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, January 3, 2012

CALL TO ORDER

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

p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

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

Hooper, Nicholas Kaltsounis, David Reece, C‎. ‎Neall Schroeder and Emmet ‎

Yukon‎

Present

9 -

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Ed Anzek, Director of Planning and Economic Development‎

James Breuckman, Deputy Director‎

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2011-0590

December ‎6‎, ‎2011 ‎Regular Meeting‎

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

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

Aye

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

and Yukon‎

9 -

COMMUNICATIONS

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

PRESENTATION

2011-0591

Rochester Road Access Management Study ‎- ‎LSL and SEMCOG‎

The presenter was Sherrin Hood, LSL Planning, ‎306 ‎S‎. ‎Washington, ‎

Suite ‎400‎, Royal Oak, MI ‎48067‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman advised that Ms‎. ‎Hood would present the results of the ‎

Rochester Road Access Management Study‎. ‎It was an outcome of the ‎

Master Thoroughfare Plan ‎(‎MTP‎)‎, which gave a number of ‎

recommendations‎. ‎The Study covered Royal Oak up to the Oakland ‎

Township border, looking at Rochester Road in various communities‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Hood stated that LSL was hired by SEMCOG ‎(‎she introduced Susan ‎

Stefanski, the project planner from SEMCOG, who was in the audience‎) ‎

and MDOT to study the corridor and to look at driveways and accesses ‎

and to try to find ways to make things move more safely and efficiently‎. ‎

The project officially ended in September ‎2011 ‎and lasted about a year‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hood indicated that they wanted to create a plan for Rochester Road ‎

that would coordinate all the cities, the County and MDOT into a strategy ‎

to improve Rochester Road‎. ‎The recommendations in the Study would ‎

allow for safety, better traffic flow, preserve investments because of road ‎

efficiencies, improve the environment for walking and biking and help ‎

develop consistent access standards‎. ‎They created a model Ordinance ‎

for each community to hopefully be incorporated into the cities‎’ ‎Zoning ‎

Ordinances‎. ‎The benefits of Access Management include reduced ‎

crashes ‎- ‎MDOT has been able to relate the number of driveways per ‎

mile to the number of accidents ‎- ‎and the fewer driveways, the fewer ‎

accidents‎. ‎Other benefits include capacity and different speeds of ‎

vehicles ‎- ‎the fewer people slowing down the more cars can move through ‎

safely‎. ‎They believed that it also looked more pleasant to have fewer ‎

driveways‎. ‎The Federal Highway Administration and MDOT had both ‎

done studies that showed that access management improved safety‎. ‎

They looked at the number of driveways along Rochester Road, trying to ‎

find where there were too many, where they were too close to the ‎

intersections, especially signalized intersections; they looked at ‎

opportunities to connect driveways, allowing a reduction; and they did ‎

advance planning for vacant lots‎. ‎One of the key standards in the Zoning ‎

Ordinance was driveway spacing, and that included driveways on the ‎

same side of the road and on the opposing sides‎. ‎They were trying to ‎

prevent left‎-‎turn lockup ‎- ‎using the same center turn lane to get to a ‎

driveway‎. ‎She added that one of the initiatives was to incorporate ‎

pedestrian and bicycle considerations, and they also looked at ‎

opportunities to improve stormwater management‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hood talked about the recommendations in the Study and how the ‎

Planning Commission could try to space driveways in new development, ‎

if possible‎. ‎The plan created was to give guidance for shared access‎. ‎If ‎

Site Plans came through for Rochester Road, they could refer to the ‎

Study‎. ‎The standards could be applied more to new development and ‎

redevelopment‎. ‎They were not trying to force a City initiative to remove ‎

driveways; they were just providing the environment so that over time, the ‎

City could improve access‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Hood noted that they met with representatives from each City early in ‎

the process and drove the corridor‎. ‎They looked at trouble spots and ‎

worked with an engineering sub‎-‎consultant who did traffic analyses and ‎

crash data studies to see where really concerning areas might be‎. ‎Once ‎

they identified the initial problems and made recommendations, they ‎

took it to the public‎. ‎They had two workshops and met with property ‎

owners‎. ‎Each property owner along the Corridor was invited to the ‎

workshops‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hood next pointed out the Table of Contents and said that Chapters ‎

1‎,‎2‎,‎3 ‎and ‎5 ‎were the same for each community‎. ‎Those talked about the ‎

corridor, access management tools, corridor improvement guidelines, ‎

and implementation‎. ‎Chapter ‎4 ‎was Rochester Hills‎-‎specific‎. ‎They ‎

looked at the segments of Rochester Road in Rochester Hills and gave ‎

specific recommendations‎. ‎There were maps that showed where ‎

driveways should be closed and where a driveway should be ‎

reconfigured, and she assured that it was a guide‎. ‎Nothing in the plan ‎

had to be adhered to, but they hoped to take the guess work out of it and ‎

give support during the Site Plan review process‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hood said that a lot of communities were concerned that the Study ‎

was applying a standard that was not realistic‎. ‎MDOT wanted something ‎

to be ‎200 ‎feet apart, for example, and that would not happen‎. ‎She ‎

showed a slide of a segment from M‎-‎59 ‎to Auburn‎. ‎There were currently ‎

26 ‎driveways‎. ‎If they were to apply MDOT standards, there would only be ‎

ten allowed‎. ‎The Study recommended removing five of the driveways, ‎

which was much more realistic‎. ‎She felt that was something the City ‎

could do that would not burden the property owner unnecessarily‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hood noted that there were some concerns about the number and ‎

severity of crashes around Nawakwa and Rochester, just north of the ‎

M‎-‎59 ‎ramp‎. ‎They looked at some interchange options‎. ‎If the median in ‎

Troy could be extended into Rochester Hills, there might be some ‎

improvement‎. ‎There was a lot of studying done for Nawakwa, and they ‎

talked about eliminating the driveways from the gas station, but it really ‎

just needed to be continually monitored to see if a signal might be ‎

needed in the future‎. ‎There was no easy answer, but they suggested ‎

realigning the taper, which started north of Nawakwa‎. ‎If it started a little ‎

farther south, there would be fewer conflicts‎. ‎In general what they found in ‎

Rochester Hills was the need to apply access management in a broad ‎

basis over time‎. ‎A lot of development was not poorly planned ‎

necessarily, but the City could be strategic with new driveways, and it ‎

would be a long term process‎. ‎If someone came to the City and wanted to ‎

change the conditions of a site that generated more traffic, the City would ‎

want to make sure it would not be problematic‎. ‎The City and County try to ‎

incorporate closures into new projects‎. ‎Cross access easements was ‎

another recommendation, even if only one side could be obtained over ‎

time‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder asked when the traffic counts were taken on Rochester ‎

Road in Troy‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Hood said they were done in the fall of ‎2010‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Schroeder said that there had been a tremendous decrease in traffic ‎

since then, and Ms‎. ‎Hood said they could take a look at that‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Schroeder said it would concern him because there were plans all the way ‎

to the Oakland County section just before M‎-‎59‎, and such a reduction in ‎

traffic might not warrant a six‎-‎lane boulevard any longer‎. ‎All the ‎

submissions for funding were based on much greater traffic flow than what ‎

was there now‎. ‎He acknowledged that it was Troy‎’‎s concern, not ‎

Rochester Hills‎’‎, but there were commitments on all the projects, and he ‎

hoped it would not be altered‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper thanked Ms‎. ‎Hood for the report‎. ‎He asked if the study would ‎

be a standalone document or whether it would be adopted into the Master ‎

Plan‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek said that the study was to be considered for incorporation into ‎

the Master Land Use Plan when the next update was done‎. ‎That would ‎

become the basis for putting some development controls in the Zoning ‎

Ordinance or in the Engineering Standards‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper said that he realized most of what was in the study was ‎“‎pie in ‎

the sky,‎” ‎and it would be nice to do, but most property was privately owned ‎

and things would probably never happen‎. ‎He was recently made aware ‎

that the City met traffic warrants for the area of Drexelgate and Eddington ‎

Blvd‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek said he was not aware, but he would check into that‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hooper said that he was sure City Council would have no problem ‎

funding it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek added that for at least ‎8‎-‎10 ‎years the Planning ‎

Commission had been working on cross access agreements wherever ‎

possible, trying to link properties so people did not have to go out onto ‎

Rochester‎. ‎He said that hopefully, with redevelopment efforts, they would ‎

be able to continue to do that‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis referred to the MTP, which recommended roundabouts in ‎

certain areas among other things, and he asked about implementing the ‎

Access Management Study‎. ‎He asked if the Study would be ‎

implemented into the MTP or the Master Land Use Plan or into both‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek thought they could decide at the time they reviewed it for the ‎

best results‎. ‎There were objectives in the MTP to support Access ‎

Management where possible‎. ‎He believed there were quotes in the Study ‎

from the MTP‎. ‎As Ms‎. ‎Hood stated, there was an opportunity to ‎

implement the best things they could do, given personal property rights‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Hood said that hopefully, there should not be too many conflicts ‎

because they looked at the MTP when they created the Study‎. ‎They ‎

looked at all the communities‎’ ‎Master Plans and MTPs‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick echoed his colleagues‎’ ‎thanks for the presentation‎. ‎When he ‎

read the Study, it occurred to him that the Sustainability Advisory Board ‎

would be interested in certain aspects of the Study, such as Complete ‎

Streets and some environmental activities‎. ‎It had been part of the ‎

Board‎’‎s charge to come up with things that had relative benefit from a ‎

sustainability standpoint, and he encouraged that the Study be shared ‎

with them also‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Hood advised that SEMCOG was a wonderful resource when it came ‎

to walking, biking and low impact development‎. ‎If the Commission was ‎

interested in learning more about it, they would be happy to help‎.‎

Hearing no further comments, Chairperson Boswell thanked Ms‎. ‎Hood for ‎

introducing the Study‎.‎

Discussed

NEW BUSINESS

2011-0495

Request for Final Preliminary Plat Recommendation and Public Hearing ‎- ‎File ‎

No‎. ‎89‎-‎156‎.‎5 ‎- ‎Clear Creek Subdivision No‎. ‎5‎, a ‎58‎-‎lot phase of Clear Creek on ‎

56 ‎acres, located north of Tienken and east of Sheldon, Parcel No‎. ‎

15‎-‎02‎-‎200‎-‎015‎, zoned R‎-‎1‎, One Family Residential, Elro Corporation, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Ed Anzek, dated December ‎28‎, ‎

2011 ‎and Plat plans had been placed on file and by reference became ‎

part of the record thereof‎.)‎

Present for the applicant were Jesse Kranz, Vice President, and Harry ‎

Terbrueggen, Executive Vice President, Elro Corporation, ‎201 ‎W‎. ‎Big ‎

Beaver, Suite ‎720‎, Troy, MI ‎48084‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek summarized that the applicants were requesting Final ‎

Preliminary Plat Recommendation for phase five of the Clear Creek ‎

development‎. ‎The Tentative Preliminary Plat was approved by City ‎

Council in June of ‎2008‎. ‎He advised that Elro had been actively ‎

pursuing the Final Preliminary plans, outside agency permits and ‎

Engineering Construction Documents, so there was no need to request ‎

an Extension‎. ‎There was a consideration by the Green Space Committee ‎

to pursue a portion of phase five, and Elro worked on alternate plans, but ‎

ultimately, they continued with the original plat‎. ‎There had been no ‎

change from the Tentative Preliminary, with the exception of two points‎: ‎

MDEQ had requested off‎-‎site mitigation, which Mr‎. ‎Anzek felt was a plus ‎

for the development, and they were working on a joint conservation ‎

easement to be granted to the Clear Creek Homeowner‎’‎s Association and ‎

the City of Rochester Hills‎. ‎He concluded that Staff recommended ‎

approval, and he asked if there were any questions‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Terbrueggen stated that they had been working with the Planning ‎

Department for quite a while‎. ‎He said it was a thrill to be in front of the ‎

Planning Commission, and they would start the project as soon as they ‎

received appropriate approvals‎. ‎He said it had been a long time since ‎

they had an opportunity to build something, and they were ready to go‎. ‎It ‎

was a testament to Rochester Hills, because they had property in seven ‎

communities and about the only one they were getting any activity with ‎

builders was Rochester Hills‎. ‎He agreed that the layout was the same as ‎

the Preliminary‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell noted that he drove through the entire Clear Creek ‎

subdivision, and he was amazed at the amount of construction‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek advised that in accordance with the ‎2008 ‎State Planning ‎

Enabling Act, plat reviews were required to have Public Hearings‎. ‎He ‎

added that there was a notice in the paper and that direct notification was ‎

given to adjacent property owners, so the City was in compliance‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎

Natalia Kostylev, ‎6175 ‎Sheldon Road, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48306‎ ‎Ms‎. ‎

Kostylev said that the only lot they ‎(‎she and a later speaker live at the ‎

above address‎) ‎were a little worried about was the one on the corner ‎

behind their home‎. ‎It appeared that the orange tree protective fencing ‎

came right up to the creek where their lake drained‎. ‎They were worried ‎

about how the construction might affect that‎. ‎They bought the house in ‎

August, and the last owners told them that some river otters had set up a ‎

den in the hill‎. ‎She noted that there were also turtles‎.‎

Chad Kovala, ‎1477 ‎Galena, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48306‎ ‎Mr‎. ‎Kovala ‎

stated that he had a couple of concerns, and that he presumed he could ‎

speak for most people in the subdivision who had built since ‎2008‎. ‎He ‎

thought that very few people knew that an expansion was planned‎. ‎A lot of ‎

them knew there were wetlands behind their homes and although an ‎

assumption was a bad thing, the builders were not going to tell them ‎

something was planned‎. ‎They would have liked to have been informed ‎

that the wetlands their houses backed to were planned to be destroyed ‎

and turned into future development‎. ‎Another concern was that their sub ‎

had hundreds of lots and the notification was sent to ‎17 ‎people‎. ‎He ‎

understood the State law and that only people that abutted the ‎

development had to be notified‎. ‎He believed that if the entire subdivision ‎

was given the same mailing, they would see many more people at the ‎

meeting‎. ‎His backyard of wetlands was now going to be developed ‎- ‎over ‎

an acre destroyed ‎- ‎and there was a stream that would be destroyed and ‎

there would be a road put in with dredging over wetlands‎. ‎He thought his ‎

backyard was wetlands, and he would have appreciated more information‎. ‎

He mentioned that there was already an issue with traffic for the sub, with ‎

an entrance nearby to a large high school‎. ‎He thought that the ‎

roundabouts did help; however, speed was an issue on the main road ‎

going into the subdivision‎. ‎They appreciated the speed sensors put in, ‎

and he thanked those responsible‎. ‎The ‎20‎-‎some homes that were built ‎

on Traceky, which appeared to most to be a cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac, would now be on ‎

a main thru‎-‎way in the back of the sub leading to the new ‎58‎-‎lot sub‎. ‎

There was already an issue with speed, and now there would be another ‎

long thru‎-‎way in quite a large sub‎. ‎He thought there were multiple issues ‎

with expanding such a large sub, but the biggest thing was the acreage of ‎

wetlands he presumed the DEQ approved, but he thought there must ‎

have been concerns since it took such a long period of time‎. ‎He did not ‎

think sending the notice to ‎17 ‎people got all the public‎’‎s comments‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell closed the Public Hearing at ‎7‎:‎35 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎He asked ‎

Mr‎. ‎Terbrueggen about the wetlands concern and asked for clarification ‎

about what was being done‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kranz advised that they were only impacting one acre of wetland in ‎

phase five‎. ‎They were preserving ‎23 ‎acres of open space, and that ‎

included ‎18 ‎acres of wetland and some upland‎. ‎They were not destroying ‎

the wetland; they had one minor impact where the road would cross‎. ‎He ‎

pointed out the open space‎. ‎He stated that Traceky was always planned ‎

as a stub street in phase four with the intention that it would be extended ‎

in the future to be able to get out to Mead Road‎. ‎They were impacting ‎

one acre of wetland, and it had to be mitigated to get a permit‎.‎

Chairperson Boswell noted that Ms‎. ‎Kostylev was concerned about the ‎

area where her property would abut a lot‎. ‎He saw the protective fencing ‎

and asked what that indicated regarding her property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kranz said that ‎

before the weather froze, they wanted to install all the tree protective ‎

fencing required by the City‎. ‎The fence protected the wetland, and it ‎

would not go onto Ms‎. ‎Kostylev‎’‎s site‎. ‎They could not get into the stream, ‎

and he assured that they would only take down trees in the area they had ‎

to develop‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek noted that an Engineering Inspector from the City went to the ‎

site to verify that the tree protective fencing was placed properly‎. ‎There ‎

was only one small portion that needed to protect three trees on the very ‎

northern portion of Sheldon where there was no fencing‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kranz said that they would only be removing trees along Sheldon that ‎

were identified on the plans, and not necessarily all the trees‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek brought up the comment that the developer was adding to the ‎

subdivision‎. ‎He reminded that the fifth phase went back to the inception ‎

of the entire Clear Creek development, in about ‎1990‎, with approvals for ‎

the first and second phase occurring in the early ‎1990‎’‎s and the third and ‎

fourth phases in the late ‎1990‎’‎s‎. ‎It was not a surprise addition; it had ‎

always been planned for development‎. ‎As pointed out, there were ‎18 ‎

acres of wetland being preserved, and the only impact was for the road ‎

crossing‎. ‎There were no lots on wetlands‎. ‎MDEQ was requiring offsite ‎

mitigation at ‎1‎.‎5 ‎to ‎1‎, and that would further preserve the natural setting ‎

behind some future homes‎. ‎If it had been done onsite, the land would ‎

have been dug out and the dirt removed and it would have been planted ‎

with wetland materials‎. ‎Now they would be able to stay in their natural ‎

state‎. ‎Regarding the otter family, he was not sure what the City could do ‎

about natural fauna, but he hoped they would stay in their habitat‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper said that when the Commission last discussed the project in ‎

2008‎, they talked about possibly paving Sheldon Rd‎. ‎He asked if ‎

anything had occurred with that‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek said that Elro had been working with the Traffic Engineering ‎

Division, and the plan was to pave Sheldon from the terminus of asphalt ‎

by the schools just past the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sac ‎(‎Placid Ct‎. ‎in phase five‎). ‎Mr‎. ‎

Hooper asked if the City would install any means of speed reduction, ‎

such as speed humps, noting that City Council had approved the radar ‎

signs in Clear Creek‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek did not recall any discussions with Engineering regarding ‎

speed humps on Sheldon Rd‎.‎, and he was not sure if the neighborhood ‎

had requested anything‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper indicated that if they were going to ‎

improve Sheldon Rd‎.‎, adding speed humps would be a nominal cost as a ‎

physical means to ensure reduced speeds in the neighborhood‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Anzek said he would take it up with Engineering‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper ‎

congratulated the applicants and wished them luck‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic asked the applicants if they still planned to provide ‎

information within the Deed Restrictions in regard to the wetlands and ‎

natural features‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kranz said there would be language stating that the ‎

area would be preserved‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic said she had read the ‎2008 ‎

Planning Commission Minutes, and there were statements made in ‎

regard to the fact that they would make people who purchased lots aware ‎

up front of the wetland area so there would not be a ‎“‎buyer‎-‎beware‎” ‎type of ‎

situation‎. ‎The applicants had said previously that they would have that ‎

information within the Deed Restrictions‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Terbrueggen said that Rochester Hills had language they had to ‎

incorporate into the Deed Restrictions‎. ‎When they did the other phases, ‎

there was language in the Deed Restrictions, and it would be the same for ‎

phase five‎. ‎It would let everyone know that there were wetlands and that ‎

no one could do anything to them‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek advised that the first homeowner had to sign a letter of ‎

notification‎. ‎That letter was recorded at the County and anytime there was ‎

a sale of the land, a title search would show the letter and notify any ‎

subsequent buyers of the wetland adjacency‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis indicated that with the Preliminary Plat, the vetting was ‎

done in ‎2008‎. ‎The Planning Commission‎’‎s job was to make sure that ‎

what they were reviewing now was the same as what was approved in ‎

2008‎. ‎He concluded that there was nothing different between the ‎

Preliminary and the Final Plat‎. ‎He moved the following motion, which was ‎

seconded by Mr‎. ‎Schroeder‎:‎

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

No‎. ‎89‎-‎156‎.‎5 ‎(‎Clear Creek Subdivision No‎. ‎5‎)‎, the Planning Commission ‎

recommends that City Council ‎grant Final Approval‎ of‎ ‎the ‎Preliminary ‎

Plat‎, based on plans dated received by the Planning Department on ‎

October ‎24‎, ‎2011‎, with the following two ‎(‎2‎) ‎findings and subject to the ‎

following eight ‎(‎8‎) ‎conditions‎.‎

Findings‎:‎

1‎.‎ The Final Preliminary Plat is consistent with the street and lot ‎

layout of the previously approved Tentative Preliminary Plat‎.‎

2‎.‎ The Final Preliminary Plat conforms to all applicable City ‎

ordinances, standards, regulations, and requirements‎.‎

Conditions‎:‎

1‎. ‎That the applicant receives all appropriate MDEQ permits prior to ‎

Final Plat Approval‎.‎

2‎. ‎That the applicant receives a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

3‎. ‎That the applicant receives all Engineering related permits and ‎

approved Construction Documents required by Public Services prior to ‎

Final Plat Approval‎. ‎

4‎. ‎Address comments in the Fire Department memo dated November ‎

17‎, ‎2011‎, prior to Final Approval by Staff‎.‎

5‎. ‎All proposed street names must be approved by the City's ‎

Communication Division prior to Final approval by Staff‎.‎

6‎. ‎Address comments in the Building Department memo dated ‎

November ‎15‎, ‎2011‎, prior to Construction Plan Approval‎.‎

7‎. ‎Provision of a performance guarantee in the amount of $‎275‎,‎600‎.‎00‎, ‎

as adjusted if necessary by the City, to ensure the proper installation of ‎

trees, for replacement of damaged trees, and for all other landscaping ‎

expenses‎. ‎Such guarantee to be provided by the applicant prior to ‎

issuance of a Land Improvement Permit‎.‎

8‎. ‎Discuss with Traffic Engineer consideration of traffic calming devices ‎

for Sheldon Rd‎. ‎and throughout the subdivision‎.‎

‎

Another card had been turned in after the Public Hearing‎. ‎At this point, ‎

Chairperson Boswell asked the speaker to come forward‎.‎

Mayu Bajpai, ‎6175 ‎Sheldon Rd‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48306 ‎ ‎Mr‎. ‎Bajpai ‎

said that the property that abutted his had a couple of pine trees that ‎

looked about ‎60 ‎years old‎. ‎He knew the developers would come through ‎

and clear cut everything, but he said he hoped they would be considerate ‎

enough to leave the pine trees‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kranz offered that after the meeting they could discuss whether the ‎

trees were even being removed or not‎. ‎He said they would only remove ‎

trees if they were in the way of an improvement‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Bajpai said that it was ‎

on the property where a Clear Creek house would go‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Terbrueggen ‎

said they would be happy to show Mr‎. ‎Bajpai the plans after the meeting‎.‎

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

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting,‎. ‎The motion ‎

carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

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

and Yukon‎

9 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion had passed ‎

unanimously‎. ‎He noted that it had been a long, long time working with Mr‎. ‎

Terbrueggen ‎- ‎almost ‎20 ‎years ‎- ‎and wished them good luck‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2011-0365

Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendments Recommendations and Public ‎

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

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

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

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

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

a penalty for violations ‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Ordinance Amendment Draft, prepared by James ‎

Breuckman, dated December ‎20‎, ‎2011 ‎and memo from Mr‎. ‎Breuckman, ‎

dated December ‎28‎, ‎2011 ‎regarding support from the Zoning Board of ‎

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

record thereof‎.)‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman stated that there was just one small change from last ‎

month, and unless there were further comments, that the draft was ready ‎

for a Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning ‎

Commission‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder referred to Section ‎7‎b regarding the average front yard ‎

setback minus ‎10 ‎feet within ‎200 ‎feet for adjacent properties‎. ‎He ‎

suggested it would be clearer if there were a picture‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that he tried to re‎-‎write it to make it clear‎. ‎He ‎

indicated that he could add a picture, and it could be a Condition of ‎

approval‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper referred to barrier free amendments, Note ‎1 ‎under Fractional ‎

Spaces‎: ‎“‎Whenever a fractional space is required by the above Table ‎14‎, ‎

it shall be rounded to the nearest whole number‎.‎” ‎He asked if it would be ‎

rounded up or down or whether it mattered‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that ‎

anything less than ‎.‎5 ‎would be down and anything ‎.‎5 ‎or greater would be ‎

up‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper questioned if that was clear as written, and Mr‎. ‎Anzek said ‎

that it was not something new for the Ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper mentioned ‎

the RMH district standards and that under Conditional Uses it read that ‎

there was an ‎“‎Error‎! ‎Reference source not found‎.‎” ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said ‎

that the section reference was correct, but Word kept adding that part, ‎

even if he deleted it‎. ‎He said it would be fixed when it was incorporated ‎

into the full Ordinance‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at ‎7‎:‎55 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Seeing no ‎

one come forward, he closed the Public Hearing‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis was not against anything in the motion except allowing gas ‎

stations in B‎-‎3 ‎districts‎. ‎Chairperson Boswell advised that it was not in the ‎

motion, and Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis clarified that ‎“‎Front Building‎/‎Rear Canopy ‎

Gas Stations only regarded B‎-‎5 ‎districts, and that a Public Hearing for ‎

gas stations in B‎-‎3 ‎would be held later‎. ‎He moved the following motion, ‎

which was supported by Mr‎. ‎Schroeder‎:‎

MOTION ‎by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, the Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Commission hereby recommends to City Council approval of ‎

amendments to the following sections of Chapter ‎138‎, Zoning of the Code ‎

of Ordinances of the City of Rochester Hills, Oakland County, Michigan ‎

as discussed at the Public Hearing held on January ‎3‎, ‎2012‎: ‎138‎-‎11‎.‎300 ‎

Barrier Free Parking Requirements; ‎138‎-‎4‎.‎300 ‎and ‎138‎-‎4‎.‎438 ‎regarding ‎

Drive Through Restaurants; ‎138‎-‎11‎.‎304 ‎and ‎138‎-‎11‎.‎307‎, Pavement ‎

Striping and Construction ‎(‎Surfacing‎) ‎Requirements; Section ‎138‎-‎5‎.‎100 ‎

Table ‎6‎, B‎-‎5 ‎District Setback Requirements; Section ‎138‎-‎5‎.‎100‎, footnotes ‎

B, J and N, Established Building Line, Front Building Gas Stations and ‎

Building Spacing; Section ‎138‎-‎4‎.‎404‎, Automotive Gasoline Service ‎

Stations; Section ‎138‎-‎6‎.‎400‎, Section ‎12‎, Article ‎6 ‎Chapter ‎4‎, RMH ‎

Manufactured Housing Park District; Section ‎138‎-‎4‎.‎300‎, Table of ‎

Permitted Uses; Section ‎138‎-‎3‎.‎104‎.‎C, Nonconforming Structures, ‎

Reconstruction; Section ‎138‎-‎8‎.‎603‎, Signs, to amend permit procedures ‎

for signs in flexible business overlay districts; and to repeal conflicting ‎

Ordinances and prescribe a penalty for violations with the following ‎

Condition‎:‎

1‎.‎ Add a graphic for clarification to Section ‎7‎ B‎.‎, Established Building ‎

Line‎. ‎

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

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting,‎. ‎The motion ‎

carried by the following vote‎:‎

Aye

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

and Yukon‎

9 -

Chairperson Boswell commented that it would be sent to Council with a ‎

picture‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick asked about Mr‎. ‎Breuckman‎’‎s memo about the zoning ‎

amendments from the Zoning Board of Appeals ‎(‎ZBA‎). ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman ‎

explained that it regarded the Established Building Line‎. ‎It was put in the ‎

Ordinance some years ago at the urging of the ZBA because they were ‎

getting a lot of Variance requests and then inadvertently removed‎. ‎They ‎

wanted to show support for the ‎10‎-‎foot addition to the amendment‎.‎

2011-0381

Discussion regarding a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment to allow ‎

gas stations in B‎-‎3 ‎Zoning Districts as Conditional Uses‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Memo prepared by James Breuckman, dated December ‎27‎, ‎

2011 ‎and draft Ordinance language had been placed on file and by ‎

reference became part of the record thereof‎.)‎

Mr‎. ‎Breuckman advised that the representative from Meijer could not be ‎

present for the discussion about gas stations in B‎-‎3‎, and he requested ‎

that the Commission not have any substantial discussion in his absence‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder referred to ‎4‎.‎c‎.‎, Setback from Residential District, which ‎

read ‎“‎a minimum of ‎200‎/‎250‎/‎300 ‎feet‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that from last ‎

month‎’‎s meeting, he put together a study ‎(‎which he passed out‎) ‎showing ‎

where the various setback lines fell on example properties in the B‎-‎3 ‎

district‎. ‎Also, there was a building study, showing different‎-‎sized ‎

buildings‎. ‎It showed gas stations and also other buildings in that area‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder thought that having pictures was a good idea‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Breuckman said he also provided information about the Shelby Township ‎

Kroger‎. ‎The site was at ‎25 ‎Mile and Dequindre, and there had been a ‎

request for a Conditional Use to add a gas station‎. ‎It was turned down ‎

because of parking issues, and the site was only ‎7‎.‎75 ‎acres, which was ‎

below the threshold the Commission was reviewing‎. ‎There was also ‎

information about the dimensions of the site and what it would be if it were ‎

on ten acres‎. ‎It would have an extra ‎95 ‎feet on both the width and depth ‎

of the lot‎. ‎The issues were access, parking in the center, and that it was ‎

deemed to be too small‎. ‎The Kroger at ‎23 ‎Mile and Hayes was a ‎

greenfield site, and they designed a new gas station there‎. ‎Shelby ‎

Township also recently approved a gas station for the Meijer on Hall Rd‎. ‎

and Hayes‎. ‎He asked the Commissioners to review the studies he had ‎

prepared, which involved the Rochester Rd‎. ‎corridor, and said that it ‎

would be brought back at the next meeting‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick asked Mr‎. ‎Breuckman if he needed to highlight ‎5‎.‎a‎. ‎because it ‎

was blank for square feet, and areas where decisions needed to be made ‎

were highlighted‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman agreed that was one of the things they ‎

needed to finalize‎. ‎He highlighted changes that needed to still be made ‎

and those that were made as the amendment was developed‎. ‎He also ‎

added a cross reference for lighting under section ‎4‎.‎f‎.‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2011-0493

Request for Adoption of Amended Planning Commission By‎-‎Laws‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek recalled that at last month‎’‎s meeting, they put forward ‎

amended By‎-‎Laws due to the requirements of the State Planning and ‎

Enabling Act of ‎2008‎. ‎A question was raised because the By‎-‎Laws stated ‎

that the Planning Commission shall ‎“‎hold‎” ‎a meeting every month, and ‎

clarification was needed about whether they had to actually hold a ‎

meeting every month‎. ‎He talked with Mr‎. ‎Staran, City Attorney, about it, ‎

and Mr‎. ‎Staran said that if it said ‎“‎hold,‎” ‎they would have to hold a ‎

meeting each month‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran‎’‎s recommendation was that they change ‎

the By‎-‎Laws to say ‎“‎schedule‎” ‎a monthly meeting and they could cancel it ‎

if there were no items brought forward‎. ‎It would give them some flexibility ‎

to move a meeting if necessary‎. ‎Staff put forward a revised meeting ‎

schedule, putting several meetings to the third Tuesday of the month due ‎

to conflicts with elections or holidays‎. ‎There was also a recommendation ‎

for a motion to change the By‎-‎Laws to schedule a meeting rather than ‎

hold‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic expressed a slight concern in regard to Article VII, Quorum ‎

and Voting‎. ‎Five members were required for a quorum, but it said that ‎

“‎An affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members of the ‎

Commission present shall be necessary in order to take action,‎” ‎and it ‎

concerned her that if there were only five at a meeting, there could be a ‎

3‎-‎2 ‎vote‎. ‎She knew that with their present Chairperson, the vote would not ‎

be held until they had a full Commission, but in the future, she would not ‎

want to see something approved with a ‎3‎-‎2 ‎vote, and she would rather see ‎

a much greater majority‎. ‎With the current Commission, she was fairly ‎

certain that the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson would recommend that ‎

an applicant come back for a vote with a full Commission, but because it ‎

was in the By‎-‎Laws, for the future it would hold that a majority could vote ‎

even with only five members present‎. ‎She would not like action taken on ‎

a ‎3‎-‎2 ‎vote‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell said that he would not consider three a majority ‎

because there were nine members on the Commission‎. ‎He understood ‎

what Ms‎. ‎Brnabic was saying, and he recalled that Mr‎. ‎Kaiser ‎(‎former ‎

Chairperson‎) ‎would always require at least eight members present for a ‎

vote‎. ‎He thought most on the Commission would think like that‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Brnabic was just concerned because of what could happen with a different ‎

Commission‎. ‎She would hope everyone would have that same mentality, ‎

but they did not know what the future would hold‎. ‎She wondered if they ‎

needed to add something in the By‎-‎Laws that would require a maximum, ‎

like they did for Master Plans and Zoning, or if they should leave it as it ‎

was and hope people thought logically‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hetrick asked if the Commission could define what a quorum was‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek said it was five, as in Robert‎’‎s Rules‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece said that if ‎

someone came before the Commission, and there were only five people, ‎

it would not be their fault, and they might have an expectation of getting a ‎

vote on a matter‎. ‎He was not sure how they could not vote if there was a ‎

majority of members present‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Brnabic said that if there was a quorum ‎

of five and all five passed or denied something, she would not be as ‎

concerned as if there was some dissention in the ranks‎. ‎There usually ‎

was not, and she had not seen a major split of the Commission in many ‎

years, but if only five Commissioners were present and five did not decide ‎

to vote the same, it would concern her‎. ‎Chairperson Boswell said that if it ‎

were going to be a ‎3‎-‎2 ‎vote, he would not hold the vote, he would ‎

postpone until the entire Commission was present‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece asked if ‎

he could do that, and Chairperson Boswell assured that he could‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Anzek said that oftentimes, when Mr‎. ‎Kaiser was Chair and they were ‎

going through a heated plat or Site Plan and there was a large crowd, he ‎

did not want to send them away and not be able to speak‎. ‎He would ‎

announce at the beginning there would be no vote and then hold public ‎

comments‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis said he recalled that happening once or twice ‎

in the time he was on the Commission‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek said that it went to their ‎

commitments as Planning Commissioners; they showed up and they ‎

worked hard on projects‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Reece said that procedurally, if it was the ‎

Chair‎’‎s prerogative, it was all right, although he could see certain ‎

members of the public that could see it as an issue‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek said that if ‎

they knew in advance many would be absent, they could postpone the ‎

meeting also and get the word out to the public‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Schroeder asked if the applicant would have to pay for the second ‎

meeting, and Mr‎. ‎Anzek said they would not have to if the City postponed ‎

the meeting‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis referred to Article IV, Section ‎2‎: ‎In the event an office ‎

becomes vacant by death, resignation or otherwise, the Commission ‎

shall elect an officer to serve the remainder of the term‎. ‎He said that was ‎

different than what was done currently‎. ‎The new Commissioner was ‎

appointed by the Mayor and approved by Council‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Hooper agreed ‎

the Mayor appointed Commissioners, which were confirmed by Council‎. ‎

Chairperson Boswell clarified that was not what the By‎-‎Laws were ‎

referring‎. ‎If he were to leave, the Commissioners would vote on a new ‎

Chairperson‎. ‎They agreed that was what the Section implied‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis asked if they should add something about the Mayor ‎

appointing a Commissioner‎. ‎Chairperson Boswell did not think that was ‎

necessary‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek added that it was already in the City‎’‎s Charter‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Hooper said that further to Ms‎. ‎Brnabic‎’‎s suggestion, for Article VII, ‎

Section ‎1‎.‎, he suggested eliminating the word ‎“‎present‎.‎” ‎It would read, ‎

“‎An affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members of the ‎

Commission shall be necessary in order to take action‎.‎” ‎Chairperson ‎

Boswell agreed that would work‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman suggested that another ‎

way that had been done was to say, ‎“‎A majority vote of the membership of ‎

the Planning Commission‎.‎” ‎That way if they had seven present and seats ‎

had not been filled for whatever reason, four would constitute a vote at that ‎

point‎. ‎Chairperson Boswell stated that he had no objection to removing ‎

the word present‎. ‎They decided that it should say ‎“‎A majority vote of the ‎

full membership‎” ‎regarding voting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis discussed the motion and at what point they wanted the ‎

Resolution to be in full force‎. ‎He asked if it should be the first week of ‎

April when they elected officers or if it should be the current date‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Anzek said that there was nothing threatening that they had to adopt the ‎

By‎-‎Laws immediately‎. ‎Since there were other questions, he suggested ‎

that the Commissioners could take more time to review the By‎-‎Laws, and ‎

they could take it up at another point‎. ‎They just had to approve the ‎

meeting schedule‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Kaltsounis moved the following motion, seconded by Mr‎. ‎Schroeder‎:‎

MOTION‎ by Kaltsounis, seconded by Schroeder, the Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Commission hereby re‎-‎establishes its ‎2012 ‎meeting schedule ‎

at the January ‎3‎, ‎2012 ‎Regular Meeting as follows‎:‎

ROCHESTER HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION‎

2012 ‎MEETING DATES‎

January ‎3‎, ‎2012 ‎July ‎17‎, ‎2012‎

February ‎7‎, ‎2012 ‎August ‎21‎, ‎2012‎

March ‎6‎, ‎2012 ‎September ‎4‎, ‎2012‎

April ‎3‎, ‎2012 ‎October ‎2‎, ‎2012‎

May ‎1‎, ‎2012 ‎November ‎20‎, ‎2012‎

June ‎5‎, ‎2012 ‎December ‎4‎, ‎2012‎

Voice Vote‎:‎

Ayes‎: ‎All‎

Nays‎: ‎None‎

Absent‎: ‎None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the meeting dates were ‎

adopted and that the By‎-‎Laws would be postponed until revisions were ‎

ready for review‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Reece said that they talked about out of town members, and he asked ‎

if that needed to be incorporated into the By‎-‎Laws‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Anzek said there ‎

was something about it in the Ordinance to establish the Planning ‎

Commission, not the By‎-‎Laws‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Brnabic mentioned that in the Access Management Plan, on page ‎6 ‎

of Chapter ‎4 ‎the number of access points under existing, remove and ‎

keep were listed, but the numbers did not add up‎. ‎It said there were ‎176 ‎

existing and if they removed ‎24‎, that there would be ‎115 ‎kept, but it ‎

should be ‎152 ‎kept‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Breuckman said that he would check into that‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded Commissioners that the next regular meeting was ‎

scheduled for February ‎7‎, ‎2012‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

upon motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the regular meeting at ‎8‎:‎21 ‎

p‎.‎m‎.‎, Michigan time‎.‎

_____________________________‎

William F‎. ‎Boswell, Chairperson‎

Rochester Hills Planning Commission‎

_____________________________‎

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary‎