ‎

decision by the conservancy regarding that area and pointed out they would do that at ‎

their option in their easement where the spillway comes in and they would have no ‎

problem doing that at the basins as well, if it serves a purpose‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Potere stated she ‎

felt it would serve a great purpose‎. ‎The applicant noted the basins were already ‎

designed to have a wet bottom so that they would have some natural wetland‎-‎type ‎

growth in the bottom o‎

2000-0375

Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎90‎-‎253‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Butler Ridge Subdivision‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek requested a minute to point out that there was a lighting failure in the ‎

parking lots and stated several members of the staff were available with flashlights to ‎

escort anybody out after this Agenda item is concluded or whenever they decided to ‎

leave‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted they had two additional Agenda items with respect to ‎

this project, being the Tree Removal Permit and the Final Preliminary Plat ‎

recommendation‎. ‎He stated with respect to the latter item, he wanted to remind the ‎

Commissioners the Ordinance required if the applicant is in great compliance with the ‎

Temporary Plat Approval, they were compelled to recommend approval of the Final ‎

Preliminary Plat‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked whether the calculation for the trees changed when the Lots ‎

were changed‎. ‎Applicant Frankel responded they had added some trees and ‎

reminded the Commissioners the Chair had asked them two years ago if they could ‎

guarantee that they had ‎45%‎ and he noted he had responded at that time he couldn't ‎

and the requirement was for ‎37%‎. ‎He stated he wanted to point out tonight that after ‎

they performed a recount of the trees, they are now at ‎44.8%‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked ‎

whether that number was bigger that they thought it was a couple of years ago‎. ‎The ‎

applicant responded it was‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted it was possible in a very large ‎

development with large lots and large footprints, to save considerably more than ‎37%‎. ‎

The applicant pointed out that was assuming on a buildable lot, that all the trees are ‎

going to be removed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked if the reality will be better, which the ‎

applicant responded it would‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether the gain in trees came from the southern outlot‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel stated part of it came because they had saved ‎25‎ trees when they moved ‎

one of the basins and left that one lot not buildable, and also due to the recounts, and ‎

due to the hundreds and hundreds of trees on the site‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero asked whether they were approving the Tree Removal Permit for ‎

Phase I only‎. ‎The applicant responded that was correct‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero asked what ‎

the applicant's anticipated completion time was for the entire development‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Frankel stated that due to the size of the lot, the price of the houses, and the depth of ‎

the market, they will probably be there for at least five years‎. ‎He stated he did not ‎

think it would be a very fast buildout‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated Condition ‎(‎c‎) ‎should read‎: "‎Deposit into the City's ‎

Tree Fund in the amount of ‎$109,750.00‎…‎". ‎Chairperson Kaiser corrected ‎

Condition ‎(‎e‎) ‎to read‎: "‎Provision of a performance and maintenance guarantee in the ‎

amount of ‎$105,850.00‎, as adjusted as necessary by the City, to ensure the proper ‎

installation of replacement trees‎." ‎He explained the last sentence of Condition ‎(‎e‎) ‎

would remain the same‎. ‎These corrections were agreed to by Mr‎. ‎Rosen and Mr‎. ‎

Hooper‎. ‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Tree Removal Permit‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Hooper, in the matter of File No‎. ‎90‎-‎253‎.‎2 ‎

(‎Butler Ridge Subdivision‎-‎Phase I‎)‎, to ‎GRANT the Tree Removal Permit, ‎based ‎

on plans dated received October ‎11‎, ‎2000 ‎by the Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Department, and incorporating the eight preprinted Findings in the staff report dated ‎

October ‎20‎, ‎2000‎, and the five preprinted Conditions in the staff report dated ‎

October ‎20‎, ‎2000‎. ‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

a‎)‎ The requested permit has taken into account the paramount concern for and ‎

importance of tree preservation and conservation‎.‎

b‎)‎ The requested permit has taken in to account the priority or preservation and ‎

conservation of wooded area, trees, similar woody vegetation, wildlife, and ‎

natural resources and processes over development when there is a feasible ‎

and prudent location alternative on‎-‎site for proposed buildings, structures, or ‎

other site improvements‎.‎

c‎)‎ The requested permit will result in maintenance of a diversity of tree species where ‎

essential to preserving a wooded area‎.‎

d‎)‎ The requested permit will limit land clearing to designated street rights‎-‎of‎-‎way, ‎

drainage and utility areas and areas necessary for the construction of buildings, ‎

structures, or other site improvements‎.‎

e‎)‎ The requested permit will result in a project that has been designed and will be ‎

constructed to blend in to the natural setting of the landscape‎. ‎

f‎)‎ The requested permit complies with all applicable statutes and ordinances‎.‎

g‎)‎ The requested permit includes necessary provisions for tree relocation or ‎

replacement‎.‎

h‎)‎ The requested permit has limited tree removal and transplanting to instances where ‎

necessary for construction, or where resulting from disease, damage, or other ‎

danger to the public health, safety, or welfare‎. ‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

a‎)‎ Landscape Consultant review of revised tree survey incorporating tree ‎#3360‎.‎

b‎)‎ The revised tree replacement plan shall be reviewed by the City's Forester and ‎

Landscape Consultant in regards to the quantity and location of replacement ‎

trees located on site‎. ‎If additional trees may be located on site, provisions for ‎

such trees shall be made‎. ‎

c‎)‎ Deposit into the City's Tree Fund in the amount of ‎$109,750.00‎, to be adjusted ‎

as necessary by the City, for all required replacement trees which cannot be ‎

located on site‎.‎

d‎)‎ The City's Forester shall review and approve the inventory, protection and ‎

replacement measures for trees located within the existing Butler Ridge Road ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎.‎

e‎)‎ Provision of a performance and maintenance guarantee in the amount of ‎

$105,850.00‎, as adjusted if necessary by the City, to ensure the proper ‎

installation of replacement trees‎. ‎Such guarantee shall be provided prior to the ‎

issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎. ‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ None‎ ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

This matter was Granted. The motion carried.

2000-0376

Natural Features Setback Modification ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎90‎-‎253‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Butler Ridge ‎

Subdivision‎

Item ‎2‎. ‎Natural Features Setback Modification‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Ruggiero, in the matter of File No‎. ‎90‎-‎253‎.‎2 ‎

(‎Butler Ridge Subdivision‎-‎Phase I‎)‎, to ‎GRANT the temporary Natural Features ‎

Setback Modification‎ based on plans dated received October ‎11‎, ‎2000 ‎by the ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Department, and incorporating the six preprinted Findings in ‎

the staff report dated October ‎20‎, ‎2000‎, and the six preprinted Conditions in the staff ‎

report dated October ‎20‎, ‎2000‎, as modified, and including the addition of a new ‎

Condition ‎(‎g‎). ‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

a‎)‎ The requested modification has taken into account the nature, environmental ‎

sensitivity, and size of the natural feature‎.‎

b‎)‎ The requested modification has taken into account the nature, necessity, and ‎

economic value of the proposed construction, activity, or operation‎.‎

c‎)‎ The requested modification has considered the feasibility of alternatives‎.‎

d‎)‎ The requested modification has considered the probable impact of the proposed ‎

construction, activity, or operation on the natural feature and the cumulative ‎

effect of other existing and anticipated activities on the natural features‎. ‎

e‎)‎ The requested modification has considered the probable impact on fish and ‎

wildlife and their habitats‎. ‎

f‎)‎ The requested modification has considered the maintenance of historic, scenic, ‎

ecological, and recreational values, and the character of the area‎. ‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

a‎)‎ The outfall from Basin ‎"‎B‎" ‎be placed in the ‎25‎ foot natural features setback, and ‎

not within the wetlands, unless constrained by elevation of the outfall pipe, ‎

subject to the review and approval of the City's Engineering Services ‎

Department‎. ‎

b‎)‎ The hand dug swale for the outfall of Basin ‎"‎C‎" ‎be terminated at the Oakland ‎

County Land Conservancy easement boundary and not extended to the ‎

Clinton River‎. ‎

c‎)‎ Submission of an erosion control drawing for the entire phase of the project ‎

subject to the review and approval of the City's Engineering Services ‎

Department and Wetland Consultant‎.‎

d‎)‎ Deed restrictions relative to this phase of the project, must reflect the wetland ‎

boundaries, natural features setbacks, Oakland Land Conservancy Easement, ‎

Wetland Conservation easements, and tree preservation easements as ‎

indicated on the final preliminary plat‎.‎

e‎)‎ Installation and maintenance of appropriate construction fencing and‎/‎or silt fences ‎

along the various easements, preservation areas, and natural features setbacks ‎

during the construction period‎.‎

f‎)‎ The developer shall provide construction monitoring for this phase of the ‎

proposed development‎. ‎This monitoring should include all erosion control ‎

measures, stormwater basins and outfalls, as well as the status of the wetlands, ‎

easements, and preservation areas‎. ‎Monthly reports completed by a Certified ‎

Storm Water Management Operator shall be submitted to the City for review ‎

and verification‎. ‎Any correction identified shall be made and the basin shall be ‎

maintained by the applicant‎.‎

g‎)‎ At the conclusion of the stormwater management measures allowed by this ‎

modification, the area shall be returned to its original condition‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ None‎ ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

This matter was Granted. The motion carried.

2000-0377

Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎99‎-‎036 ‎- ‎First Federal of Michigan Bank, a ‎3‎,‎910 ‎

square foot office building on ‎1‎.‎24 ‎acres located at the northwest corner of Rochester ‎

Road and Wabash, zoned O‎-‎1‎, Office Business, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎27‎-‎427‎-‎059‎, Tiseo ‎

Architects, Inc‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ben Tiseo, the Architect for First Federal, Renata Kolak of Tiseo Architects, ‎

Erin Kleckner, Landscape Architect for the project, and Don Eagle, Facilities ‎

Manager for First Federal of Michigan, came forward and introduced themselves‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether there were any other persons present on behalf of ‎

the applicant‎. ‎The applicant responded no‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Ms‎. ‎Millhouse whether there was any additional ‎

information she could provide to supplement the Staff Report submitted with respect ‎

to this project‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse stated the staff report would stand as submitted, and ‎

she would be happy to answer any questions that may arise‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser brought up the Regal Office Plaza Condominium ‎

Association letter that was received in connection with this Agenda item‎. ‎He asked ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse if she could explain the receipt of this letter‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse explained ‎

staff had just received the letter the day before‎. ‎She reminded the Commissioners that ‎

a couple years ago another site plan had been received for this site from Guardian ‎

Federal‎. ‎She explained at that time there had been discussion regarding the need for a ‎

cross‎-‎access easement with the Regal Office Park Plaza to the north‎. ‎She stated that ‎

per a review of the records, she understood the letter presented was a request that the ‎

Planning Commission consider the cross‎-‎access‎. ‎She explained one of the reasons it ‎

was being requested was the nature of the Regal Office Plaza, noting it is difficult to ‎

make a left turn from the Plaza‎. ‎She explained the cross‎-‎access with the applicant's ‎

property would allow access to Wabash Road and the use of the traffic signal at the ‎

intersection of Wabash and Rochester Road‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse stated this has come up ‎

during the discussion of this project and noted Mr‎. ‎Kagler could also comment on this ‎

matter‎. ‎She noted the applicant was apparently not willing to consider the ‎

cross‎-‎access‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated he would like to address the cross‎-‎access easement for the ‎

property to the north‎. ‎He explained the difficulty in providing the cross‎-‎access ‎

easement is the fact there is a four and one‎-‎half foot difference in elevation between ‎

their property and the Regal property‎. ‎He stated in order to provide a safe means of ‎

transition for the vehicles between the two parcels, either their property would have to ‎

be raised in elevation, or the Regal property would have to be excavated to allow a ‎

drive through the property that would have a retaining wall‎. ‎He noted neither option ‎

made any sense‎. ‎He explained if they raised their property, they would have to build a ‎

retaining wall on Rochester Road and Wabash Road to allow the property to have a ‎

slope for the access between the two parcels‎. ‎He noted in creating the wall, they ‎

would be creating a sight barrier for vehicles exiting to either Wabash or Rochester ‎

Road‎. ‎He stated this was true if their site was left the way it was and if they used a ‎

"‎dug out‎" ‎to provide access between the two sites‎. ‎He explained retaining walls ‎

would be required on each side of the access drive, which would cause them to cut ‎

back into the actual Regal site‎. ‎He stated he did not know how this could be ‎

engineered‎. ‎He explained they have looked at it many ways and it cannot be done ‎

from this site, which is why they have not addressed it‎. ‎He noted further, the owners ‎

of the two parcels, First Federal of Michigan and the Regal property owners, are in ‎

discussions regarding purchasing the rear property‎. ‎He stated from an engineering ‎

standpoint, access cannot be provided between the two parcels because of the four ‎

and one‎-‎half foot difference in the grade‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether the applicants would like to make a ‎

presentation or if they had any comments‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated they did have some ‎

comments to make‎. ‎

(‎Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen departed at ‎10‎:‎45 ‎PM‎)‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle explained with respect to the access to Wabash Road, over the last six ‎

or seven months, he has had discussions with two gentlemen who are part of the Regal ‎

Office Condominium Association and have provided them a site plan of the back ‎

parcel‎. ‎He explained First Federal is not developing the back parcel at this time‎. ‎He ‎

stated the site plan shows the correct setbacks and shows them what they would be ‎

allowed to build on that site‎. ‎He noted it could be an access road or a building and an ‎

access road‎. ‎He also pointed out that the two sites come close, if not exactly, at the ‎

same elevation as they approach the west end of the second, undeveloped parcel in ‎

the back‎. ‎He noted in addition, he had explained he was willing to give them an ‎

easement to their curb cut on Wabash Road for any access road they may build on ‎

that site, if they, in fact, purchase it from First Federal‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo added when Guardian Savings got their site plan approval, this issue ‎

came up as well‎. ‎He explained it was debated for some time and the Planning ‎

Commission, at that time did approve the site plan without access to that parcel‎. ‎He ‎

asked the same consideration be given on this project‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated he would like to address some of the comments received from ‎

the consultants‎. ‎He noted there was a comment about eliminating the berm along the ‎

west property line‎. ‎He stated this was predicated upon moving the water main to save ‎

some of the trees along that property line and also to eliminate the swale in that area‎. ‎

He noted there is no berm on the westerly side and he believed someone was ‎

misinterpreting a contour line that is foot above the curb‎. ‎He explained there was an ‎

area about ‎50‎ feet in width from the back of the curb to the west property line‎. ‎He ‎

stated there is a one foot elevation in the grade to allow for drainage in both directions‎. ‎

He reiterated it was not a berm, but perhaps a misinterpretation of the contours‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo brought up the moving of the water main on the west side and stated he ‎

recommended that be done in the field so they could make a determination of what ‎

trees could or could not be saved‎. ‎He explained they would do what they could to ‎

save any many trees as possible‎. ‎He stated if they move the main to the west, they ‎

will have to remove some trees‎. ‎He explained without looking at it exactly in the field, ‎

they cannot make a determination of what will be the least disruptive to the trees and ‎

the vegetation‎. ‎He asked that it be looked as a field condition, which would allow the ‎

parties involved, including their consultants and the city's consultants, to make their ‎

determination at the same time‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo addressed the swale spoken about in the letter and explained this was a ‎

requirement of the City‎. ‎He stated the City asked them in the beginning of the project ‎

to add a swale to drain the westerly property off the site‎. ‎He explained that is a ‎

requirement of the city that they are following‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo noted another issued addressed in the comments was the number of ‎

parking spaces on the site‎. ‎He explained the Ordinance requires they have a minimum ‎

of eighteen‎. ‎He explained they are providing twenty‎-‎eight‎. ‎He noted the twenty‎-‎eight ‎

spaces are based on the fact First Federal has been in business for ‎65‎ years and they ‎

have been able to determine exactly the number of spaces needed based on each ‎

branch and their functions‎. ‎He explained they have roughly eleven employees; they ‎

are allowing for two closings at any given time for which they have allowed eight ‎

spaces; and they have people coming to use the facilities which gives them the ‎

twenty‎-‎eight spaces needed‎. ‎He noted this was not an arbitrary number, but was in ‎

fact, a number based on First Federal's studies‎. ‎He stated he had reviewed ordinance ‎

requirements for parking for banks in other communities‎. ‎He noted Clinton Township ‎

requires ‎24‎ spaces, Troy requires ‎22‎ spaces, Novi requires ‎26‎ spaces and Shelby ‎

Township requires ‎39‎ spaces for the exact same building‎. ‎He noted it was difficult to ‎

design a property based on all these different requirements‎. ‎He noted their procedure ‎

is to take the minimum for the community as well as the minimum for their clients‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated there was a comment about the ATM location, explaining it ‎

was suggested it be moved off the Wabash side to the back of the building‎. ‎He ‎

explained one of the major concerns for financial institutions is security‎. ‎He explained ‎

it went against bank policy to put an ATM out of site‎. ‎He stated it was critical it be in ‎

an area that is well lit and that is visible by passing cars, so as not to put anyone in ‎

danger that would be using the ATM‎. ‎He noted people feel more secure using an ‎

ATM at night that borders a roadway rather than one in the back‎. ‎He stated this is ‎

good design principle as well‎. ‎He stated he himself, as a project architect, would have ‎

a hard time defending himself, and the city would as well, if they insisted in putting the ‎

ATM in the back and something happened‎. ‎He noted the liability issue this would ‎

present‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo noted another item that kept coming up was having a one‎-‎way isle in ‎

front of the bank for the parking spaces, which would be one way, going north‎. ‎He ‎

stated they objected to that because it also would cause a lot of confusion and ‎

problems in the way the property circulates‎. ‎He explained the entrance, coming in ‎

south from Rochester Road, is one way onto the site‎. ‎He stated by having a one way ‎

going north in front of the building, you are asking the people entering from Rochester ‎

Road to go around the back of the building, circulate all the way around and come ‎

back to the front to park‎. ‎He suggested people would not do that‎. ‎He stated they ‎

would ignore the one way signs and just pull in a few feet and park in that parking ‎

space‎. ‎He stated this would cause confusion when they see stacked cars around the ‎

back of the building and it will cause further confusion for the people walking in and ‎

out‎. ‎He stated they were requesting the same two way isle that is shown in front of ‎

the building‎. ‎He explained the parking spaces are all located in the front as well as the ‎

south side of the property‎. ‎He noted there were twenty‎-‎eight spaces and stated if ‎

there were adequate parking spaces, people should be able to find parking without ‎

turning around‎. ‎If for some reason it is full, he suggested there is more than ample ‎

space at the westerly part of the paved area to turn around and go back up and find ‎

or wait for a space‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo noted there was a comment about the canopy height as required for ‎

review‎. ‎He stated the canopy height is ‎9‎'‎10‎" ‎and is clearly depicted on Sheets A‎5‎ and ‎

A‎6‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated another item discussed was the architectural style of the building‎. ‎

He noted he was aware the community has an architectural style recommendation, and ‎

its basis is to have the buildings designed in an area to be compatible with other ‎

buildings in the area‎. ‎He pointed out the consultant's report stated there is no style in ‎

this area‎. ‎Therefore, he suggested no style needed to be mimicked‎. ‎He stated some ‎

of the recommendations and comments made by the consultants related to providing ‎

false windows to give an open impression on some of the other sides of the building‎. ‎

He stated as an architectural instructor for twenty years, it was not a practice of their ‎

profession to provide false windows or false indications on design because that is ‎

exactly what people will see, that is a ‎"‎false‎" ‎design‎. ‎He felt it would be inappropriate ‎

to provide a design feature of that nature‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo noted there were comments regarding the window widths, that they ‎

should be the same‎. ‎He explained the window widths on the front of the building were ‎

8‎'‎4‎"‎, which is the same as the windows on the back of the building‎. ‎The windows on ‎

the north and south side are ‎11‎'‎8‎" ‎wide‎. ‎He explained the reason they are different is ‎

because they serve different functions in different areas‎. ‎He also noted the elevation ‎

on the side of the building and the windows are in direct relationship and proportion to ‎

the wall itself‎. ‎He stated to make the window smaller would throw the wall out of ‎

proportion with the window opening and they would object to that‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated there was a comment that the pilasters should be projected from ‎

the building‎. ‎He noted they do project from the building two inches as indicated on ‎

the drawings‎. ‎He explained when they first designed the prototypes for First Federal ‎

they had many different design options‎. ‎He stated one of the options was the pilasters ‎

and they had looked at four inches and at six inches‎. ‎Because of the size and the mass ‎

of the building, and because of the shadow lines that it creates, two inches is the ‎

correct proportion and the correct shadow lines on the building‎. ‎He stated there were ‎

comments about adding pilasters on the end windows‎. ‎He stated again they had ‎

looked at that in the original design of the building to frame the three windows on the ‎

front as well as the windows on the back‎. ‎He explained if they were to put pilasters ‎

on the front of the building on the windows, it throws it out of proportion‎. ‎He noted ‎

on the right hand it would leave only a minimum amount of brick which would give a ‎

visual appearance that the brick was ready to fall off the building‎. ‎He explained the ‎

pilaster element would just appear to have been stuck on the building, which is why ‎

they did not put it on the north side of the building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained they had looked at many different aspects of the materials on ‎

the building‎. ‎He stated they tried to achieve a balance or harmony between the ‎

materials‎. ‎He stated they had also looked at the different percentages and ratios of ‎

the materials‎. ‎He noted the dominate feature should be in the neighborhood of ‎50%‎ ‎

to ‎40%‎ of the actual surface area; accents should be in the neighborhood of ‎10%‎. ‎He ‎

explained that is what they had‎. ‎If they looked at the E‎.‎I‎.‎F‎.‎S‎. ‎and the actual brick ‎

itself, those are two very dominant elements, and it is deliberate as good design ‎

dictates‎. ‎He stated the materials they chose follow those design principles‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained there were comments regarding some of the landscaping ‎

issues‎. ‎He stated they had reviewed them with their landscaping consultant, Mr‎. ‎

Kleckner, and they had no objection to following the recommendations of the City's ‎

consultant‎. ‎He explained they would modify their landscaping materials to coincide ‎

with the recommendations of the City‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained one other issue that came up was the issue of the light poles‎. ‎

He stated the light poles are currently designed at a ‎25‎' height, although the ‎

recommendation was to lower them to ‎20‎ feet‎. ‎He noted the reason they designed ‎

them at a ‎25‎' height was to provide a much more even spread of light over the area ‎

and to avoid the ‎"‎hot spots‎" ‎that could occur with the lower light fixtures‎. ‎He ‎

explained this was due to the fact the light is more concentrated with lower fixtures‎. ‎

He noted it was also objectionable visually‎. ‎He stated they originally had the light ‎

poles at ‎30‎ feet, and they did reduce them down to ‎25‎ feet‎. ‎He requested the ‎

Commissioners hold the poles to ‎25‎ feet‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated he believed he had addressed all the issues that had come up in ‎

the communications between their office and the City‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper brought up the location of the cross‎-‎access drive, noting he was ‎

looking at the A‎-1‎ drawing‎. ‎He asked if the proposed location was between the two ‎

existing buildings of Regal Colony‎. ‎The applicant indicated that was correct‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hooper clarified there was a steep grade at the location‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated there was a ‎

four and one‎-‎half grade difference between their property and Regal Colony‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Tiseo clarified he was referring to the area on the east side of Rochester Road and the ‎

four and one‎-‎half grade difference is between the two closest buildings to Rochester ‎

Road‎. ‎He explained they are not developing the back parcel‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle explained if they looked at where the dotted lines are for the storm ‎

drain on the plans, approximately that area is where the largest elevation change it ‎

located‎. ‎He noted it levels back off further west‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper asked if the driveway ‎

came out between the two existing buildings‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained there were three ‎

buildings shown on the plans‎. ‎One building was right near Rochester Road with a ‎

large parking area, then there were two buildings‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle explained the discussion ‎

he had with the condominium association was to come off the back parking lot, which ‎

is at the very left‎-‎hand side of the drawing, that is building three‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper noted the cross access drive was a future issue and did not have ‎

anything to do with the subject site plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle indicated that was correct and ‎

noted he believed there was a representative of the condominium association present ‎

at the hearing tonight‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper noted the height of the branch was ‎19‎'‎10‎". ‎He asked if the ‎25‎ foot ‎

poles versus ‎20‎ foot poles was a huge issue‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo indicated it was not a huge ‎

issue but was a matter of providing a more even light distribution through the area and ‎

it was a matter of design principle‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle stated one of their concerns was ‎

security‎. ‎He noted there are no outstanding laws regulating lighting around an ATM in ‎

the State of Michigan, but there are some standards they were trying to meet in the ‎

event laws become standardized from state to state‎. ‎He indicated they could lower ‎

the poles to ‎20‎ feet at this time; however, at some time in the future they may have to ‎

come back requesting something different‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper noted in looking at the plans, the applicant was proposing two double ‎

heads and three single and asked if that was correct‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo agreed that was ‎

depicted on the plans‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper further noted the proposed ATM location had ‎

one double head just to the east of the ATM and one to the south and stated the ‎

ATM appeared to be very well lit‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained that was deliberate‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper brought up part of the tree removal issue and the applicant's ‎

comment about relocating the water main, noting the applicant wanted to field fit that ‎

matter‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo referred to Sheet L‎-1‎, which is the landscape plan that shows the ‎

existing trees, the new trees and the water main‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper stated he was looking ‎

for the tree survey, that Sheet L‎-1‎ is the proposed plantings‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo noted it was a ‎

combination of plant materials, existing and new, and the water main‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper ‎

noted he was referring to Sheet C‎-4‎ and asked whether the existing trees were the ‎

ones designated on that sheet‎. ‎The applicant responded it was‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper asked ‎

whether they had saved additional trees by adjusting the water line‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo ‎

explained they had looked at that and it became a close call as to which scenario they ‎

used to save the most amount of trees‎. ‎He noted their options were to move the ‎

water main ten feet from the west property line to allow the ten foot easement with no ‎

planting on it, or to keep it where it was presently located, or to adjust it a few feet ‎

one way or the other‎. ‎He further explained that was why he asked that this be a ‎

condition for their consultants and the City's consultants to come to an agreement on ‎

the best case scenario in the field‎. ‎He explained they were not pinpointed to exact ‎

location, i‎.‎e‎.‎, the drawings may be within a foot or two‎. ‎He noted they didn't want to ‎

go strictly by the engineer documents in trying to preserve some trees‎. ‎He stated he ‎

would like to have some liberty, in conjunction with the City's consultants, to adjust it ‎

in the field‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Mr‎. ‎Tony Tarkowski to come forward to speak‎. ‎He ‎

clarified Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski's address, asking him if ‎2514‎ S‎. ‎Rochester Road was his ‎

residence‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski explained that was his office address in the Regal Office ‎

Plaza‎.‎

Tony Tarkowski, ‎1008‎ Hidden Lane‎, came forward and identified himself‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski stated the reason he was present tonight was in connection with First ‎

Federal of Michigan's building project‎. ‎He advised the Commissioners he did not ‎

think First Federal had too many parking spaces because the offices at Regal Colony ‎

could use any extra spaces as Regal Colony's parking was limited‎. ‎He explained this ‎

issue has come up many times before the Planning Commission, noting many people ‎

had contemplated building on this site‎. ‎He stated there was a safety issue in coming ‎

out of the driveway of Regal Office Plaza, noting this issue has been there from the ‎

beginning and continues today‎. ‎He indicated the Planning Commission did not seem ‎

inclined to include the ingress‎/‎egress subject in their approval of the plans for the ‎

property‎. ‎He stated he felt it was a bad move to not consider the safety issue‎. ‎He felt ‎

they were concerned about parking spaces and parking lot lighting, but not concerned ‎

about the safety of Regal Office Plaza patrons in making a left‎-‎hand turn from the ‎

Plaza to go north on Rochester Road‎. ‎He noted the recent construction on Rochester ‎

Road and the rumor of Rochester Road being widened another two lanes‎. ‎He asked ‎

how much more traffic was necessary before they were allowed the ingress‎/‎egress ‎

access to Wabash Road‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski confirmed they had been in discussions with Mr‎. ‎Eagle of First ‎

Federal regarding the back property and they were still in discussion‎. ‎He stated he ‎

was trying to figure out a way to potentially build on the lot and had presented some ‎

documents to Mr‎. ‎Ed Anzek regarding their proposals‎. ‎He stated he would like it put ‎

in the minutes that when the back lot gets developed, there will be an ingress‎/‎egress to ‎

that property so the people will be safe‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski stated he would try to develop the property if they can figure out a ‎

way to put a building on it‎. ‎He noted if they can't put a building on it, he will go back ‎

to Mr‎. ‎Don Eagle and ask they put something there, even if it is just a park, to allow ‎

ingress‎/‎egress from their property to Wabash Road‎. ‎He referred to the number of ‎

accidents in front of the Regal Office complex, which he felt could be documented by ‎

the police department‎. ‎He noted he did not want the Commissioners to wait until ‎

someone died before doing anything‎. ‎He stated the volume of traffic is going up, not ‎

down‎. ‎Rochester Road is potentially going to be widened again‎. ‎There are lot of ‎

parking challenges for the complex, especially on the days when all the doctor's offices ‎

are open, noting there appeared to be too many doctor's offices in the complex‎. ‎He ‎

brought up the fact in the past fire access had been mentioned in the minutes of ‎

another meeting, which had not been addressed this evening‎. ‎He stated he did not ‎

want to see his investment burn down because of the lack of access‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski explained he has put a lot of money into Rochester Hills‎. ‎He ‎

stated he bought a home here seven years ago and he bought the office condominium ‎

here two miles from his home because he liked the City‎. ‎He stated he would like to ‎

continue working and living in the City‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski explained the difficulties in ‎

entering and exiting the Regal Office Complex because of the Barclay Circle traffic ‎

waiting in the center turn lane, especially during rush hour‎. ‎He referred to the number ‎

of people who turn right out of the complex and then make U‎-‎turns to head back ‎

north because of the traffic backup for Barclay Circle‎. ‎He explained if Wabash Road ‎

was open and they could enter the complex from Wabash, it would make things a lot ‎

easier for everyone‎. ‎He requested the Commissioners to take into consideration the ‎

injury factors and all the other things he mentioned and reminded them he is in ‎

discussions with Mr‎. ‎Eagle and hoped they could reach an agreement‎. ‎He hoped the ‎

Planning Commission would be in favor of that ingress‎/‎egress‎. ‎He noted he wanted ‎

this in the minutes because he wanted everyone to understand that they don't want ‎

anyone injured there and he hoped the Planning Commission didn't want to see ‎

anyone injured there either‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Attorney Staran how they could require an easement‎. ‎

Attorney Staran stated it was difficult‎. ‎He noted from the presentation, it would be a ‎

matter of condemning for private purposes an easement across private land at ‎

considerable expense to the property owner to service another property‎. ‎He stated it ‎

sounded like it may be a desirable thing if it can be worked out and the City can ‎

encourage it; however, he explained there were restrictions as to what the City can ‎

require along these lines, particularly since the easement does not service this ‎

particular property‎. ‎He pointed out the discussion was not new and it had come up ‎

relative to this property in the past as was mentioned‎. ‎He stated he would be happy ‎

to answer any questions as his statements were just an overview of the issue‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen requested the record reflected that Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski left after speaking ‎

and did not wait for further discussion on the matter‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen also pointed out ‎

there was a lot more history to this issue regarding the Office Plaza being a Consent ‎

Judgment and the fact it may not have been a good idea to have an office complex ‎

there in the first place; however, once the Judgment happened, the other things ‎

followed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen also wanted to point out that this was the first time in a long time ‎

that they had someone propose anything for the subject site that did not need ‎

variances or buffer modifications, etc‎.‎, and which reinforces the original land use of ‎

office‎. ‎He stated this looked like a much better development than they had seen in a ‎

long time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked if the ATM's were on the south side of the building The ‎

applicant responded that was correct‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked if those vehicles were ‎

headed eastbound, i‎.‎e, the ATM's were on the driver's side‎. ‎The applicant responded ‎

that was correct‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted that caused some concern because anyone using ‎

the ATM entering from Rochester Road would have to make a U‎-‎turn to the right and ‎

cross southbound traffic twice as they go in the back and swing around and then cross ‎

traffic again ‎(‎i‎.‎e‎. ‎the traffic coming south in the front of the bank‎)‎, and then go around ‎

back in order to exit‎. ‎He further noted if they came in from Wabash, they have to ‎

cross southbound traffic once or they could cross southbound traffic inside, make ‎

another U‎-‎turn into oncoming traffic after exiting the ATM‎. ‎He stated it was a really ‎

complex traffic pattern‎. ‎He asked whether the applicant had considered swapping ‎

that to an ATM in an island where the ideal would be to come in from the north, head ‎

west and exit from the south‎. ‎He noted it would be more complicated for traffic ‎

entering off Wabash, but then they would only be crossing on‎-‎coming traffic once‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle stated the people entering from Rochester Road would be about half ‎

the traffic because it is a one‎-‎way entrance, southbound only‎. ‎He explained ‎

northbound traffic off Rochester Road will have to enter from Wabash Road‎. ‎

Secondly, he explained it was a security issue from the bank's point of view because if ‎

they put an island ATM out in the lot, they would require bank personnel to go out to ‎

service the machine outside of the building with cash‎. ‎He explained that whenever ‎

possible they try to put the ATM through the wall of the building so it can be serviced ‎

from the security of the building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen stated he understood that but questioned ‎

why they would not put it on the north‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo responded it was visibility‎. ‎He stated the best spot as far as ‎

security for the users is in the corner they have proposed because it is the most visible ‎

corner on the site‎. ‎He noted someone using the ATM at midnight would want to feel ‎

secure while using the machine‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo pointed out it was not just the ATM ‎

located there, the night depository was located there as well‎. ‎He stated two functions ‎

are served at that location‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle pointed out that ‎65%‎ to ‎70%‎ of the ATM transactions are done after ‎

business hours‎. ‎He stated that would eliminate some of the cross traffic, but most of ‎

the ATM business is done when the drive‎-‎up window is closed‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen noted he wished there was a better way to do that‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle ‎

responded they have had branches that faced differently on the street and they have ‎

done them as another lane of drive‎-‎up‎. ‎However, with this particular site, he pointed ‎

out the Sue Ann Douglas Drain prohibits them from building over that easement, ‎

although they are already moving the drain somewhat‎. ‎He noted they had gone as far ‎

as they could in the back and they still had the security issue‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained Renata Kolak, one of the designers in their office, has ‎

flipflopped, backwards and forwards, mirror images, on this site with this branch for ‎

every conceivable possibility and this is the best solution to accommodate all the ‎

needs‎. ‎He further explained they have angled the building, rotated the building ‎90‎ ‎

degrees, they have done everything they could on the computer and this was the best ‎

way‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted the staff report and the consultant's report, in terms of ‎

their ultimate recommendations, conditions, etc‎.‎, were substantially different‎. ‎He ‎

noted he hoped the applicant could provide some guidance in resolving those ‎

differences‎. ‎He stated some architects believe fake windows are a good thing to do; ‎

however, Mr‎. ‎Tiseo did not agree with that‎. ‎He brought up the lighting and the fact it ‎

was his opinion if they didn't put a light on the property, it would still be well lit from ‎

Rochester Road‎. ‎He questioned the applicant's statement that there was no design ‎

style in the area‎. ‎He stated there is a movement coming northbound on the same side ‎

of Rochester Road as the applicant's property where some conformity has started‎. ‎

He noted the recent change at the Citgo Gas Station and the recent architectural ‎

changes that have been moving to the north‎. ‎He pointed out east, across Rochester ‎

Road, the office park has a lot of design features that have been maintained, and ‎

although they are not identical, there has been an effort‎. ‎He noted they have done a ‎

good job‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained those comments were not his comments‎. ‎They were ‎

comments from the City's consultants‎. ‎He quoted from the September ‎27‎, ‎2000‎ ‎

McKenna Associates letter which contained the phrase, ‎"‎Therefore, it is difficult to ‎

pinpoint an exact architectural style for this area‎". ‎Chairperson Kaiser commented he ‎

believed the applicant had echoed those words, to which Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated he had as ‎

he agrees with the statement‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser stated that was his reference to the ‎

staff report containing one set of conditions and recommendations and the consultant's ‎

report another‎. ‎He noted he had hoped the applicant could resolve some of the ‎

issues‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser stated he disagreed with the applicant and the consultant ‎

on that point‎. ‎He stated if they failed to identify any type of ‎"‎mood‎" ‎along Rochester ‎

Road, he felt the applicant had continued that in their design‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked the applicant to address the issue of the property ‎

located behind their site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle noted that Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski had left, but verified ‎

they had been in discussion‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle stated he had shared with Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski ‎

what their in‎-‎house appraisers had appraised the property at‎. ‎He committed to Mr‎. ‎

Tarkowski today that if, in fact, the site is unbuildable, and he could get something in ‎

writing stating that, he would go back to the appraisal department to look at it again ‎

and probably lower the value, which would allow he and Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski to negotiate ‎

better‎. ‎He pointed out the buildability affects the value of the lot‎. ‎He explained they ‎

are negotiating in good faith and he has provided Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski with a site plan that ‎

showed the back parcel with the required setbacks‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle noted Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski ‎

had been in touch with Mr‎. ‎Anzek, although he did not believe he had been to an ‎

architect yet‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle indicated Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski and a Mr‎. ‎Bommarito from the ‎

same association are interested in purchasing the lot from First Federal‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle ‎

told them they would negotiate price based on the buildability of the site‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether it was being discussed in order for them to ‎

purchase it to put in another building and a drive to have access to Wabash‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Eagle noted that was a possibility‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted it had sounded to him as ‎

if they were more interested in putting in another building, not just a drive for safety ‎

reasons‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle noted that was correct; however, if they are not able to build on ‎

the site, it will affect the value of the site, which would reduce their asking price‎. ‎He ‎

explained the condominium association is look‎

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

Granted‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Hooper, Rosen, Ruggiero, Potere and Ramanauskas

6 -

Nay

Kaiser and Hill

2 -

advised him it looked like it could end up being a narrow lot‎. ‎He explained that based ‎

on buffers, setbacks and what is being proposed, it could be a difficult site to build on‎. ‎

He stated that may have been misconstrued to mean unbuildable, which he did not ‎

agree‎. ‎He pointed anything could be built, it would just depend on what they chose to ‎

build‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek noted the traffic issues associated with Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski's ‎

development is dependent primarily on the number of doctors and dentists in the ‎

complex‎. ‎He noted it was not a good idea to fill condominium office complexes with ‎

doctors and dentists because of the traffic they generate‎. ‎He explained it would be ‎

great to work out the cross‎-‎easement agreement as it would be good for all parties‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski had given him a drawing tonight and asked if he ‎

could build on it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated he told Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski he did not know and he ‎

should find a consultant to design it and prepare some concepts to see what could be ‎

a viable structure with supporting parking on that site‎. ‎He explained that would be the ‎

first step to deciding if it was a buildable site or not‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle agreed with Mr‎. ‎Anzek's statement and suggested it was in the bank's ‎

best interests to have the condominium association have some type of access to ‎

Wabash, because if they didn't, the Regal Office Plaza traffic will most likely pull out ‎

of their driveway, pull into the bank's driveway and drive around the bank and come ‎

back out on Wabash‎. ‎He explained it was in his best interest to negotiate in good faith ‎

with Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski to sell him the parcel and allow him the cross easement and use ‎

the curb cut onto Wabash‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted the right‎-‎of‎-‎way is reflected on the plan as ‎120‎ feet‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo responded that was the current right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎He indicated that was ‎

changed and there was a new right‎-‎of‎-‎way that was ‎58‎ feet deep from the section ‎

line‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated that the building closest to Rochester Road on the Regal parcel ‎

would have to be demolished in order to put the right‎-‎of‎-‎way through‎. ‎He indicated it ‎

was about a foot or two inside the right‎-‎of‎-‎way line‎. ‎He indicated if that went ‎

through, it may present an opportunity to correct some of the problems on the Regal ‎

site without the cross‎-‎access agreement‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser brought up the fact that Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski felt the widening of ‎

Rochester Road would cause more problems‎. ‎He stated if Rochester Road is ‎

widened, it will likely be a boulevard and it will eliminate a lot of the issues‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo ‎

stated if they take the first building from Regal, it might eliminate some of his parking ‎

problems as well‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill stated the whole issue concerned her because she remembered the ‎

history as it goes back and she recalled when Council rezoned this property back to ‎

office in an attempt to correct what had gone wrong‎. ‎She noted the intent was hoping ‎

to see something that would have cross‎-‎access to the existing office complex to the ‎

north and be developed and designed as a whole to make the corner work‎. ‎She ‎

noted she wasn't seeing that happen this evening‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill stated she was concerned ‎

with the direction of the drive‎-‎through, etc‎.‎, and whether or not the building could ‎

have been shifted to the south to allow for the ATM to be on the north side‎. ‎She ‎

noted she saw the traffic problems on the site and it concerned her‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill noted she was also concerned about the lighting, explaining they have ‎

required numerous developments in the City to drop their light poles to ‎20 ‎feet‎. ‎She ‎

stated the applicant's building was not over ‎20 ‎feet and she did not see the reason for ‎

the poles to be higher than the building‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill noted the Commissioners had been ‎

given demonstrations and education on lighting and noted she did not think there was a ‎

safety concern with this site‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill noted in reviewing the photometric study, it did ‎

not go out to the edge of the property line, just into the parking lot‎. ‎She mentioned ‎

they have a requirement of so many foot candles at the property line‎. ‎She explained it ‎

looked like they will cross over and be higher on the north property line than what the ‎

Ordinance requires‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill brought up the berm on the project plans‎. ‎She noted she believed some ‎

of the berm came from the proposal on the last plan for this property‎. ‎She added they ‎

had talked numerous times about the cross‎-‎access for the buildings to the north‎. ‎She ‎

stated they had some guidelines regarding grades and slopes, although they were not ‎

etched in stone‎. ‎She noted although she did not know what the grade change would ‎

be, but she did not feel they were limited in creating some access‎. ‎She explained they ‎

had been looking at reductions in buffers in parking areas between office complexes, ‎

part of which was to try to ease in areas where there could be some cross‎-‎access and ‎

help traffic‎. ‎She agreed when Rochester Road goes in, if it is developed to a six‎-‎lane ‎

boulevard, it will change the turning movement and provide some safety and fire ‎

access‎. ‎She stated she would like to see a lot more cooperation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle asked that the Commissioners not get too concerned over the lighting ‎

issues‎. ‎He explained they will drop the light to ‎20‎ feet‎. ‎He suggested that at some ‎

time in the future some Federal regulation may require them to put in more lighting, ‎

although at this point in time the ‎20‎ feet will meet their guidelines‎. ‎Secondly and more ‎

importantly with respect to the cross‎-‎easement access, Mr‎. ‎Eagle noted they had ‎

discussed the traffic patterns on his site and the amount of traffic the bank will ‎

generate‎. ‎He stated if they put a cross‎-‎easement through his property, it will draw ‎

another ‎50‎ to ‎60‎ cars every day right into his drive‎-‎up stackup, causing even more ‎

confusion‎. ‎He stated it would be better for all three parties, the City, the condominium ‎

association and the bank, if the condominium association and the bank could come to ‎

some agreement on the back parcel‎. ‎He explained it would give the association ‎

access to Wabash Road and would not have any impact on the bank's traffic and car ‎

count during the day and would do everything they were trying to accomplish‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo reiterated there are two parcels, and the parcel in the front which they ‎

are developing has a four and one‎-‎half grade difference between the bank and the ‎

Regal site‎. ‎He noted they only had about ‎40‎ feet to make that grade change in a ‎

driveway that would be steeper than a loading dock‎. ‎He stated he could guarantee ‎

there would be lawsuits every year if they did that on that parcel‎. ‎He indicated there ‎

was no way of doing that on the front parcel, it would have to be done on the rear ‎

parcel‎. ‎He stated that was probably why it was not done on the Guardian Savings ‎

property and that is probably why the City approved that site without the ‎

cross‎-‎access easement‎. ‎Because it was not possible to do that on the front parcel‎. ‎

He suggested it may be possible on the rear parcel, but that is not what they are ‎

developing‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill stated the original conversation about this parcel was towards the rear to ‎

have some type of cross‎-‎access‎. ‎She noted her concern is, and what they have been ‎

trying to look at within the community, is that there are only so many parcels left and ‎

some are more difficult to develop‎. ‎She stated the applicant had indicated there was ‎

some conversation about the other parcel, so they could try to see the bigger picture in ‎

developing these difficult areas‎. ‎She noted she would like to have more conversation ‎

about what could happen there and how it would affect the whole area‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked what inspired the words ‎"‎possible future driveway‎"‎ ‎

and its location that were included on the applicant's plan‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle noted they had ‎

suspected, based on their previous experience, that the City would only want one ‎

curb‎-‎cut on Wabash and they would want it opposite the southern curb‎-‎cut on the ‎

opposite side of the street‎. ‎From that thought, they came up with the fact that if ‎

anything at all happened to the back parcel, in order to get access to Wabash, they ‎

would probably have to come through their curb‎-‎cut‎. ‎He stated that was why they ‎

indicated it as a future easement‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo indicated that was correct‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked, with that advance planning in mind, which was ‎

excellent, why not have this issue resolved when they came here tonight? Mr‎. ‎Eagle ‎

responded although he has not spent all his time on this particular issue, he has been ‎

talking with the condominium association since March‎. ‎He noted first with Mr‎. ‎

Bommarito and more recently with Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser asked if the ‎

issue was price‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle responded it was part of the issue‎. ‎He explained he can ‎

commit to a cross‎-‎easement, he can commit to negotiating in good faith, but he does ‎

not have the authority to commit to a dollar figure, especially since the condominium ‎

association's offer is so low‎. ‎He explained he believed the cross‎-‎easement would ‎

benefit everyone, but they have to come an agreement on price‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser verified the applicant agreed the site plan could include a note ‎

that if the westerly parcel is developed, the applicant will cooperate in the execution of ‎

a cross‎-‎access easement agreement with the northerly property owner‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle ‎

agreed this was true, although he asked for clarification on the ‎"‎westerly‎" ‎property ‎

owner‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser explained if the westerly parcel is developed, whether the ‎

bank or the Regal Office Plaza develops the parcel, the goal is to get cross‎-‎access ‎

with the northerly property owner‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle agreed that was fine‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle also wanted to clarify one of Ms‎. ‎Hill's comments about easements and ‎

access to the north property at any other place but the back‎. ‎He explained they had a ‎

lot of properties in Michigan, possibly ‎70‎ freestanding buildings, and noted they have a ‎

problem with kids on skateboards and roller blades, and he noted the safety issue with ‎

a ramp being installed on this particular site‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Mr‎. ‎Kagler about his recommendations with respect to ‎

this project‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kagler responded that first of all the applicant is perhaps misreading ‎

some of his earlier recommendations‎. ‎He explained earlier in the review process, ‎

there were discussions about cross‎-‎access which were not only to the west, but also ‎

to the north‎. ‎He stated they knew at the very beginning, and from previous review ‎

cycles as well, that there were some tremendous challenges involved in connecting the ‎

subject parcel‎. ‎He explained not only was the placement of the connection on the ‎

subject property a concern to this property owner, but most likely a revised site plan ‎

approval would be required for the northerly parcel‎. ‎He noted there would be ‎

substantial changes made on the northerly parcel‎. ‎Therefore, in looking at ‎

cross‎-‎access, they felt the extent of what needed to be put on the site plan were some ‎

dashed lines, similar to what appears on the west side of the parcel, which explained ‎

from this property owner's point of view, this is the best and most logical location on ‎

the north side of this property to connect to the north parcel‎. ‎He indicated they ‎

suggested it be shown on the plans, put the easements in place and leave it to the ‎

northerly property owner at such time as they come for revised site plan approval to ‎

engineer it, if it can be engineered, and connect if it can be connected‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler noted to dispense with it right now because its too challenging or ‎

unsafe, when it hadn't been engineered or evaluated or to just dismiss it from an ‎

engineering point of view‎. ‎He felt it was all speculation at this point‎. ‎He stated they ‎

felt the easements should be included on the plan, because there may be some ‎

potential in the future‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser asked whether Mr‎. ‎Kagler would like to ‎

see a location that is more specific than is showing right now‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kagler noted there ‎

was no location on the north side at the present time‎. ‎He stated there is a location ‎

designated on the west side‎. ‎He noted their initial suggestions and recommendations ‎

for cross‎-‎access, wherein they discussed not only the west but also the north‎. ‎He ‎

stated if the concern was cut‎-‎through traffic, the place where there would most likely ‎

be cut‎-‎through traffic would be either directly north of the bypass lane on the west ‎

side of the property, directly north of the drain easement‎. ‎He stated the other possible ‎

cut‎-‎through location would be directly north of the island in front of the building‎. ‎He ‎

explained if the concern was minimizing cut‎-‎through traffic, a cross‎-‎access easement ‎

could be put somewhere north of the building where there would be no direct ‎

movement, no direct shot down to Wabash, and someone would have to make some ‎

awkward movements in order to get down there and that would slow down traffic and ‎

contribute to safety‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked for an indication of where anyone was talking about ‎

coming from the north into either of the parcels‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kagler asked if he was referring ‎

to north off Rochester Road‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser stated his question was north from ‎

the Regal Office Plaza property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle explained he and Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski had ‎

talked about going to the western end of the Regal property, which is on the left‎-‎hand ‎

side of the drawing, west of the third existing building and then swinging the drive ‎

towards to the east and then south to connect to with the future curb‎-‎cut‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo ‎

explained they had looked at this issue engineering‎-‎wise and there was a letter ‎

generated by their engineers that was in his file that indicated this was not possible‎. ‎

He stated that having the four and one‎-‎half foot grade difference between the two ‎

parcels, with only about forty feet to make the transition, there were not many options‎. ‎

He explained they would have to raise their site four feet to allow an access isle ‎

across, or they would have to dig a gorge‎. ‎He stated it was not just a challenge, it ‎

was almost impossible‎. ‎He noted the amount of hours he had spent on this particular ‎

issue‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether Mr‎. ‎Tiseo's statement was there was no way ‎

to ever do this‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained that was correct with respect to the front parcel ‎

due to the transition between the two properties‎. ‎He stated there would be a slope of ‎

at least ‎30‎ degrees between the two parcels‎. ‎He noted they would be lucky to get ‎

vehicles down it on a dry day‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler noted no one was asking the applicant to solve the problem‎. ‎They ‎

were just asking them to locate a possible connection‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo asked what the ‎

benefit of that would be‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kagler explained the only party that would be evaluating ‎

the connection from an engineering point of view with some incentive for making it ‎

work would be the property owner to the north‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kagler noted this connection ‎

would not necessarily serve the subject property owner, it would serve the property ‎

owner to the north‎. ‎He noted there may be some customers using both locations, but ‎

most likely it would be a secondary connection between the north property and ‎

Wabash‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero stated she believed the benefit of connecting the two properties ‎

would be tremendous to the bank‎. ‎She explained the considerable amount of ‎

customer traffic coming on the bank property from the Regal Office Plaza property‎. ‎

She noted she had sat on the Traffic Board in the City for a number of years and she ‎

felt the bank would want the connection‎. ‎She stated the traffic would come out of ‎

Regal Colony, come in the bank driveway, traverse the bank property and go out on ‎

Wabash to go north‎. ‎She stated this was definitely going to happen and it will be a lot ‎

of traffic‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle noted that was one of his concerns and he agreed there will be a lot of ‎

traffic‎. ‎He agreed he will get the benefit of some of the traffic by them using the ‎

westerly parcel because they will still come on to his lot at the curb‎-‎cut on Wabash ‎

and they can come straight on into the bank or they can turn and go out‎. ‎He stated ‎

the reason they did not show this future or best location of the access to the north ‎

property on their plans, was due to his discussions with the condominium association, ‎

and the best location was off the westerly parcel, and this is not the parcel they are ‎

addressing today‎. ‎He stated they were concentrating on the parcel they are ‎

developing‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero stated this is about the fourth review since she's been on the ‎

Commission by developers, contractors, engineers and city staff and it was ‎

determined it was really impossible to connect to the north‎. ‎She explained they had ‎

previously used dry erase boards and chalk boards trying to engineer a drive from the ‎

north to this property on at least two occasions and what they finally determined was ‎

that nothing could be built on the subject parcel if they wanted to put in a driveway‎. ‎

She agreed it has really become impossible due to the other requirements, road ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎ways, etc‎.‎, and it was something they could not force the applicant to do‎. ‎

She reiterated the applicant will be getting a lot of traffic on their site‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero agreed with Mr‎. ‎Rosen's comment that for once they have a ‎

reasonable development that will be attractive on that corner and certainly fits better ‎

than anything else they had seen previously‎. ‎She appreciated the fact the applicant ‎

had not asked for all sorts of modifications and variances‎. ‎She noted she would like ‎

to see more landscaping on the Rochester Road side in keeping with the streetscape ‎

they are trying to develop along there‎. ‎She referenced one note on the plans regarding ‎

whether the two pear trees they are proposing to plant don't work, they can simply be ‎

removed and put tree credits into the tree fund‎. ‎She stated she would rather see trees ‎

out front‎. ‎She felt this was necessary‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero agreed with Mr‎. ‎Kaiser that there was a lot of landscaping in the ‎

back‎. ‎She noted she would like to see more greenscape in the front as well as along ‎

the south and the north‎. ‎She stated the ATM circulation is a concern of hers, but she ‎

agreed that most ATM use is probably non‎-‎banking hours‎. ‎She explained she was ‎

more concerned about the cut‎-‎through traffic on the site, relative to the circulation of ‎

the bank's customers, because she believed it will be tremendous‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle stated they could definitely address the landscaping issues‎. ‎He noted ‎

he and Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski had talked earlier tonight about additional landscaping on the ‎

north side because Mr‎. ‎Tarkowski was concerned about kids sledding down the ‎

slope‎. ‎He stated they could definitely adjust some of their landscaping to put more out ‎

front‎. ‎He expressed his concern as a business owner that he did not want to hide his ‎

building, they wanted people to know they are there‎. ‎He agreed they can certainly do ‎

more than what is shown‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated Ms‎. ‎Hill's comments were very well made‎. ‎He noted if ‎

they ignored the mandate to make sure development is taking into account future ‎

development and‎/‎or existing development on adjacent properties, and let this be ‎

developed without the western parcel developed or planned at the same time, they will ‎

then be addressing the cut‎-‎through traffic problem at some point in the future‎. ‎He ‎

predicted Regal was not going to buy the parcel if all they get out of it is a driveway ‎

and some parking‎. ‎He noted any building plan Regal may propose will include ways ‎

to avoid the buffer and screening requirements‎. ‎He felt they would require a lot of ‎

waivers to develop the land‎. ‎He reiterated they were not going to accept just getting a ‎

parking lot and a driveway‎. ‎He noted he did not feel it was being planned wisely‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ramanauskas brought up the access point to the north and noted it would ‎

take up most of the parking to establish a ramp between the parcels‎. ‎He noted if ‎

parking was already an issue to the applicant, it would become a greater issue to ‎

create the access‎. ‎He explained it was physically very challenging‎. ‎He stated if it was ‎

left up to the northern parcel, he understood what Mr‎. ‎Tiseo had indicated and it was ‎

very complicated‎. ‎He noted there were times they tried to avoid cut‎-‎through traffic ‎

and in this case there were some safety issues if it was imposed‎. ‎He agreed other ‎

businesses had the same problem in trying to turn north on Rochester Road‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero what thoughts she had with respect to ‎

additional landscaping she would like to see on the Rochester Road side‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎

Ruggiero responded everything they could put in‎. ‎She understood the applicant did ‎

not want to hide the front of the building and noted this was an issue with everyone ‎

who wants to develop along Rochester Road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo noted one thing they were ‎

conscious of in the landscaping was the fact they had to redesign the site due to the ‎

increased right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎He explained anything they put in will have to be ripped out‎. ‎

He felt it would be foolish to spend a lot of money putting a lot of landscaping just to ‎

have it ripped out‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero noted it would probably be awhile before that ‎

would happen‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse reminded the applicant and the Commissioners there is ‎

a ten‎-‎foot landscaped area between the future right‎-‎of‎-‎way and the parking area‎. ‎

The applicant suggested adding at least one additional tree in the area just ‎

adjacent to the right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎--- ‎the ten‎-‎foot greenbelt area‎. ‎He noted something ‎

which might help in terms of subduing the parking is to add a small evergreen hedge in ‎

the ten‎-‎foot greenbelt which would substantially help the landscape in that area‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked for clarification of where they would like to put the hedge‎. ‎

The applicant explained along the new greenbelt created by the proposed ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way, between the two walks‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained instead of having two ‎

trees along Rochester Road, there would be three trees‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser added ‎

"‎and an evergreen hedge‎". ‎The applicant agreed‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser verified along ‎

the eastern side, from sidewalk to sidewalk‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether there was a sign at the northernmost drive ‎

depicting how people can use it‎. ‎He noted the ‎"‎no right turn‎" ‎sign for people traveling ‎

through the parking lot‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained there was a one‎-‎way sign opposite that ‎

on the north parcel‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser asked about people on Rochester Road ‎

being deterred from making the turn at all‎. ‎The applicant noted Chairperson Kaiser ‎

was talking about northbound Rochester Road traffic not being able to make a left ‎

turn‎. ‎The applicant noted there was not a sign on the plans but they could add it‎. ‎

The applicant brought up the hedge they had discussed earlier and noted there ‎

may be a problem at the north sidewalk because there was a ‎25-‎foot clear vision ‎

triangle they were required to maintain‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted it should be in ‎

conformance with clear sight requirements‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse requested clarification for the record that ‎"‎developed‎" ‎could include ‎

only a parking lot and a driveway‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser agreed with this clarification‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill inquired whether there should be mention of a cross‎-‎access between the ‎

east and west property‎. ‎She noted there was presently an indication of a driveway, ‎

but if that parcel was sold, are they willing to give access to the westerly parcel, noting ‎

it was situated badly‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted they cannot prevent them from selling ‎

the parcel‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill referred to the dotted line which indicated a possible future ‎

driveway‎. ‎She questioned whether they will commit to having a driveway in the future ‎

to that portion to that piece of property or whether that property would go directly out ‎

to Wabash‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse noted that if the applicant will agree to a cross‎-‎access with the ‎

north property, that it might also be a consideration of the Planning Commission to ‎

include the cross‎-‎access between the two parcels in the event ownership changed‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse pointed out there were two independent parcels that currently have the ‎

same owner‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle brought up the fact the way easements are drafted, they included a legal ‎

description and that would include the curb‎-‎cut onto Wabash and wherever they ‎

decide to connect‎. ‎Attorney Staran agreed there was more specificity in the legal ‎

description when it becomes time to actually make the conveyance‎. ‎He explained the ‎

alternative would be that the entire property would be encumbered by an easement ‎

which would not be desirable‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Attorney Staran if the following wording would be ‎

acceptable‎: ‎"‎This site plan shall include a note that if the western parcel is ‎

developed, the applicant will cooperate in the execution of a cross‎-‎access ‎

easement with the current northerly property owner, and‎/‎or the then westerly ‎

property owner for the purpose of using the Wabash curb‎-‎cut on this site‎"‎. ‎

Attorney Staran agreed that was worded appropriately‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Potere questioned whether they were going to require a photometric showing ‎

right to the property lines and try to reduce some of the ‎9.0‎ and ‎8.4‎'s‎. ‎Chairperson ‎

Kaiser suggested the following wording‎: ‎"‎Provide photometric grid consistent with ‎

city requirements right up to the property line‎"‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler clarified the only place the City requires the limitation at a property line ‎

is property adjacent to a residential district‎. ‎He noted the subject site does not abut a ‎

residential district‎. ‎He explained if their desire was to put a limit, they would need to ‎

specify the limit because the Ordinance does not have one‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo asked what the purpose of a photometric to that point would be‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser responded it would provide an indication of how much light would ‎

go out to Rochester Road and to see how much ambient light would be added to the ‎

City of Rochester Hills in general‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle agreed they could provide a plan‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Potere noted the providing of a plan would not reduce the ambient light‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser clarified the applicant has already gone down to ‎20‎ feet and ‎

asked Mrs‎. ‎Potere what she would like them to do additionally‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Potere stated it ‎

looked like it was going to be a awfully bright corner‎. ‎She noted some parking lots ‎

are illuminated at two and three foot candles and some of the applicant's photometric ‎

indicate that it is over ten‎. ‎She did not feel that was necessary‎. ‎She stated she ‎

understood intense lighting around the ATM, noting she preferred that; however, she ‎

felt it was too much for the rest of the parking lot‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Kolak pointed out the driveway to Wabash Avenue and explained the ‎

photometric indicates that area requires additional light because it is a pretty dark ‎

driveway‎. ‎She further explained the reason for the intensity for the lighting was ‎

because of the light poles‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo explained when they performed their study, the ‎

25‎ and ‎30-‎foot light poles caused the intensity to go down‎. ‎He explained by making ‎

the poles shorter and lower to the ground, the light levels are increased‎. ‎He noted the ‎

light could be decreased by using a ‎30-‎foot pole‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Kolak added they had ‎

provided calculations for ‎20-‎foot poles and ‎25-‎foot poles which she believed were in ‎

the file‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo reiterated the ‎25-‎foot pole photometric shows less light on the site‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Potere explained with other projects there had not been restrictions with ‎

respect to the height of the poles and foot candles, noting the applicants compromised ‎

by lowering the poles and lowering the foot candles‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle attempted to clarify ‎

the matter by suggesting if they lowered the light levels per pole which will decrease ‎

the hot spots, he will then have to increase the number of poles to get the even lighting ‎

across the whole lot‎. ‎He questioned what that meant to the City aesthetically, if ‎

anything, but noted they may end up with more poles to get a more even light‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎

Potere indicated she believed they could achieve that aesthetically‎. ‎She noted she ‎

would prefer more poles, if they were aesthetically placed, than having the glowing ‎

corner‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo informed the Commissioners the Kroger stores they do require a ‎

minimum foot candle at any location on the property to be a six‎-‎foot candle reading‎. ‎

He noted they were very conscious of the safety issues‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen pointed out the applicant was talking about ‎9-‎plus candle power‎. ‎He ‎

pointed out that was equal to the Burger King at Crooks Road‎. ‎He suggested they ‎

cut down the poles to ‎20‎ feet and take about half the fixtures out‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ramanauskas added that the photometric calculations were done for ‎20-‎foot ‎

light poles‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo stated that was correct and they had also provided them for ‎25‎ ‎

feet‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo noted the average of the whole property was ‎3.4‎ foot candles‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rosen responded that was too bright‎. ‎He pointed out ‎3.4‎ would stand out like an ‎

island of brilliant light in an otherwise normally lit area‎. ‎He explained they have dealt ‎

with this issue on Crooks Road, noting the Burger King started out at ‎40‎ feet with four ‎

fixtures per pole and ended up at ‎25-‎foot with two fixtures‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen suggested the ‎

applicant needed spot lighting on the back near the drive‎-‎in areas and on the south ‎

side near the ATM‎. ‎He explained the rest of the site did not need that much light, ‎

noting there would be some business from ‎4:30‎ PM to ‎6:00‎ PM in the winter and ‎

probably from ‎7:00‎ AM until dawn, but other than that they wouldn't require that ‎

much light‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested they require one‎-‎foot candle at all the property ‎

lines except the two drives‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen suggested some sort of a maximum except at ‎

the ATM and the back‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted if the applicant had to comply with ‎

one at the property lines, it would dictate the rest of the lot‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo asked if there ‎

was an actual Ordinance or other guidelines that the City has for foot candles‎. ‎He ‎

explained some communities had specific requirements, but he had not found any for ‎

Rochester Hills‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse noted Mr‎. ‎Kagler had responded to that issue ‎

previously‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser verified what the applicant was trying to achieve was that ‎

people could see the building and the customers would be safe‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle noted from ‎

past experience some ATM standards required ten‎-‎foot candles within a ten‎-‎foot arc ‎

of the ATM‎. ‎He noted he was not against agreeing to lowering the light levels as long ‎

as they are allowed to light the ATM and the drive‎-‎up‎. ‎The applicant explained the ‎

drive‎-‎up shouldn't be an issue because typically they put two down lights over each ‎

lane and they only run them when the bank is open‎. ‎He noted it is the ATM light that ‎

is a ‎24-‎hour light‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill noted the applicant had a projection overhead for the area for the ATM ‎

and she noted she presumed there would be lighting in that projection‎. ‎She stated no ‎

one would be out in the parking lot that is using the ATM after hours‎. ‎She explained ‎

most banks in the city have the ATM area well lit and the rest of the lot is either very ‎

low lighting or not lit at all‎. ‎She stated she was not against safety at the ATM, but she ‎

felt what the applicant was proposing and what was needed were two different things‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Eagle stated he agreed they could lower their light levels‎. ‎He explained his ‎

concern was that the ATM not be limited and suggested they would like to have ‎

uniform lights throughout the parking lot‎. ‎He noted if the lighting was not level where ‎

there are dark spots, someone could stand in a dark spot and not be seen by ‎

someone ‎50‎ feet away‎. ‎He noted you could see around but not in the dark spot‎. ‎

There was too much of a contrast‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill noted it may be because of the way the ‎

lot is designed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Eagle pointed out he felt they were saying the same thing‎. ‎He ‎

explained he needed uniform lighting at whatever level and some spot lighting at the ‎

ATM‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill agreed uniform lower light level is fine‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated they needed to be specific in the wording‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper ‎

suggested the following wording‎: ‎"‎No more than one‎-‎foot candle at the property ‎

line‎."‎ ‎He suggested they set the average at ‎1.7‎ and the applicant add a pole to create ‎

the uniform lighting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Tiseo referred to the north property light and noted they had ‎7.8‎ or ‎8.4‎ in that ‎

area and the property line was ‎10‎ feet north‎. ‎He indicated the only way he knew how ‎

to achieve that was to eliminate the poles‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper suggested they could use ‎

shielding‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tiseo did not believe they could achieve shielding to a one foot candle ‎

at that point Mr‎. ‎Eagle pointed out he felt they were in agreement and they would do ‎

what they had to do; however, it needed to be technologically feasible given the ‎

driveway locations, etc‎.‎, as t‎

2000-0378

Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎99‎-‎036 ‎- ‎First Federal of Michigan Bank‎

Item #‎1‎. ‎Tree Removal Permit‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Hooper, seconded by Potere, in the matter of File No‎. ‎99‎-‎036 ‎(‎First ‎

Federal of Michigan‎)‎, to ‎APPROVE the Tree Removal Permit‎ based on plans ‎

dated received August ‎24‎, ‎2000 ‎by the Rochester Hills Planning Department, and ‎

incorporating the preprinted Finding and four preprinted Conditions included in the ‎

staff report dated October ‎19‎, ‎2000‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The applicant is proposing to replace ‎34‎ regulated trees on‎-‎site and two located ‎

off‎-‎site ‎(‎i‎.‎e‎.‎, ‎36‎ replacement credits‎) ‎with ‎22‎ trees ‎(‎i‎.‎e‎.‎, ‎38‎ replacement ‎

credits‎). ‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Addition of a note to Sheet L‎-1‎ indicating that Frontier Pears will be planted at ‎

least five feet from the sidewalk along Wabash‎. ‎If planted closer, or a ‎

different pear is planted, the tree‎(‎s‎) ‎will be required to be removed and ‎

payment made into the Tree Fund in lieu of planting a replacement‎(‎s‎). ‎

2‎.‎ Permission be granted in writing by the property owner to the west to remove ‎

Tree ‎#440‎ and Tree ‎#446‎, if not the same as the owner of the subject owner‎.‎

3‎.‎ Revision of the Landscape Plan to move two replacement trees from east of the ‎

proposed Rochester Road right‎-‎of‎-‎way to at least four feet onto the property‎.‎

4‎.‎ Provision of a performance guarantee in the amount of ‎$8,167.50‎, as adjusted if ‎

necessary by the City, to ensure the correct installation of replacement trees‎. ‎

Such guarantee to be provided by the applicant prior to issuance of a Land ‎

Improvement Permit‎.‎

Roll Call Vote‎:‎

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

Nays‎:‎ Hill‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen‎ ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse clarified after the vote on the Tree Removal Permit that the ‎

extra tree along the Rochester Road frontage will go into the landscaping performance ‎

and maintenance guaranteed costs‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted the point of clarification ‎

and wished the applicants good luck with their project‎. ‎

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

Approved‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Hooper, Rosen, Ruggiero, Kaiser, Potere and Ramanauskas

7 -

Nay

Hill

1 -

DISCUSSION

Mr‎. ‎Donald Westphal came forward and introduced himself‎. ‎He explained he had ‎

been working very closely with the Planning Staff and wanted to thank the ‎

Commissioners for their time and guidance at a prior meeting‎. ‎He stated they have ‎

received a use variance to go forward with their project‎. ‎He noted he had hoped to ‎

be at the meeting requesting site plan approval; however, there have been a number of ‎

items that had come up and he had a lot of ‎"‎clean‎-‎up‎" ‎to do before he could bring the ‎

project before the Planning Commission‎. ‎

He explained they were concerned about the season and they had already started ‎

some work on the building‎. ‎He stated they had a window restoration person working ‎

on the building‎. ‎He stated that due to the colder weather, vagrants had been using the ‎

building, causing him to replace the locks on the building twice already‎. ‎He explained ‎

this was making it more critical that the project get moved along‎. ‎He explained they ‎

were encountering difficulties in getting electricity to the building, which meant they ‎

cannot get their lights and motion sensors installed‎. ‎

He stated, basically, they have a site plan they believe will work and noted ‎

that the Planning Staff has been most helpful‎. ‎He stated they had also received some ‎

help from the Mayor's office with respect to fire circulation around the building‎. ‎He ‎

explained they will have residential‎-‎type fire suppression system within the building and ‎

a hydrant on the site that all have agreed will take care of the fire issue‎. ‎

He explained they are very close as they have finished up the last of the ‎

revisions on their plans and will be ready to submit them‎. ‎

He informed the Commissioners they had encountered some problems with tree ‎

replacement matters‎. ‎He stated some trees they know as landscape architects, based ‎

on the soil types on the site, some live trees will now have to be classified as ‎"‎removed ‎

trees‎" ‎because the drip line of the tree is within the parking area‎. ‎He explained they ‎

will work out these issues, as well as the sandy soil on the site, and will plant whatever ‎

additional trees are necessary‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Westphal noted he wanted to have the opportunity to be present tonight and ‎

to update the Commissioners on their progress to date‎. ‎He explained they would like ‎

the project to go as smoothly as possible and get the building ‎"‎buttoned up‎" ‎quickly‎. ‎

He pointed out as an example, they had gone before the Historic Districts Commission ‎

thinking they were going to replace the windows with an anticipated labor cost of ‎

$50,000.00‎, and discovered when they attempted to remove a window, the window ‎

was constructed within the wall and it would damage the wall to remove the windows‎. ‎

He stated they were learning a lot and were confident when they were finished, they ‎

would have a building everyone would be proud of‎. ‎

He advised the Commissioners there was one item that may come up relating to ‎

the amount of parking‎. ‎He explained they had originally planned on having the amount ‎

of parking the square footage of office space would allow‎. ‎He noted they now hope ‎

to have a couple more spaces in addition to the allocated amount‎. ‎He explained his ‎

offices will occupy the entire second floor of the building and they will be using the ‎

attic for storage‎. ‎He stated when they determined the actual usable office space within ‎

the building, utilizing the basement, first floor, second floor and the garage, they believe ‎

they need the ‎18‎ spaces shown on the plan‎. ‎He pointed out some of the neighbors ‎

had requested less parking, but that did not seem possible at this time‎. ‎He stated they ‎

are working with that they have as far as the size of the site and they feel they have a ‎

workable plan‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked how many trees would actually be removed or ‎

destroyed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal explained, by pointing out on the display he brought with ‎

him, that the big tree to the left of the house is dead and in danger of falling onto ‎

Livernois Road‎. ‎He pointed out most of the evergreen trees on the site are not worth ‎

saving, noting they are very high‎-‎branched and bad on one side due to deciduous ‎

trees that are competition with them‎. ‎He explained they would be saving all the trees ‎

along the north property line and the row of trees along the south property line‎. ‎He ‎

explained there is a huge walnut tree near the parking area that they are trying to figure ‎

out what to do with the cars when the walnuts start falling‎. ‎He pointed out a large ‎

maple tree on his display and indicated the tall spruce trees will have to go‎. ‎He briefly ‎

explained their tree replacement plan which indicates the trees they will have to use‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Westphal stated they hoped to have a ‎"‎Roaring ‎20‎'s‎" ‎housewarming in the ‎

Spring‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser questioned whether they would be ready that soon‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Westphal stated they were confident the building would be ready; however, he noted ‎

they will not get asphalt in yet this year, although they are trying to get some curbing in ‎

and some gravel down, their contractors stated they can keep working on the exterior ‎

right on through the winter‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether they had determined they required more ‎

parking than office provides based on the number of employees‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal ‎

explained they had looked at how the office would lay out and noted his office would ‎

have eight employees‎. ‎He stated they believed they may have eighteen employees ‎

among all tenants of the buildings‎. ‎He indicated they could not lease the space without ‎

the proper amount of parking‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked the Commissioners if they had detected any big ‎

problems or issues that Mr‎. ‎Westphal should take into consideration before they ‎

officially come back before the Planning Commission‎. ‎The Commissioners briefly ‎

discussed the height of the light poles proposed for the site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Westphal pointed out ‎

they had already addressed that issue with the neighbors‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen pointed out the record before the Zoning Board of Appeals was fairly ‎

complete and went through a lot of the issues, particularly with the neighbors, the ‎

lighting, the trees along the northwest and north side, parking spots, etc‎. ‎He ‎

recommended the Commissioners read the record noting it was included with the ‎

packet for tonight's meeting‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Westphal stated he would like to bring up the issue of the ‎20-‎foot canopy‎. ‎

He explained they were going to have some difficulties in providing a year‎-‎round ‎

screen which is what the neighbors want‎. ‎He noted the present difference with the ‎

leaves coming down and the fact when evergreen and deciduous trees are mixed, the ‎

deciduous will win and the evergreens will grown thin‎. ‎He explained the screen along ‎

the north and west will probably be mainly evergreen to achieve the height‎. ‎He noted ‎

they had informed the neighbors they would plant decent sized trees and they may ‎

need some latitude in that area‎. ‎He explained they had promised a healthy screen in ‎

those areas and they intended to live up to their promise‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek requested Mr‎. ‎

Westphal work that issue out before the project came before the Planning ‎

Commission so it can be advertised correctly and to allow them to deal with any ‎

modifications‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted if he lived there, he would appreciate a view ‎

of the house‎.‎

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser explained they had a ‎SPECIAL‎ Workshop Meeting ‎

scheduled for ‎Monday‎, November ‎13‎, ‎2000‎ at ‎4:00‎ PM‎. ‎He explained the meeting ‎

would be held at the Alfoccino Restaurant and further explained there would be ‎

nothing else on the Agenda‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek explained they would set up a tape recorder ‎

but not have an official recording secretary present‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser explained the ‎

proposed agenda called for the discussion of policies and procedures, the discussion ‎

of policy and philosophy, and the discussion of procedural changes with respect to ‎

staff reports, consultant reports and the conduct of the meetings‎. ‎He explained he was ‎

allowing about ‎15‎ minutes for public comment at the end‎. ‎

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business to come before the Planning Commission, ‎

Chairperson Kaiser adjourned the special meeting at ‎12‎:‎55 ‎PM Michigan time‎. ‎