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, February 22, 2011

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Special Meeting to order at 7:00

p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Dale Hetrick, Greg Hooper, Nicholas

Kaltsounis, David Reece, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

8 -

Gerard Dettloff

Absent

1 -

Quorum Present.

Also Present: Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Economic

Development

Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2011-0045

December 7, 2010 Regular Meeting

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

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

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Dettloff

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News (2) dated December 2010 and January 2011

NEW BUSINESS

2011-0044

Tree Removal Permit Request - City File No. 96-008, A request to remove and

replace up to 17 regulated trees (there are 67 regulated trees in the

development area) for Legionaries of Christ Worship Center, a proposed 2,080

worship center on approximately 22 vacant acres, located south of Mead, east

of Sheldon, zoned RE, Residential Estate, Parcel Nos. 15-02-200-007 and

-008, Legionaries of Christ, applicant.

(Staff Report prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated February 22, 2011, and

associated documents had been placed on file in the Planning and

Economic Development Department, and by reference became part of

the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant was Father Lorenzo Gomez, Director of the

Legionaries of Christ, 2460 Opdyke, Bloomfield Hills, MI 38304; Tom

Beauchamp, Brivar Construction, 7258 Kensington, Brighton, MI 48116;

and David LeClair, Principal, Livingston Engineering LLC, 3300 S. Old

US Hwy 23, Brighton, MI 48114-7551.

Mr. Delacourt stated that the applicant was requesting approval of a 2,080

square-foot (usable area) worship and retreat facility located on property

south of Mead and east of Sheldon. He advised that the property was

zoned single-family residential, and that places of worship were permitted

uses in that zoning. The packet included the Site Plan, showing the

building, parking, landscaping and other site improvements. It had been

reviewed by all internal and external departments and the Plan was

recommended for approval or recommended with conditions to be later

addressed. He stated that the Plan met the requirements for the Tree

Removal Permit with replacement trees on site and no payment into the

Tree Fund. There was screening and buffering required, and Staff

recommended that the existing vegetation met the requirement of the

Ordinance for the width and plantings, and that no modification was

necessary. Staff recommended approval of the Tree Removal Permit

and Site Plan.

Mr. LeClair noted that the site had originally been proposed as a

subdivision in the 1980’s, and that quite a bit of infrastructure was

constructed at that time. There was a road cut in, and some of the utilities

were added, although gas and electric were not. The church had owned

the property for some time, and they wished to construct an approximately

3,000 square-foot worship center. The paved entrance would be off of

Mead Road, and the building would be about 960 feet back from the road.

There would be 53 parking spaces, per Ordinance. The site would use

well and septic for the building. They were running a fire hydrant from the

adjacent subdivision to the south for fire protection. Engineering gave

them a waiver, because it was a long lead.

Mr. LeClair continued that the site would drain in a northwesterly direction,

and there was a detention basin on site to handle the stormwater runoff.

There would be a dumpster collection area outside of the building. He

noted that the parking lot was fairly big for the size of the building, and that

was so fire trucks could do a T-turnaround.

Mr. Beauchamp put up a rendition of the building, which he described as

simple. It showed a brick wainscot with siding. There were

residential-style windows, roof and frames. He showed the floor plan,

which had a open worship room, two means of egress, bathrooms, furnace

and electrical room, and an art room with storage. The uses would mainly

be as a place of worship, and there would be different religious

ceremonies of the Catholic faith. Most were hour long celebrations.

There could be “adorations” which would go through the night - he

explained that people would kneel in adoration before the eucharist.

They hoped to keep the landscaping the way it was and possibly add

symbols of a cross on the outside. Those would be minor, and there

would be no other permanent structures outside the building, such as

additional lighting - lighting would just be for egress and safety.

Chairperson Boswell clarified that there would be no need to cook, which

Father Gomez confirmed.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked the ultimate intention(s) for the property. If they

provided a Master Plan, he wondered what they would show on such a

large property for ten or fifteen years down the road.

Mr. Beauchamp stated that there were no other plans currently. The

intent was to reach out to the community. The Legion, as a religious

order, went to areas to evangelize. There was a school in Clarkston. The

Legion offered other community services, such as conquest, which was

forming young people in the faith. There were different types of meetings

that could occur. It was done throughout the State of Michigan for young

kids to college kids. The priests traveled a lot, and the project would be

the base for the area.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if there were intentions of building a camp down the

road. Father Gomez replied no.

Mr. Hetrick said that it appeared it would be a retreat building. He asked if

there would be regular Sunday services or if it would be used for outreach

less often. Mr. Beauchamp responded that the Arch Diocese of Lansing

worked with the Legion of Christ because there were a number of Catholic

churches in the area. The goal was to not take away from those parishes

and take away the people that tithed regularly to a home parish. There

would not be a standing Sunday mass; there would be services over and

above that.

Mr. Hetrick asked if ad hoc described the type of things they did. He said

he realized that might sound somewhat unplanned, but he was trying to

understand how often the facility would be used. It appeared that people

would schedule an event, whether it was weekly, monthly or daily. Mr.

Beauchamp said that was correct. It would be a place to bring groups.

Father Gomez said that they wanted to use it as much as they could.

There would be groups at different hours, but probably not as often as

they wanted. Mr. Hetrick asked if it would be similar to the way people

used a hall for a wedding. Father Gomez said that they were a religious

order. They had a school in Clarkston, a retreat center in Oxford and a

youth center in Bloomfield Hills. The original idea was to start a school in

Rochester Hills, but there was not enough room. If they wanted to do

certain activities, they would use the other facilities. The main idea was to

service the families in Rochester, meet new people, and expand their

circle of friends. They helped the people of St. Andrews, and this would

be for the youths and families to get together, pray together, and worship

outdoors and indoors. There was no intention to have mass.

Mr. Schroeder recalled that there was a very steep slope that had been

cut off, and he wondered if it had been stabilized.

Mr. LeClair said that it was. Mr. Schroeder asked if there was growth and

trees there now. Mr. LeClair agreed, and he said that the main driveway

would follow the original road. He reiterated that the area had been

cleared and stabilized. Mr. Schroeder asked if the water main was in, and

Mr. LeClair noted that there was no water main. There was a storm sewer

and large detention pond. Mr. Schroeder clarified that the other roads

that had been cut were now overgrown.

Mr. Yukon said that he looked at the design of the parcel and the rural

nature, and he wondered what interested the applicants most about the

property.

Mr. Beauchamp indicated that initially, they planned to put in a school

because of the amicable demographics, but they were able to find 50

acres in Clarkston. He said that they liked the rural, nice setting.

Mr. Reece had noticed that the dumpster enclosure called for building

materials to match the façade. He asked what that meant - a vinyl sided

enclosure or masonry. Mr. Delacourt pointed out the detail on Sheet 4,

which noted a masonry enclosure to match the building façade.

Mr. Reece said that based on the area and the homes there, he was not

overly enthused with the façade of the building. The homes in that area

were over $350,000. He realized the building would be a significant

distance from the road, and based on the conditions, it would probably be

difficult to see the building from the road, but he wondered if there was any

discussion about trying to dress up at least the front face of the building.

The wainscot only looked to be a couple of feet high. Mr. Beauchamp

said there had been no discussion. Mr. Reece said he would leave it up

to the Commissioners to debate, if there was any concern, but he was not

too supportive.

Mr. Schroeder asked Mr. Reece if he would suggest all brick, and Mr.

Reece said he was just asking for improvement to the facade, not

necessarily having all brick. Mr. Reece referred to the design of the

parking lot, and said that it appeared to be more based on code than

anything. He asked the need for a shower. Mr. Beauchamp said that the

person who did building maintenance wanted a place to clean up. He

indicated that it would not be a deal breaker.

Mr. Hooper said that he supported Mr. Reece’s comments. He

suggested adding some pilasters or vertical relief - not full brick, but

some columns or something similar. Mr. Beauchamp said that they went

through different designs, but they were a simple religious order and not

very ornate. It met their requirements. If the City had other requirements,

they would comply. Mr. Hooper did not want to add a huge cost to the

project, but he wanted to see something to dress it up more appropriately

for the neighborhood. He did not think columns or bricks on the face

would add a significant cost.

Mr. Reece noted that most of the homes in the nearby subdivisions at

least had a brick front façade. He was not overly concerned about the

sides or back, but he felt that the front elevation, facing the road, should

be full face masonry. He agreed that it would not be a significant cost

increase.

Chairperson Boswell asked if there would be exterior lighting. Mr.

Delacourt said that they only had Wallpac lighting; there would not be

poles or parking lot lighting. Chairperson Boswell asked how many pacs

there would be, and Mr. Beauchamp said that they would be at the

egresses only (two).

Mr. Kaltsounis concurred that the front elevation should be dressed, and

he asked the applicants if they would agree to do that. Mr. Beauchamp

said if it were required, they would. Mr. Kaltsounis reminded that the

Commission was responsible for the surrounding areas and making sure

that everything flowed nicely. He had looked at houses in the area, and

he felt it would be good to be as close as they could to those.

Mr. Kaltsounis did not recall the Commission approving a development

without lights in the parking lot. He asked if there were requirements for

the subject development. Mr. Delacourt stated that lights were not

required by Ordinance. For a residential property, the less lighting, the

better, as far as Staff was concerned. He was satisfied that the lighting

provided would be sufficient for people getting to and from their cars. He

did not feel there was a safety issue for the site.

Ms. Brnabic noted that a water main was being extended for fire fighting

purposes only. She read, “Domestic water services for the retreat center

will not be permitted,” and she questioned why not. Mr. Delacourt

responded that the length of the water line exceeded the City’s normal

requirements for domestic service. It was acceptable for fire service, but

because it was so long and did not loop, Engineering would rather not see

it used for domestic service. It strictly had to do with the length of the line.

Mr. Schroeder added that the water would look like milk because there

was no turnover in the building.

Mr. Reece referred to the lighting, and said he believed it would be just for

egress purposes, not to light the parking lot. He mentioned that the

write-up indicated that the site was prone to vandalism - kids hanging out -

and he asked if there was a concern or if there would be an alarm system

on the building.

Father Gomez said there would be nothing to vandalize. Mr. Beauchamp

said that kids rode bikes, but he did not think they would still do that if the

site was developed. It was a playground now, and he was not sure if they

would ride bikes at night, but during the day they would not know when it

was a good time or not. He was not really concerned about kids playing

there.

Mr. Reece said that his bigger concern was that there was not a fire

suppression system in the building. If someone started a fire, it could go

unnoticed for a while, and the building could incur a significant amount of

damage. He was more concerned about keeping the building safe, since

it was somewhat in the middle of nowhere. He indicated that

unfortunately, people did strange things, and he suggested that the

applicants might want to add some type of alarm system in the future. He

would prefer that they had sprinklers, but he acknowledged that it was up

to the applicant since it was not required by code. Mr. Beauchamp stated

that the point was taken.

Hearing no further discussion, Mr. Schroeder moved the following motion:

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Kaltsounis, in the matter of City File

No. 96-008 (Legionaries of Christ Worship Center), the Planning

Commission grants a Tree Removal Permit, based on plans dated

received by the Planning and Development Department on January 27,

2011 with the following two (2) findings and subject to the following two (2)

conditions:

Findings:

1. The proposed removal and replacement of regulated trees is in

conformance with the Tree Conservation Ordinance.

2. The applicant is proposing to replace 17 regulated trees with 17 tree

replacement credits, which conforms to the requirements of the Tree

Conservation Ordinance.

Conditions:

1. Provide a performance and landscape bond in the amount of

$3,600.00, as adjusted as necessary by

the City, for replacement trees.

3. Tree Protective Fencing must be installed, inspected and approved

by the City prior to Final Approval by Staff.

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

Granted. The motion carried by the following vote.

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Dettloff

1 -

2008-0361

Site Plan Approval Request - City File No. 96-008 -

Legionaries of Christ Worship Center

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, in the matter of City File

No. 96-008 (Legionaries of Christ Worship Center), the Planning

Commission approves the Site Plan, based on plans dated received by

the Planning and Development Department on January 27, 2011, with the

following five (5) findings and subject to the following eight (8) conditions.

Findings:

1. The site plan and supporting documents demonstrate that all

applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, as well as other

City ordinances, standards and requirements can be met subject to

the conditions noted below.

2. The proposed development will be accessed by ingress to and

egress from Mead Road.

3. Off-street parking areas have been designed to avoid common traffic

problems and promote safety.

4. There appears to be a satisfactory and harmonious relationship with

existing contiguous development and adjacent neighborhoods.

5. The proposed development should not have an unreasonably

detrimental nor an injurious effect upon the natural characteristics

and features of the site or those of the surrounding area.

Conditions:

1. That all permits, including MDNRE Water Permit, Water Main

Easement (Consumers & on-site) must be reviewed and approved

by Engineering Services, prior to Construction Plan Approval.

2. Appropriate approvals from RCOC, if required for work in Mead Rd.,

must be obtained prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit

for this project.

3. The applicant shall obtain a Land Improvement Permit prior to

starting any work on site.

4. Address comments from Building Department memo dated

December 29, 2010, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

5. Address comments from Public Services memos dated November

18 and January 24, 2010, prior to

Construction Plans commencing.

6. Address comments from the Fire Department memo dated

December 22, 2010, prior to Final approval by Staff.

7. That the applicant receives Oakland County Health Department

approvals for the septic system, prior to issuance of a Land

Improvement Permit.

8. That the front of the building shall be all brick.

Mr. Reece asked if the issue with the legal description had been resolved.

Mr. Delacourt assured that it would be clarified. Mr. Yukon asked why

they were using well water. Mr. Delacourt explained that it had to do with

the length of the line. Engineering would not allow the long length for a

dead end water line. The Fire Department was fine with it; it provided the

appropriate gallons per minute for fire fighting purposes, but it did not

meet the standard for domestic service. The well was considered a better

service for the water.

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

Approved. The motion carried by the following vote.

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Dettloff

1 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion had

passed, and he wished the applicants good luck.

DISCUSSION

2011-0046

Proposed South Tower - City File No. 89-153.9 - Crittenton Hospital Medical

Center, applicant

(Reference: Memo prepared by Ed Anzek, dated February 18, 2011 had

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

Present for the applicant was Monte Oberlee, Director of Environmental

Care, Crittenton Hospital Medical Center, 1100 W. University Dr.,

Rochester, MI 48307 and Deborah Axelrood, Harvey Ellis Devereaux,

26913 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 200, Southfield, MI 48033.

Mr. Anzek advised that Crittenton Hospital had been planning a new

phase, known as the south tower, which commenced about eight months

ago. He had been invited to participate in weekly meetings with them,

and he thought it would be good to get the Commission’s input and

guidance on what had been accomplished to date. He said that Mr.

Oberlee would walk them through the details and explain how the

demands of medical care had driven the design of the building.

Mr. Oberlee commented that they were very excited about the project. It

would be a significant addition to health care in the community, and they

were happy to see it starting to come to fruition. Their desire was to be the

best community hospital in one of the best communities. He noted that

Crittenton was not on a mission to increase its bed count. They had a

290-bed licensure, and the project would create 90 private rooms that

would allow them to take the B beds out of semi-private rooms and move

them into private rooms and change them all into private rooms. He had

been asked by people how someone could afford a private room. He

answered that less than 10% of the insurance companies talked about a

private or semi-private room; it was not an issue. The issue for health

care was that the hospital was paid according to a patient’s diagnosis - the

room did not matter. One of the provisions of health care reform was that

after patients had services, they would be asked via a survey to rate those

services. According to the scores, consumers could shop the computer

and see in which hospital they wished to stay. They did know that patients

in a private room were more satisfied. The clinical outcome was

important, as was the ability to keep someone’s situation confidential,

maintenance of infection control, and other things. The new legislation for

healthcare reform was that the amount of money healthcare received

would be directly tied to the performance of the scores. If a hospital

maintained the old style and did not come up to the new standards, they

would see less money. There were financial reasons why it made sense

for Crittenton to be doing private rooms, and it was a part of the future of

the organization.

Mr. Oberlee said that if two people were in a patient room currently and

the doctor came in to take care of one, they would excuse the families of

the other. In the future, the private rooms would be a “family zone.” There

would be a couch in each room, and someone could spend the night if

they wished. They could stay in the room to see how a dressing was

changed, so they would know how to do it at home, for example, and the

patient would go home much faster. It was about educating people about

care. He advised that Crittenton was always ready for an emergency. If

something happened, they were asked what type of surge capacity could

be brought into the facility, which was about 30-40 patients. When the

tower was built, they could double the size of the building by changing the

semi-private rooms to private rooms with a couch and adding new private

rooms.

Ms. Axelrood showed an overhead of the Site Plan. She pointed out the

tower, which would be six stories initially, with capacity to go to eight. It

would be 155,000 square feet, and a portion would have a green roof

people could walk on. There were a number of amenities proposed. One

was a bridge that linked the existing parking garage with the tower. They

would need an emergency generator and chillers, which would be located

on the east side of the building, screened by a masonry wall. The drive

would be realigned to go into the parking structure. They would relocate

the loading dock, with a maneuvering area in the City of Rochester. She

indicated that there would be plenty of parking for the new structure. She

pointed out the electrical equipment in the area that would be raised to

the loading dock. She showed where the oxygen tank would be placed

behind the parking structure, which would be screened naturally and be

away from the neighbors. She added that they would repave two parking

lots.

Ms. Axelrood next showed elevations and a view from the north, with

clearer elevations of the green roof and bed tower. Mr. Oberlee noted that

they would be putting 30 beds on each of the three floors, and the highest

floor would be shelf space for an additional 30 beds for some point in the

future. Referring to the height of the mechanical and electrical

equipment, he said they were trying to align up the equipment on the east

side of the building on a level plane. Even the taller pieces would not

appear as tall from the outside. He pointed out the bridge connector

between the new south tower and the existing east tower. There were eight

floors shown, and the elevator tower would go the full eight stories to

match the east tower. They currently had four elevators that serviced all

eight floors. They were 40 years old and had one electrical service that

fed all four. Two of the four elevators held beds and two did not. The ICU

and critical care was on the eighth floor of the existing east tower. They

needed a second set of elevators with its own electrical feed to service the

upper floors. The new elevators would service both of the towers and

come down to the server area on the first floor. It would be much safer

and better for patient transport.

Mr. Reece noted for the record that he had been an employee of Harley

Ellis, and he had worked with both of the joint ventures building the

hospital, but he had no current affiliation or ties with either. He was not

asked to recuse himself. He asked if a sound study would be done for the

generators, which was confirmed. They would wait until the vegetation was

out in the spring, because snow absorbed a lot of sound. Mr. Reece

asked where the stack for the generator would go. Mr. Oberlee advised

that the discharge area out of the building would be along the east side.

Mr. Reece asked if an air flow study would be done, which was also

confirmed. Mr. Oberlee added that the generator would be for

emergencies only. Mr. Reece asked if the chillers would be air cooled, to

which Ms. Axelrood agreed, and they would be included in the sound

study.

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled that Crittenton was one development that brought

out the most “love and hate” from the residents. The residents had come

out and some were happy and some were not. In the future, he thought he

would probably see Crittenton back with the green roof becoming part of

the tower to get more beds. Mr. Oberlee advised that the new tower had to

be so many feet from the existing tower because of the patient windows.

Mr. Kaltsounis said his biggest concern was the residents. In the past, he

did not feel that Crittenton had not reached out to the residents in a

manner that helped out much.

Mr. Oberlee said he was glad Mr. Kaltsounis brought that up. He

produced an invitation sent to everyone on both sides of Alice Street in

Rochester, inviting them to the hospital to meet with the architects, the

CEO, Lynn Orfgen, he and others for a question and answer session and

to see a first hand account. At this point, they had only received one

reply. He assured that they had made an attempt to meet with the

residents, and they were doing everything possible about noise. They

had worked hard on the acoustics and placement and how to shield the

headlights of the trucks.

Ms. Axelrood advised that they were putting in a landscape buffer at the

end of the maneuvering area to block the activities. There would be trees

separating the parking area from the drive. Mr. Kaltsounis asked about

retention. Mr. Oberlee said that the retention pond built at the southeast

corner had enough capacity. Ms. Axelrood said the runoff would be

negligible because they were doing the green roof, and they would

actually be losing pavement.

Mr. Schroeder asked if they had a lot of extra beds in storage in case of

an emergency. Mr. Oberlee said they had a warehouse in Rochester

where they kept about 30 beds. They planned to do away with that

building. Once they put a couch in each room, in a crisis, it would only

take a sheet and a blanket. Mr. Schroeder commented that his daughter

was very impressed that they got the nurses’ input.

Mr. Reece asked if there would be equipment on the roof. Mr. Oberlee

said that the tower was being prepared for a future generation, so that if

they wanted to talk about two additional floors, they could. They were not

going to have any type of penthouse, except for over the elevator piece.

Mr. Reece asked if they would use geared traction elevators, and he was

informed they would use Gen 2’s. They would have one super-sized

elevator that a team could enter with a patient with all the mechanicals to

move to an ICU area. Mr. Reece said that the overrides for the Gen 2’s

were a lot less, so they did not stick up above the roof line, which he felt

was good.

Mr. Hooper referred to the outpatient wing, and he asked if that would be

moved. Mr. Oberlee said it would remain. They would remove the glass,

not the use. Mr. Oberlee said there was a little shelf space programmed

so that as things developed in those areas, they would have room to

move. Mr. Hooper asked if there would be additional surgical units. Mr.

Oberlee advised that in the future, they might need a couple of more ERs.

It was hard to get approval from the State for those, however. Until all ten

operating rooms were busy from 7:00 a.m. in the morning until midnight, it

would be very hard to add more. Mr. Hooper observed that if they had a

huge increase in outpatient activity, it would justify the need to add more.

Mr. Anzek asked the Commissioners about doing some initial approvals

by Staff. He pointed to the maneuvering area, and said that it was raised

about a foot on the north and four feet on the south to create a level

platform for trucks to be able to pull into the loading docks. Based on

input from the truck drivers, they liked to use the left mirror rather than the

right to back up. Crittenton had talked with Rochester officials about that

element, and the matter would be going before the Rochester Planning

Commission soon, but Mr. Anzek said he did not feel safe approving

something in Rochester. He recalled talking with the Commissioners

about relocating the oxygen tanks a while ago. As mentioned, he had sat

in on weekly meetings with Crittenton, and they had discussed a Phase

Zero. Phase Zero would get the site ready to begin construction. It

included the realignment of the road, the truck docks being angled, and

the relocation of the tank farm and some other utilities. Mr. Anzek said

that those were the type of things he would normally approve

administratively, but he wanted to discuss it. The loading docks were not

being increased in intensity, just moved to be on an angle. He thought

that if the Planning Commission did not have a problem allowing those

elements to be approved administratively, it would enable Crittenton to

break ground this spring and get some things out of the way before the

Site Plan approval process.

Mr. Oberlee mentioned the receiving area they had in Rochester, and

said that it was truly a blessing. It was opened when the east tower was

built as a temporary measure; the east tower was built in 1976. They

could still get deliveries there and stage what was brought to the hospital

to keep them operational around construction. The benefit was that with

one receiving bay open, they would be able to manage through the

project. A key piece of the Phase Zero work was figuring out how to keep

supplies coming to the hospital during the work. They wanted to get the

concrete platform area under the green roof done and be able to back a

truck up and receive supplies.

Mr. Reece assessed that the trucks would come in from the north along

the east drive and pull into the turnaround area, back in and pull back out

into the turnaround area. He asked how they would exit the site. Mr.

Oberlee explained that where the road proceeded south, it went through

the parking deck. A truck could go through the deck and out or turn

around. A truck could come in from the south as well, and pull into the

turnaround and still back into the dock. Mr. Anzek noted that the east

drive on Walton was a right-in, right-out only. Mr. Anzek recalled that the

truck traffic really worked out when the parking deck was being built. Mr.

Reece asked if they were going for Site Plan Approval on March 7 in

Rochester. Ms. Axelrood agreed. Mr. Reece presumed they wanted to

get approval for the turnaround portion at that time. He asked if they were

doing any additional screening along the eastern property line. Mr.

Oberlee said that it was dense already. When they did the parking deck,

they were required to irrigate the berm there, and they added a lot of trees.

If they died, they were replaced. Mr. Reece said that the sound study and

air quality study would not be done by the March 7 meeting in Rochester,

if any questions came up. He was informed that they would develop a

baseline so that if there were complaints in the future, they could tell them

what it was when it was first measured and compare it again. They felt that

the equipment they were selecting would not increase the noise level, and

that they should be able to test the generator at different times.

Mr. Reece wished them luck in Rochester. Mr. Oberlee said he was

surprised there were so few responses to the invitation, and he presumed

that the residents were not really upset with the proposal.

Mr. Hooper said that regarding the Phase Zero work, he did not have an

issue with Staff approval. He asked what the plans were for the site for the

next ten to twenty years. Mr. Oberlee said that they could possibly add

two more floors, and the one-story portion could one day go up. It was not

adjacent to anything else in-patient related. He did not think they would

see many hospitals increasing bed counts. Mr. Hooper asked if that was

because the market was saturated. Mr. Oberlee recalled that with the east

tower renovation, they took 44 beds offline and restructured it to be the

orthopedic unit. They put in as many private rooms as they could, which

was 20. He remarked that the other 24 beds were floating out there in

“never land.” The State had been patiently asking when they would get

the beds back into the facility. That was a piece of the puzzle - getting the

beds back into the count so they could maintain the 290-bed count. He

did not think they would ever double the bed count on the site.

Mr. Hooper asked if the existing retention area would ever need to be

enclosed for underground storage so they could capture more surface

area. Mr. Oberlee said he could not imagine there would be, and he

noted that there were wetlands nearby. Ms. Axelrood reminded that the

area was not contiguous to the hospital. Mr. Hooper suggested that it

could be used for doctor’s offices in the future. Mr. Oberlee thought that

the area along Walton, where his current office was, could be used for that

someday more than the area in the back.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked what type of fuel they would use in the underground

tank, and Mr. Oberlee answered diesel. He said it could be used for the

boilers as well as the generator. Mr. Kaltsounis also said he did not have

a problem with Staff approving things in Phase Zero, he just requested

that they looked closely at the access to the fuel tank. Mr. Anzek was not

sure it had been located yet, and Mr. Oberlee said it would be in the

turnaround area. Mr. Kaltsounis said he had asked because the parking

lot at the top would now be dead-ended. Mr. Anzek said it would be higher

(parking lower), and that it was intended that way. He reiterated that there

would be a green screen wall at the end.

Mr. Reece said that he did not necessarily have an issue with

administrative review. He offered to look at the drawings when they came.

Mr. Schroeder agreed that administrative review would be fine.

Mr. Anzek stated that the construction phase would begin this spring and

continue until the fall of 2014. After the new tower was built, the existing

tower would be renovated. It would be a significant investment - $65

million or so - and there would be a lot of activity in the area for quite a

while. Mr. Oberlee said that to the extent possible, they would try to utilize

local firms and suppliers. There might be a bigger named company, but

there were companies with a presence in the area to which they were

committed.

Chairperson Boswell thanked the applicants.

Discussed

2010-0557

Complete Streets Legislation - Providing New Tools for Communities to Use in

Road and Street Design

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated February 18,

2011, and associated documents had been placed on file and by

reference became part of the record thereof.)

Mr. Delacourt advised that this matter had been recently been

brought to City Council’s attention. The State of Michigan had

passed legislation that allowed cities to have more input on the

design of road projects at the local, County and State levels.

Complete Streets Legislation included that when roads were

designed, all modes of transportation could be considered. City

Council asked for an update, and he brought a member from the

Michigan Municipal League, who helped write the legislation, to

explain what it meant and the City’s options. The options ran from

doing nothing to adopting Ordinances that required certain design

elements to be incorporated into road projects. They showed Council

three options. MDOT was required to develop model Ordinances and

languages for cities to consider within the next two years. A City

could consider developing a policy or statement of desire and nothing

would be required. The policy would acknowledge the Complete

Streets Legislation and would incorporate elements the City felt was

important for road projects. Some cities had adopted an Ordinance

with requirements. Council liked the idea of the Legislation, and they

wanted the Planning Commission to review it and make a

recommendation as to whether a policy or an Ordinance was the right

way to go. Council appeared to prefer a policy. There were some

examples of Ordinances and Resolutions in the packet that other

cities had done. The City of Midland passed a Resolution desiring a

policy, but he noted that the policy language was not included in the

packet. Before Staff put together a policy, they wanted to bring it

forward for a discussion.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Delacourt what advantages there

would be to doing an Ordinance. Mr. Delacourt said that he did not

see any, especially until MDOT came up with implementation. Staff

had the ability to discuss road projects with appropriate agencies

now, and Staff felt a Policy was a better direction to take.

Mr. Schroeder said that one of the biggest concerns was dedicated

bike lanes in the roads. Mr. Hooper agreed that a Resolution and

policy was the way to go, not an Ordinance. He thought it could be

similar to what Midland had done. The City of Saline had passed an

Ordinance, and he felt that there could be a few items from that they

could use in the Resolution, but he did not see the need for an

Ordinance.

Mr. Hetrick agreed that it made sense to have a policy. The way it

had been presented, they would be suggesting places that should

have a certain type of treatment. Having a bike path in some roads

might not be a good idea.

Mr. Delacourt thought that a policy could answer some of that. It

would say that “these items would be considered in designing a road.”

If not appropriate, they would not be put in place. The next Master

Thoroughfare Plan could identify where and where not something

should be put. When the Plan was done, perhaps an Ordinance

could be looked at. Mr. Hetrick agreed that made more sense. If

there were a more strategic view of how traffic would flow, be it

vehicles, pedestrians or bikes, they would have a better shot at

making something more workable. Mr. Delacourt said that the intent

was to give local communities more of a say when it came to County

and State road projects. It did not mean those agencies would have

to implement something.

Chairperson Boswell said the Commissioners were all in agreement

that Staff should develop a Policy for Complete Streets. He agreed

that the Policy Midland used looked pretty good. Mr. Delacourt said

that if everyone looked through that one and the Ordinance from

Saline and they wanted to see something incorporated, they should

let him know. The City had always looked to make connections other

than motorized for pedestrians, and a Policy would put into words

what the City and Planning Commission had done over the years.

Mr. Anzek brought up a concern with unfunded mandates for

Complete Streets, and he thought that the City deserved a pat on the

back. There was the foresight to develop a pathway system and

connectivity from the trails and parks. He was concerned that some

standards might get imposed upon them which would cause a great

cost, so he thought a Policy was good because it would not lock them

in. Staff would take its time with the Policy, and the next Master

Thoroughfare Plan and what came from MDOT would add to it.

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Schroeder mentioned that the Detroit Water Board settlement

had come after 30 plus years after going to court. The new judge,

Cox, cut it all off and said that in six months he wanted to be out of

there. Mayor Bing had agreed to the new board. Mr. Schroeder felt

that it was amazing that after all the lawsuits, it had been settled.

The suburbs now had three people on the Board and Detroit had four.

It took five people to approve expenditures, and the Detroit City

Council still had the final say.

Mr. Schroeder commented on the City’s proposed water reservoir.

He felt it should have passed, and that it would save the citizens and

the City money. He said it was sad that it became a political

solution, and that a very select group of people could create a

compromise. He stated that it was not for the common good of the

people. It benefited a small interest group, and it cost everyone

money. It was like the garbage collection issue. It took so long to

straighten it out, but it was now saving him money personally.

Mr. Hooper said that his was the only dissenting vote. Ms. Brnabic

said that she heard there were hundreds of people picketing in the

parking lot, and she asked if that was true. Mr. Hooper said that the

paper reported that 350 people were there, but there were actually

203 seats, so there were about 203 people. There were people with

signs out front.

Any Further Business

Mr. Schroeder noted that he had been at a meeting where the

Municipal League talked about the budget in Lansing, and he asked

about Medical Marihuana. The legislature was going to meet in April,

but that matter was not expected to go anywhere. It was a

referendum, and took a three-quarters vote to change something, and

it was not a top priority.

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled the letter regarding Medical Marihuana sent to

the Legislators, and he asked if the Commission should send another

one to the new people in office. Mr. Anzek advised that the new

people also got the letter.

Mr. Kaltsounis brought up the Avon Road bridge. He said he realized

it was not the City’s jurisdiction, but he remarked that it was sad. He

was afraid to stop on top of it because of the weight of his truck. He

asked the general consensus of the roundabout at Hamlin and

Livernois and if people considered it a success or failure.

Mr. Anzek felt that it was a phenomenal success. There were still

some little side swipes, and some people still did not know how to

enter. Mr. Kaltsounis said he saw someone go left instead of right

and hit a car. Mr. Anzek had not really gone through it during peak

hour, but he felt it was worthwhile. Mr. Hetrick said that he had been

through during peak hour, and it flowed pretty well. Mr. Kaltsounis

said that to him, the problem was that it flowed too well. They

needed some elsewhere, because cars were shooting through and

stacking up on the other side. Mr. Delacourt said that he had driven

Livernois every day for the last ten years, and the roundabout had

been an outstanding improvement to his commute. It even improved

the intersections at Avon and Auburn.

Mr. Yukon disagreed with improved traffic flow at certain times, and

said that traffic had backed up on Hamlin Rd., especially at 5:00

p.m., to the extent that the City had to post a “Do Not Block

Intersection” sign at Hamlin and Cumberland. People could not make

a left onto Hamlin. Mr. Hooper added that it was backed up because

of the Rochester and Hamlin intersection. Mr. Yukon advised that

traffic had backed up and into the roundabout. Mr. Hetrick said that

was the only complaint he had heard. Mr. Yukon stated that he had

almost been involved in four accidents in the roundabout - other

drivers almost hitting him. He felt that the roundabout worked north

and southbound on Livernois, but there was an issue with Hamlin

traffic.

Mr. Hooper referred to the Avon Rd. bridge, and said it was true that

the Road Commission’s bridge inspection program left a lot to be

desired. Someone could actually see the River from the bridge

through the bridge deck, which was falling apart. The bridge was

funded for 2013 for Avon Road, and they were trying to get Livernois

in for 2014. It looked like they found a State fund the City could

borrow from and possibly move the date up to 2012. It might involve

the taxpayers kicking money in for something the City did not own,

but they would be reimbursed in the future, and it would speed the

process.

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled the bridge over 15 Mile and Schoenherr

failing, and that it had been fixed immediately. He asked if that was

because it was a different time or County. Mr. Hooper agreed, and

said that the Road Commission was flat broke. They had fewer

employees than they had 12 years ago and they were spending less.

Every statistic they produced showed funding was down and heading

further down in the future. The Avon bridge should have been started

five years ago, rather than two, to get in the queue for funding.

Council was looking at options, and it would be on the upcoming

meeting.

Ms. Brnabic asked if citizens paying would mean General Fund

monies, which Mr. Hooper confirmed, and he added that it would not

be bonded.

Mr. Anzek gave a reminder about the Mayor’s State of the City

speech on March 15 at the Emagine Theatre. He announced that it

was Mr. Delacourt’s last Planning Commission meeting. He had

accepted a position with the City of Ferndale. Mr. Delacourt said that

he had lived in Ferndale for about ten years. The Planning and

Economic Development Director position became available, and but

for that, he had no desire to leave the City. It was a good move and

great opportunity he could not pass. He thanked the Commissioners

for their hard work and caring.

Mr. Anzek advised that McDonald’s would be coming for a discussion

at the March 1st meeting. They wished to do a knock down and

rebuild, and they would lose some parking spaces. They wanted to

show how they could operate with less parking. The City was

pursing a roadway to the Lifetime Fitness, which would be beneficial.

They also were proposing one drive in front - eliminating one. He

noted that Staff had received other inquiries about opportunities to do

drive-thrus at various locations. One was for the abandoned gas

station on Rochester Rd. just before the City of Rochester. The

Ordinance required a minimum one-acre parcel for a drive-thru, and

that would not work for those types of parcels. He was asking if

there might be value in modifying the Ordinance for drive-thrus

without restaurant seating and that the Commissioners think about it

for a future meeting.

Volunteers to the CIP Policy Team

Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Hetrick volunteered to be on the CIP Policy

Team for 2011.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting was

scheduled for March 1, 2011.

ADJOURNMENT

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

upon motion by Kaltsounis, Chairperson Boswell adjourned the Special

Meeting at 8:55 p.m., Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary