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, Kathleen Hardenburg, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis,

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

7:30 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Planning Commission

meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Kathleen Hardenburg,

Greg Hooper, Nicholas Kaltsounis, C. Neall Schroeder and Emmet Yukon

Present

8 -

David Reece

Absent

1 -

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2008-0206

April 15, 2008 Regular Meeting

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

Approved as Presented.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Reece

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Memo from J. Jenuwine, dated May 5, 2008 re: 2009 Final CIP

B) Final 2009 Draft CIP

C) Email and article from J. Staran, dated May 5, 2008 re: Lawsuits

against Public Officials

NEW BUSINESS

2007-0221

Extension of Tentative Preliminary Plat Recommendation until April 20, 2009 - City File

No. 04-011 - Grace Parc, a 16-lot subdivision located north of South Boulevard between

Livernois and Rochester Roads, zoned R-4, Parcel Nos. 15-34-402-035 and -057, Grace

Street Development, applicant.

(Reference: Memo prepared by Ed Anzek, dated May 2,

2008 had been placed on file and by reference became part

of the record thereof.)

No one was present for the applicant. Citing the State's

economic conditions, Mr. Schroeder said he could

understand the applicant's request, and he moved the

motion provided below.

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

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Reece

1 -

2008-0124

Tree Removal Permit - City File No. 07-014 - Beaumont Center for Health Improvement, a

proposed 98,022 square-foot health and wellness office center on 6.5 net acres on South

Boulevard, west of Dequindre, zoned O-1, Parcel No. 15-36-452-011, Rochester Hills

Health and Wellness Building, LLC, applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Derek Delacourt,

dated May 6, 2008 had been placed on file and by

reference became part of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant were Ray Ocasio and Nicholas

Checota, Landmark (Rochester Hills Health & Wellness

Building, LLC), 839 North Jefferson St., Suite 200,

Milwaukee, WI 53202; Justin Wellman and George

Ostrowski, Nowak & Fraus, 46777 Woodward Ave., Pontiac,

MI 48342; Eric Hunt, Vice President of Operations for

Beaumont Ambulatory, 100 E. Big Beaver, Suite 800, Troy,

MI 48084; and Michael Berlin, Hobbs & Black Associates,

100 N. State St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104.

Mr. Delacourt recalled that the applicant had been before

the Commission several times for discussions about the

facility. The Site Plan had now been reviewed thoroughly,

and was deemed technically compliant. The applicants

had provided information to show how they met the parking

standard for the type of use proposed. Mr. Delacourt

advised that when a proposed use was not covered in the

Ordinance, the Planning Commission was allowed to

review the information and make a determination about

whether there was appropriate parking. He went over the

three requests, and said that the project had been approved

or approved with conditions. He noted the applicants’

power point presentation and turned over the discussion to

them.

Mr. Hunt stated that the project started in 2003, when they

began to acquire the property. They tried to make it the right

fit for the community, for Beaumont and for their physicians.

He emphasized that health care had evolved, and that there

was an emerging market for a health and wellness

component to health care. Their programming included

traditional areas - physical therapy, imaging services,

occupational therapy and cardio services. It was their belief

that they will broaden the scope of preventative medicine

and wellness, because they will allow patients to continue

working out after therapy. The current operations only

allowed that for three months because of size constraints.

The proposed operation would give them the ability and

space to integrate services and accommodate longer

rehabilitation. He stressed that the fitness component

would be a minor part of the project, but it was the key to

continued success for patients. He stated that the primary

goal of the wellness center was to provide medically

supported wellness and rehab for patients to utilize, under

the direction of medical staff, and to continue health

maintenance after completion of medical treatment. He

stated that it was their hope that people would continue with

physical workouts because it was so important.

Mr. Hunt advised that Dr. Easton would head up the

medical portion of the building. He was a board certified

spine surgeon with patients from around the country. Mr.

Hunt also advised that most sports figures went to Dr.

Easton for care, and that he was turning away nine out of

ten of the patients that called. By coming to this building,

he would take up 20,000 square feet on the third floor for a

spinal clinic. He would specialize in patients with chronic

low back pain. His plan was to work with Ford, GM and

Chrysler to teach people how to avoid back pain. He

concluded that Beaumont was extremely pleased to partner

with Dr. Easton, who had been waiting four years for the

project to come to fruition.

Mr. Berlin, the project’s architect, next went over the floor

plans, describing each of the three floors. The first floor

would be typical medical offices, with a portion of the

wellness center, including areas for patients using physical

therapy and integrative medicine and an area for CT and

MRI imaging. There would also be an aquatics gym. The

second floor would have a cardiopulmonary area and gym,

a large, multi-purpose area and wellness center for cardio,

strength, and a track and aerobics area. He added that

patients could use the entire building. There would be an

education space, such as for community education. The

building would have a very integrated feel. The third floor

would be for the spine center, with typical medical offices

and two tenant spaces. He reported that Dr. Easton would

be the leader for the spine center.

Mr. Berlin referred to the parking calculations, stating that

based on other Beaumont facilities, they were comfortable

providing one space for every 215 feet of useable floor

area. They were required to provide 365 spaces and had

provided 377. An addendum Parking County Summary

was provided after the Staff Report was finished and

became part of the record, but had not been thoroughly

reviewed by Staff. An initial parking calculation was

submitted and reviewed, and Mr. Delacourt said that Staff

was in agreement with the numbers provided.

Mr.Ostrowski, the project’s Landscape Architect, discussed

the landscaping, trees and requested Buffer Modification.

He explained that the Buffer Modification regarded the Type

D Buffer required along M-59, and they were asking for a

Modification to reduce the width and a Modification to allow

fewer trees in the IVO, because it was their desire for some

visibility from M-59. He advised that they had concentrated

materials on the eastern and western edges, and wanted

the ability for signage to be seen.

Mr. Wellman, the project’s Engineer, discussed road

improvements the applicants were providing. He advised

that they were providing a continuous center left turn lane

for eastbound traffic on South Boulevard and a dedicated

right-turn lane and deceleration lane across the majority of

the frontage to service both entrances.

Mr. Ocasio, the applicant, ran the power point and showed

some other medical office buildings, including one with

275,000 square feet, which provided 2.5 parking spaces per

thousand, which he said was much lower than what they

were proposing. He recalled some concern about future

use of the building. In response, he noted that Mr. Hunt had

talked about Beaumont’s desire to be at the location

because of the proximity to the hospital. The building

would not transform very easily, the way it was designed, to

any kind of spec office. Even if they were looking at spec

office space, they were really close in the parking counts for

an entire medical office. He felt they had provided more

than adequate spaces based on the current use and what

was expected to stay for some time.

Mr. Yukon referred to the play center for the wellness

center, and he mentioned that the September 18, 2007

Minutes stated that there would be no play center for

children, but it was noted in the parking calculations. He

asked for clarification.

Mr. Delacourt advised that there were play centers in many

of the City’s office buildings currently, regardless of whether

they were wellness centers or a three-story professional

office building. They could have been incorporated in the

original plans or converted at a later date, but they were

permitted uses in an office district. Many office buildings

incorporated play centers, and Staff believed it was an

accessory use to an office. Mr. Hunt said that he wished

they had a play center wherever they had physical therapy.

They were usually repeated sessions held during the day,

which lasted about 30 minutes, and it was a great and safe

place for children to go while their guardians were in

therapy.

Mr. Yukon mentioned that it was also stated at the

September 2007 meeting that the applicant would submit

job creation projections with the Site Plan. Mr. Hunt related

that they were finalizing the numbers for job creation, not

including the physician office component, and they

projected about 200 hospital service jobs by the second

year. Those would include the x-ray techs, therapy teams,

integrated medicine component and the fitness component.

Mr. Checota, also on the applicant’s team, added that the

general contractor, subcontractors and all laborers on the

job would all be local.

Mr. Yukon noted that the Environmental Impact Statement

said that 70 people per hour during peak hours would use

the health and wellness center. He asked how that was

determined. Mr. Berlin said they used a consulant who did

wellness centers all around the country. Beaumont wanted

to find out information such as how many people, how

longed they stayed, and the peak hours.

Mr. Yukon referred to the geography data, which said that

the elevation of the property needed to be raised

approximately two feet. He asked how that would affect the

floodplain in that area. Mr. Delacourt said that it would not

have a negative impact. A lot of the details would come

with the final grade information and with construction

drawings. The City’s engineers had reviewed the plans and

were comfortable with the design and proposed elevations.

He did not think the site was in a floodplain; there was just a

drainage ditch, but the information would be taken care of at

Construction Plan review. Mr. Wellman said that a survey

verified that it was not within a floodplain.

Mr. Schroeder asked if there would be a sign on the M-59

side, and he was informed that was the intent. Mr.

Schroeder asked if there would be special handling for

medical waste. Mr. Hunt advised that there would be no

laboratories or bio-hazard uses, just typical things in a

doctor’s office. Mr. Schroeder asked if the dumpster was in

the northwest corner, which was confirmed.

Mr. Schroeder asked the applicants if they had considered

green building. Mr. Checota advised that their buildings

typically incorporated some aspect of green building, but it

was not intended to be LEED certified or fully green

building. Mr. Schroeder asked what aspects they had

considered, and Mr. Checota advised that some of the

carpet selections would get points for LEED certification,

and that some of the materials and approaches would go

toward certification, but they would not pursue full LEED

certification. Mr. Schroeder asked about stormwater

treatment, and Mr. Checota related that they were providing

a pre-treatment device upstream of the stormwater

detention to treat the water before it went into the storm

sewer.

Mr. Schroeder noted a comment in the letter from HRC,

which talked about the extension of the center left turn lane

to the east, and he asked if that had been addressed. Mr.

Wellman said that with the original plan, there were no road

improvements proposed, but the revised plan followed the

City Engineer’s requirements for left turns into the site. He

believed they met the requirement for the easterly drive

approach. They restricted left hand turns into the site on the

westerly drive approach.

Mr. Schroeder asked if they had a backup plan for the

parking, in case there was a shortage. Mr. Berlin said that

using the basin area was an option, but they wanted more

green space for the site, and using above ground detention

was a better solution. Mr. Schroeder asked the hours of

operation, and Mr. Hunt informed that the wellness center

would be open at 6:00 a.m.; physical therapy would begin

at 7:00 a.m., and he did not believe the center would be

open beyond 10:00 p.m.

Mr. Schroeder referred to the M-59 buffer, and clarified that

it would be narrower and lower. Mr. Berlin said that the

buffer was required to be 25 feet wide, but with the physical

constraints of the site, they were asking for a reduction to 16

feet, and a Modification for the spacing of the IVO plantings.

Mr. Schroeder said that the plantings were probably

required to block the view of the expressway from the

hospitals, and he did not see a problem with that.

Ms. Hardenburg indicated that she understood Mr. Yukon’s

comments about the day care center. The Commission

was told one thing at an earlier date, and now they were

seeing something different. They were previously told that

the wellness center was not going to be open to the public,

and she was concerned that it would be. She stated that

things kept changing every time the applicants came

forward.

Ms. Hardenburg noted that the applicant’s Landscape

Architect stated there were 203 trees, but according to the

packet, there were 213± , which would make the number of

tree credits required different. Mr. Ostrowski said that there

were some discrepancies between the City’s memo and

what the original plan had. The current version had 203

trees. Mr. Delacourt said that the Tree Removal Permit

notice listed 213 trees. He indicated that there were always

discrepancies between numbers, tables, and plans; that

was why there was a Condition stating that the numbers

would be finalized by the City’s Landscape Architect. If the

Planning Commission was comfortable with the plans, Staff

would sort out those types of details afterwards.

Ms. Hardenburg referred to the parking calculations, and

read from the Staff Report: “Any conversion would most

likely require a major renovation to the structure and site

and additional parking needs could be addressed at that

time.” She felt that since the zoning was O-1, there should

not need to be major renovations. The building should not

have to be modified greatly to make it fit in the office

zoning. It would put up a red flag for her if Beaumont

vacated and there had to be major renovations, and she

questioned whether it was the right spot for the facility. She

asked if they were only going to supply one chair for every

215 square feet in the waiting areas.

Mr. Berlin said they were supplying chairs based on their

meetings with the users. Ms. Hardenburg said that her

parents were elderly, and she went to one of the Beaumont

facilities with them. She repeatedly found parking lacking,

and she could never find a handicap spot. She had to drive

them up, get the wheelchairs out, put them inside the

building and go find a parking spot. There had been times

where she actually had to wait for a regular parking space,

and she had been tempted to park on the road. Inside, the

waiting rooms were full. She cautioned them to make sure

they had enough spaces because not only would they have

offices; it would be open for people to come at any time to

use the wellness facility. She stressed that the parking was

very important, especially for the type of facility they were

proposing.

Mr. Berlin said that a lot of the waiting areas had

sub-waiting rooms. There was the main waiting room, but

there would be a sub-waiting room in the imaging center,

for example. There were locker rooms in the physical

therapy area, with more space. Dr. Easton would be

providing a large waiting room, and library and education

spaces. He was confident there would be ample room in

addition to the front waiting room. Ms. Hardenburg brought

up again that they were only allowing one parking spot for

every 215 square feet. Mr. Berlin said they were providing

one space for every 100 square feet in the waiting rooms.

Ms. Hardenburg maintained that there were times when the

doctors got backed up and she had been having a hard

time, personally, trying to find parking. Mr. Hunt agreed that

they had parking issues at their Coolidge facility, and they

wanted to avoid repeating that situation. Some of his team

members were certified in lean management and process

flow, similar to traffic engineers who were like space

planners for medical uses. It would be the worst thing for

them if they did not have parking. He indicated that if they

were short, they had alternatives. They had worked with the

City of Troy for years, and they currently parked staff at the

park across South Boulevard and shuttled them. He stated

that alternative would be the first line of defense. If that did

not work, they would look at staggering the hours of

operation, or lastly, go to underground detention. The

building next door (Wellpointe) would like Beaumont to

open its parking lot for their people to use, which he thought

was scary. He knew what Ms. Hardenburg was talking

about, but if they were required to allow Wellpointe to use

their lot, they could have parking problems. From their

standpoint, they had all physician offices, and their turnover

was not as brisk as Beaumont’s would be. The total square

footage and usage was less intense, and he was

comfortable that Mr. Berlin and his engineers had done a

nice job planning the project.

Ms. Hardenburg referred to the timing of the lighting, and

said the packet showed that the hours of operation would

be 8: 00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for the

medical offices, and that the wellness facility would be

open from 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Saturday would be 7:00

a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Sunday would be 10:00 a.m. to 7:00

p.m. She asked if that was correct, and Mr. Hunt said it was

about right, although he was not sure people would come at

5:30 a.m. Some employees could come that early to get

ready. Ms. Hardenburg asked if the lighting in the parking

lot would correspond. Mr. Hunt agreed that it would. Ms.

Hardenburg pointed out that the buffer would be bare for 90

feet in two places, and she asked if there was a reason why

they could not put in something lower, that would still

somewhat meet the intent, but not cover the entire building.

Mr. Ostrowski agreed that there was no reason they could

not add some lower growing plantings; they had just not

explored it. He mentioned that the area sloped down

toward M-59, so the value of shrubbery would be to

stabilize the slope, which the lawn would do also. They

proposed a native grass seed mix along the embankment

toward M-59. It would be attractive, but would not require

constant maintenance and mowing. Ms. Hardenburg said

that the building would be three stories high, close to M-59,

and she stated that it would be seen. She indicated that

she understood reducing the width of the buffer, but she

was not sure why they would leave open spaces and

eliminate some of the height. Mr. Ostrowksi said that

starting on the western-most property line, there would be

16 evergreen trees that, at maturity, would be 50 feet high

and completely obscure the building to eastbound traffic on

M-59. He indicated that 90 feet sounded like a lot, but for

someone traveling 65-70 miles per hour, it would not seem

so much. It was a short window to try to identify the building

with signage. They wanted to attract people from all over.

Ms. Hardenburg said that people would already have an

appointment there. Mr. Ostrowksi responded that there

could be some confusion because of the medical building

immediately to the east. Ms. Hardenburg did not think they

necessarily needed to put in 50-foot trees, but she thought

they could supplement the IVO, and their sign would still be

visible on top of the building. Mr. Ostrowski said that a

canopy tree was required for the buffer, and there were

specific guidelines for vegetation. Ms. Hardenburg

reminded that the IVO was required to go all the way

across, and they were asking for a Modification, and she

remarked that she was trying to modify it. Mr. Hunt

suggested that he would rather see trees along South

Boulevard, where cars could see them. On the back, the

trees would be between a roadway and a building, and it

would be hard to see them going 70 miles per hour. If they

had to plant more trees on the site, he would suggest

planting them in front. Ms. Hardenburg noted that there

would be windows in the back of the building, so someone

on a treadmill would see those trees. Mr. Berlin agreed.

Ms. Hardenburg said it was only her opinion about the

buffer; she was not sure what the other Commissioners

thought.

Mr. Kaltsounis said that he agreed with Ms. Hardenburg

about the gaps in the IVO. The applicants stated that the

trees at full maturity would be 50 feet high. He recalled that

the Commission had granted a Modification for a

Walgreen’s for spacing for signage. They tried to be

reasonable, but he felt they made a mistake, and that it did

not work out. The execution was poor and the trees were

rather slight. He agreed with Ms. Hardenburg that in 15

years, people would know the Beaumont building was

there. He did not see why they could not add some type of

tree that would not grow 50 feet high. He believed there

were many options, and he would like to see something

added. Mr. Ostrowski said they could work on it with the

City.

Mr. Kaltsounis referred to the north end of the building, and

pointed out the MRI pad. Mr. Berlin said it was for an MRI

mobile truck. Mr. Kaltsounis asked how long the truck

would stay. Mr. Hunt advised that it would be there five

days a week. Mr. Kaltsounis asked if it would block a

driveway, and was told no. Mr. Berlin said that the drive

was meant only for the MRI. They worked with the Fire

Department regarding access around the building. Mr.

Kaltsounis asked if there would be an MRI in the building,

and Mr. Hunt told him that there could be one potentially,

but it would require a Certificate of Need, and they would

have to do a certain number of studies per year to qualify

for it. In his ambulatory division, there were four other sites

that had mobile pads. They believed that it would be there

five days a week because of the orthopedic group. Mr.

Kaltsounis asked if the width of the driveway was looked at.

Mr. Delacourt said that the Fire Department was quite

happy with it, because the City normally did not see drives

on that side of buildings along M-59. It had the appropriate

gating and knox system, and the Fire Department did not

have an issue with it. Mr. Kaltsounis said that the truck

would be seen from M-59 five days a week through the

open area. Mr. Ostrowski remarked that they would put

trees there.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked why there were no windows in the

back on the bottom level. Mr. Berlin said that was where

the building services and the receiving and electrical

spaces would be. The imaging area would not be allowed

to have windows. It made sense to keep the windowless

areas on the first floor. Mr. Hunt said that it was still

medical office, but it was designed for a specific long-term

imaging use, which did not require windows. If it were

converted to physician offices, they would want windows.

Mr. Kaltsounis said that the other elevations looked great,

but that view was a step back, and it would be what he saw

every time he drove by. Mr. Berlin did not believe he would

be able to see down to that level. Mr. Checota added that

the amount of glass on the building was significantly higher

than they typically did around the country. They did

outpatient buildings all over, and the proposed building

would have much more glass than a typical medical office

building.

Mr. Kaltsounis brought up the parking counts, and that the

applicants said they were very close to what they needed.

They believed the required spaces were 365 and they

proposed 377. He asked if the required spaces were based

on the Ordinance. Mr. Delacourt answered that it was the

standard the applicants submitted with their documentation

based on other similar facilities. The City did not have a

standard for the proposed use. Mr. Kaltsounis said that if

the City required one for 150 s.f. and they proposed one for

every 215, it would appear that they would need double the

parking for regular medical office. Mr. Delacourt said it was

much closer to the professional office standard, which was

one for every 200 square feet. Staff was comfortable with

the parking provided, especially since the parking could be

expanded if necessary, and because of the use. Mr. Hunt

said it was different from a typical medical office building

where a physician might see multiple patients. With this

case, a patient might go to the spine center and then down

to the imaging center, then go for rehab, so patients would

be there considerably longer than was typical. Mr.

Kaltsounis thought with that information that they were fairly

close to where they needed to be, but he had an issue with

the handicap spaces provided. He had been on crutches,

and he became very aware of walking patterns. At a

supermarket, all the lanes were perpendicular to the

surface of the building rather than parallel to the face. If he

was at this building, he could either walk on crutches down

the driveways or try to make it in between the cars and hit

everyone’s mirrors with his crutches. He asked if they

could turn the building so it was perpendicular to the

parking, noting that they would be sending people into the

driveways because there was not a designated walking

area coming from the back.

Mr. Berlin said there was a drop-off; but Mr. Kaltsounis said

he was talking about parking, not being dropped off. Mr.

Berlin said that if they had to turn the building, they could

not max the parking and they would be considerably short

with the drives. Mr. Kaltsounis felt it was a serious issue.

Mr. Berlin said he would probably have a temporary

handicap parking sticker. Mr. Kaltsounis commented that

they did not give them out easily. Mr. Checota said that

there was a balance trying to maximize parking and the

building, and he felt they had met the Ordinance. He said

he appreciated the concern, but he believed that to get the

parking right, it was the best layout. Mr. Kaltsounis said

they technically did not meet the Ordinance, and that they

were trying to decide on the hybrid option. Mr. Hunt

advised that the parking was similar at a couple of other

sites, and they had not had a problem with patients. In

addition to handicap, however, they had put in some

reserved signs, i.e., “reserved for therapy patients only.” He

suggested that they could add a group of dedicated

physical therapy spaces. Mr. Checota said he had seen

buildings where Staff was required to park on the far end of

the site when they came in. Mr. Delacourt mentioned that if

they rotated the parking, they would lose 34 spaces. He

stated that there really was no way to design for every

possible circumstance. In this instance, the trade-off in loss

of spaces was that normally, the City would require an

island in between the rows of parking and pedestrian

walkways to break up the parking, but they felt the design

was fair, given all the pushes and pulls of the site. Mr.

Kaltsounis said that at the intersection, people would be

going right and left and turning in to the drop off area, and

people would be coming down the driveway walking right

into all that.

Mr. Hunt said they had 377 parking spaces, and they

needed 365, so if they added a walkway down the middle of

the parking lot there, it would eliminate 10 spaces and it

might a solution for Mr. Kaltsounis.

Mr. Dettloff asked the applicants if they had crunched any

numbers regarding their total investment. Mr. Hunt said that

the total capital costs for the project would be approximately

$23 million dollars on the building side. For tenant

improvement it was another $8 million and the land

acquisition was $4.2, so it was a total of about $35 million.

Mr. Dettloff said that Mr. Yukon raised the issue about job

creation, and he asked if they could approximate the job

creation. Mr. Hunt said he believed there would be 200

from the hospital side; in addition, there would be the

medical office component, which would be about eight

employees for every 2,000 square feet, for a total of about

300 employees. Mr. Dettloff asked the projected timeframe

for construction and completion, given that they received all

the necessary approvals.

Mr. Hunt indicated that it was coinciding with the corporate

approval process at Beaumont. They received corporate

approval on April 14, 2008. They would go to the Capital

and Facility Committee on May 17 and the Board of

Directors on May 20. Hurdling the corporate approval was

the biggest, and they already completed that. There were

just some small nuances left, and when they got approval

from the Board, they would be ready to put a shovel in the

ground. He anticipated a July 2009 opening. Mr. Dettloff

asked if the wellness facility was the first of its type. Mr.

Hunt said it was, and Mr. Dettloff asked if Beaumont was

planning more of them for growth and the future of health

care. Mr. Hunt said that was his job. They were acquiring

land now in Southeast Michigan for more outpatient

buildings and were planning five additional medical centers

over the next five years, and on the west side they were

contemplating a wellness center. Mr. Dettloff asked if all

financing was in place. Mr. Hunt said it was, and he

reiterated that the doctor had been patiently waiting for four

years for them to get to this point.

Chairperson Boswell summarized several points brought

up by some of the Commissioners, beginning with the gap

discussed for the Buffer Modification, and he suggested that

they could modify the height of the IVO. He asked if

anyone was opposed to putting some trees where the gaps

were, and saw no objection. He did not see why the motion

maker could not ask the applicants to fill in the gaps with

trees that were agreed upon by the City’s Landscape

Architect. He also mentioned parking, noting they did not

want too much or too little.

Mr. Hooper brought up that the City had various shopping

centers in the community, all with driveways in front of the

building, and that people had to cross them to get from the

parking lot to the center. It was difficult, but he thought that

giving up ten spaces for a dedicated walkway was not

really a good solution. He was encouraged to hear that the

applicants had alternatives such as offsite parking and

enclosing the detention pond, which would gain about 50

spaces if necessary. Chairperson Boswell said it was

suggested that they could reserve spaces for areas such as

physical therapy. Mr. Hooper thought those were all

reasonable alternatives, and he would rather see that than

losing parking. He indicated that they would probably see

migration from the building next door. He thought that they

could add a Condition stating that if, within two years, the

parking was deemed a problem, the applicant could put a

plan into effect to close the detention pond and provide

additional parking. Mr. Hunt thought that would be

reasonable. Mr. Hooper recommended that additional

signage giving greater accessibility to patients with

limitations could be added.

Mr. Hooper asked if they should add a Condition to the Tree

Removal Permit regarding a bond amount for the Tree

Fund, noting that it was not referenced. Chairperson

Boswell agreed that the replacement trees and landscaping

were mentioned for the Site Plan motion, but there was

nothing about the monies into the Tree Fund. Mr. Delacourt

said that the City’s Landscape Architect reviewed the

numbers prior to the meeting, and he suggested leaving the

Condition under the Site Plan as worded because there

would be adjustments, but a cost estimate for the Tree Fund

was added to Condition three. Ms. Brnabic then moved the

following motion:

MOTION by Brnabic, seconded by Hardenburg, in the

matter of City File No. 07-014 (Beaumont Center for Health

Improvement), the Planning Commission grants a Tree

Removal Permit, based on plans dated received by the

Planning Department on March 27, 2008, with the following

three (3) findings and subject to the following four (4)

conditions.

Findings:

1. The proposed removal and replacement of regulated

trees on-site is in conformance with the Tree

Conservation Ordinance.

2. The applicant is removing 213 regulated trees from

the site.

3. The applicant is proposing to locate 84.5 tree

replacement credits on site and pay into the tree fund

for 128.5 tree replacement credits.

Conditions:

1. Tree Protective Fencing for the entire length of the

adjacent east and west property lines must be

installed and inspected by the City’s Landscape

Architect, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

2. Add tree #72 to the tree survey list on Sheet S1 and

adjust tree calculations to 213, prior to Final Approval

by Staff.

3. List Trees #19, 20, 21, 60, 61, 62, 64, 129, 130, 172, 173,

185, 189 and 219 on the plan, prior to Final Approval

by Staff.

4. A performance guarantee of $21,973.50, as adjusted if

necessary by the City’s Landscape Architect, be

provided to cover the cost of the replacement trees

and payment into the tree fund.

A motion was made by Brnabic that this matter be Granted.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Reece

1 -

2008-0123

Buffer Modifications - City File No. 07-014 - Beaumont Center for Health Improvement

MOTION by Kaltsonis, seconded by Brnabic, in the matter

of City File No. 07-014 (Beaumont Center for Health

Improvement), the Planning Commission grant a Buffer

Modification to reduce the buffer width along the northern

property line to 16’4”, based on plans dated received by the

Planning and Development Department on March 27, 2008

with the following three (3) findings and subject to the

following one (1) condition:

Findings:

1. The buffer is required along M-59, and there are no

adjacent residential neighbors that a Modification

would impact.

2. The applicant would like the building to be somewhat

visible from M-59.

3. The proposed plan meets the criteria of Section 138-

1218 to allow the Planning Commission to modify or

waive the buffer requirements for the proposed

development.

Condition:

1. That the gaps in the IVO shown on the drawings

received March 27, 2008, be filled in with lower

plantings at a minimum of 15 feet; types and species

to be determined by the City’s Landscape Architect

prior to Final Approval by Staff.

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

Granted.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Reece

1 -

2008-0074

Site Plan Approval Request - City File No. 07-014 - Beaumont Center for Health

Improvement.

Prior to acting on the following motion regarding the Site

Plan, the Commissioners discussed at length the issue of

reserving areas of parking nearer to the building for people

with limited mobility, and also the applicant’s alternate

plans in case there were problems with a lack of parking.

Mr. Schroeder asked if they informed the City of Troy that

there would be a new building across from the park. Mr.

Hunt said it was not in an agreement, but the park had been

used for parking off and on over the years. There were

times they needed it and times they did not. The City had

never had an issue, and even gave Beaumont an

easement to have an employee entrance and exit, and he

indicated that they had been very cooperative. He added

that the park was fairly empty during the day. Conditions 13

and 14 were added to the motion.

MOTION by Kaltsounis, seconded by Hardenburg, in the

matter of City File No. 07-014 (Beaumont Center for Health

Improvement), the Planning Commission approves the Site

Plan, based on plans dated received by the Planning and

Development Department on March 27, 2008, with the

following six (6) findings and subject to the following

fourteen (14) 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 South Boulevard.

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.

6. The applicant appeared before the Planning

Commission on three occasions, and based on

information provided by the applicants, the

Commission determined that the proposed health and

wellness center use could be an accessory use in the

O-1 district.

Conditions:

1. The applicant shall obtain a Land Improvement

Permit prior to starting any work on site.

2. All off site drainage easements, stormwater agreements,

storm water outlet, drive approach paving and

calculations regarding the underground detention

system must be reviewed and approved by

Engineering Services, prior to Construction Plan

Approval.

3. Appropriate approvals from the Oakland County Drain

Commissioner regarding the Van Maele Drain must

be obtained prior to issuance of a Land Improvement

Permit for this project.

4. Provide a continuous center left-turn lane along South

Boulevard across the entire site, tying into the existing

center left turn lane to the east, per HRC letter dated

April 24, 2008, prior to Construction plan approval.

Also provide a note on the Site Plans indicating that

the requested improvement will be provided.

5. Provide a dedicated right-turn lane and deceleration lane

across property frontage to service both driveways,

per HRC letter dated April 24, 2008, prior to issuance

of a Land Improvement Permit.

6. Appropriate approvals for land improvements and drive

approach locations along South Boulevard must be

approved by the Road Commission for Oakland

County prior to issuance of a Land Improvement

Permit.

7. A performance guarantee, amount to be determined after

irrigation system and corrected tree survey, as

adjusted if necessary by the City’s Landscape

Architect, shall be provided to ensure the proper

installation of replacement trees and other

landscaping. Such guarantee to be provided by the

applicant prior to issuance of a Land Improvement

Permit.

8. Submission of complete irrigation system design

documents, including cost estimate for installation

and materials, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

9. Change number of accessible parking spaces indicated

on Sheet SP1 in the parking information to 24, prior to

Final Approval by Staff.

10. Address balance of conditions in Building Department

memo of April 4, 2008 (#2-8), prior to Staff approval of

Building Plans.

11. Address conditions of Fire Department memo dated

April 2, 2008, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

12. Revise parking count to 378 stalls on Sheet L-2 and in

parking information on SP-1, prior to Final Approval by

Staff.

13. Additional signage shall be added - reserving three

parking spaces per physical therapy team - to the

southern parking area across from the handicap

spaces, prior to Final Approval by Staff.

14. Any parking shortage shall be alleviated within 90

days, to the satisfaction of City Staff.

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

Approved.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Brnabic, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Kaltsounis, Schroeder and

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Reece

1 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motions

had passed unanimously, and he thanked the applicants

for bringing this project, which he said would be a great

asset, to Rochester Hills.

2008-0192

Request for Approval of a Conditional Land Use to construct outdoor seating for 18 for

Crust Pizza & Wine Bar located at 2595 Rochester Road in Barclay Square, on the

southeast corner of Barclay and Rochester Road, zoned B-2, General Business, Crust

Pizza, applicant.

(Reference: Staff Report prepared by Derek Delacourt,

dated May 6, 2008 had been placed on file and by

reference became part of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant was Paul Weisberger, 380 Old

North Woodward, Suite 175, Birmingham, MI 48009, owner

of Barclay Square.

Chairperson Boswell asked if the owners from Crust Pizza

would be in attendance. Mr. Weisberger said he had gotten

a call that they were sick with the flu and unable to make it.

He commented that the emotional and passionate plea

from the tenant, which was driving the matter, could not be

presented, so he would try in the tenant’s stead to convey

what he had been told. He pointed out that as their tenants’

health went, so did theirs as a shopping center.

Mr. Weisberger referenced the retail center on Rochester

and Barclay Circle. He advised that Crust’s owner, Mr. Jon

Sherer, had approached him and said they had a great

opening, but that unfortunately, the economy was slow and

the product they were offering was not bringing in the

people for whatever reason. It could partly be due to the

lack of visibility from the road. Mr. Weisberger maintained

that it was important for the viability of the business to have

outdoor seating approved. The business in question,

although struggling lately, was the unique draw to the

center. There were draws from Chipotle, but generally

speaking, people came to the center to go to Crust. Crust

brought traffic to the center and to the other tenants. He

was approached with a number of things the tenant wanted

to do, including modifing the space inside to put in a nicer

waiting/bar area, but he really wanted to add a nice looking,

attractive patio. Mr. Weisberger mentioned that those were

popping up more and more in Birmingham, and he showed

photos of some of those patios.

Mr. Weisberger advised that the patio would be built on a

wood platform that would be broken down and removed

after the season, and it would be used from mid-May until

the end of September. They proposed the location on one

parking space, with a nice railing and planters around the

railing. He clarified that the recommendation from the City

was to center the outdoor seating on two parking spaces,

because it was felt that would give more of a buffer from the

adjacent cars. He had talked with a neighboring tenant,

who had come to the meeting, and she was in favor of

moving it because of the proximity to her learning center’s

front windows. The noise would be reduced also. He knew

that Chipotle was allowed to have speakers outside, but he

asked if there could be a condition to prohibit speakers for

Crust for the benefit of the learning center.

Mr. Weisberger stated that small businesses and

restaurants saw the outdoor seating as an asset. They City

of Birmingham thought so also, and people were taking

advantage of them. The places in Birmingham were

actually taking up public parking spaces, but Crust would

like to accommodate their patio within the shopping center.

The center had two extra parking spaces per Ordinance on

the original Site Plan, and he reiterated that they would only

be using the two spaces for five months or so. He referred

to a letter he had submitted, which went through the criteria

for a Conditional Land Use, and said he believed they met

all the conditions.

Mr. Schroeder indicated that by using only one parking

space, they would lose two more. He suggested that it

would be better if they used two parking spaces and left a

space on each side for people to open their doors or walk

between the cars and seating area. By using two spaces,

they also would probably end up with more width for the

deck. He emphasized that there had to be enough room for

cars to turn in. He said he would be all for the patio if it was

centered on two spaces.

Mr. Weisberger agreed they could accommodate that. Mr.

Delacourt said he would like to see at least three feet on

each side and no increase in the proposed seating, which

would allow them to spread the seating out a little more.

Mr. Weisberger said that would also allow the possibility for

additional landscaping planters.

Mr. Schroeder asked if there would be any lighting. Mr.

Weisberger said there was none proposed. He assumed

they would need something at night, and Ms. Hardenburg

said she had seen umbrellas with lighting. Mr. Schroeder

asked how late the deck would be open. The tenant in the

audience informed that they closed around 10 or 11 p.m.,

but lately they were gone by 9:00 p.m., when she closed.

Mr. Schroeder asked if Chipotle would want the same thing.

Mr. Delacourt advised that they had outdoor seating

incorporated with the original Site Plan. Rather than a

wood deck, they had a raised concrete pad on the site. Mr.

Weisberger hoped that Chipotle would be glad about

having more traffic for the whole center, and he did not see

a negative impact for Chipotle. Their goal as the landlord

was the viability of each and every tenant, so they would

like to see Crust approved.

Mr. Yukon clarified that there would be 18 seats, noting that

the handicap accessible spot did not show a chair and was

only demarked by a hatched line. Mr. Yukon asked if the

structure would be permanent or if they would take it down

after the season. Mr. Weisberger said it would be made of

wood and taken down. Mr. Yukon referred to the sidewalk

in front of the storefronts, and he asked how the pedestrians

would move around the area. He wondered if they could

walk through or if they would have to go around the

structure. Mr. Weisberger explained that there would still be

a five-foot sidewalk. It was seven feet, six inches total, and

the patio’s overhang would be two and a half feet, leaving a

five-foot clear walkway. There would be no planters in the

way, and it would meet the ADA requirements. Mr. Yukon

questioned what would be in place to make sure someone

coming out of the restaurant going north to the parking lot

was safe from cars. Mr. Weisberger said that the seating

area would be low profile, and that most every type of car or

van could be seen. The height of the railing would be about

four feet, and the structure would not be opaque, so people

could see any traffic through it.

Mr. Dettloff said he totally supported this type of idea,

because he felt it was a great amenity for a restaurant. He

thought that a lot of customers looked for that sort of thing.

He asked about maintenance for the structure, noting that

there would be food and beverages served, and whether

Mr. Weisberger, as the property owner, would maintain the

power washing or if it would be the responsibility of the

restaurant owner.

Mr. Weisberger said it would be the restaurant owner. He

commented that Crust was a first rate operation, and he did

not think they would let someone’s gum stick anywhere.

Mr. Dettloff said he would agree with that, but he would like

to see something done on a semi-regular basis so there

were no issues. He suggested a condition that committed

the owners to cleaning up the area, should the tenants not

carry out the property maintenance. Mr. Dettloff asked

about serving alcohol, and if he could assume they would

require the owners to have the necessary insurance in

place because of the additional liability. Mr. Weisberger

said it was a good point, and he would make sure that they

did. Mr. Dettloff recalled that Mr. Weisberger represented

that none of the other tenants - Beauty First and the Fruit

Bouquet, for example - objected to the proposal. Mr.

Weisberger said that as far as he knew, they had all been

made aware. The owner of the learning center was

supposed to sit down with the owner of Crust and discuss

the proposal, but that did not happen. She was at the

meeting to find more information, and he and she

discussed things such as noise and location, and he felt he

had addressed any concerns she might have had. Mr.

Dettloff wondered if music would be allowed if, at some

point, the owners decided it would be nice to have. He was

not sure if that required a separate permit, but he wondered

where Mr. Weisberger stood with that.

Mr. Weisberg said he would respectfully request that the

Commission made it a Condition of approval, which would

give him some leverage. He would do a lease amendment

or say the Ordinance was being violated. Mr. Dettloff said

he thought Mr. Weisberger would use good judgment, and

he said he did not really object to music, as long as it was

kept at a low level. Mr. Weisberger said that they had to

accommodate everyone in the center. Mr. Dettloff assumed

the tenants/owners would discuss it amongst themselves,

and he did not think it was necessary to make it a Condition

of approval. Mr. Weisberger said he might consider it after

the other tenants closed for the evening. Mr. Dettloff asked

if the learning center was open every night until 9:00 p.m.,

and was informed that they closed at 9:00 Monday through

Fridays; 6:00 on Saturdays; and they were not open at all

on Sundays. Mr. Dettloff asked the regular hours for Crust

on the weekend, and was advised that they were usually

gone by 9:00 currently because of the low patronage. Mr.

Dettloff suggested that because people would be coming

out late from the nearby theatre, they might want to look at

the closing time. Mr. Weisberger said that was the original

plan - people would come there after the show. He

remarked that if he was driving down the road and he saw

an outdoor eatery, it would be somewhere he would want to

stop.

Mr. Kaltsounis said he did not want to sound too

pessimistic, but it bothered him that they could be setting a

new precedent. There were a lot of shopping plazas where

outdoor seating had been added on sidewalks, but this

would be going into parking spaces. The next person might

want to use a parking space across a driveway or

something else. It bothered him to see parking spaces

used for outdoor seating. He was concerned about it being

so close to the driveway. He did not think the places in

Birmingham were a good idea. He acknowledged the

proposal was not on a mile road, but he did not really think

he wanted to see parking spaces all over Rochester Hills

used as sit down eating places. He did not think he could

approve the plan as proposed, because he thought it would

be setting a bad precedent. It was just his opinion, and he

was not sure how the other Commissioners felt. He liked to

drive by developments and be happy he approved them,

and he would not be in this instance. He stated that he

would have to vote no if there was a recommendation to

approve.

Ms. Hardenburg was not sure that 18 spaces could fit on the

patio. When they started putting in tables and chairs, she

believed that the applicants would realize it might be

difficult. She questioned whether the Liquor Control

Commission required a special license to serve alcohol

outdoors. Mr. Delacourt agreed there was a requirement.

Ms. Hardenburg wondered if the applicant had looked into

that. Mr. Weisberger was not sure, but he stated that they

would have to follow the laws of the State. Ms. Hardenburg

thought they should have that before they put in the patio,

and then discovered they needed a special license. Mr.

Weisberger said he would contact the applicant after the

meeting to make sure he was processing an application.

Ms. Brnabic said she was somewhere in the middle with

the request. She did not have an objection to outdoor

seating, noting they were at locations around the City, but

she recalled that they were mostly confined to sidewalks.

She stated that she did not like what Birmingham did, and

she did not know why someone would want to have a meal

with traffic driving by. She shared some of Mr. Kaltsounis’

concerns, and said that she did not object to outdoor

seating arrangements, but she did not think she liked the

concept proposed.

Mr. Weisberger noted that the restaurant was a fairly

boutique type of eatery, and that it was very unique. He felt

it lent itself well to the food product, and he commented that

the Birmingham restaurant was packed every night,

although it probably had not been the best example to

show. He reminded that the seating would be on a

temporary basis. They only wanted to have the seating

when it was appropriate and seasonal, and he believed that

Crust would do it right, like they did with the interior of the

restaurant. He respectfully requested a positive

recommendation.

Mr. Hooper referred to Condition two, which said that the

dates of operation would be from April 15 to October 31st.

He asked Mr. Weisberger if he was looking at a narrower

time frame. Mr. Weisberger thought that May 15 to

September 15 was more realistic. Mr. Hooper asked if that

was o.k. with the tenant, and Mr. Weisberger said that he

had not really cleared it with him. He agreed that with an

approval they would always like something more lenient,

and then they could go with the market. Mr. Hooper noted

that the dates for other outdoor seating recommendations

(C.J. Mahoney’s, Pei Wei Asian Diner, etc.) were from April

15 to Oct. 31.

Mr. Hooper said he liked some things about the proposal,

and he mentioned that it was temporary and innovative. He

reiterated that the applicant might have an issue with the

Liquor Control Commission, because the seating area was

not enclosed or attached to the building, which could throw

the whole project out the window. People could come and

go because it was not totally enclosed. Other than that,

with the tough economy, he felt that for anything novel they

could do, within reason, to help the commercial client base

and give them a fighting chance, that he would be all for it.

He commented that he had eaten at Crust, and he felt that

the price structure might be the reason for fewer customers.

He said he would be in support of the proposal, provided

that all the conditions were met. The City had no control

over the Liquor Control Commission, which he stated might

pre-empt the whole project.

Mr. Schroeder said that the public would determine the

hours and the use. He moved the following motion, adding

a third condition that the project would be subject to the

Liquor Control Commission’s approval, and another

condition regarding moving the seating area to the west,

centered on two parking spaces. Chairperson Boswell was

not sure they should add a condition about the Liquor

Control Commission, because if the applicant did not get

approval, he would not be able to serve food outdoors,

either. Mr. Schroeder said it would be hard to control not

serving liquor outside. Mr. Weisberger asked if it would be

subject to the Liquor Control Commission only if the tenant

wanted to serve liquor. He believed the tenant would want

to go forward and utilize the patio either way, because it

was an eye grabber. The restaurant did not face the main

road, and it was lower topographically, and the seating area

was meant for people to see the restaurant and eat outside.

He felt that it would be a benefit to have tables with people

outside eating for others to see, even without alcohol

served, but he believed the tenant would apply for a license

to serve wine outdoors. Mr. Schroeder commented that if

the Liquor Control Commission did not approve a license,

the tenant would have to figure out how to control it, and the

Condition was not added.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Hearing at 9:46

p.m. Seeing no one come forward, he closed the Public

Hearing.

MOTION by Schroeder, seconded by Dettloff, in the matter

of City File No. 86-745.3 (Crust Pizza and Wine Bar), the

Planning Commission Recommends City Council Approve

the Conditional Land Use for outdoor sales and service of

food and beverages for Crust Pizza and Wine Bar, located

at 2595 Rochester Rd., based on the plans dated received

by the Planning Department on April 24, 2008 with the

following five (5) findings and subject to the following three

(3) conditions:

Findings:

1. The subject site will utilize parking spaces for the

seating, retaining the required number of parking spaces,

and does not appear that it will be detrimental, hazardous,

or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses,

persons, property or the public welfare.

2. The existing development promotes the intent and

purpose of this chapter.

3. The subject site has been designed, constructed,

operated, maintained and managed so as to be compatible,

harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the

existing or planned character of the general vicinity,

adjacent uses of land, the natural environment, the capacity

of public services and facilities affected by the land use,

and the community as a whole.

4. The subject site is served adequately by essential public

facilities and services, such as highways, streets, police

and fire protection, drainageways, refuse disposal, or the

persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of

the land use or activity shall be able to provide adequately

any such service.

5. The subject site does not create additional requirements

at public cost for public facilities and services that will be

detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.

Conditions:

1. Correct Parcel Number under legal Description on

Sheets C-01 and SPA-2 to 15-26-351-019, prior to Final

Approval by Staff.

2. Dates of operation for outdoor seating will be from April

15th until October 31st.

3. Move seating area to the west and center it on parking

line between two parking spaces.

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

Recommended for Approvalto the City Council Regular Meeting.

The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

Boswell, Dettloff, Hardenburg, Hooper, Schroeder and Yukon

6 -

Nay

Brnabic and Kaltsounis

2 -

Absent

Reece

1 -

Chairperson Boswell stated for the record that the motion

had passed six to two and wished the applicant good luck.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Brnabic asked if a 7-11 was coming to the corner of

Auburn and Livernois, indicating that she had heard

something to that effect. Mr. Delacourt had not seen any

plans, but he was not sure if any one had spoken with Mr.

Anzek.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next regular meeting was

scheduled for May 20, 2008.

ADJOURNMENT

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

motion by Kaltsounis, the Chair adjourned the regular meeting at 9:50 p.m.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

_____________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

Rochester Hills Planning Commission