Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic‎

Members‎: ‎Gerard Dettloff, Dale Hetrick, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O‎. ‎Kaltsounis,‎

David A‎. ‎Reece, C‎. ‎Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon‎

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎02 ‎

p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Dale Hetrick, Greg ‎

Hooper, Nicholas Kaltsounis, David Reece and Emmet Yukon‎

Present

8 -

C. Neall Schroeder

Absent

1 -

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Econ‎. ‎Development‎

James Breuckman, Manager of Planning‎

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2011-0494

November ‎1‎, ‎2011 ‎Special Meeting‎

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

Approved as Presented‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hetrick, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece and Yukon

8 -

Absent

Schroeder

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎)‎ Planning & Zoning News dated October ‎2011‎

B‎)‎ Memo from Ed Anzek, dated ‎12/6/11‎ re‎: ‎proposed meeting ‎

schedule for ‎2012‎

C‎)‎ Colored Map of the B‎-3‎ zoning districts‎

D‎)‎ Memo from S‎. ‎Cope dated ‎12/01/11‎ re‎: ‎City Hall Entrance Sign‎

NEW BUSINESS

Mr‎. ‎Anzek had requested an addition to the Agenda ‎- ‎a discussion ‎

about the City Hall entrance sign‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Cope came forward to discuss the new entrance sign for City ‎

Hall‎. ‎He explained that the overall sign will be ‎15 ‎x ‎7 ‎feet with an ‎8 ‎x ‎

3‎-‎foot message board‎. ‎The sign will be constructed of natural ‎

limestone, with cherry wood along the top‎. ‎The message board will ‎

be aluminum, with electronic messages controlled by software‎. ‎The ‎

location of the sign will be very close to the current sign, about four ‎

feet away‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Cope showed a picture of a sign in that location for ‎

perspective for people driving by‎. ‎He noted that the electronic ‎

message portion of the sign was ordered about a month ago, and that ‎

it would be delivered on December ‎15‎th‎. ‎He added that the logo ‎

portion was currently under fabrication, and that tomorrow, the ‎

contractor would dig the footings for the sign‎. ‎Things were moving ‎

fairly quickly, and he was hopeful that the sign would be completed ‎

before Christmas time‎. ‎He stated that he wanted to give a brief ‎

update of what was happening with the sign, and said that the City ‎

was excited to have the message board with the ability to provide ‎

communications to residents‎. ‎Examples of what would be shown on ‎

the message board, rather than using a banner as in the past‎: ‎A ‎

Homeowner‎’‎s Association Leadership Forum; Planning Commission ‎

and City Council meetings, and various other Board meetings‎. ‎He ‎

asked if there were any questions‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell opened the discussion to public comments‎.‎

Scot Beaton, ‎655 ‎Bolinger St‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48307‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Beaton stated that he was honored to be in front of the Planning ‎

Commission, which he said was a board of architects and designers ‎

who would definitely understand the aesthetics of the sign‎. ‎He noted ‎

that he had been in the advertising business for ‎30 ‎years, and he was ‎

not trying to pat himself on the back, he was just present as a ‎

resident of Rochester Hills‎. ‎He mentioned that he had been in the ‎

Cleo show in New York five times, recognized for his graphic design ‎

abilities, so he had expertise in that area‎. ‎From a marketing ‎

standpoint, the first quagmire for the City would be that they had two ‎

different theme lines and logos‎. (‎The sign in front of the Chase Bank ‎

at Crooks and South Boulevard was pointed out as one display‎). ‎

Eventually, as they progressed, he hoped that one of them would be ‎

replaced with something that more reflected the City‎’‎s brand‎. ‎His ‎

other concern was that the sign was ugly‎. ‎He did not think the sign ‎

represented the City well‎. ‎He maintained that ‎70‎% ‎of the taxes in the ‎

City were residential, and that there were beautiful homes, and he ‎

always considered Rochester Hills as an upscale residential ‎

community‎. ‎He showed a photo of Bloomfield Hills‎’ ‎sign as a ‎

comparison, and said that it was night and day‎. ‎He felt that someone ‎

could really tell that it was classy, and he said that he did not want to ‎

offend, but the proposed sign had no class‎. ‎Bloomfield Hills had ‎

100‎,‎000 ‎people a day driving by its sign on Telegraph Rd‎.‎, and he did ‎

not believe they had any desire to add a message board on their sign‎. ‎

The Rochester Hills City Administration kept stating that the City ‎

needed a message board, but he claimed that ‎70‎% ‎of the residents of ‎

Rochester Hills never drove on Avon and would never see the sign‎. ‎

He felt it was a bad advertising judgment, and that it was not a good ‎

expense‎. ‎He noted Bloomfield Township‎’‎s sign, which was black and ‎

gold, and he thought it was an upscale sign‎. ‎He pointed out the sign ‎

at Cranbrook, which he said was the top school in North America for ‎

a Master‎’‎s degree in Architecture‎. ‎He stated that the sign was very ‎

clean and classy, and he thought a sign like that would look much ‎

better in front of Rochester Hills‎’ ‎City Hall‎. ‎He thought that would ‎

reflect who the citizens were and reflect the home values‎. ‎He noted ‎

Birmingham‎’‎s sign, which he stated had great colors and a nice look‎. ‎

He maintained that there were serious design flaws in the proposed ‎

sign‎. ‎It would be very difficult to read it from a car ‎- ‎especially the ‎

word Rochester‎. ‎The logo was a beautifully designed new brand ‎

which was not boxed in‎. ‎He said that the City spent a lot of money ‎

on the logo with a very reputable design firm, Skidmore, and the last ‎

thing Skidmore told Rochester Hills was to not put the logo in a box‎. ‎

It was supposed to breathe and have white space around it, but he ‎

observed that the first thing the City did was put it in a box‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Beaton put up some drawings he did that he proposed for the ‎

sign‎. ‎He stated that there was a phenomenal opportunity for the City ‎

to spend its money correctly and to come up with a classy‎-‎looking ‎

sign‎. ‎His sign mimicked Cranbrook‎’‎s; it was a beautiful stone sign ‎

and the logo could be etched in the sign‎. ‎It was very easy to read, ‎

and the sign would welcome people‎. ‎He felt that the Innovative by ‎

Nature tagline was a theme line, which he suggested was more for a ‎

brochure to solicit new business and not for welcome signs‎. ‎He said ‎

that the City should welcome people coming to the community ‎- ‎

welcome to shop, welcome to use the parks, etc‎. ‎That was what ‎

Birmingham did, and that was what Rochester Hills could do‎. ‎He did ‎

not know if the Planning Commission had any power or what process ‎

the City was in, but he suggested that perhaps the message board ‎

could be sold on e‎-‎bay or it could be used as a temporary sign for ‎

fireworks, for example‎. ‎He said they could put ‎“‎this big TV set‎” ‎on ‎

something portable, to be used when it was needed‎. ‎It did not have ‎

to be out all the time‎. ‎The message board cost about $‎20‎,‎000‎.‎00‎. ‎

There were complaints all over the City from churches who had ‎

smaller electronic message boards‎. ‎The first time the board was ‎

fired up, the Mayor‎’‎s office would be flooded with phone calls, and ‎

the City would have to turn it off‎. ‎He claimed that was a horrible ‎

waste of $‎20‎,‎000‎.‎00‎. ‎He said he was sorry he was so emotional ‎

about it, but it was what he did for a living, and he loved Rochester ‎

Hills‎. ‎He did not want to see a sign that looked like it should be in ‎

front of a strip club‎. ‎He said that the Planning Commission was a ‎

great group and did a fantastic job with the sound walls on M‎-‎59‎. ‎He ‎

could not imagine what they would have looked like without the ‎

Commission‎’‎s input‎. ‎They were simple and beautiful‎. ‎If they had ‎

painted the tree brown with a blue sky behind it on every single wall, ‎

it would have looked terrible‎. ‎He thought that was what they were ‎

doing again with the sign‎. ‎He offered his services free of charge, and ‎

asked the Commissioners to please consider a much more upscale ‎

look for the residents of Rochester Hills and thanked them for their ‎

time‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder entered ‎7:17‎ p‎.‎m‎.‎

Gary Uhl, ‎3508 ‎Wedgewood Dr‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48309‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Uhl ‎

advised that he was the President of the Bridgewood Farms ‎

Homeowner‎’‎s Association, which was nowhere near the sign‎. ‎He ‎

offered that he was only speaking on his behalf, and he noted that a ‎

couple of years ago, his Homeowner‎’‎s Association needed to replace ‎

the sign at the entry to his subdivision‎. ‎From his experience, the ‎

Building Department took the Sign Ordinance to heart, particularly its ‎

intent to reduce the impact of signs on their residential community‎. ‎

They had to submit designs to get permits and get the contractor ‎

registered‎. ‎The Department was diligent in their review, application ‎

of the Ordinance and inspections‎. ‎It seemed to him that what was ‎

happening with the new sign was a blatant disregard of the Ordinance ‎

and the process it set forth‎. ‎It was just because the City wanted to ‎

do something, instead of a business or development‎. ‎He felt that set ‎

a dangerous precedent‎. ‎The message board on the proposed sign ‎

would appear to violate the Sign Ordinance on at least three counts‎: ‎

Size, brightness and its ability to make words and figures move‎. ‎The ‎

sign itself exceeded the seven‎-‎foot limit‎. ‎That was not the most ‎

onerous part to him‎. ‎The City wanted to put it on a park in the middle ‎

of a residential area‎. ‎He asked if the City explained the eyesore to ‎

the neighbors and asked what they thought, since it would be seen ‎

for a mile, according to the builder‎. ‎He was in total agreement that ‎

the sign should be replaced with something more subdued, such as ‎

Mr‎. ‎Beaton‎’‎s design, and in keeping with both the intent and letter of ‎

the Sign Ordinance‎. ‎He asked the Commission to please not set a ‎

dangerous precedent and to send it back to the drawing board‎.‎

Seeing no other cards submitted, Chairperson Boswell closed public ‎

comments‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr‎. ‎Cope if the new sign met the Sign ‎

Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Cope stated that it did for the electronic messaging ‎

board size and also for the height of the sign, which was seven‎-‎feet, ‎

as required by the Ordinance‎. ‎The use of the electronic message ‎

board would be in compliance with the Ordinance also‎. ‎That ‎

indicated that there could not be changes in the messages any ‎

quicker than every ten seconds‎. ‎He noted that the brightness of the ‎

sign was automatically regulated for day and night, and Staff could ‎

dim or brighten it at either time based on the software‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis asked how many ‎“‎steps out of the barn the horse ‎

was‎.‎” ‎Mr‎. ‎Cope said that it was under construction now‎. ‎The ‎

electronic message board would be delivered in a week‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Kaltsounis referred to the sign at the Rochester Hills Baptist Church, ‎

which was a smaller, brown sign‎. ‎A lot of the letters washed away‎. ‎

They had yellow lettering on brown, and people could not really see ‎

the Rochester Hills portion‎. ‎He recommended that perhaps the ‎

timing could be changed to ‎30 ‎seconds rather than ten, so there ‎

would not constantly be flashing‎. ‎He also recommended that they ‎

used earth‎-‎tone colors rather than red, white or blue, etc‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Cope agreed‎. ‎He said that the colors shown ‎(‎blue and yellow‎) ‎

were added by the sign contractor as examples, and they would not ‎

necessarily be chosen‎. ‎The City would have control over the colors‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece asked the required process for approving a sign‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Anzek responded that the Sign Ordinance was a stand‎-‎alone ‎

Ordinance‎. ‎The Planning Commission was charged with the ‎

enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Building Department ‎

interpreted and enforced the Sign Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece presumed ‎

that the sign was only being brought forward for informational ‎

purposes or a courtesy more than anything else‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek said that was correct; several City Council meetings ago, ‎

it was suggested by Mr‎. ‎Beaton that the matter be presented to the ‎

Planning Commission, and Mr‎. ‎Hooper, Council President, agreed to ‎

that‎. ‎This was the first opportunity to get it on a meeting‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece indicated that Mr‎. ‎Beaton had a couple of valid points, but ‎

there were some distinctions‎. ‎The sign was not a demarcation of ‎

entrance to the City‎. ‎Some of the examples Mr‎. ‎Beaton had shown ‎

were more entry way signs into communities and not specifically ‎

designated for a City Hall‎- ‎type purpose‎. ‎When Mr‎. ‎Beaton ‎

compared and contrasted the entrance sign by the Chase Bank, he ‎

thought that was valid, because the logos and text were different‎. ‎

There was an issue to him with the continuity of having a municipality ‎

with different messages and designs‎. ‎They had talked about street ‎

lighting, and they strived to get some continuity in what they were ‎

doing with that‎. ‎The sign in front of the Chase Bank was more in line ‎

with the theme Mr‎. ‎Beaton had shown‎. ‎The City Hall sign was a ‎

different type of design and style, and he asked what drove it and ‎

who designed it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Cope said that there was a Committee of the Administration that ‎

came up with the design‎. ‎They put it out to the sign contractors to ‎

come up with some thoughts on a design, and the City Staff reviewed ‎

those and made other comments and worked with the contractors to ‎

come up with the design‎. ‎The thought was to include both the natural ‎

aspects of things and the innovative aspects with the electronic ‎

message board and the limestone and the logo‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece said that it sounded like, as Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis had said, the ‎

horse was pretty much out of the barn‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Cope agreed that it was ‎

as far as it could go without being put up‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece confirmed with ‎

Mr‎. ‎Cope that it was in full compliance with the City‎’‎s Sign ‎

Ordinance‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic asked who designed the sign in front of the Chase on ‎

Crooks‎. ‎She remembered that Chase offered to provide a sign that ‎

would be considered a gateway to the City, and she asked if Chase ‎

had designed it with the City's involvement‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek explained that in ‎1998‎, during the Master Land Use Plan ‎

Update, there was a section that identified the support and promotion ‎

of gateway signs to the City‎. ‎In ‎2001‎, it was in the Capital ‎

Improvement Plan to develop gateway signs‎. ‎The City hired Don ‎

Westphal and Associates as the designer‎. ‎They worked with City ‎

Council‎’‎s Community Development and Viability Committee‎. ‎There ‎

were ‎20 ‎people on it, and surveys were conducted with the residents ‎

to identify what they thought of the City‎. ‎The sign at Chase was ‎

designed as a gateway sign‎. ‎When they tried to budget and have ‎

them built, there was strong opposition toward spending City money, ‎

and they had been since seeking private dollars‎. ‎Chase paid for the ‎

sign, which was the horizontal‎-‎type‎. ‎They also had vertical signs for ‎

narrower right‎-‎of‎-‎ways at certain entry points‎. ‎There was money in ‎

an escrow account for one, but it had never been built, because the ‎

vertical sign was very hard to read‎. ‎The City realized that there was ‎

a need to update the sign to incorporate the brand‎. ‎The branding ‎

effort was more about economic development and was paid for by ‎

LDFA monies as a way to market the City‎. ‎He added that they were ‎

pleased with the new brand, which had been incorporated into ‎

letterhead and business cards to promote the City‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick said that in terms of making design changes now, he ‎

wondered what would happen if the Planning Commission suggested ‎

such‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Cope reiterated that the sign was now under construction, and ‎

any changes would cost extra money that was not available‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hetrick suggested, if they could, losing the ‎“‎Innovative by Nature‎” ‎or ‎

making it smaller and making Rochester Hills larger‎. ‎To him, the City ‎

should want to talk about Rochester Hills, not the tagline‎. ‎He ‎

understood it would cost more to change the design, but he did not ‎

really feel that they needed the tag line on the sign‎. ‎He asked if it ‎

was part of the branding‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek said that it was part of the branding package‎. ‎The actual ‎

brand was the tree with the hill and cloud and Rochester Hills ‎

underneath it‎. ‎The Innovative by Nature was the tagline, which had ‎

been trademarked‎. ‎They did not have to be put together to be used‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick suggested that if it were possible and not exceedingly ‎

expensive, he thought it would be better to show Rochester Hills in a ‎

bigger font and eliminate the tagline‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said that he was never a fan of the blue sign at Chase‎. ‎

He liked the new brand, but the blue sign reminded him of being on ‎

the Autobahn‎. ‎It was too much and did not bode well with him, but he ‎

did like the new direction‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dettloff referred to the rendering Mr‎. ‎Cope showed on Avon and ‎

asked if the sign would have the ability to do graphics as well as ‎

letters‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Cope agreed that there was the ability to do graphics‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked if the cost would be included, which Mr‎. ‎Cope ‎

confirmed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked if that was controlled through computer ‎

software, and Mr‎. ‎Cope said it was radio controlled through software ‎

in the municipal offices‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dettloff clarified that the sign would be ‎

used just for City events, not for any other type of advertising‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Cope said that was not the intention, and nothing was discussed in ‎

that regard‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece clarified that the rendering Mr‎. ‎Cope showed on Avon was ‎

not the actual sign the City was getting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Cope said it was not; it ‎

was just shown for placement and was not the actual design the City ‎

chose‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell thanked Mr‎. ‎Cope for bringing the information ‎

forward and thanked Mr‎. ‎Beaton and Mr‎. ‎Uhl for speaking‎.‎

2010-0106

Discuss Revised PUD ‎- ‎City File #‎04‎-‎037 ‎- ‎Oakville Estates Apartment ‎

(‎formerly Oakville Estates PUD‎)‎, located east of John R, north of School ‎

Road‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Memo prepared by Ed Anzek, dated December ‎1‎, ‎2011 ‎

had been placed on file and by reference became part of the record ‎

thereof‎.)‎

Present for the applicant was Louie Chirco, MJC Companies, ‎46600 ‎

Romeo Plank, Suite ‎5‎, Macomb, MI ‎48044 ‎and Shamik Tripathi, ‎

President of Land Development Consulting Services, Inc‎.‎, ‎46600 ‎

Romeo Plank, Suite ‎2‎, Macomb, MI ‎48044‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek noted that the applicants had contacted the City a couple ‎

of months ago‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco had advised that he was entering into an ‎

arrangement to take control of the project the City knew as Oakville ‎

Estates PUD, approved in June ‎2007‎. ‎It was a PUD targeted for ‎

empty nesters on the northeast corner of School and John R‎. ‎There ‎

were a lot of different designs about the detention and roadway width ‎

and how the units would fit‎. ‎He asked Mr‎. ‎Chirco to show the plan ‎

for Oakville Estates, which was a mix of duplexes, triplexes and ‎

quads‎. ‎There were one‎-‎story townhomes with garages facing the ‎

front that took up almost the entire ‎25 ‎acres of the site‎. ‎The area to ‎

the northeast was a regulated wetland and was proposed for a park ‎

amenity for the residents‎. ‎There was a pathway through the ‎

development, and retention was on the south end on School Rd‎. ‎As ‎

the economy hit, the applicant, Mr‎. ‎Greg Cueter, lost control, and it ‎

went back to the bank‎. ‎Several people had looked at buying portions ‎

of it or individual parcels‎. ‎They were told about the PUD and that ‎

before anything could be approved, the PUD would have to be ‎

eliminated‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco now owned the entire development and was ‎

looking to do a different concept‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman and Mr‎. ‎Anzek had ‎

met with Mr‎. ‎Chirco several times and told him what they thought ‎

were better ways to deal with the design‎. ‎They asked Mr‎. ‎Chirco to ‎

come before the Commission to get input regarding their proposal‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Chirco showed an aerial of the land from ‎2010‎. ‎There were ‎

presently five abandoned houses on the property they were talking ‎

about tearing down‎. ‎There were three houses in the middle that were ‎

torn down and filled in‎. ‎He pointed out some large stands of trees‎. ‎

North of the property was an industrial building and a storage facility‎. ‎

To the east were various dumps, including the Highland Park dump‎. ‎

To the west there were seven homeowners on large parcels of land, ‎

and none of the houses were within ‎100 ‎feet of the proposal‎’‎s ‎

buildable area‎. ‎They originally came up with a layout for a ‎12‎-‎plex ‎

building and came to the City‎. ‎The concerns were that the road ‎

would be a racetrack, and Mr‎. ‎Anzek said they needed to break up ‎

the roads to slow the traffic‎. ‎The second drawing came in with ‎

minimal changes, and they added a traffic circle, but Mr‎. ‎Anzek said ‎

they needed more than that and suggested moving the buildings apart ‎

and creating some boulevards, giving the streets some scenic appeal ‎

and adding trees‎. ‎They came back with a design whereby the traffic ‎

would be slowed down every ‎200‎-‎300 ‎feet‎. ‎They thought it looked too ‎

linear and had too much uniformity‎. ‎They came back with three more ‎

designs, and the final one seemed to be everyone‎’‎s favorite‎. ‎There ‎

were islands about ‎65 ‎feet wide and large green spaces, which Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman had suggested‎. ‎There would be parallel parking in front ‎

of the buildings, which appealed to the City‎. ‎They wanted to keep the ‎

stands of pines to the north intact, so the islands on the north were ‎

not as wide‎. ‎They spent a lot of time maneuvering the buildings in ‎

such a manner to maintain large groups of trees‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Chirco showed the first PUD again, and said that the buildings ‎

took up literally most of the buildable space on the property‎. ‎Virtually ‎

all of the trees would need to come down in order to put in the ‎

buildings and decks‎. ‎There would not be much room after grading to ‎

maintain any of the trees on the site‎. ‎They wanted to keep the site ‎

as natural as possible‎. ‎The trees would also create a nice buffer ‎

from the industrial to the north‎. ‎He mentioned that the buildings they ‎

were proposing could be viewed adjacent to the Oynx Ice Rink in ‎

Rochester, which they built in ‎2003‎. ‎They were ‎12‎-‎plex buildings ‎

also, and they had built and sold over ‎1‎,‎500 ‎units in the past ‎15 ‎

years‎. ‎It was great condo for empty nesters and single moms and ‎

dads‎. ‎It had a one‎-‎car garage, and ‎1‎,‎300 ‎to ‎1‎,‎500 ‎square feet‎. ‎It ‎

was all inclusive and sold very well‎. ‎They started building the units in ‎

1985 ‎in Clinton Township, and they presently lease about ‎600 ‎of ‎

them‎. ‎They were originally designed as apartments, and they started ‎

selling them as condos, and they became very popular‎. ‎Over the ‎

past five years, the economy took a dive and financing dried up for ‎

that type of unit‎. ‎It was still somewhat difficult, because banks did ‎

not want to lend in condo projects that did not have a certain ‎

percentage occupied‎. ‎He noted that one of the reasons they pursued ‎

the subject parcel was because it is in Rochester Hills, which is a ‎

very desirable place to be‎. ‎Secondly, they had a ‎286‎-‎unit condo ‎

project started on Dequindre and Hamlin, Ashford Crossing, for which ‎

they had sold about ‎85 ‎units‎. ‎Due to the fact that sales dried so ‎

much, they chose to start renting the units‎. ‎They found a great ‎

demand for renters there, and they were in the process of finishing ‎

the project as an apartment complex‎. ‎That project was about ‎2 ‎½ ‎

miles away from the proposed project‎. ‎The other project had one‎-‎car ‎

garages, two bedrooms and two bathrooms that rented for about ‎

$‎1‎,‎150‎.‎00‎. ‎The project they were proposing was even more upscale ‎

with two‎-‎car garages, which was rarer‎. ‎They felt that there was ‎

enough demand to support the project‎. ‎They felt that they were ‎

proposing a very positive transitional use‎. ‎It was quite possible that ‎

some day, when things turned around, they could sell the units‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic had viewed Mr‎. ‎Chirco‎’‎s development on Parkdale, and ‎

she asked if he was considering an almost identical development with ‎

the exception of the two car garages‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Tripathi agreed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco ‎

said they were able to widen the area where the garages would be, ‎

and the unit above the garage would be a little larger‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnbic said ‎

that she definitely liked the idea of a garage versus a carport‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Chirco agreed that automobiles were very expensive, and that would ‎

give people the opportunity to park vehicles inside‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic said ‎

it appeared that there were some additional parking spaces other ‎

than the garages, and she asked if that was the standard‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Chirco explained that they added guest parking‎. ‎Behind the ‎

two‎-‎car garages, there were two additional spaces‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek had ‎

suggested parallel parking in front, which would add parking‎. ‎They ‎

would add other parking, because it was unrealistic to think everyone ‎

coming to a party could park on the street by someone‎’‎s house‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Brnabic said that she liked that aspect of the development‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Chirco added that it helped with snow removal, and he suggested that ‎

when they did the layout, they could find areas to add parking‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Brnabic had noticed that there was a lot of brick for the architecture, ‎

and that there was a lot of siding on the sides of the building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Chirco agreed that fronts of the buildings were virtually all brick‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic asked the estimated rental cost‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco said that it ‎

would be around $‎1‎,‎300 ‎a month‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic wondered if that was ‎

practical in the current economy‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco answered that there ‎

were a number of people with bad credit, and some people found it ‎

easier to rent‎. ‎They sold a lot of units to snowbirds who also went to ‎

Florida each year‎. ‎The primary purchasers of their units would be ‎

the primary renters ‎- ‎single moms and dads; newly married couples; ‎

older folks who did not want to maintain a home any more; and ‎

people who wanted a quality project to lease‎. ‎He felt there would be ‎

a lot more renters in the future‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic observed that it was a nice‎-‎looking development‎. ‎She ‎

asked Mr‎. ‎Anzek if the PUD would run with the land as an overlay‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek agreed, and stated that a PUD was a contractual ‎

agreement between the City and the applicant‎. ‎The former applicant ‎

lost control of the property, and it went to the assignees‎. ‎Staff felt ‎

the best approach was to develop it as an amended PUD‎. ‎If they did ‎

a straight Rezoning to Multiple Family, they could not control the site ‎

design as well as with a PUD‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek noted that Mr‎. ‎Breuckman ‎

and he had visited some of Mr‎. ‎Chirco‎’‎s other sites, and they liked ‎

the on‎-‎street parking, because it truly functioned as a traffic calming ‎

device and as a way of bringing the scale of the units into more of a ‎

neighborhood feel‎. ‎They liked wide boulevards, and they used Great ‎

Oaks Boulevard across from Crittenton Hospital as an example‎. ‎

Kids might play Frisbee out there‎. ‎There was a large desire to ‎

respect the trees by moving the buildings‎. ‎He thought that the units ‎

were attractive, and that there was a need for them‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco had ‎

assured from day one that he would rather sell than rent‎. ‎There was ‎

a lot more open space on the site than what was previously ‎

approved, and they would pursue the amended PUD to ensure they ‎

got a nice development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Yukon complimented Mr‎. ‎Chirco on his development‎. ‎He realized ‎

that it was in the early stages, yet Mr‎. ‎Chirco had taken a lot of time ‎

and effort‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yukon had served on the Commission for a couple of ‎

years, and it was the first time that a project had come before them ‎

in this format that really caught his attention so early in the process‎. ‎

He liked the architecture, the layout and the boulevard idea‎. ‎He ‎

asked Mr‎. ‎Chirco if there would be sidewalks for a walkable ‎

community‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco pointed out the sidewalks‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Yukon was ‎

pleased they were going to preserve as many trees as possible, and ‎

he added that he liked the design‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said that he liked the project, but he was concerned ‎

about the density‎. ‎He asked how many units and was told ‎168‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Kaltsounis indicated that they would be going from ‎122 ‎to ‎168 ‎units‎. ‎

He recalled their conversations previously about density‎. ‎He asked if ‎

he would get to his garage through the outside or inside if he lived in ‎

the middle of one of the buildings‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco stated that they would ‎

all have individual entrances‎. ‎Someone would walk from the garage ‎

right into a unit, and there would be sidewalks leading to the front ‎

entrances for guests‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis asked where his guests would park their cars if he ‎

had a party with ‎15 ‎cars and the neighbors‎’ ‎spots were filled‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Chirco said there would be four spaces at the garages, and there ‎

would be parking in front and throughout‎. ‎He could perhaps add ‎

some parking on the ends of the buildings‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis reminded ‎

Mr‎. ‎Chirco that it was important to talk with the neighbors, adding that ‎

a lot of them came to the meetings when the first PUD went through‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Chirco said that regarding density, it had to be managed and ‎

nicely done‎. ‎They needed to generate enough income to take care of ‎

the property properly‎. ‎It would also look better for the City‎. ‎There ‎

were ‎25 ‎acres to manage, and they needed so many units‎. ‎He noted ‎

that the better maintained developments typically had more units, and ‎

he mentioned Cider Mill Village which had ‎388 ‎units and several ‎

others with over ‎400 ‎units‎. ‎They needed a minimum number of units ‎

to hire a decent management team to sustain the project, including ‎

taking care of the larger roadway‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell said that he was concerned about the density ‎

initially, but when he looked at the layout, it showed a lot more open ‎

space‎. ‎The other PUD had no open space except for the northwest ‎

corner where they could not put anything‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco added that the ‎

first project had decks very close to each other‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece commended Mr‎. ‎Chirco because, as Mr‎. ‎Yukon had ‎

indicated, he also thought he had done a great job‎. ‎The ‎

Commissioners saw a lot of people who did not want to put in a lot of ‎

effort but wanted a rubber‎-‎stamp approval‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece lived in a ‎

similar community, and he suggested that maximizing parking would ‎

be the biggest challenge‎. ‎He thought two‎-‎car garages and two‎-‎car ‎

driveways were a tremendous improvement‎. ‎He would also ‎

recommend integrating three‎-‎bedroom units into a few of the ‎

buildings, because there was a strong need for that‎. ‎He clarified that ‎

there would not be association fees, unless they were converted to ‎

condos‎. ‎He asked if there were plans for a pool, clubhouse or tennis ‎

courts or anything within the community the residents could use‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Chirco said that there would be a trail for a walkable community, ‎

and they denoted a portion for a play area‎. ‎They had space ‎

underneath the power lines to put something‎. ‎He mentioned that he ‎

lived in downtown Rochester, and there were many gyms and things ‎

in town for people to use‎. ‎He did not think there was a necessity for ‎

a three‎-‎month pool for what it would cost to maintain, when people ‎

could go down the road a mile and join a pool club‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece ‎

thought that Mr‎. ‎Chirco would be able to rent the units fairly quickly‎. ‎

People were finding it hard to get loans, and they did not have ‎20‎% ‎to ‎

put down on a house‎. ‎Renting used to be associated as taboo, but in ‎

today‎’‎s world, he felt the need and demand for it would continue to ‎

grow‎. ‎While it was denser than what was previously approved, he ‎

agreed with the comments that the development had the look and feel ‎

of something much less dense‎. ‎If the graphic was correct, a lot more ‎

trees would be saved than previously‎. ‎He thought they were off to a ‎

great start‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder concurred with his colleagues that it was a great ‎

development, and there were a lot of good thoughts that went into it‎. ‎

He asked if there would be basements in the units, and Mr‎. ‎Chirco ‎

confirmed that there would not be‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Schroeder asked if he had ‎

any intention of doing LEED building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco said that they had ‎

not investigated it but thus far, they had not found it to be cost ‎

effective‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic asked if they would be willing to add some park ‎

benches, since they were going to add a play area‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco ‎

agreed they would have a lot of space for them‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic thought ‎

it would be a nice amenity, and she was glad they were agreeable to ‎

that‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco said that as they worked through the design ‎

process, common sense would tell them they should add park ‎

benches‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper indicated that he missed the ranch condos‎. ‎He thought ‎

there was a definite need‎. ‎In the first PUD, there were going to be ‎

ranch condos for sale, but the proposal before them was for ‎

apartments‎. ‎He was unsure if an area that was all single‎-‎family ‎

homes was the right place for apartments‎. ‎He stated that it was his ‎

initial thought‎. ‎He believed that there was a market for ranch condos ‎

for empty nesters or single parents, and he could still see that ‎

concept in this location‎. ‎He acknowledged that it was all in how ‎

something was done; if they had three‎-‎bedrooms and it was more ‎

upscale, it would become a different market than just another ‎168 ‎

apartments‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Chirco felt that the key was that the ranch condo project took up ‎

all the acreage, and it was not very appealing from a road standpoint‎. ‎

People would have to look at ‎122 ‎garages, and every building looked ‎

identical‎. ‎It was very contiguous in appearance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper said ‎

that he liked what was proposed for green space and maintaining ‎

trees; he was just looking at the concept of another ‎168 ‎apartments‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked if all the environmental work Mr‎. ‎Cueter did would ‎

still apply to the new development, or if Mr‎. ‎Chirco would have to do ‎

new soil borings‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco related that they had to do a Phase I ‎

and a Phase II assessment‎. ‎There were four new gas monitoring ‎

wells that they monitored every three months‎. ‎Thus far, the readings ‎

had been very minute, and it had not reached anywhere close to a ‎

dangerous nature‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked who did the monitoring, and Mr‎. ‎

Chirco informed that it was the engineering firm he chose to do the ‎

Phase I and II assessments‎. ‎They would do that once every quarter ‎

for a year, and then they could get an approval‎. ‎He was not an ‎

expert, but he did not see a problem‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dettloff asked if it would ‎

continue to be monitored once the development was built‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco ‎

said that at some point, it would not need to be any longer‎. ‎There ‎

would be an issue if they were using well water, but they would be ‎

using City water‎. ‎There were precautions laid out now, and they did ‎

not feel that the dump would be an issue‎. ‎He was doing a site in ‎

Shelby Township that was adjacent to a former dump, and there were ‎

no issues there‎. ‎He was mentioning that to let them know that they ‎

had gone through that type of thing before, and they knew what they ‎

were doing‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dettloff said that Mr‎. ‎Chirco had a good track record ‎

in the City, and he appreciated the fact that he still looked at ‎

Rochester Hills in a favorable light for new developments‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco ‎

agreed it was a nice town, and he reiterated that there was a lot of ‎

demand for people who wanted to live in Rochester Hills‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell summed up that by and large, there was a quite ‎

favorable response from the Planning Commission‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Chirco ‎

thanked the Commissioners for entertaining his proposal, and ‎

Chairperson Boswell concluded that they looked forward to seeing ‎

him again soon‎.‎

Discussed

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2011-0381

Discussion regarding a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment to allow ‎

gas stations in B‎-‎3 ‎Zoning Districts as Conditional Uses‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Memo and proposed Ordinance Amendment prepared ‎

by James Breuckman, dated December ‎1‎, ‎2011 ‎had been placed on ‎

file and by reference became part of the record thereof‎.)‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman referred to the second draft that he had prepared of ‎

regulations for accessory gas stations in the B‎-‎3 ‎district‎. ‎He had ‎

submitted a colored map, which showed all the sites zoned B‎-‎3 ‎in the ‎

City, with those larger than ten acres and those less than ten acres ‎

in different colors‎. ‎If they decided to require a ten‎-‎acre minimum lot ‎

area, the map showed at which sites it would be possible and at ‎

which sites it would not‎. ‎There were only a few regulations changed ‎

from last month‎. ‎He referred to the setback from a residential ‎

district, item ‎4‎c, and he had added that any accessory gas station ‎

building or canopy must be set back a minimum of ‎200 ‎feet from a ‎

residential district‎. ‎They used the Meijer site, which had trucks ‎

parked in the parking lot as a guideline for measuring‎. ‎He had tested ‎

it on all the other sites as well‎. ‎It was fairly common that on a B‎-‎3 ‎

site, the building was ‎200 ‎feet away from residential districts once ‎

parking and loading areas were accounted‎. ‎He had also added item ‎

4‎e that, ‎“‎The application for the accessory gas station shall ‎

demonstrate that the principal use will still meet the minimum parking ‎

requirements‎.‎” ‎He explained that it would implicitly have to be done, ‎

but it was done explicitly and put in the standards so that it never got ‎

missed‎. ‎They would still require a ‎15‎-‎foot setback from the front lot ‎

line when a reverse station layout was used ‎(‎the building in front and ‎

canopy in back‎)‎, although a range from ‎10‎-‎20 ‎feet would be ‎

appropriate‎. ‎The remaining question was about the building size‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper noted the ‎200‎-‎foot setback from a residential district‎. ‎He ‎

asked about looking at larger setbacks to determine at what point the ‎

distance required would become unreasonable and something could ‎

not be built at all‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman responded that for sites around ten acres, the ‎

setback could be ‎250 ‎feet, but anything more than that would rule out ‎

those sites‎. ‎If they required a ‎15 ‎to ‎20‎-‎acre minimum lot area, there ‎

would only be about three or four sites that would qualify‎. ‎He ‎

suggested that he could do some more exploration‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper said ‎

he was just looking for the sweet spot, or how high it could be and not ‎

be exclusionary‎. ‎Regarding the building size, they had talked about a ‎

maximum of ‎2‎,‎000 ‎square feet, and whether it would be a kiosk or a ‎

convenience store‎. ‎He mentioned that he did not see anything in the ‎

amendment about lighting‎. ‎He noted the Sunoco gas station on ‎

Rochester Rd‎. ‎by M‎-‎59‎, and he said that it could be seen from three ‎

miles away because it was so lit‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that when the Zoning Ordinance was updated in ‎

2009‎, they added explicit standards for gas station canopies that ‎

were not there when the Sunoco was built‎. ‎There were footcandle ‎

limitations for under canopies‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper asked if that was ‎

appropriate to put in the amendment‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman suggested that ‎

they could include a cross reference‎. ‎It would help someone reading ‎

the Ordinance for the first time‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper stated that he would like ‎

to see it added‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece recalled that about a month ago, Shelby Township turned ‎

down a Kroger application at ‎25 ‎Mile Rd‎. ‎and Dequindre‎. ‎He asked ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman if he had any detail about that‎. ‎It was similar to what ‎

they were talking about, and it met with significant furor in the ‎

community‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said he did not have any information, ‎

but he would try to find out more about it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece said there was ‎

a comment from a gentleman who owned another gas station across ‎

the street, who said that Kroger gas would be unfair to him and take ‎

away his business‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece said he was surprised that it had ‎

been turned down as it had‎. ‎He thought that Mr‎. ‎Hooper had a good ‎

point about the residential setback‎. ‎There was obviously a law of ‎

diminishing returns, but they had previously discussed that a gas ‎

station would be allowed to be operational conducive to the principal ‎

use‎’‎s operating hours‎. ‎The gas station could be open ‎24 ‎hours a day, ‎

and if there was a gas station within ‎200 ‎feet of a residential area, he ‎

felt that could be problematic‎. ‎He would like to see that pushed to ‎

the point where it could not be pushed any more, and ‎200 ‎feet was ‎

not quite enough to him‎. ‎The last issue was whether it should be a ‎

convenience store or a kiosk, and his opinion was that it should be a ‎

kiosk‎. ‎If there were a majority who wanted a convenience store, then ‎

2‎,‎000 ‎square feet would be more appropriate‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick said that he favored a convenience store‎. ‎Because the ‎

buildings would front the canopies, he did not think it would make a ‎

lot of sense to have a small building to try to hide them‎. ‎If they ‎

wanted the canopies behind the building and the building to provide ‎

some type of cover, then a ‎2‎,‎000 ‎square‎-‎foot convenience building ‎

would be preferable to him‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said that he still felt the same ‎- ‎that it would be ‎

opening a can of worms‎. ‎If he voted no, it was because he did not ‎

feel the sites were good places for gas stations, and they needed to ‎

focus on the properties they already had‎. ‎He would be in favor of ‎

kiosks to lessen the impact‎. ‎He mentioned allowing ‎17 ‎½ ‎feet for the ‎

canopies‎. ‎He had looked on the internet, and a standard truck height ‎

was ‎13 ‎½ ‎feet‎. ‎He asked if they wanted to invite semi‎-‎trucks into the ‎

filling stations on these B‎-‎3 ‎sites‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman replied that the ‎17 ‎½‎-‎foot number was in the ‎

Ordinance currently in the Schedule of Regulations for the B‎-‎5 ‎

district, so he used what was already allowed‎. ‎If it were a gas ‎

station it was treated the same in terms of canopy design‎. ‎In terms ‎

of height, there were still fuel trucks that had to deliver fuel, and ‎

might need to get under the canopy‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said that he ‎

understood what was allowed in B‎-‎5‎, but he did not think fuel trucks ‎

typically went under the canopies‎. ‎Also, he said that they were ‎

talking about B‎-‎3‎, not B‎-‎5‎, so they would be putting something ‎

different into an area that typically did not have it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman added that ‎17 ‎½ ‎feet was the height limit‎. ‎There ‎

would also be two feet underneath and the suppression equipment ‎

would hang down, so there was some head room needed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Kaltsounis said that the question went back to whether they needed ‎

trucks under the canopies‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman reminded that a ‎

Winnebago could be ‎12 ‎feet tall‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis agreed, but he said ‎

that he stood by his question about whether they were opening a can ‎

of worms‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic said they had some discussion about using a double ‎

front face for a store versus a kiosk‎. ‎She wondered if Staff did not ‎

have time to come up with any visual examples of what that might ‎

look like yet‎. ‎She thought it was Mr‎. ‎Anzek‎’‎s suggestion about the ‎

possibility of having a double front for a building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek replied that they did talk about something specific to the ‎

Meijer location, and their proposal appeared to have a front from ‎

Rochester and also from the canopies behind it‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic said ‎

that she would prefer a kiosk, but if something had two fronts, she ‎

thought that might be a good suggestion‎. ‎She wondered if it would ‎

only apply to Meijer or if it could apply to other locations‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek ‎

believed they might make it an optional way of redeveloping many of ‎

the B‎-‎5 ‎gas station sites‎. ‎Their discussion was about an accessory ‎

use to a B‎-‎3 ‎principal use, and Mr‎. ‎Breuckman was going to add ‎

something about double fronts in the update‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell pointed out that the Ordinance said, ‎“‎The ‎

facades facing the pump islands or the public streets must be ‎60‎% ‎

transparent,‎” ‎so he believed that meant that it would have two fronts‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick added that it would be for someone choosing to face the ‎

street, which seemed to be favored‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek felt it was a good ‎

way of dealing with it‎. ‎He added that hopefully, they could guarantee ‎

it would be a well designed building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that the ‎

level of detail for design standards was actually higher than what they ‎

typically had in the Ordinance‎. ‎It really did not say anything about ‎

the building design initially‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic mentioned that in the proposed Ordinance, there was a ‎

slight warning issued to be careful about limiting the size of the ‎

convenience store, due to the fact that in the B‎-‎3 ‎district, ‎

convenience stores were standard‎. ‎She questioned whether they ‎

could consider that not every B‎-‎3 ‎site would be entitled to a gas ‎

station with the convenience store‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that if ‎

someone wanted to do a convenience store in a B‎-‎3 ‎district, it was ‎

permitted by right, as long as the setbacks were met‎. ‎A gas station ‎

had the potential for a much higher impact than just a convenience ‎

store; that was why it would be a Conditional Land Use‎. ‎That was ‎

the justification of why they would further limit the sites that could ‎

have a gas station versus what could have a convenience store‎. ‎If ‎

someone wanted to put in a gas station and convenience store, they ‎

would have no restriction on the size of the building in B‎-‎3‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic agreed, but she wondered if they could limit the size of ‎

the convenience store‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that they could‎. ‎He did ‎

not know if it was necessarily the best practice‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr‎. ‎Winn, who had turned in a card to ‎

speak, to come forward‎.‎

Lyle Winn, Anderson, Eckstein and Westrick, ‎51301 ‎Shoenherr, ‎

Shelby Township, MI ‎48315‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Winn noted that he had been at ‎

previous meetings, observing on behalf of Meijer‎. ‎He indicated that ‎

the Commissioners had been very open and honest about how they ‎

might or might not proceed‎. ‎Meijer had been playing with different ‎

layouts and how things would fit on the site at Auburn and Rochester‎. ‎

One thing that caught their attention was the canopy height‎. ‎The ‎

current height allowed was very similar to other ordinances in other ‎

communities‎. ‎As time moved on, standards did change and evolve, ‎

and they noticed that typical of canopies today with newer ‎

construction, the clear height from the pavement to the canopy was ‎

more along the lines of ‎15 ‎½ ‎or ‎16 ‎feet‎. ‎The fascia was about three ‎

feet high‎. ‎Some canopies with architectural features, such as sloped ‎

roofs, extended another three feet‎. ‎Some of those did achieve ‎22 ‎

feet to the top peak‎. ‎He measured canopies in another city, and they ‎

were ‎16 ‎feet high with a three‎-‎foot fascia and three feet to the peak‎. ‎

Some were set back from the roadway quite a bit and did not look as ‎

intrusive‎. ‎If that type of standard was applied to retrofit some of the ‎

gas station sites in the City, it would look overwhelming and not fit ‎

the site‎. ‎He thought that with larger acreage sites with ‎50 ‎to ‎60‎-‎foot ‎

setbacks, the height would blend in better and not look as out of ‎

place‎. ‎They hoped the City could include some modifications to the ‎

height allowed, or give some consideration to height differences when ‎

someone wanted to add architectural treatments‎. ‎He brought up ‎

brick columns on canopies‎. ‎He thought that was a good idea, but ‎

there was a situation for the columns closer to the building‎. ‎There ‎

were some building requirements that the site vision from the cashier ‎

to the pumps had to be kept as clear as possible‎. ‎The columns ‎

closer to the building were ‎12 ‎x ‎12 ‎foot steel columns‎. ‎If they added ‎

brick, they would start to get much larger and block vision‎. ‎He asked ‎

them to keep in mind that the columns closer to the building might ‎

need a little different consideration regarding the brick to keep the ‎

vision line open‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell asked the Commissioners what they felt about ‎

adding height to the canopies for decorative features‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder thought it could be beneficial‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hetrick thought that ‎

for the peak, it would be fine‎. ‎He thought the Speedway on Tienken ‎

and Rochester had a peak‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek advised that it was flat‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman said that where they defined building height in the ‎

Ordinance, if there was a flat roof, the height would be to the eave, ‎

but if there was a pitched roof, it would be to mid‎-‎point‎. ‎That would ‎

be an incentive, and if someone did something decorative, and not ‎

just a flat top, additional height would be allowed‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell said they still had to discuss allowing a kiosk ‎

versus a ‎2‎,‎000 ‎square‎-‎foot convenience store‎. ‎He felt that if a ‎

building had two fronts and the building blocked the canopies, he ‎

thought ‎2‎,‎000 ‎square feet made more sense‎. ‎It gave an opportunity ‎

to build in a way that would look better‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman considered that they might need a basis for ‎

comparison in deciding the size of the building‎. ‎They probably ‎

needed to do a study and find buildings of increasing size and take ‎

some pictures for the Commissioners to review and see the reality of ‎

a ‎500 ‎square‎-‎foot versus a ‎2‎,‎500 ‎square‎-‎foot building, for example‎. ‎

Other than that, they really were just making up a number‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick asked if there was a minimum or maximum size the City ‎

required if someone wanted to build a ‎7‎-‎Eleven in the B‎-‎3 ‎district‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said there was not ‎- ‎the setbacks just had to be met‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick asked if it was possible to make the convenience store ‎

size based upon those parameters versus square footage‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman said that they were driven by that currently, but for a ‎

ten‎-‎acre parcel, there would not be many realistic limitations on how ‎

big the building could be‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hetrick assumed that they would need ‎

to put some type of limitation on the square footage‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell remarked that they would ‎“‎kick the can‎” ‎a little ‎

longer and if Staff submitted examples of various building sizes, it ‎

could be brought back to the January meeting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hetrick believed ‎

that building size and the height of canopies was really all they had ‎

left to review‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman added that he would put something ‎

together for residential district setbacks also‎.‎

Discussed

2011-0365

Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendments Recommendations and Public ‎

Hearing ‎- ‎Amendments to Chapter ‎138‎, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of ‎

the City of Rochester Hills, including Sections ‎138‎-‎11‎.‎300‎, ‎138‎-‎4‎.‎300‎, ‎

138‎-‎4‎.‎438‎, ‎138‎-‎11‎.‎304‎, ‎138‎-‎11‎.‎307‎, ‎138‎-‎5‎.‎100‎, Table ‎6‎, ‎138‎-‎5‎.‎100‎, footnotes B, ‎

J and N, ‎138‎-‎4‎.‎404‎, ‎138‎-‎6‎.‎400‎, Section ‎12 ‎Article ‎6‎, Chapter ‎4‎, ‎138‎-‎4‎.‎300‎, ‎

138‎-‎3‎.‎104‎.‎C, and ‎138‎-‎8‎.‎603 ‎and to repeal conflicting Ordinances and prescribe ‎

a penalty for violations ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman advised that there were just a few changes from last ‎

month‎. ‎He pointed out the handicap accessible parking, which was ‎

the biggest set of changes‎. ‎He added language for the front ‎

building‎-‎rear canopy option for gas station sites in the B‎-‎5 ‎district‎. ‎

He added a new item about established building line setback ‎

requirements‎. ‎It was in the old Ordinance, but the language was ‎

difficult and they added some changes in the new Ordinance but had ‎

left out a provision that allowed some flexibility for additions to ‎

houses‎. ‎He had included a chart that showed barrier‎-‎free spaces ‎

required under the ADA standards and the City‎’‎s proposed new ‎

standards‎. ‎The City's would now require more spaces when a site ‎

had ‎60 ‎spaces or more‎. ‎He mentioned that he had done some ‎

digging about the history of the B‎-‎5 ‎district and how gas stations got ‎

to be the way they were‎. ‎Up until ‎1975‎, a gas station was allowed in ‎

multiple zoning districts, and the setbacks were different‎. ‎In ‎1975‎, ‎

B‎-‎4 ‎and B‎-‎5 ‎districts were adopted with those new setback ‎

standards‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman referred to page two of the Ordinance draft, and said ‎

that in terms of the barrier‎-‎free space layout in the ADA design ‎

standards, there was an optional way of doing handicap accessible ‎

parking called the Universal Design Option‎. ‎Typically, a regular ‎

accessible space had to be eight feet wide with a five‎-‎foot wide ‎

access aisle next to it‎. ‎A certain number of van accessable spaces ‎

had to be provided also‎. ‎The van spaces had to be ‎11 ‎feet wide with ‎

a five‎-‎foot wide aisle‎. ‎Universal Design said that all handicap ‎

accessable parking spaces had to be ‎11 ‎feet wide with a five‎-‎foot ‎

wide access aisle‎. ‎The City‎’‎s regular parking spaces are ten feet ‎

wide, and that would add an additional foot and an access aisle on ‎

one side‎. ‎If the access aisle was on the driver‎’‎s side, the passenger ‎

did not have the striped access aisle‎. ‎If there was an ‎11‎-‎foot wide ‎

space and a typical car was six feet wide, the driver could hug one of ‎

the stripes, which would give a lot of additional space within the ‎

parking space to provide for access for the passenger‎. ‎The other ‎

benefit was that no van accessible spaces had to be designated ‎

because they would all be van accessible‎. ‎That would require extra ‎

space, so he added in where the Planning Commission could permit ‎

the eight‎-‎foot wide handicap spaces if the applicants could ‎

demonstrate that there was a hardship, and they did not have the ‎

space in their parking lot‎. ‎He asked if that met with everyone‎’‎s ‎

approval and comfort and did not hear anyone in disagreement‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman referred to page four, under Section ‎7‎, footnote ‎(‎b‎). ‎

This regarded the established building line and where there was a ‎

regular disposition of houses along a street with a ‎60‎-‎foot setback or ‎

all were within a few feet, and it would be greater or less than what ‎

the Ordinance required‎. ‎The old Ordinance said that the setback ‎

would be the average setback of those dwellings minus ten feet, ‎

which allowed for a reasonable projection if someone wanted to add ‎

onto a house‎. ‎The City had received a couple of requests from ‎

people wanting to put on an addition that had to be turned down, even ‎

though it was just a question of two or three feet‎. ‎They would like ‎

people to be able to reinvest in their houses, so they were proposing ‎

to add the ten feet back in to the established building line calculation‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick asked about the math, and if it meant it would be ‎200 ‎feet ‎

minus ten feet‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that he would re‎-‎write it a little ‎

bit‎. ‎They would look at the parcel they were dealing with and at the ‎

parcels within ‎200 ‎feet on either side of it, and they would take the ‎

average setback for each one of the parcels‎. ‎For example, if there ‎

were homes set back ‎50‎, ‎49‎, ‎51 ‎and ‎52 ‎feet, they would add those ‎

together and divide by the number of lots, and the resulting number ‎

would become the setback requirement‎. ‎Taking ten feet would mean ‎

taking the setbacks of the lots and subtracting ten feet from each and ‎

getting the average for those numbers or ‎60 ‎feet, whichever was less‎. ‎

If all the homes were set back ‎100 ‎feet from the road, they would be ‎

using a reasonable number‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman next discussed the front building‎-‎rear canopy gas ‎

station situation‎. ‎Section ‎138‎-‎4‎.‎404 ‎was the gas station design ‎

standards and what all gas stations had to meet‎. ‎Currently, there ‎

were items A‎-‎F‎. ‎He was proposing to create a new item A and take ‎

A to F and turn them into items ‎1‎-‎6‎. ‎Section ‎8‎(‎A‎) ‎1‎-‎6 ‎would be the ‎

existing language‎. ‎He added a new item B, which was for front ‎

building‎-‎rear canopy gas stations‎. ‎All the standards were what they ‎

had been looking at with the B‎-‎3 ‎district amendment, which they had ‎

reviewed quite a bit‎. ‎It was for gas stations in the B‎-‎5 ‎district, and ‎

there was not a store size issue‎. ‎He added the cross reference to ‎

page ‎7‎, and recalled that it had been discussed last month‎. ‎He ‎

mentioned that everything had been reviewed by Mr‎. ‎Staran, and he ‎

was comfortable with the language‎. ‎He would be providing a letter in ‎

that regard prior to the Public Hearing‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis asked if car washes at gas stations should be ‎

considered‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that car washes were permitted in ‎

the B‎-‎5 ‎district currently‎. ‎He pointed out that the Table of Uses ‎

showed car washes as a permitted use in B‎-‎5‎, and he added that ‎

they could be done together‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell asked if everyone was comfortable with the new ‎

language, and hearing no comments, advised that the Public Hearing ‎

would be held in January‎.‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2011-0493

Request for Adoption of Amended Planning Commission By‎-‎Laws per the ‎

Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Public Act ‎33 ‎of ‎2008 ‎as amended, which ‎

required City Council to repeal and adopt an Ordinance to provide for the ‎

powers and duties of the Planning Commission ‎

Chairperson Boswell reported that the State Law had been changed, ‎

so the Commission needed to amend its By‎-‎Laws‎. ‎He noted that ‎

now the Secretary had to be a member of the Planning Commission, ‎

but he wondered if Staff could continue what they were doing, which ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek confirmed, and said Staff would still provide resources and ‎

do the Minutes‎. ‎Chairperson Boswell read that the Commission must ‎

hold a meeting every month; he questioned whether that should be ‎

“‎schedule‎” ‎a meeting rather than ‎“‎hold‎” ‎a meeting every month‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Anzek indicated that he was not an Attorney, but it was his ‎

understanding that when the meeting schedule was published, they ‎

met that requirement‎. ‎If there were no agenda items, the ‎

Commission could cancel a meeting‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece clarified that a ‎

cancellation notice would be posted, which Mr‎. ‎Anzek confirmed‎. ‎He ‎

said that it could be a semantic issue, and he would ask Mr‎. ‎Staran‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell noted the change to plat reviews, and that a ‎

Public Hearing was now required‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek agreed, and he said he ‎

needed clarification from Mr‎. ‎Staran whether or not it had to be done ‎

at each step of the plat process or if one at the initial stage would ‎

suffice‎. ‎He added that every adjacent property owner would get a ‎

notice as well‎. ‎Chairperson Boswell questioned sending only to ‎

people abutting the property, commenting that people down the street ‎

could also be interested‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek agreed, but said that was what ‎

the law required‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell asked the reason for allowing a member of the ‎

Planning Commission to be a non‎-‎resident‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek was not sure, ‎

but he believed it was not a mandate, but an option‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece ‎

asked about someone maintaining a residence in Rochester Hills but ‎

also having a primary residence in another city‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek thought it ‎

would entitle someone to remain as a member‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman ‎

thought that applied to towns with major employers who were ‎

stakeholders in the community‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece suggested that it might be ‎

a tax advantage for someone to have a primary residence in another ‎

town or city while maintaining a home in Rochester Hills‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis asked when they would vote for the position of ‎

Secretary‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek replied that it would be at the first meeting in ‎

April ‎2012‎. ‎Hearing no further discussion, Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis moved the ‎

following‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Kaltsounis, seconded by Reece, the Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Commission hereby approves the following Resolution to ‎

adopt the amended By‎-‎Laws‎:‎

Whereas‎, the City of Rochester Hills Planning Commission was ‎

formerly established when Avon Township became the City of ‎

Rochester Hills in ‎1984‎, in accordance with provisions of the ‎

Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Public Act ‎285 ‎of ‎1931‎; and‎

Whereas, the Planning Commission adopted By‎-‎laws for the ‎

transaction of business and for the purposes of setting forth the ‎

operational structure of the Commission and to provide for the ‎

governance of its activities under the Act; and‎

Whereas‎, on March ‎13‎, ‎2008‎, the Governor signed Senate Bill ‎206 ‎

that unified the three current planning acts for municipalities, ‎

townships and counties into a single Michigan Planning Enabling Act ‎

(‎Michigan Public Act ‎33 ‎of ‎2008‎) ‎to repeal the previous Municipal ‎

Planning Acts ‎(‎PA ‎285 ‎of ‎1931‎, PA ‎282 ‎of ‎1945 ‎and PA ‎168 ‎of ‎1959‎) ‎

and to create a more uniform process for Planning Commission rules ‎

and regulations; and‎

Whereas‎, to facilitate the performance of its duties as outlined in the ‎

Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Public Act ‎33 ‎of ‎2008‎, MCL ‎

125‎.‎3801 ‎and the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Public Act ‎110 ‎of ‎

2006‎, MCL ‎125‎.‎3101 ‎the By‎-‎laws must be amended to be consistent ‎

with the Act‎.‎

Resolved‎, that the Rochester Hills Planning Commission hereby ‎

approves and adopts the amended By‎-‎laws to be in compliance with ‎

Public Act ‎33 ‎of ‎2008 ‎at its Regular Meeting held on December ‎6‎, ‎

2011‎.‎

Be It Further Resolved‎, that this Resolution shall be in full force and ‎

effect from April ‎1‎, ‎2012‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick asked if there was still a concern about Section ‎1 ‎and the ‎

language about the Commission holding one meeting a month‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Anzek felt that the Resolution could be adopted, and if it had to be ‎

changed, it would be brought back to the Commission‎. ‎

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

Approved‎. ‎The motion carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hetrick, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Reece, Schroeder ‎

and Yukon‎

9 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion had passed‎.‎

ANY FURTHER BUSINESS‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek changed the footnote about reserving the right to schedule ‎

additional meetings from Staff to the Planning Commission‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper had suggested moving the July ‎3 ‎meeting because of the ‎

holiday, and it was scheduled for July ‎17‎th‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Schroeder, seconded by Yukon, the Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Commission hereby establishes its ‎2012 ‎meeting schedule ‎

at the December ‎6‎, ‎2011 ‎Regular Meeting as follows‎:‎

ROCHESTER HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION‎

2012 ‎MEETING DATES‎

January ‎3‎, ‎2012‎

February ‎7‎, ‎2012‎

March ‎6‎, ‎2012‎

April ‎3‎, ‎2012‎

May ‎1‎, ‎2012‎

June ‎5‎, ‎2012‎

July ‎17‎, ‎2012‎

August Meeting Cancelled ‎- ‎Primaries‎

September ‎4‎, ‎2012‎

October ‎2 2012‎

November Meeting Cancelled ‎- ‎Elections‎

December ‎4‎, ‎2012‎

Voice Vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ None‎

Chairperson Boswell again stated for the record that the motion had ‎

passed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Beaton asked for another moment to speak‎. ‎He wanted to ‎

publicly thank President Hooper for bringing the municipal sign design ‎

to the Planning Commission‎. ‎In the future, because they were the ‎

board of experts in design and aesthetics, he wondered if the ‎

Planning Commission could review any municipal improvements at ‎

an earlier state‎. ‎He was not sure if a Resolution had to be made at ‎

the Council or Planning Commission level, but he said he would ‎

sincerely appreciate the opinions of the Commissioners for anything ‎

the City might be doing ‎- ‎whether it was a park, a new clubhouse, a ‎

baseball field or a sign‎. ‎He thought that the Commissioners should ‎

have the right to examine those types of plans, as they did with the ‎

private community‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell surmised that it would be a Council initiative‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell showed the Certificate of Recognition he had ‎

received for his twenty‎-‎year membership in the Michigan Association ‎

of Planning‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder mentioned that the sound walls on M‎-‎59 ‎looked very ‎

nice‎. ‎The limited logo size looked nice, and the fact that they were ‎

put only on the ends also looked good‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis asked about the eye doctor‎’‎s office on John R ‎

(‎Nakkash‎) ‎and how it was going‎. ‎He said it looked like it started and ‎

stopped and started and stopped‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek agreed it had been ‎

going slowly, but he noted that last week, they had a special pour of ‎

pervious concrete and the Engineering Staff observed it‎. ‎They were ‎

moving forward with a small crew‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded Commissioners that the next regular meeting was ‎

scheduled for January ‎3‎, ‎2012‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Planning Commission, ‎

and upon motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the regular ‎

meeting at ‎9‎:‎20 ‎p‎.‎m, Michigan time‎.‎

_____________________________‎

William F‎. ‎Boswell, Chairperson‎

Rochester Hills Planning Commission‎

_____________________________‎

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary‎