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, February 6, 2001

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

Present‎: ‎Kaiser, Boswell, Mill, Hooper, Potere, Ramanauskas, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Absent‎: ‎Corneliussen‎

Also Present‎: ‎Ed Anzek, Director of Planning‎

Deborah Millhouse, Deputy Director of Planning‎

Derek Delacourt, Planner II‎

Robert Kagler, McKenna Associates‎

Amy Neary, McKenna Associates‎

John Staran, City Attorney‎

Judy Bialk, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2001-0165

August ‎15‎, ‎2000 ‎Regular Meeting‎

COMMUNICATIONS

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2001-0151

Buffer Modification ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎93‎-‎399‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Summit at King's Cove‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Deborah Millhouse dated January ‎11‎, ‎

2001 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated the applicant has indicated they are not seeking to go ‎

forward with any actions or asking the Planning Commission to make any decisions at ‎

this meeting‎. ‎Therefore, the Planning Commission will not make decisions tonight on ‎

the Tree Removal Permit, Buffer Modification or Site Plan‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

informed the audience that this item will be on the Agenda at another time when they ‎

will make decisions‎. ‎He reminded the audience to fill out speaker cards if they wanted ‎

to address the Planning Commission‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Craig Singer of Milford Singer & Company, and Mr‎. ‎John Hennessey of ‎

Hennessey Engineers, Inc‎. ‎were present, came forward and introduced themselves‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse referred to the Memorandum provided the Commissioners in ‎

their packet and indicated it was to bring them up to date‎. ‎She stated at the last ‎

meeting the applicant had been requested to provide additional information to the ‎

Planning Commission‎. ‎She also informed the Commissioners that, to the best of ‎

Staff's knowledge, all residents of Kings Cove received a copy of the Tree Removal ‎

Permit Notice as of this date‎. ‎All Notices were mailed a week ago in accordance ‎

with the Ordinance for tonight's meeting‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse noted it was her ‎

understanding the applicant was pursuing the request of the Chair relative to their last ‎

meeting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer referred to the display on the easel and suggested those in the ‎

audience might want to move to see the easel‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser explained the ‎

Commissioners also needed to be able to see the displays on the easel‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer stated since the last meeting they have had a number of additional ‎

meetings with some of the neighbors surrounding the property, and have made some ‎

changes to the plans‎. ‎He explained some of the changes were discussed at their first ‎

meeting with the Planning Commission and stated he would point out a few of those ‎

items‎. ‎He referred to the display and pointed out the street called Andover Court and ‎

the neighboring lots, and explained they were able to move the units further away from ‎

the lot lines‎. ‎He stated the setback from the street was ‎47 ‎feet and it was now ‎60 ‎

feet‎. ‎From Unit #‎42‎, it previously was ‎34 ‎foot, and it has been moved back to ‎69 ‎

feet‎. ‎He explained that was the area in the last plan which the neighbors pointed out ‎

they had not done a great job on in terms of the setback‎. ‎He stated they were able to ‎

accomplish the change by having the engineer take the worst case scenario, in terms of ‎

the widest units, in creating the building envelopes‎. ‎He explained they were now using ‎

the narrowest units for both the interior units and exterior units, allowing them to pick ‎

up the additional setback without losing any units‎. ‎He stated he was proposing for the ‎

next submittal to actually add a hard setback line that they would agree to stick to for ‎

both the road and the units‎. ‎He explained that will still allow them some flexibility in ‎

unit design, but they would never encroach on that setback‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer explained they did a very similar thing on Townsend Court‎. ‎They ‎

were able to move the street, which was ‎105 ‎feet and is now going to be ‎115 ‎feet, ‎

and the end unit ‎(‎#‎32‎)‎, which was ‎124 ‎feet and would be moved to ‎134 ‎feet‎. ‎In ‎

addition, they were able to change the design of the street, discussing the change in ‎

pitch and the fact they were able to reduce the elevation by five feet, which will greatly ‎

improve the view from the Beckman's home‎. ‎He explained by lowering it, they were ‎

able to cut down the severe grade on the other side of the road, which will enable ‎

them to add a lot of additional planting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer put up a second display board and indicated the next area they had ‎

worked on, pointing out Lot ‎#2‎, explaining this is the area in which their current plans ‎

do not meet the buffer requirements‎. ‎He stated he has had several discussions with ‎

Mary Rutherberg, who lives on Lot ‎#2‎, and is most affected by the lack of a buffer‎. ‎

He noted he believes by the next meeting they will have an agreement and will be ‎

proposing additional landscaping in that area and will be including that on the plans ‎

they are revising and bringing back in‎. ‎

In addition, Mr‎. ‎Singer indicated the Sparks, who live on Lot ‎#1‎, have a couple of ‎

areas behind their home where they can add some additional plantings on the subject ‎

site property and will be making those changes to the plans at the same time‎. ‎He ‎

described the area behind the site where most of the homes are located on a hill, and ‎

while some have a view on an angle to the property, it is much less intrusive than the ‎

views from the home previously described‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer noted one other item discussed at the last meeting was whether or not ‎

there was a Blue Heron rookery on the property‎. ‎He stated he spoke with Dr‎. ‎

Jaworski, who noted in his inspections of the property, he had not seen any evidence ‎

of any rookeries‎. ‎He stated Dr‎. ‎Jaworski had indicated he believed this is something ‎

he would have noticed in the normal course of inspecting the property‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski ‎

had indicated if it was requested, he would go back out to reinspect for the sole ‎

purpose of checking to see if there is any evidence of a Blue Heron rookery‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎

Jaworski had indicated where he would expect to see a blue heron rookery would be ‎

in the back area of the site, and none of the wetlands are being disturbed at all‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Singer noted Dr‎. ‎Jaworski had indicated the area where they are proposing to disturb ‎

the wetland for the watermain crossing was the least desirable area on this site for a ‎

Blue Heron rookery to locate‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked if Dr‎. ‎Jaworski was not a consultant for the City, who ‎

was‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek responded regarding wetlands issues it would be with ASTI, who is ‎

a sub‎-‎consultant to McKenna Associates‎. ‎He explained they have been handling this ‎

matter since January ‎1‎st‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer explained that he and Dr‎. ‎Jaworski wanted to be ‎

sure there were not any conflict issues‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser questioned whether a rookery was something that could only ‎

be determined seasonally or whether it could be determined now‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer ‎

explained he had asked and he was informed this was a good time to be locating a ‎

rookery‎. ‎He stated early Spring is the best time‎. ‎What Dr‎. ‎Jaworski looks for is the ‎

type of nest‎. ‎The nests from last year are pretty extensive and would have collapsed ‎

over the winter, so they would be found on the ground this time of year or as soon as ‎

the snow melts‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer set up a new display board and indicated that this plan reflected ‎

two conceptual layouts of the property they are not proposing to develop‎. ‎He ‎

explained this was the most southern piece of their property, adjacent to Maplehill and ‎

the apartments off Tienken‎. ‎He referred to the top plan which reflects a scenario of ‎

rear‎-‎loading a street where the houses would back to the natural area and essentially, ‎

with the severe hill back there, they would be creating walk‎-‎out lower levels and a ‎

view of wetlands‎. ‎He explained the bottom plan shows a street that essentially would ‎

create the nicest curb appeal, because the street would have the view to natural areas, ‎

the wetlands and the forest, and the homes would be backing up to the apartment ‎

development‎. ‎He stated those were the two most logical ways to develop the site‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hennessey provided a third display showing a slight deviation of the ‎

cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac location‎. ‎He described how it brings the road down with a little greater ‎

curvature, and provides for an open space‎-‎type layout that would provide for curb ‎

appeal for the wetlands and for the homesites backing up to the existing apartment ‎

complex‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer stated all three plans are a very natural extension of the existing ‎

Maplehill and would be a pretty seamless transition in terms of the type of housing, the ‎

lot configuration, the size of the lots and the density‎. ‎That is the concept they had in ‎

mind when they excluded this parcel‎. ‎He indicated it was not a proposal they are ‎

making, they were just answering a question as to what kind of potential development ‎

someone else might propose someday on this site and whether they had left a site with ‎

sufficient development potential‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer moved to another display showing wetlands, and indicated he had ‎

been asked to clarify that this is the property they do not own and have no rights to ‎

purchase‎. ‎This was just for information purposes only and is not a proposal they are ‎

making‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer indicated the last plan they had was the most sensitive issue they ‎

planned to discuss at this meeting‎. ‎He pointed out on the display the location of ‎

Maplehill; their extension of Kings Cove within their property, and showed what a ‎

connector road might look like‎. ‎He explained they had looked at a couple different ‎

scenarios, and came back to this scenario which they believe is the only potentially ‎

good alternative to create a connecting road‎. ‎He pointed to the display and indicated ‎

the other way would be to go all the way around the wetlands and come back; ‎

however, due to the tremendous amount of grade which would require filling in some ‎

areas and with the wetlands, he did not see how it could reasonably be done‎. ‎He ‎

explained the red areas are wetlands that would have to be filled, and the gray area is ‎

the area that would have to be disturbed in order to create the grading necessary to ‎

get a road down within reasonable grades‎. ‎He indicated this road is not all that ‎

different from the road that was proposed ten years ago‎. ‎Essentially, it is the most ‎

logical way to connect Kings Cove out to some other road network‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer noted he had discovered the Paint Creek Trail that is adjacent to ‎

the existing Kings Cove actually has an entrance on Tienken‎. ‎Although he did not ‎

know who controlled it and what means there would be for emergency access, there ‎

is actually flat grade that goes from Tienken down that Trail that could be accessed to ‎

Kings Cove in case of some sort of emergency with respect to the bridge and that ‎

could provide a secondary means of ingress and egress to that site‎. ‎He indicated he ‎

did now know who controlled access to the Trail, but there is essentially a road‎-‎type ‎

network there and it could be a potential secondary access‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hennessey pointed out the lower graph demonstrated the topography along ‎

the center line of the roadway‎. ‎This graph shows the variation from Maplehill to the ‎

proposed Kings Cove‎. ‎He pointed out the first gray area and indicated there was a ‎

substantial fill and then following the maximum slope allowed by the Engineering ‎

Department, there is a substantial cut‎. ‎He explained the reason there is such a ‎

widespread area in the gray is to match the existing grade in the area for the cut and fill ‎

to put that roadway in‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser referred to the last two topics brought up by the applicant, the ‎

road and the parcel they are not developing, and asked what alternatives they have ‎

considered regarding the potential development of that parcel down the road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Singer indicated they had not considered anything for the parcel they are not ‎

developing down the road, particularly with respect to developing it themselves, ‎

because they have very little interest in that site‎. ‎He did not think it was a very ‎

economically viable development‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated he understood the applicant did not have any ‎

interest in developing the parcel, but felt somebody else may or will‎. ‎He explained the ‎

issue was, because of the Standards in the City's Ordinance, approval of the ‎

applicant's proposed development has to also consider present, existing and future ‎

development of adjacent land‎. ‎He stated another standard and policy the City has ‎

tried to promote for the last ten years, is the continuity of neighborhoods in ‎

geographical areas‎. ‎He indicated another policy the City has to consider is the ability ‎

to access neighborhoods for emergency purposes‎. ‎He indicated their concern was, if ‎

it is assumed that someone someday will develop the southern piece, with the only ‎

probable way being to come off Maplehill, the Commission should now see what the ‎

likelihood is of planning for a connection between the applicant's development and the ‎

potential development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer pointed out on the display the boundary of the area they are not ‎

acquiring‎. ‎He indicated he was confident he could deliver an easement for a future ‎

road over that property if there was ever a connecting road proposed‎. ‎He did not ‎

have a problem leaving that possibility open and continuing with his development so ‎

that some future access point would have the ability to be developed‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser requested the applicant to explain, if it were to occur, why the ‎

connection road would not come up along the western side of the property and then ‎

northerly‎. ‎He noted although they had talked about the steepness of the grade in that ‎

area, however it would not intrude upon the wetlands as much as the direct crossing‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer explained it would intrude more because there was actually a steeper ‎

grade‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hennessey pointed out the area where it was ‎840 ‎and the top was about ‎

815‎, which would require a ‎25 ‎foot cut in a much shorter distance‎. ‎Chairperson ‎

Kaiser asked why that would cause greater disturbance of the wetlands‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hennessey stated it would not necessarily cause a greater disturbance to the wetlands, ‎

but it would cause a significant disturbance to the existing tree stand‎. ‎He explained, ‎

unless a retaining wall was built, the tree stand would have to be obliterated‎. ‎Their ‎

configuration would minimize the tree removal, and maximize the impact to the ‎

wetlands‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer referred to the top portion of the plan and indicated there would ‎

be essentially the same impact to the wetlands‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hennessey pointed to the display ‎

and described the impact that would be caused by the significant grade that occurs‎. ‎

He discussed some alternatives and their impact on the wetlands and the tree stand‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted ‎"‎connection‎" ‎versus ‎"‎wetlands‎" ‎versus ‎"‎trees‎" ‎were ‎

the problems‎. ‎He asked whether the applicant had given further consideration to ‎

dealing with construction traffic, particularly with respect to the current residents of ‎

Kings Cove‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer noted that the market would dictate that somewhat‎. ‎He explained ‎

it was only ‎42 ‎units and they believe the only way to develop the site is in one phase‎. ‎

He indicated there will be construction traffic over the period of time it takes for the ‎

project to build out‎. ‎It is a much cleaner construction traffic than site development ‎

construction traffic which is something they cannot control in terms of market timing‎. ‎

He stated they have no problem in being responsible for damage to the public roads ‎

from their construction traffic, but they believe the roads are able to withstand typical ‎

construction traffic‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen referred to the connector road and asked the applicant if they had ‎

any idea of what that would do to their tree removal compliance‎. ‎He stated his ‎

understanding was the reason the applicant was not interested in not developing that ‎

particular area was to bring them in better compliance with the Tree Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Singer responded that was correct‎. ‎He referred to the display and pointed out the ‎

area where trees would be added to the count of trees being removed and they would ‎

have to make that up by some other means‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen clarified they either would not ‎

make the minimum numbers, or they would have to have more replacements, or both‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer responded it would probably be both‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser indicated whatever is done, they should keep in mind that ‎

it is forever‎. ‎He explained if they allow the proposed development, with the area that ‎

is not being developed to allow them a large area to preserve trees and contribute to ‎

the percentage of trees saved, they do not want to be contemplating that someday a ‎

road will come through and change that whole configuration‎. ‎He did not feel they ‎

should leave it open‎-‎ended‎. ‎

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

Mr‎. ‎Richard Stinson, ‎1363 ‎Autumn Lane‎, came forward and stated he is ‎

the current President of the Kings Cove Board of Directors‎. ‎He stated he wanted to ‎

reiterate what he said at the last meeting‎. ‎If development of the land above and to the ‎

north of them is inevitable, the current plans by the Milford Singer & Company have ‎

the approval of Kings Cove Board of Directors‎. ‎The plans have been reviewed and, ‎

speaking for the Board of Directors, they feel the development will enhance their area ‎

and should increase property values‎. ‎He stated Kings Cove is limited in the number of ‎

homes with the master bedroom on the first floor, and the proposed development will ‎

help fill the needs of individuals who must leave the area in search of this feature‎. ‎

Although the development has met their approval, there are still some concerns they ‎

would like to request the Planning Commission assist them with‎. (‎1‎) ‎In order to avoid ‎

major confusion with mail, and to remain a separate entity, the development must be ‎

named The Summit, with no reference to Kings Cove‎. (‎2‎) ‎The development continues ‎

to be approved in one of the most heavily populated areas of Rochester Hills, without ‎

improvements to major roads, particularly Tienken Road‎. ‎He noted with the approval ‎

of The Summit, the necessary warrants will be satisfied for a traffic signal light at the ‎

entrance of Kings Cove‎. ‎They would like to get the traffic safety light installed ‎

immediately, to provide for safety of the residents and increase protection for the Paint ‎

Creek Trail crossing‎. ‎He stated they believed the neighbors at Oakbrook ‎

Condominiums and Cliffview Apartments would also benefit from the traffic signal‎. ‎

(‎3‎) ‎Assure the residents of Kings Cove that the deteriorating Kings Cove Drive and ‎

Kings Cove Drive East will be maintained during construction and restored after the ‎

construction is complete‎. ‎He explained maintained related to periodic cleaning to ‎

remove mud and dirt and patching potholes‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ron Beckman, ‎571 ‎Apple Hill‎, stated he lives just north of the property‎. ‎He ‎

explained Mr‎. ‎Singer has addressed some of their concerns already and had discussed ‎

them this evening‎. ‎He complimented Mr‎. ‎Singer for that, noting not all developers ‎

work with the neighbors‎. ‎He stated he believed Mr‎. ‎Singer had a genuine concern for ‎

the trees and he felt this was the best proposal they have seen for this property‎. ‎This ‎

is a fairly reasonable approach to this project site‎. ‎He stated he had not seen the ‎

latest tree replacement plan and wanted to request on the north side of the property, ‎

the developer consider adding additional density‎. ‎He explained that was their view ‎

out their backyards and recommended they add as many in that area as possible to ‎

compensate‎. ‎He indicated he would be agreeable to having trees planted on his ‎

property‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Robert Jarski, ‎1360 ‎Crescent‎, stated the attracting feature that ‎

brought him to Kings Cove was the natural beauty and the wooden bridge, which was ‎

a icon for the community‎. ‎He felt tree preservation was a priority and referred to the ‎

increased traffic and the concrete and steel bridge‎. ‎He would prefer no trees be ‎

removed‎. ‎In planning the neighborhoods, he suggested the Commissioners consider ‎

the development of the community for pedestrians and for safety of children and the ‎

elderly‎. ‎He noted the safety concerns in trying to cross Tienken, which is a dangerous ‎

intersection‎. ‎He stated he teaches the relationship between health and stress at the ‎

University, and what makes life worth living around Kings Cove is the natural ‎

environment‎. ‎He questioned why they were continuing to destroy the natural beauty ‎

of the area‎. ‎He suggested future planning preserve areas where people can safely ‎

walk as well as the natural beauty of the area‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Larry Myers, ‎1535 ‎Surrey Lane‎, came forward and stated everything ‎

he wanted to say was just said very eloquently‎. ‎

There being no further persons wishing to speak, Chairperson Kaiser declared ‎

the public hearing closed and asked the applicant to respond to or add to the ‎

comments made by the audience‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer indicated the plans they will be submitting, including all revisions, ‎

will eliminate the Kings Cove name from The Summit‎. ‎He assured Mr‎. ‎Stinson his ‎

first comment will be taken care of‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer addressed the traffic light issue and ‎

indicated it was beyond the control of himself and the Planning Commission‎. ‎He ‎

stated he believed there was the potential the additional units will create enough traffic ‎

to allow for a traffic signal‎. ‎He pointed out that is not something that can be done until ‎

the traffic actually exists and can be counted and confirmed and given to the County ‎

Road Commission‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer noted he had already discussed the construction ‎

traffic‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer referred to Mr‎. ‎Beckman's concerns with additional trees, and ‎

stated he could assure Mr‎. ‎Beckman and the Commissioners that on the North side of ‎

Units ‎32 ‎and ‎42 ‎where they have made the road changes and added additional side ‎

yard, they will planting as many trees as possible in that space‎. ‎He referred to the ‎

comment about planting trees on the neighbors' property, and explained they would be ‎

happy to plant trees on the neighbors' property, as well as on Kings Cove's property, ‎

however, that may require some modification or a different interpretation of the Tree ‎

Ordinance‎. ‎He stated there had been discussion at the last meeting where there had ‎

been other instances where people were allowed to plant on other property, but he ‎

believed it was other public property versus private property‎. ‎He explained they ‎

would be happy to participate in if they were told they were allowed to‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted there were two issues, one being where to put trees ‎

to satisfy the Tree Ordinance, and the other being to satisfy the buffer, IVO and ‎

opaque screening requirements of the Ordinance‎. ‎He indicated they have allowed ‎

trees to be put on other people's property for that purpose, under certain conditions ‎

and with the understanding that they become the responsibility of that property owner, ‎

not the developer‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer indicated he had made it very clear to the neighbors that, to the ‎

extent they have reasonable concerns with views and open space, they would be ‎

happy to discuss any specific requests‎. ‎He stated they had already talked to a few ‎

individually and talked about adding trees‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse clarified that if the developer were to make an arrangement ‎

with a neighboring property owner to plant on their property to meet the intent of the ‎

buffering, that cannot be included as part of the tree replacement‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer stated perhaps these would not be buffer issues‎. ‎To the extent they have ‎

open space on their property, they are allowed to plant trees in lieu of paying into the ‎

tree fund‎. ‎He explained this site is so heavily wooded, and they are not disturbing ‎

most of the areas, which leaves them with very few areas where they have room to ‎

plant additional trees‎. ‎Essentially, they would be cutting down trees in order to plant ‎

replacement trees‎. ‎He indicated there are some very unique characteristics on the site ‎

and perhaps it needs to be looked at to allow them to plant on the neighboring sites in ‎

meeting the Tree Replacement Ordinance and not a matter of simply looking at the ‎

buffering‎. ‎He noted with respect to Kings Cove, it was not a buffering issue‎. ‎He ‎

indicated Mr‎. ‎Beckman's site specifically has ‎140 ‎feet of pretty dense woods‎. ‎He ‎

stated although additional trees on that site may be helpful, he was not sure it was ‎

strictly a buffering ordinance issue versus just adding more trees‎. ‎

2001-0152

Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎City File No‎. ‎93‎-‎399‎.‎2 ‎- ‎Summit at King's Cove‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted he did not believe the Tree Ordinance allowed for ‎

any kind of rule bending‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran indicated there were provisions in the Tree ‎

Ordinance that allow a variance to be granted by the City Council‎. ‎He explained the ‎

variance language is pretty broad, and one could make a request for a variance to ‎

allow a type of planting or the location where trees would be planted‎. ‎He indicated ‎

there have been some variance requests in the past, but they have typically been to ‎

relieve the applicant of having to replant as many trees‎. ‎He noted what was being ‎

proposed here was not that they did not want to plant trees, they just wanted to plant ‎

them in areas that would not be allowed under the strict letter of the Ordinance‎. ‎He ‎

indicated there is a possibility for a variance‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser indicated the applicant should firmly establish what, if any, ‎

requests are being made by the neighbors to the north, in particular, if they are inviting ‎

the applicant to do more on their property, then come to the Planning Commission and ‎

then to City Council to make an argument to allow that to be where they put ‎

replacements‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer indicated they would do so‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer referred to Mr‎. ‎Jarski's comments on the preservation of open ‎

areas, and wanted to clarify a few things‎. ‎He stated he did not believe there was ‎

anything typical about their proposal in terms of flattening, mass grading, or typical ‎

type of suburban development‎. ‎He indicated they had gone through great effort to ‎

maintain the existing character of the site, to maintain the existing grade, and he felt it ‎

would be very much like a Northern Michigan type of development, where the houses ‎

would be hidden from view by the trees‎. ‎He indicated they were clearly saving ‎

thousands of trees surrounding the property‎. ‎In addition, to the extent there is not a ‎

requirement to build a connector road, not only are they adding additional property to ‎

save trees to meet the tree count, there is an additional benefit because they are not ‎

only saving the trees, they are including the land, which is not typical‎. ‎He added they ‎

are creating a ‎5 ‎or ‎7 ‎acre private or public park of permanent open space, so it is not ‎

simply the trees that are being saved, it is the whole property‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted the audience may not understand what is meant by ‎

including the land‎. ‎He explained the proposal is to turn that into a conservation ‎

easement so it can never be developed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer agreed that was correct‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser clarified the area that is not being developed now and can never ‎

be developed unless the City requires a road‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted, although everyone present tonight, if they had their ‎

way and no economic considerations were at issue, would prefer this property stay as ‎

beautiful and natural as it is, much like the current Kings Cove property was before it ‎

was developed‎. ‎He explained the current property is owned by a private entity, not ‎

the City of Rochester Hills, nor a private entity that can be compelled to keep it ‎

natural‎. ‎He pointed out at one time there was just water flowing and there was no ‎

wooden bridge, much less a cement and steel bridge‎. ‎However, someone developed ‎

the property and built a wooden bridge‎. ‎The current owner also has a right to use and ‎

develop their land within the law, as did the original owner of the Kings Cove ‎

property‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper asked how many units were in the existing Kings Cove complex‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer replied there were ‎399‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper referred to the proposal for the ‎

excepted parcel not owned by the applicant, and asked whether they had explored ‎

the existing road that dead ends west of that parcel‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer clarified whether the ‎

road was to the south‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper noted on Page ‎3 ‎of ‎33 ‎there was an existing dead ‎

end road in the existing Kings Cove that stops outside the west boundary of that ‎

parcel‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hennessey indicated that was a private drive in Kings Cove and was not ‎

a public road‎. ‎He stated they would not have the ability, without the permission of ‎

Kings Cove, to access that private drive‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper asked the applicant to explore if the road was placed ‎

commensurate with the water main that is proposed connecting to Maplehill, what the ‎

tree loss would be to make a road alignment something similar to the way the water ‎

main is shown on the drawings‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer asked if he was requesting a count of the number of trees‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper ‎

noted he wondered what the impact would be if the road followed that same ‎

alignment‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hennessey explained it would not be able to follow the same alignment ‎

because of radius‎. ‎It would have to follow the alignment that was presented‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Singer verified Mr‎. ‎Hooper's question was to determine how many trees would be lost ‎

in the gray area on the drawings if they developed the road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper stated that ‎

was correct‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer agreed they could do that‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked if they would also want to know the figure on what ‎

their preservation percentage would be overall‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper clarified what the effect ‎

would be on the proposal, as well as the wetland impact‎. ‎He pointed out another ‎

option would be to extend the road outside, west of the gray area where it intersects ‎

the western edge of the excepted parcel, and what that tree impact would be‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hennessy clarified that would be going around the wetland area and connecting back ‎

to the existing public road of Kings Cove‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper verified that was correct‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek asked Mr‎. ‎Hennessey if he knew approximately what the percent ‎

grade could be if that road would continue down the western side and loop through ‎

the excepted parcel‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hennessey indicated it would be at its maximum allowable ‎

of ‎8‎%‎, but they would still require a significant cut in the existing topography because ‎

the topography comes up so severely and comes back so severely‎. ‎Even if they came ‎

in at the maximum allowable of ‎8‎%. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek noted perhaps those trees should be ‎

considered as well‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek pointed out the Fire Department's apparatus cannot ‎

climb anything over ‎8‎%. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hennessey agreed that was correct and explained that ‎

was how that roadway configuration is presented on the graphic in the lower quadrant‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested a possible straw vote on approval of this site if ‎

there is no connector‎. ‎He explained the connector or its absence drives the issues ‎

with this project‎. ‎He noted this same issue has come up with other developments ‎

lately‎. ‎He felt it would be helpful to know if any Commissioners are never going to ‎

say yes without a connector proposed in some fashion‎. ‎He pointed out if they ‎

connected up to the existing Kings Cove, they would be tying together those two sides ‎

and would finish up that circuit and that would probably be a benefit to the existing ‎

Kings Cove in terms of safety and access‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ramanauskas asked Mr‎. ‎Stinson about the gate for Kings Cove through ‎

the Paint Creek Trail‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Stinson explained there is access to the Trail on the west ‎

side of Kings Cove for an emergency egress‎. ‎It was just a matter of getting the gates ‎

open and moving the timbers that block the cars from coming down the trail‎. ‎He ‎

stated there was easy access for traffic through there‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ramanauskas asked whether that could be explored further as a ‎

possibility‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser suggested the applicant and City Staff determine if ‎

there are mechanisms that could be employed to make part of any approval‎. ‎He ‎

pointed out that was a pedestrian pathway and the City of Rochester Hills is not the ‎

only entity that has jurisdiction over it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran asked who maintained the Trail‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse stated the Paint Creek Trail Commission is the board involved‎. ‎She ‎

clarified with Mr‎. ‎Stinson that there was already an emergency access gate and ‎

pathway in existence‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Stinson explained there was a block‎-‎off at the entrance so ‎

traffic cannot get down the trail; however, that could be removed in an emergency ‎

situation‎. ‎He stated there was a padlocked gate there for maintenance‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Millhouse asked whether there was a formal arrangement to allow emergency access ‎

on the Paint Creek Trail for Kings Cove‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Stinson replied there was not‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested City Staff explore with the applicant what entities ‎

would have to be involved in any agreements that were entered into, and what form ‎

any approvals or conditions should take‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser referred to Mr‎. ‎Hooper's comments about the private drive and ‎

clarified that was just the drive that leads up to current condominiums and there is just ‎

a little turn around extension‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer agreed, noting it was just like parking‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked how wide it was‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hennessey responded it was ‎

probably ‎20 ‎feet wide‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer stated it did not dead end at the property line, ‎

there was a setback‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser asked whether the applicant had explored ‎

the possibility of utilizing that in any way‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer indicated they had not explored ‎

that possibility and noted he believed it probably could be done with the cooperation ‎

of Kings Cove‎. ‎He stated it was his understanding that Kings Cove was opposed to ‎

an additional connection‎. ‎He noted it was a means clearly under Kings Cove's control ‎

that would be counter‎-‎productive in the event Kings Cove did not want additional ‎

access‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested perhaps as an emergency access‎. ‎He ‎

suggested if there was going to be an emergency access from the Trail on the west ‎

side, if that was something that could be formerly agreed to, they should probably ‎

look into the same for the eastern side of Kings Cove‎. ‎He noted he would like to ‎

know the last time someone approached those responsible for the Cliffview private ‎

drive and requested them to cooperate on a extension through there‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer indicated it was five years ago and they told him never to call ‎

back‎. ‎He stated he called again two years ago and they made it clear they had told ‎

him previously never to call back‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted that was now clearly on ‎

the record‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen referred to the stub parking street and asked whether that was ‎

where the big rocks and gabion wire baskets were located‎. ‎He recalled there was a ‎

30 ‎foot cliff in that area‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer agreed there was a significant amount of ‎

topography there and indicated that was the same cliff they would be required to get ‎

down in order to go around the wetland‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hennessey pointed out it would not be ‎

a simple matter to engineer that without impacting the units presently there or adding ‎

retaining walls, etc‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill pointed out that really would not benefit anyone from the other side of ‎

the bridge so the same one access is still there versus the possibility through Paint ‎

Creek where they would be bypassing the bridge‎. ‎She felt that made some sense ‎

from an emergency access standpoint‎. ‎She felt this was just another street inside the ‎

complex‎. ‎She encouraged looking at the area where the private drive along Cliffview ‎

is, and also the street on the side of Bedford Square‎. ‎She felt there was almost a ‎

boulevard situation between the two‎. ‎She thought that made the most sense for ‎

another entrance into the whole complex and believed the City should pursue that to a ‎

greater extent‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked to what greater extent‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill suggested they ‎

truly look at whether there was a possibility of connecting‎. ‎She felt it should also be ‎

considered with the proposed future area rather than saying it needs to come off and ‎

be an extension of Maplehill‎. ‎She suggested it could have access from the south and ‎

would be able come up along the westerly side and connect into The Summit‎. ‎She did ‎

not know what could be done but like to see if it was possible‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer indicated in the event they were willing to participate, and currently ‎

they are unwilling to participate, it still only improves the situation by making the ‎

people on Maplehill happier‎. ‎They would still have go around the wetland and get ‎

down that tremendous hill‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill stated she was not disputing the issues present with that type of an ‎

approach; however, if they were looking at the future development of the property the ‎

applicant is not involved in, it is one way of looking of access not only to that but also ‎

to the applicant's property‎. ‎She noted it was not a simple solution‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted if someday that excepted parcel will be developed, ‎

which currently the only way in is Maplehill because it is a public street, are they being ‎

neglectful to make this project tie‎-‎in, even if only by an easement‎. ‎He agreed with ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill that the applicant and the City should pursue any means at all to determine if ‎

they can get through another way‎. ‎He stated they needed solid answers and he felt ‎

the City shares the responsibility with the applicant to pursue that before finalization of ‎

this project‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell stated he agreed with the Chair‎. ‎He noted when he first looked ‎

at this project, he felt it was a really nice job, however without a second entrance he ‎

could never vote for it‎. ‎He agreed with the Chair, that he is a lot more open minded ‎

than he was two weeks ago‎. ‎He noted they already have ‎399 ‎homes that are ‎

accessed by one entrance over a bridge‎. ‎He stated he has been adamant on this issue ‎

with other sites that he would not vote for because they only had one entrance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Singer agreed he understood it was a big issue‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Boswell stated he did not think ‎

they could do this site much better than what the applicant has done, he liked the fact ‎

they have worked with the neighbors as best they can, and as far as he was concerned ‎

they have done a very nice job with what they have‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer agreed it was a tough site, and it is coupled against the benefit of ‎

however many homes there are on the two dead end ‎"‎Y's‎"‎, which is maybe a ‎100 ‎on ‎

each of them‎. ‎For those ‎200 ‎of the ‎399‎, clearly it is an improvement for traffic and for ‎

safety‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Boswell noted if the bridge was not there or something happened‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Singer noted that was already the case‎. ‎It was really a matter of whether they were ‎

making the matter worse by adding ‎42 ‎units; however, they are making an existing ‎

problem better by connecting two dead ends that are servicing ‎200 ‎units‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser responded they needed to find out if they can make it better, ‎

noting this was their only shot to do so‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer indicated he was offering an ‎

easement so it would not have to be the only shot‎. ‎It could be a conservation ‎

easement with that being the only exception‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted if they agreed to an easement as part of this ‎

development and required them to bring it down the western side of the southern ‎

piece to tie into the excepted parcel, and questioned whether the owner of the ‎

excepted parcel would get more grief trying to come through Maplehill rather than that ‎

coming through the easement‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer clarified what he was proposing was that ‎

the easement would not be in favor of the undeveloped property‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

asked who it would be in favor of‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Singer proposed it would be in favor of the ‎

City, the Summit or the existing Kings Cove‎. ‎He felt those were the only people he ‎

was concerned with that would need to gain access‎. ‎He did not believe he had a ‎

responsibility to the undeveloped parcel for a potential seven or eight houses, that ‎

really have two access points‎. ‎He pointed out that parcel had one public and one ‎

private access point he has not been able to break through‎. ‎He stated that was not to ‎

say someone else could not break through‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested Attorney Staran determine, if there was an ‎

easement off the applicant's public road down to that parcel along the western side of ‎

the southern piece, what the impact of that would be for a future developer of that ‎

excepted parcel‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Singer introduced his partner, Stuart Kaufman‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaufman stated they ‎

would provide that the condition for the use of the easement is as part of a connector ‎

road, so if there is no connector road to accomplish what they have been discussing, ‎

there is no right to the easement‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser requested Attorney Staran to determine if the easement ‎

could be drafted in that manner‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaufman noted an easement is a matter of ‎

contract, and they could provide that as a condition precedent to the right to use the ‎

easement‎. ‎It is a right they would have as a result of a connection through and he did ‎

not feel it would be an issue‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Potere noted she had mixed emotions about having one access point into ‎

Kings Cove and therefore into The Summit‎. ‎She stated she understand from a public ‎

safety standpoint the importance of having more than one access point‎. ‎She also ‎

knew from personal experience and observing things in the City, she had some ‎

hesitation to opening up that Kings Cove development to cut‎-‎through traffic‎. ‎She felt ‎

that area has been established for such a long time, it would place a burden on those ‎

residents‎. ‎She felt the residents had come to expect that to be the atmosphere in ‎

which they live‎. ‎She noted it was hard to weigh public safety over aspirations about ‎

where you live‎. ‎

2001-0149

Site Plan Approval‎- ‎File No‎. ‎93‎-‎399‎.‎2 ‎- ‎The Summit at King's Cove, a ‎42‎-‎unit attached ‎

condominium development on ‎27‎.‎27 ‎acres, located north of Tienken, east of Livernois, ‎

zoned RCD, Parcek No‎. ‎15‎-‎03‎-‎326‎-‎016 ‎& ‎-‎017‎, Milford Singer & Company, applicant‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen stated he thought the Chair's comments about having to come down on ‎

one side or the other, either at this meeting or the next meeting, is the right way to ‎

think about it‎. ‎He guessed they could not finagle this well enough to cover all of the ‎

objections‎. ‎He noted it was the balance between wetlands, woodlands, safety, and ‎

access‎. ‎He stated he did not think he had any problems in supporting the project ‎

although he would like to think about it a bit more‎. ‎He noted one of the things that ‎

helped was Mr‎. ‎Stinson mentioning about the emergency access‎. ‎He stated he was ‎

not aware of that and if a bad situation came up, it was available‎. ‎He noted the benefit ‎

to the north and east of the ‎"‎Y‎" ‎and stated on balance, he came out in favor of it‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested the applicant talk to City Staff and determine ‎

when they would be ready to come back before the Commission‎. ‎The applicants ‎

thanked the Commissioners for their time‎. ‎

[‎Recess ‎- ‎8‎:‎55 ‎PM to ‎9‎:‎00 ‎PM‎]‎

DISCUSSION

2001-0160

Rochester College Master Plan‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated the next Agenda item concerned the Rochester College ‎

Master Plan‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Mark VanRheenen, Executive Vice President of the College came forward ‎

and introduced himself‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Barry Nebhat with TMP Associates, came forward and ‎

introduced himself and stated they are working with the college on their plans for ‎

development‎. ‎He introduced Mr‎. ‎Richard Borrelli, also with TMP Associates‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse thanked the Planning Commission for taking the time to review ‎

this matter‎. ‎As a brief background, she indicated the last major work that was done ‎

at College was with the dormitories about five years ago‎. ‎She stated the College is ‎

now ready to propose a new library‎. ‎They have submitted their site plan for first ‎

review‎. ‎During the discussion, it was determined there would be a need for a ‎

conditional use for this facility‎. ‎She noted they are aware the College does have a ‎

Master Plan for about twenty years into the future‎. ‎She explained a site plan is ‎

required to go along with the conditional use‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse stated the question the College has tonight, instead of having to ‎

go through a revised conditional land use every time a new facility is going to be ‎

proposed over the course of the next few years, is whether the Planning Commission ‎

would feel it conducive to use the Master Plan as the ‎"‎site plan‎" ‎to proceed on through ‎

a conditional use procedure at this point‎. ‎She explained when they were ready to ‎

build the next facility, it would simply be a site plan issue, unless for some reason there ‎

would be conditions on the conditional land use that might kick in‎. ‎In other words, to ‎

use this plan to look at the site overall, and to base the conditional use consideration ‎

based upon the Master Plan as opposed to site specific plans for each facility as the ‎

College progresses in its development‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser indicated it was a good idea‎. ‎He explained they have run into ‎

the issue several times before of whether it was enough of a change on a conditional ‎

use to be reheard by the Planning Commission and the City Council‎. ‎He questioned ‎

whether the result would be along the lines of a conditional use recommended for ‎

approval consistent with the Master Plan dated received ‎"‎whatever date is used‎"‎, with ‎

conditions that the use be allowed so long as future plans did not exceed those uses‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse added that all code requirements would be met‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

clarified they would still see each development as it came on a site plan basis‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Anzek agreed it was correct‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Nebhat indicated Mr‎. ‎Borrelli would present the Master Plan that was ‎

developed a period of years ago, as Mr‎. ‎Borrelli had been instrumental in preparing it ‎

with the College at that time‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Borrelli stated the Master Plan as is shown tonight is a historic element, noting ‎

the name displayed on it of Michigan Christian College, which predates the name ‎

change at the College‎. ‎He stated the Plan was done prior to and coincidental with the ‎

resident hall project about six or seven years ago‎. ‎At that time it was shown for intent ‎

and that intent was there would be development occurring in front of the existing ‎

buildings toward Avon Road and that would be of an academic nature‎. ‎An example ‎

of these academic facilities would be a library, an administration building and an ‎

auditorium‎. ‎He explained the plan was done in conjunction with the resident hall ‎

project since the need was there for some additional resident halls‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Borrelli stated the Master Plan would be an enduring document, except for ‎

the fact that changes over time may and have moved the position of the library as ‎

shown‎. ‎He indicated they wanted to present the Master Plan as a guideline for the ‎

future and not as a specific blue print‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested consideration be given to the renaming the ‎

College to be consistent with its location‎. ‎He noted he would review the Master Plan ‎

to be sure there were no indications they would be seeking waivers or intrusions into ‎

buffers, etc‎. ‎He suggested the applicant avoid planning for waivers and intrusions into ‎

protected areas‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Borrelli indicated they were well aware of the limitations that the ‎

natural features of the site show‎. ‎He stated that was a major part of the effort in the ‎

initial Master Plan sequence‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek explained one of the items that prompted this inquiry is that Mr‎. ‎

VanRheenen had brought up the success of the College and the fact that enrollment ‎

has increased ‎30%‎ over the last two years consecutively and that they were laying out ‎

an aggressive expansion program‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek felt if site plans were going to be seen ‎

one after another, it might serve the City's best interests if they could get the ‎

conditional use ‎"‎umbrella‎" ‎and then deal with the individual site plans as they come ‎

forward‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill referred to the historic barn on the site and asked how that issue has ‎

been dealt with or what the status of the barn is at the present time‎. ‎She felt that was ‎

another issue that would have to be addressed before any plan was approved‎. ‎She ‎

noted the example in front of them did not indicate it being there‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen commented the Plan was not actually a set of guidelines, rather it ‎

defined the boundaries of what is contemplated in the conditional use‎. ‎In other words, ‎

they are ‎"‎putting a box around it‎" ‎and as long as it stays within the box conceptually, it ‎

is fine and they do not need to go back for conditional land use or go before City ‎

Council, it is just assumed all of it still works‎. ‎He felt to do that for such a large facility ‎

and for potentially twenty years into the future, required them to think pretty far ahead ‎

and to think about being able to comply with the Ordinances today‎. ‎He thought it ‎

would take more work than simply one public hearing and a recommendation to City ‎

Council‎. ‎He noted work meant staff work, particularly from the consultant's point of ‎

view, and everyone needs to fully understand what they are committing to‎. ‎He stated ‎

it was a great idea but he did not want to think about it as a guideline, but rather as ‎

setting the edge of the envelope within which everything is O‎.‎K‎. ‎and beyond which ‎

they would have to think about whether it is a conditional land use‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Nebhat pointed out the City still maintains control by being able to follow ‎

each project through its full cycle, so that protection of the City's interests are inherent ‎

by the other requirements the City has laid out‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen agreed that would happen anyway‎. ‎He stated what they were ‎

trying to do was get the whole concept out well enough defined and thought through ‎

so that the applicant and the City can pretty reasonably rely on it‎. ‎This would avoid ‎

arguments about conditional land use which have more opportunity to get off the ‎

track‎. ‎He noted the City had to consider what impact it would have down the road, ‎

on the whole general area, on traffic, etc‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser indicated he not did feel it meant that everything inside the ‎

box can happen, but rather how it is described in the Master Plan is what they would ‎

end up conditionally approving‎. ‎Not just the outer perimeters, but there may be ‎

conditions on where the parking has to be, whether it is interior or exterior, etc‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rosen agreed that was a good way to state it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Borrelli stated that would show ‎

specific intent of what the development would be‎. ‎He liked Mr‎. ‎Rosen's word choice ‎

and the concept of definite boundaries‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek suggested to the applicants, as they do their total thought process of ‎

working out the total campus development, they put it in a time frame, such as ‎2005‎, ‎

2010‎, ‎2015‎. ‎He believed that would demonstrate to the Commission the type of ‎

intensity over time and how it will fit together piecewise‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse added the key word in all of this is the intensity of the ‎

development‎. ‎She referred to the reference about it being roughly twice the college ‎

they have today‎. ‎She noted if, in reality‎. ‎they are growing so quickly they need to be ‎

looking ‎2‎-‎1‎/‎2 ‎times the college, now would be a good time to build that into their ‎

Master Plan‎. ‎She explained they would be looking at something based upon the ‎

intensity of two or three additional dorms or two or three classroom facilities‎. ‎It is the ‎

intent of use and the volume of the use as it would relate to the area‎. ‎She suggested is ‎

was a perfect opportunity to get a handle on how far they want to go at this point in ‎

time and the intensity of their future expansion‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted for the record if they were to master plan for eventually ‎

owning and operating all the way down westerly to the intersection, particularly with ‎

the recent weekend activity going on there, he had no objection‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

indicated the Commissioners felt it was a good idea to put a Master Plan together and ‎

bring it before the Planning Commission and the City Council for the conditional land ‎

use request‎. ‎

Attorney Staran stated it made sense for all the reasons articulated to consider it ‎

as a Master Plan, certainly with some conditions‎. ‎He stated there would be a need for ‎

conditions taking into account that they are not talking about a Master Plan for ‎

something they are going to see in ‎2001‎, but rather over a period of ten to fifteen ‎

years‎. ‎He noted over that period of time Ordinances can and presumably will change ‎

which could even effect the layout that is proposed‎. ‎It should be made clear in any ‎

conditional approval that site plans will have to come forward and they will need to ‎

comply with all Ordinances in effect at the time of submittal‎. ‎He indicated some of ‎

that goes without saying; however, for posterity's sake, it would be important to note‎. ‎

He noted they did not want to unwittingly create a non‎-‎conforming use situation‎. ‎He ‎

saw benefit both to the City and the applicant to have at least a reasonable amount of ‎

certainty as to what is going to be laid over time rather than doing it in a piecemeal ‎

fashion over a period of years with different people involved in the approval process‎. ‎

He did not see a problem with it and suggested it needed to be thought out and talked ‎

out more, but there should not be anything they could not deal with‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler stated he concurred with everything and stated it will be helpful for ‎

general building placement and it will be very helpful for determining area of ‎

development on future site plan approvals‎. ‎He pointed out one of the challenges they ‎

had when they first saw the initial concept plans for the library was in looking at a site ‎

plan, or a tree removal permit, or a wetland determination, normally they look at the ‎

sidwell numbers‎. ‎He indicated the parcels of the subject property do not necessarily ‎

correspond with the areas of development‎. ‎He stated if the College's plan is for a ‎

finite period of time, some potential conditions of conditional land use approval could ‎

relate to that period of time‎. ‎Specifically, in terms of when the next conditional land ‎

use might be required or things that would trigger it‎. ‎He stated it could be very helpful ‎

and could aid in the future development of the College and possibly cut down the ‎

amount of reviews that may need to take place‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked whether a conditional use could include a ‎

sundown‎-‎type of provision‎. ‎Attorney Staran indicated he would like to consider it ‎

further, but he was not aware of any good reason why it could not in these ‎

circumstances‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser indicated if it was tied to a Master Plan dated ‎

received next month, and City Council conditionally approved it, a condition could be ‎

perhaps ‎"‎consistent with the Master Plan so long as they have reached Phase ‎8‎ by the ‎

year ‎2020‎, otherwise they would have to reapply for the conditional use‎". ‎Attorney ‎

Staran agreed it might make sense to do that ordinarily in anything, i‎.‎e‎.‎, a site plan ‎

approval, a Zoning Board of Appeals variance, or anything like that‎. ‎If it is not ‎

implemented or acted upon within a certain period of time, just like a building permit ‎

expires‎. ‎He explained the purpose was to take into account that circumstances ‎

change over time as do Ordinances‎. ‎The City would want to be sure the current ‎

conditions and Ordinances are being taken into account‎. ‎He stated there was no ‎

reason that same type of philosophy should not apply in this instance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen stated he was looking at it from the perspective that ordinarily a conditional ‎

land use would expire after a certain period of time‎. ‎Attorney Staran stated that went ‎

along with what he was saying‎. ‎He noted there would have to be some ‎

implementation of it or else they will lose it‎. ‎He stated they were talking about ‎

something akin to a phase development, which they have dealt with before with ‎

subdivision plats with future phases, which require when they are ready to move ahead ‎

with those later phases, they come back and get approval‎. ‎He indicated this was the ‎

same type of thing, although it would have to be understood they were not going to do ‎

everything shown on the Master Plan within one year‎. ‎He believed they could put ‎

some type of ‎"‎sunset‎" ‎provision that if a certain percentage or aspect of the Plan is not ‎

completed within a certain time, it would expire‎. ‎He indicated the Master Plan should ‎

include a timetable as Mr‎. ‎Anzek had suggested‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kagler noted the City has had different degrees of attachment of a plan to ‎

conditional land use approval in the past‎. ‎He stated they have had use approvals ‎

where they actually have the completed site plan approval in front of them ‎

simultaneously and they are attaching that as it is‎. ‎The City has had others, such as St‎. ‎

Paul's Albanian Catholic Church, where the use was approved attached to a plan that ‎

was in concept and had not been fully developed and the plan was done later‎. ‎He ‎

saw the College's proposal as being one step more vague than that, where they would ‎

be attaching to it a plan that has been presented by a property owner that represents a ‎

very general conceptual development plan for a certain timed future of the property‎. ‎

The City needs to acknowledge that and will review each of the plans individually ‎

consistent with a set number of conditions attached to the use approval‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested the applicant formalize their Master Plan and ‎

submit it for review‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Millhouse pointed out that did not mean the library site plan ‎

had to be put on hold‎. ‎However, at a certain time it has to catch up‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Borrelli ‎

indicated there is a significant amount of documentation that has been prepared ‎

associated with the Plan, and he suggested they will submit that to the City as their ‎

initial Master Plan approach, with the hope they can move forward with the library as ‎

quickly as they possibly can to gain site plan approval for that particular project‎. ‎

2001-0161

Update on ‎2002‎-‎2007 ‎Capital Improvement Plan ‎(‎CIP‎) ‎Process‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated he wanted to provide the Commissioners notice that the ‎

Capital Improvement Plan process has begun for the ‎2002‎-‎2007 ‎year cycle‎. ‎He ‎

indicated there has been one meeting with the policy team committee, which consists ‎

of Melinda Hill, Jim Rosen, Bill Boswell, Steve Erickson, Bob Spaman and himself‎. ‎

He stated the project team has also met‎. ‎He pointed out there has been no ‎

substantive change identified as of yet to the process‎. ‎There will be several meeting ‎

dates in the future for the Planning Commission to review submittals, projects, the ‎

plan, etc‎. ‎

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Chairperson Kaiser referred to a memorandum prepared by Mr‎. ‎Anzek to the ‎

Planning Commission‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek indicated he did not have a target date that City ‎

Council may be considering‎. ‎He indicated there was a memorandum submitted to ‎

Gerry Robbins a couple of weeks ago requesting Council's consideration of this‎. ‎He ‎

wanted to let the Planning Commission know it has been requested‎. ‎In the spirit of the ‎

discussion they had at the November workshop about trying to get more involvement ‎

with the Council on major zoning questions and issues that come before the City, this ‎

was something he would like to request‎. ‎He had recommended to the applicant, Tony ‎

Curtis and Joe Curtis, that they request such a workshop meeting to present their ‎

concept and have an input discussion‎. ‎He stated it may be too early to request a date, ‎

however, if Wednesdays before Council meetings are acceptable, then he will go ‎

forward with some targeted dates‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill stated she had not heard anything about it other than receiving the memo‎. ‎

She indicated she was not exactly sure what the expected outcome was‎. ‎She asked ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek what he was expecting to gain by having a joint meeting between Council ‎

and the Planning Commission regarding this particular issue‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek referred to the workshop meeting on November ‎13‎, ‎2000‎, where there ‎

was some discussion about the need to have more joint meetings so that issues of ‎

planning and change and Master Land Use Plans could be discussed with Council‎. ‎

The Commissioners' opinions could be put on the table, and they could hear them‎. ‎He ‎

stated it was his understanding the development the Curtis' are proposing is not just ‎

for the vacant site that has a couple of vacant buildings on it, but it also includes the ‎

bank and the Total Gas Station‎. ‎He stated they have been working with the owners ‎

of those facilities to coordinate and do a concerted PUD on this site‎. ‎It is his ‎

understanding those two properties are willing to enjoin their properties, tear down the ‎

structures and rebuild them further back, providing a right‎-‎of‎-‎way for Tienken Road‎. ‎

He stated they have a concept they have laid out and they would like to submit it and ‎

get input and review it with the Planning Commission and City Council‎. ‎He stated out ‎

of that he hoped they would give them direction as to how to proceed or abandon it, ‎

similar to the Letica Road extension and the Grand Sakwa property‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hill asked for some clarification‎. ‎She noted the memo indicated it was industrial ‎

property‎. ‎She asked whether it was the Standard Federal property or the bank on ‎

Tienken, TCF Bank‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek clarified it was the bank on Tienken Road‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hill ‎

indicated that was a commercial property, and then there was the Total Gas Station ‎

and the industrial property that sits behind on Old Orion Court‎. ‎She indicated she ‎

would prefer or thought there should be some meetings with Council on a general ‎

term, discussing the Master Plan and how the City lays out right now and where things ‎

stand and perhaps bringing up various issues around the community or sites that may ‎

need some consideration‎. ‎In other words, a general conversation about the City as a ‎

whole versus a specific site‎. ‎She indicated there has been a lot of conversation in this ‎

community about commercial from the standpoint of shopping, etc‎. ‎She questioned ‎

honing in on this particular site without it coming through the normal channels, without ‎

some other conversation about the whole community in general and zoning in general, ‎

or whether they perceived anything that needed to be changed‎. ‎She suggested more ‎

general conversation with Council so they have the big picture versus honing in on a ‎

specific site and not seeing the big picture‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen indicated when he saw the note, he took out his Master Land Use ‎

Plan and started looking through it‎. ‎He stated he agreed with Ms‎. ‎Hill that it was a ‎

much larger issue‎. ‎He stated the City has a Master Land Use Plan and it is in effect‎. ‎

He noted the subject proposal would not comply with that because Page ‎6 ‎limits the ‎

amount of retail space, and Pages ‎64‎-‎67 ‎includes a discussion of this particular site ‎

along with surrounding sites as to development objectives and it is Master Land Use ‎

Planned for ORT, which does not include commercial‎. ‎He noted the difficulties ‎

involved and the hazard of focusing on a particular property‎. ‎He explained although it ‎

would be great to have Papa Joe's located there, that was not the issue‎. ‎He did not ‎

feel they should get to that issue until the third or fourth discussion about the Master ‎

Land Use Plan, the fact that is the City's Master Land Use Plan, and they should have ‎

some discussion about what their obligation is to follow the Master Land Use Plan‎. ‎

He was not sure having a meeting over this particular piece of property was ‎

appropriate‎.‎

Chairperson Kaiser applauded Mr‎. ‎Anzek's general notion about working ‎

together with Council‎. ‎He indicated the only thing that particularly bothered him about ‎

this project is that the zoning change ends up being predicated on a public hearing, and ‎

he would be nervous about having a meeting with an applicant, Council and the ‎

Planning Commission, even though it would be an open and public meeting, that varied ‎

from the procedure‎. ‎He indicated they would have to be cautious in what they said ‎

and avoid any straw vote and the applicant might leave with no idea of where they ‎

were all going until a public hearing was held‎. ‎He noted something could be said that ‎

gave the applicant some reason to believe it was going to happen before the public ‎

hearing is held, and the appearance that the public has been cut out of the equation ‎

would be possible‎. ‎He suggested since Mr‎. ‎Anzek believed that Council had thought ‎

about doing this, and Ms‎. ‎Hill had indicated they had not, maybe the request should ‎

be discussed with the Council President or brought up at the next Council meeting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek indicated he had not shared this specific memorandum, however, ‎

another memorandum to Gerry Robbins requesting a workshop with the Planning ‎

Commission had been forwarded on‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser clarified whether it was on ‎

a more general matter or on this particular site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek indicated they had ‎

received a letter from the Curtis's requesting it and that is what had prompted the ‎

memo's‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Attorney Staran for his thoughts on the issue he ‎

had raised‎. ‎Attorney Staran indicated he was not greatly concerned about it primarily ‎

because there is nothing in the Ordinance or in the State Law that requires all zoning ‎

considerations to take place in the context of a public hearing, or that requires the ‎

public hearing to be the first step‎. ‎He stated all the law requires is that there be a ‎

public hearing before action is taken on a proposed rezoning ordinance‎. ‎He noted ‎

traditionally, the Planning Commission moves and acts rather quickly and deliberately ‎

on rezonings, i‎.‎e‎.‎, they do not generally drag on, they do not have discussion items like ‎

tonight, and then they come back a couple more times‎. ‎He stated they usually come ‎

up and they act upon them and the public hearing is held the same night‎. ‎He noted ‎

that did not necessarily mean they could not approach it a different way‎. ‎He thought ‎

the question the Commissioners were all pondering was ‎"‎should we‎" ‎act differently or ‎

follow different steps for this particular request than the way they way normally do‎. ‎

He viewed as it more of a matter of habit and unofficial policy than really a legal issue‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser referenced former Member Nowicki's views and policies ‎

about zoning matters‎. ‎He noted whether Mr‎. ‎Nowicki was right or wrong in his ‎

approach to zoning, he did offer the Commissioners a lot of good guidance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rosen noted Mr‎. ‎Nowicki would have said ‎"‎we had better stop talking, this is spot ‎

zoning‎". ‎Chairperson Kaiser agreed Mr‎. ‎Nowicki's admonition was always well ‎

taken‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser suggested the Commissioners withhold their opinion on ‎

this matter and they would discuss it the next time they meet‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser brought up the City Council Agenda for February ‎7‎, ‎2001‎, ‎

and noted Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen intended to serve out his term as a Planning Commission, ‎

which ends at the end of March, ‎2001‎. ‎He has not said, nor does he intend, to resign ‎

before his term is up‎. ‎He explained there was a miscommunication between his ‎

advising the administration of his plan and the administration's taking the next step to ‎

start preparing for a replacement‎. ‎He stated Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen will remain on the ‎

Commission through the end of March‎. ‎He was unaware of what action, if any, City ‎

Council will take at their February ‎7‎, ‎2001‎ meeting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek indicated he did not know where the breakdown was with the ‎

miscommunication but indicated it was Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen's intent to serve out his term ‎

and he had submitted a letter to that effect‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated an Agenda item had ‎

been posted and he became aware of it on Friday‎. ‎He stated he called Mr‎. ‎

Corneliussen and asked for verification of his intent‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen indicated he ‎

intended to serve out his term‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek then met with Susan Galeczka, the City ‎

Council Liaison, and the item has been pulled from the Agenda‎. ‎He clarified Mr‎. ‎

Corneliussen will serve out his term‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser indicated Mr‎. ‎Corneliussen's reason is simply he has found his ‎

commitments between his family, work life and the City are becoming too much, he ‎

had informed Chairperson Kaiser a month or so ago of his plan‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser ‎

indicated he will be sorely missed and has been a great member of the Planning ‎

Commission‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser brought up the patio furniture place located on the west ‎

side of Rochester Road, south of Auburn, that puts out the cedar furniture every year‎. ‎

He indicated they have a Use allowing them to operate in that fashion from Memorial ‎

Day to Labor Day‎. ‎He indicated the premises had a sign out in front indicating retail ‎

space for lease‎. ‎He indicated the Use was strictly for that business and if a new lessee ‎

goes in, the matter may come up‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Millhouse indicated she had not heard anything about the business and ‎

thanked the Chair for the notice‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek noted it was the business on the corner ‎

of Hickory Lawn and indicated there have been inquiries about development ‎

standards, setbacks, etc‎. ‎He stated he has worked with several numerous site ‎

designers and indicated Ms‎. ‎Neary has also had contact with several‎. ‎He stated it ‎

was zoned B‎-‎2 ‎and the very western portion, a little tip of the land as Hickory Lawn ‎

bends to the north is zoned R‎-‎3‎. ‎He stated they have been treating it as a B‎-‎2 ‎piece‎. ‎

He indicated if there was something that precludes that or restricts that land to ‎

something other than what B‎-‎2 ‎would grant as a right of use, he would need to know ‎

that‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted it was clearly a conditional use as it is right to sell patio ‎

furniture in an open air setting‎. ‎He was not sure on the dates, but believed it was from ‎

Memorial Day to Labor Day‎. ‎He stated that use was tied to land‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek noted ‎

for outdoor sales, but if they wanted to change it to something else within the B‎-‎2 ‎

zoning, that would be permitted‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen brought up the fact that the old Hamlin Theatre was gone on ‎

Rochester Road and wondered what had happened, referring to the number of times ‎

they had been before the ZBA on a sign variance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek indicated they knocked ‎

down the building and were rebuilding to accommodate the Bed, Bath and Beyond‎. ‎

He indicated it was a total rebuild on the south end‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen clarified whether it ‎

was always going to be a rebuild, noting he had never gotten that impression‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser indicated he had believed they were just going to re‎-‎do the inside‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rosen indicated if that had been the case, they might have done it differently, ‎

referring to some of the conditions that existed for the old building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek ‎

believed Mr‎. ‎Frankel had made it clear in his presentation that it was a rebuild‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser referred to the earlier request of Mr‎. ‎Anzek, indicating he had ‎

to move slowly in verbalizing his thoughts on this one‎. ‎There had been suggested, a ‎

number of months ago, that there be a combined workshop between Council and ‎

Planning Commission as a way to more civilly address one body's concerns with the ‎

other‎. ‎They did not pursue it a whole lot‎. ‎There are certainly many things on both the ‎

Planning Department's plate, the Commission's plate and City Council's plate, so there ‎

had not been a lot of concreteness put to that‎. ‎He had discussed it briefly with Ms‎. ‎

Hill over the weekend along with some other topics‎. ‎He asked the Commissioners, ‎

between now and the next meeting, to put together any thoughts on what form a ‎

combined meeting should take‎. ‎He suggested it could be in a similar form to the ‎

meeting they had in November in a restaurant, or it could be in a more structured ‎

setting such as City Hall‎. ‎He noted if there was ‎"‎air to clear‎" ‎it should be in a setting ‎

where everyone feels comfortable to clear it‎. ‎This may mean the meeting not be ‎

presided over by any member of the Planning Commission, City Council or the ‎

Planning Department‎. ‎He suggested an outside facilitator could be brought in or ‎

Attorney Staran could facilitate‎. ‎He again suggested those were some of the things the ‎

Commissioners should think about between now and the next meeting‎. ‎

With that said, Chairperson Kaiser indicated he wanted to alert the ‎

Commissioners to some things‎. ‎Again, he noted this was the part where he had to be ‎

even more controlled and pointed in his thoughts‎. ‎He stated he received a letter from ‎

the current Council President early in the month of January‎. ‎It was very brief and it ‎

asked that they get together and talk and see what, if anything, needed to be done ‎

regarding our mutual interests as servants of the residents of the City of Rochester ‎

Hills‎. ‎It was a very nice, cordial letter‎. ‎He stated he would have responded to it very ‎

shortly thereafter had he not the next day had faxed to him a number of pages from a ‎

website which purports to be a news oriented website, but is, in fact, a charade of ‎

news for political propaganda ‎(‎is how he would term it‎). ‎He noted he had renamed ‎

the website but declined to mention for the record what he renamed it to‎.‎

An article in this supposed news website talks about the Planning Commission‎. ‎In ‎

particular it names the Chair, Ms‎. ‎Hill and Mrs‎. ‎Potere, and makes some implications ‎

about misfeasance and malfeasance and infers that the City Administration should take ‎

some action‎. ‎It certainly is not accurate in many ways‎. ‎It is a piece of propaganda to, ‎

he supposes, inspire future voters‎. ‎It is in reaction to what the author took offense at ‎

many, many months ago, which actually, had been dealt with he thought by both an ‎

exchange of both words and correspondence months ago‎. ‎This was renewed shortly ‎

after he became the new President of the Council‎. ‎It is too bad‎. ‎It is to a point where ‎

actually he had shared this with an attorney and he is discussing the matter with an ‎

attorney because he is very disturbed by it‎. ‎He was not sure how he would deal with ‎

that down the road‎. ‎How he will deal with that if they decide to have a joint meeting, ‎

he was not sure because there may be some recommendations that are made to him ‎

that he has to follow‎. ‎

He did not know if any of the Commissioners had seen the article‎. ‎He stated they ‎

were all welcome to see it because it is on a website or they can have a copy of what ‎

he has‎. ‎He indicated he was asked to make responsive comments to the newspaper ‎

about it, however, he chose not to, probably because his comments would probably ‎

have been very ill‎-‎advised‎. ‎Even almost a month later they would still be ill‎-‎advised‎. ‎

He indicated he just wanted to alert the Commissioners about it and suggested they ‎

should probably read it, rather than have him read it into the record as there is no ‎

reason to do that‎. ‎It is the wrong way for a person to proceed, who the day before ‎

authors a letter saying lets get together and chat about the interests of the City of ‎

Rochester Hills, and then puts this on a public website for his own benefit and to act ‎

as a piece of news when it is just a bunch of garbage‎. ‎

The Commissioners asked what the website was‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser stated he ‎

had to make sure he got it right because he keeps confusing it with ‎

www‎.‎birdbrain‎.‎net‎.‎com <http‎://‎www‎.‎birdbrain‎.‎net‎.‎com>‎, but that is not it‎. ‎It is ‎

www‎.‎therobbinsnest‎.‎net‎/‎rochester‎4‎.‎htm ‎

<http‎://‎www‎.‎therobbinsnest‎.‎net‎/‎rochester‎4‎.‎htm>‎. ‎The Commissioners indicated they ‎

did not need the entire extension‎. ‎The Commissioners commented on the coincidence ‎

of the spelling of ‎"‎robbins‎"‎, noting it was spelled with two ‎"‎b's‎". ‎Mrs‎. ‎Potere ‎

suggested it was similar to ‎"‎birddroppings‎". ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted it was too bad‎. ‎If this had been published many months ‎

ago when there was another exchange, that he thought had been hammered out, it ‎

would have been different‎. ‎For someone to open wounds seven months later, after he ‎

attains the lofty peaks to which he aspired for several years, just for his own benefit, is ‎

really outrageous‎. ‎Actually, had he not even named three people specifically, he ‎

thought the claims he makes about the Planning Commission in general, action could ‎

be taken regarding that, under the right circumstances‎. ‎He stated that was what ‎

someone was looking into for him‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated he agreed with Mr‎. ‎Staran, the Minutes were not generated ‎

until that approximate time frame‎. ‎That does not neutralize the fact that Mr‎. ‎Robbins ‎

and himself, among others, exchanged correspondence and‎/‎or conversation back ‎

then, when most everything that had been said from both sides was out on the table‎. ‎

Even if he did not remember, or other Council members he thought needed reminding, ‎

he still should have better considered, first of all his choice of words, and secondly he ‎

should have better considered that he had really already had that exchange with them‎. ‎

Maybe they did not read all the Minutes before, but then ‎"‎shame on him‎" ‎that he felt ‎

the need to revisit the topic‎. ‎It certainly was unnecessary, at least in the Chair's ‎

opinion‎. ‎He had a compulsion and, hopefully, it served him well‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Potere had a suggestion if perhaps they have a joint meeting that perhaps ‎

they have a facilitator that would work on both sides of the situation in terms of ‎

boardsmanship, or belonging to a Council or a Commission and setting aside personal ‎

agendas or personal feelings and learning to work with each other in a cooperative ‎

spirit, even when you are offended or whatever‎. ‎Case in point, perhaps things were ‎

said at a June meeting that should not have been said‎. ‎Maybe they should have been ‎

followed up with a phone call on part of the Commissioners, or perhaps Mr‎. ‎Robbins ‎

should have followed up with a phone call before he went to his website‎. ‎Maybe a ‎

facilitator would be able to help them over this hump‎. ‎She noted they sort of have a ‎

"‎Hatfield‎/‎McCoy‎" ‎situation or feeling that is developing here and that is not good for ‎

them, it's not good the City and maybe that would be a neutral ground on which they ‎

all could meet and get this resolved‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser pointed out whatever thoughts and things they share tonight, they ‎

are not going to make any decisions on‎. ‎The one thing that is in his mind about how ‎

far they can take this merging of the minds between these two bodies or any bodies, is ‎

that one body is composed of elected officials and that dictates an approach to what ‎

happens in their decision making that never dictates what the Planning Commission ‎

does‎. ‎He stated he has been involved in politics for over twenty years and he is ‎

committed to the notion that elected officials, because of the concern for re‎-‎election, a ‎

concern of responding to those voters immediately in front of them, will never ‎

approach it the way the Planning Commission does‎. ‎He is not saying, since this is a ‎

representative democracy, including the City of Rochester Hills, so he is not here to ‎

say ‎"‎we're better than they are‎" ‎or ‎"‎they are better than us‎" ‎because our government ‎

says we have elected officials‎. ‎They are driven by different motives‎. ‎Most of them ‎

are driven by the need to be re‎-‎elected‎. ‎Most of them are greatly driven by an ‎

over‎-‎expectation of the power they should have and an over‎-‎assessment of the power ‎

they do have‎. ‎He clearly excepts Ms‎. ‎Hill from that category‎. ‎He excepts Mr‎. ‎Gaber ‎

from that category‎. ‎He did not think he excepts any other representative we've had ‎

on this body as long as he's been here from that category‎. ‎Those two have been so ‎

exemplary in their difference from that ‎"‎run of the mill politician‎" ‎that he holds them in ‎

great respect and esteem‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gaber regularly said on this record ‎"‎when I'm here, I ‎

understand my job and the hat I have to wear, but when I go to Council, I'm a ‎

different ball game and I know it‎. ‎I'm an elected representative of a certain district or ‎

at large and I have to respond to those dynamics, which I don't have to do here‎". ‎

Chairperson Kaiser noted whether they can, in a joint meeting, divest themselves of ‎

that realty, he did not know‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Potere stated perhaps she had misspoke herself‎. ‎Maybe it is not a merging of ‎

the minds, but it would more of a ‎"‎Miss Manners‎" ‎session‎. ‎There was an elected ‎

official that she had an opportunity to work with several years ago, and she lost her ‎

patience with that person and finally told her that she may not have ever graduated ‎

from charm school, but she did not have to remind us every time she opened her ‎

mouth‎. ‎She thought that was where they had to go with this‎. ‎She understood they ‎

come from a different position than Planning Commission does; they have a different ‎

obligation as being elected; but there is a certain level of civility that has to be ‎

maintained‎. ‎That is all she is asking‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked Mr‎. ‎Staran whether he thought the Chair was sincere ‎

when he suggested Mr‎. ‎Staran see if there is a zoning ordinance that can allow Council ‎

to change the zoning whenever they want‎. ‎He stated he is accused, among other ‎

things in there, of wasting taxpayer dollars to send Mr‎. ‎Staran on a mission for a legal ‎

opinion on that question‎. ‎Along with Mrs‎. ‎Potere's question about seceding from the ‎

City‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero mentioned that she overheard a couple of ladies at the L&L Grocery ‎

Store the other day that seemed to know what they were talking about‎. ‎However, ‎

when she approached them to try to find out who they were or where they got their ‎

information, they did not want to talk about it any more‎. ‎They were talking amongst ‎

themselves and other people the fact that Parisian is filing bankruptcy, Mr‎. ‎Aikens is ‎

going to knock down the mall and sell the property, trying to get out of the corner he ‎

has himself in with his $‎3 ‎Million Dollar bond to complete the mall project in three ‎

years because now he cannot find the big anchor he needs in order to fulfill his consent ‎

judgment agreement‎. ‎She asked if anyone had heard that or believed it to be true‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser commented it sounded like they really knew what they were ‎

talking about‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero stated she stood and listened, but when she approached ‎

them and started asking questions, they would not talk about it any further‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated they have had some meetings with Mr‎. ‎Aikens and his ‎

development team and his architects and the first thing they told him and Larry Ternan ‎

told him, if there were any changes that would be brought about, they would have go ‎

back to the Council, back to court, revise the Consent Judgment, etc‎. ‎What they are ‎

looking at, and Parisian is still involved in their new proposals, is to pull the grocery ‎

store out of its central location and move it to the south where the Frank's Nursery ‎

currently sits or in that general proximity‎. ‎With that, creating more of the village theme ‎

they talked about, a double‎-‎loaded street that ran through the middle‎. ‎There were ‎

several variations they showed, however, the discussions did not go very far because ‎

the group ‎(‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek, Steve Erickson, several members of the engineering firm, Amy ‎

Neary, Marc Ott, Mr‎. ‎Ternan‎) ‎basically said they did not have anything to discuss ‎

until they talked to the Council and to the Judge‎. ‎That is were they left it‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated they did not want rumors to run through the community‎. ‎He ‎

stated they asked the Aikens Group directly because they had heard the rumors also ‎

about Parisian‎. ‎They said they were still very much involved and very much ‎

committed to the site‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero stated there was also a note on the carryout counter at Kruse ‎

and Muer that she had noticed, a construction update type of thing‎. ‎It is now ‎

suggesting the Aikens Group is reneging on their arrangements with Kruse and Muer ‎

for the expanded space that Kruse and Muer requested originally‎. ‎That their ‎

negotiations have broken down and now Kruse and Muer is trying to back out of this ‎

additional ‎6‎,‎000 ‎square feet that they were promised‎. ‎Kruse and Muer has posted ‎

this note on their counter stating ‎"‎we hope we stay because we really want to, but‎". ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek stated he could not address those details‎. ‎He stated it was important to ‎

watch the rumors and try to correct those if he knows differently‎. ‎He noted he has ‎

been asked the same question by several people‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser clarified with Attorney Staran that they can only change the ‎

Consent Judgment with consent‎. ‎Attorney Staran indicated that was correct‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser asked what would happen if they decided not to go forward, and ‎

whether that would reopen the litigation in their favor‎. ‎Attorney Staran responded it ‎

did not and there were potential contempt of court issues‎. ‎More importantly for them ‎

is the bond that was referred to earlier that was put in there for this very reason, ‎

because they have seen a lot of plans come and go over the years for this mall‎. ‎He ‎

indicated they have already seen a year go by with no action‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser verified it was a $‎3 ‎Million Dollar Bond‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek clarified it ‎

was a $‎2 ‎Million Dollar Letter of Credit for the three year time frame‎. ‎He indicated it ‎

was posted April ‎1‎st and they would not accept plans for review until that Letter of ‎

Credit was posted‎. ‎They submitted plans on June ‎1‎st, the City had ‎90 ‎days to ‎

approve, and this Commission approved it on August ‎15‎th‎. ‎He stated it was a good ‎

design and he thought what they presented was another good design keeping in the ‎

urban theme‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser questioned whether if they did not comply within two ‎

years, the $‎2 ‎Million Dollar bond is forfeited to the City‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek and Mr‎. ‎Staran ‎

confirmed that was correct‎. ‎Chairperson Kaiser noted however, the City did not get ‎

the development that had been agreed to and the developer was off the hook‎. ‎

Attorney Staran stated it did not know if they were off the hook as it was a Consent ‎

Judgment and he would have to look at the terms again‎. ‎He reminded the ‎

Commissioners he was not personally involved, it was more Larry Ternan's ‎

involvement‎. ‎However, the Consent Judgment, as recorded, binds the property and ‎

would probably obligate any successor property owner as well‎. ‎He did not think ‎

anybody was off the hook, other than the City cannot make them go out there and ‎

start building‎. ‎It was more a matter of if you want to use this property or develop this ‎

property, it will be subject to these terms and conditions‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser stated it could become a business decision wherein they eat the ‎

$‎2 ‎Million Dollars and leave the mall like it is‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek asked Mr‎. ‎Staran if the ‎

development rights were assignable‎. ‎Attorney Staran noted that was one of the details ‎

he would have to look at‎. ‎He did not know if the Consent Judgment addressed ‎

assignability or non‎-‎assignability‎. ‎Absent it being addressed in there, he would think ‎

that it could be transferred subject to the same terms and conditions‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero noted she had suggested the one lady should consider coming ‎

in and talking to the City about what she heard‎. ‎However, the lady had indicated she ‎

did not need to, she already knew‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎Ruggiero noted the lady had used very ‎

specific names and she definitely knew the players‎. ‎

Chairperson Kaiser suggested an alternative to the joint meeting, was they ‎

could chose not to do the joint meeting, but adopt Mrs‎. ‎Potere's suggestion in terms ‎

of, if not as a group, then individually, modifying their approach to comments‎. ‎He ‎

asked the Commissioners to bring back all their thoughts at the next meeting‎. ‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

February ‎20‎, ‎2001 ‎Regular Meeting‎

ADJOURNMENT

10‎:‎17 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎