Crystal Report Viewer

1000 ‎Rochester Hills Dr‎. ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎

48309‎

(‎248‎) ‎656‎-‎4600‎

Home Page‎: ‎

www‎.‎rochesterhills‎.‎org‎

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, January 5, 1999

CALL TO ORDER

Vice Chairperson James Rosen called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎

7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Vice Chairperson James Rosen‎

William Boswell‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

Audrery Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Director of Planning‎

Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Robert Kagler, McKenna Associates‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

John Staran, City Attorney‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Letter and Exhibits dated January ‎4‎, ‎1999‎ from Gregory Gamalski of ‎

Maddin, Hauser, Wartell, Roth, Heller & Pesses, P‎.‎C‎. ‎regarding ‎

Agenda Item III‎.‎A‎.‎, Short Ridge Estates‎. ‎

B‎.‎ E‎-‎Mail message dated January ‎2‎, ‎1999‎ from David Laine regarding ‎

Agenda Item III‎.‎A‎.‎, Short Ridge Estates‎.‎

C‎.‎ Letter dated ‎14‎ December ‎1998‎ from Mayor Kenneth Snell to Joe Altz ‎

regarding the Master Land Use Plan Update Old Town Area‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1893

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎- ‎Short Ridge Estates, a ‎

27‎-‎lot single family residential site condo development on ‎9‎.‎9 ‎acres, located on ‎

the north side of Shortridge, east of Livernois, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎34‎-‎326‎-‎002‎, zoned ‎

R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, Herbert Lawson, Windham Realty, ‎6022 ‎W‎. ‎

Maple, Suite ‎415‎, West Bloomfield, MI ‎48322‎, Applicant‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated December ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎has been ‎

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

Present for the applicant was Gregory Gamalski and Jennifer Sternberg of Maddin, ‎

Hauser, Wartell, Roth, Heller & Pesses on behalf of Shortridge Estates; Carol Platell ‎

of Atwell Hicks‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gamalski explained that Herbert Lawson was ill and unable to ‎

attend but instructed him to proceed with the presentation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gamalski referenced his letter dated January ‎4‎, ‎1999 ‎with Table of Contents and ‎

Exhibits attached which attempted to address the issues raised at the November ‎10‎, ‎

1998 ‎meeting as they understood them‎. ‎The only item he wished to emphasize tonight ‎

was the provisions of Section ‎4‎.‎01 ‎and Chapter ‎4‎-‎16 ‎of the Code of Ordinances‎. ‎

They are submitting their plan under the single family detached condominium ‎

ordinance, which sets out certain criteria and incorporates the subdivision ordinance ‎

by reference‎. ‎Specifically Section ‎4‎.‎01‎, ‎.‎04‎, and ‎.‎05 ‎includes certain things that must ‎

be included in their plan, such as is the property properly zoned, are adequate utilities ‎

provided, comprehensive development plan was not required by the Planning ‎

Department because there did not appear to be a likelihood of further development in ‎

the subject neighborhood, a reasonable street layout, environmental impacts‎. ‎

Therefore, it is their position that there is really no decision to be made as they meet all ‎

the requirements of the statute, there is no issue in the ordinance that they have not ‎

addressed according to the criteria that are spelled out, and they are entitled to an ‎

approval of the subject site plan as a matter of law‎. ‎They are happy to discuss all the ‎

other issues that were raised, such as Special Assessment District, replatting the ‎

subject parcel, harmony with the surrounding neighborhood‎. ‎He would ask that the ‎

project be considered on the basis of the materials submitted‎. ‎They are prepared to ‎

answer any questions‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gamalski pointed out that the plan has been revised to remove the natural features ‎

setback modification which was denied at the November ‎10‎, ‎1998 ‎meeting; no ‎

variances are being requested‎. ‎One lot has been removed to make a total of ‎26 ‎lots, ‎

which is a reduction from ‎30 ‎lots in their original proposal‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gamalski also distributed a packet of site plans attempting to address issues that ‎

were raised at the November ‎10‎, ‎1998 ‎meeting‎. ‎There were a total of ‎8 ‎sheets ‎

including plats of other subdivisions in the city‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi noted that the agenda has not been updated to reflect only ‎26 ‎lots‎. ‎Item ‎

2‎-‎the Wetland Use Permit and Item ‎3‎-‎Natural Features Setback Modification are no ‎

longer needed since the plan has been modified to eliminate those requests‎. ‎Decisions ‎

by the Planning Commission are required only on Item ‎1‎-‎Tree Removal Permit and ‎

Item ‎4‎-‎Preliminary Site Condominium Plan Approval‎.‎

Member Boswell noted that Page One of Mr‎. ‎Gamalski's letter is dated January ‎4‎, ‎

1999 ‎and Pages ‎2 ‎through ‎14 ‎are dated December ‎30‎, ‎1998‎. ‎The city receiving the ‎

package on January ‎4‎, ‎1999 ‎with a table of contents and six exhibits attached did not ‎

allow sufficient time to review its contents‎. ‎Member Nowicki stated there has not ‎

been enough time to digest the letter from the applicant and review the ordinance ‎

provisions cited‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gamalski stated they would like a decision tonight‎. ‎They are entitled to approval ‎

based on the ordinance‎. ‎All the citations are in the letter to illustrate that they do ‎

comply with the ordinance‎. ‎He sees no need to further digest the information‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran stated that he also received a copy of Mr‎. ‎Gamalski's letter just today‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran summarized the letter since he has had a little more time to review it than ‎

the commissioners‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran discussed the issue of a condominium development ‎

within a platted subdivision without the requirement to replat‎. ‎He stated that it is not a ‎

violation of the Land Division Act or the Subdivision Control Act‎. ‎It is not necessary ‎

to vacate or amend the existing subdivision plat in order to proceed with the ‎

condominium development‎. ‎It was Mr‎. ‎Staran's opinion that one can plan and ‎

develop a site condominium on an existing plat without having to go through the ‎

process of amending or vacating the plat‎. ‎His office is still researching this issue as it ‎

has come up in other communities‎. ‎Site condominiums have been recognized for a ‎

number of years now as a lawful land development technique‎. ‎The former attorney ‎

general has opined that a development of property as site condominiums does not ‎

violate the Subdivision Control Act because a condominium does not involve the ‎

division or partition of land in the legal, technical sense, even though the finished ‎

product for all intents and purposes will look just like a ‎"‎normal‎" ‎subdivision‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Staran took exception to Mr‎. ‎Gamalski‎’‎s comment that the process tonight is ‎

something that must be done as a matter of law‎. ‎The Planning Commission‎’‎s decision ‎

tonight is a discretionary one, but guided by standards of the ordinance‎. ‎It is not a ‎

matter of law ‎-- ‎it is not an automatic‎. ‎The time limit requirement for subdivisions ‎

does not apply to condominiums‎. ‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair invited comments from those in attendance at the meeting even though ‎

this was not a Public Hearing‎.‎

Letter dated November ‎11‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Darren & Jacquelyn Brown, ‎811 ‎

Shortridge,‎ addressed to each commissioner, thanking the Planning Commission for ‎

attempting to drive compromise and expressing confidence that a solution can be ‎

found that would be acceptable to all parties‎.‎

Letter dated November ‎11‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Daryl Garrison, ‎3601 ‎Donaldson,‎ ‎

addressed to each commissioner, thanking the Planning Commission for hearing the ‎

concerns of the neighborhood‎.‎

Letter dated November ‎16‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Jeff and Donna Shoemaker, ‎761 ‎

Shortridge,‎ addressed to each commissioner and District #‎4 ‎representative, ‎

expressing thanks for voicing the residents' concerns, and the belief that the proposed ‎

development will be inconsistent with the nature of the existing neighborhood‎.‎

Letter dated November ‎12‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Brian A‎. ‎Graef, ‎845 ‎Shortridge,‎ ‎

addressed to each commissioner, thanking commissioners for their dedication and ‎

listening to neighbors' concerns, and submitting alternatives to the applicant‎.‎

Letter dated November ‎12‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Brian A‎. ‎Graef, ‎845 ‎Shortridge,‎ to ‎

Herbert Lawson with copies to commissioners, expressing interest in continuing ‎

meetings with the residents and urging commissioners to visit the area and observe the ‎

environment‎.‎

Letter dated November ‎27‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎Frank and Rose Brasza, ‎565 ‎

Shortridge,‎ addressed to each commissioner, thanking commissioners for their ‎

consideration of neighbors' concerns and hoping and praying for a compromise to ‎

maintain the integrity of the neighborhood‎.‎

E‎-‎mail message dated January ‎2‎, ‎1999 ‎from ‎David Laine, ‎695 ‎Shortridge,‎ ‎

strongly opposing the proposed ‎26‎-‎27 ‎home development as it is not harmonious with ‎

the surrounding neighborhood‎.‎

Jeanette Duncan, ‎868 ‎Shortridge,‎ owns a ‎2 ‎acre parcel with only one ‎

home on it‎. ‎She has had the opportunity to sell to allow an increased density next to ‎

her‎. ‎The density was her major concern‎. ‎She asked which ordinance presupposes ‎

the other, and why are they sometimes ignored‎. ‎The location of the detention pond is ‎

unsafe for children‎. ‎The proposed sidewalks will not be supplied to existing residents‎. ‎

She thought a traffic impact study should be done‎.‎

Ray Claussen, ‎530 ‎Shortridge,‎ was still opposed to the density but not ‎

opposed to development‎. ‎He perceives eight to twelve lots on the site‎. ‎He was ‎

concerned about the safety of existing residents with the increased traffic and speed if ‎

the road is paved‎. ‎He did a radar gun study and found the average speed on ‎

Shortridge to be ‎46 ‎miles per hour with more than ‎60 ‎cars in a two‎-‎hour period‎. ‎The ‎

detention pond could lead to child endangerment‎. ‎He asked why the city is not ‎

preserving open space with the existing two acre lots in the area‎.‎

Maredith Driscoll, ‎3736 ‎Orchardview,‎ thought the proposed development ‎

would set a precedent for future development‎. ‎In the ‎1970‎s she saw no indication that ‎

a ‎10 ‎acre lot would be divided into smaller lots‎. ‎The proposed development is not ‎

harmonious; it will disturb existing wildlife; it is incongruous; it will cause a major ‎

increase in traffic volume on an unpaved road; it will raise a number of safety concerns ‎

for children‎. ‎The existing residents have had to follow rules and restrictions when ‎

enhancing their homes‎. ‎It seemed that the rules were being changed in the middle of ‎

the game‎.‎

Jamie Dolmage, ‎3695 ‎Hazelton,‎ wished the property owner would have ‎

given the residents an opportunity to purchase the site and make it a park‎.‎

John Przybysz, ‎3120 ‎Primrose,‎ there is no harmonious transition to the ‎

existing neighborhood‎. ‎

Jeff Shoemaker, ‎761 ‎Shortridge,‎ the revised plan is still no good‎.‎

Brian Graef, ‎845 ‎Shortridge,‎ distributed two sheets to commissioners ‎

showing the impact of the proposed density‎. ‎He appealed to the Planning ‎

Commission's sense of reasoning‎. ‎He urged that the plan be denied on the basis of ‎

lack of harmony with the existing community‎.‎

David Niedbalski, ‎3403 ‎Hazelton,‎ the developer has just found a way ‎

around the Subdivision Control Act, and is just changing the name to a site ‎

condominium‎. ‎This could set a dangerous precedent‎. ‎

Bill Hagan, ‎525 ‎Shortridge,‎ the disruption to the area will be pathetic‎. ‎He ‎

was opposed to the development as it will not be harmonious‎.‎

Frank Brasza, ‎565 ‎Shortridge,‎ agreed with the previous speakers‎. ‎It ‎

appears that it is a legal matter that the developer is trying to shove down our throats‎. ‎

Darlene Sobieski, ‎3280 ‎Primrose,‎ did not speak‎.‎

There were no more comments from the public‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that it is very difficult for the Planning Department to reconcile the ‎

wishes of the neighborhood and meet the established standards of the Master Plan, ‎

which is a land use policy guide‎. ‎The Master Plan for Rochester Hills, and previously ‎

for Avon Township, sets forth a density factor map which was prepared and adopted ‎

by the community in the early ‎1970‎s‎. ‎That plan calls for a certain density throughout ‎

the city‎. ‎In the subject area the maximum density is ‎3‎.‎4 ‎units per acre‎. ‎The density ‎

sets the template for the zoning ordinance‎. ‎The zoning ordinance then sets forth the lot ‎

size, lot width, and setback requirements for any buildings established on individual ‎

parcels of land‎. ‎When a developer comes to the city with a proposal for development ‎

of the land, the master plan, the zoning ordinance, and the subdivision control ‎

ordinance or single family condominium act are used to evaluate the plan, in addition ‎

to neighborhood factors‎. ‎Staff does not have the privilege of rejecting a plan when it ‎

meets the density and zoning requirements, or when it does not violate the ‎

development standards for streets, roads, and infrastructure‎. ‎Today the Master Plan ‎

calls for far fewer lots than was called for in the early '‎70‎s‎. ‎The Master Plan that was ‎

adopted in the ‎1970‎s contemplated an ultimate population of over ‎100‎,‎000 ‎people‎. ‎

That plan was then superseded in the ‎1980‎s that reduced the density based on a new ‎

policy direction set by the legislative body to protect floodplains, wetlands and ‎

woodlands‎. ‎The city then purchased ‎235 ‎acres of primarily residential zoned land for ‎

parks and recreation‎. ‎That reduced the ultimate overall population of the community‎. ‎

The ‎121‎,‎000 ‎projected population was reduced to ‎81‎,‎000‎. ‎The Master Plan that is ‎

currently under review is looking at these remaining, ‎"‎residual‎" ‎parcels‎. ‎It is up to the ‎

community, through City Council's current Strategic Planning Process and the Planning ‎

Commission through the current Master Plan Update, to determine if it is time to ‎

change the density factors‎. ‎But the subject plan on the table is based on what has ‎

been adopted by the community, and staff is not in a position to reject the plan based ‎

on density because what's on the table is below the allowed density‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

clarified that it is not an issue of the city promoting the plan‎. ‎But there are ‎

development standards that have been adopted that the city is bound to follow‎.‎

Member Ruggiero clarified with Ms‎. ‎Platell that the revised plan submitted this evening ‎

increases the lot width on Cascade Drive, and that Lot ‎11 ‎has been moved into what ‎

was the open space on a previous plan where there is a large stand of trees‎. ‎Member ‎

Ruggiero recalled that it was the Planning Commission's hope that eliminating a lot, ‎

formerly Lot ‎7‎, would preserve more trees‎. ‎The plan submitted this evening takes ‎

more trees‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gamalski stated that they reformulated the plan since the request for ‎

a natural features setback modification was rejected‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gamalski did not ‎

understand that they received instruction from the Planning Commission specifically ‎

remove the original Lot ‎7‎. ‎They have reduced the total number of building sites‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Platell added in order to preserve the natural features setback they had to shift the ‎

road to the east‎. ‎Just eliminating the original Lot ‎7 ‎would not have addressed the ‎

concerns with the wetlands and the natural features setback‎. ‎Losing Lot ‎7 ‎was not the ‎

problem; part of the problem was the eyebrow of the street and the public utility ‎

easement‎. ‎The proposed Cascade Drive could not have been reconfigured with a ‎72 ‎

foot frontage, the same lot depth, eliminating Lot ‎7‎, and maintaining the open space ‎

because it did not fit‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Platell described the differences between The overall ‎

tree preservation count has not changed significantly because trees previously ‎

proposed for removal will now remain, and additional trees in other areas will be ‎

preserved‎. ‎The revised plan shows ‎82 ‎foot wide lots on Cascade, and there is now ‎

an open space along the western property line‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gamalski summarized that the whole project had to be shifted to the east as a ‎

result of having to move the road because the eyebrow of the road could not go into ‎

the wetlands‎. ‎The eyebrow is still there, even though there is no house there, because ‎

it facilitates fire truck movements in an emergency‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Platell clarified that ‎39‎.‎7 ‎percent of the trees will be saved, instead of ‎42 ‎percent‎. ‎

There are ‎486 ‎existing regulated trees on site, of which ‎294 ‎will be removed, which is ‎

10 ‎more trees than their previous submission‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gamalski explained that placing side yards facing Shortridge instead of front yards ‎

puts fewer driveways onto the street‎. ‎Member Gaber seemed to recall a discussion at ‎

the previous meeting regarding switching the two lots on Shortridge with the three lots ‎

on the south side of Capper Drive‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gamalski stated although there was ‎

discussion at the last meeting, there was no significant response to a preference by the ‎

Planning Commission‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi reviewed at the last meeting four difference ‎

schemes were presented with two of them showing three lots fronting directly onto ‎

Shortridge‎. ‎Some commissioners voiced a preference for that and some ‎

commissioners did not‎. ‎There was no actual consensus at that meeting‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gamalski acknowledged a ‎25 ‎foot landscape easement along Shortridge that will ‎

be given to the homeowners association‎. ‎If the homeowners association fails to ‎

maintain the buffer, the municipality is empowered to enforce it‎. ‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair confirmed with Mr‎. ‎Staran that there is no legal impediment to a site ‎

condominium project on previously platted land‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran responded that is his ‎

preliminary conclusion; he is checking further‎. ‎That is consistent with the way the city ‎

has processed similar projects in the past and the way other municipalities have also ‎

processed them‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran believed that it was immaterial when a plat was created ‎

- ‎either many years ago or recently‎. ‎All ordinance requirements apply equally whether ‎

a residential or commercial development or otherwise‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas felt pressured by the last minute letter‎. ‎Referring to the ‎

subdivision samples supplied by Mr‎. ‎Gamalski, Member Ramanauskas noted that all ‎

of them face a major street, whereas the proposed Short Ridge Estates does not‎. ‎To ‎

Member Ramanauskas it was not harmonious because it appeared to be a subdivision ‎

within a subdivision‎. ‎He saw little imagination in the design‎. ‎

Regarding the main thoroughfare, Mr‎. ‎Gamalski responded that the only guidance they ‎

had were the standards in the ordinance‎. ‎He emphasized that there is nothing in the ‎

ordinance under which they made application that says the subject project can only be ‎

done on a major thoroughfare‎. ‎The issue of harmony refers to what is within the city, ‎

not to what is next door to the proposed development‎. ‎

Member Nowicki mentioned that the samples of other subdivisions do not show ‎

abutting properties for comparison‎. ‎It appears to be a very selective sample‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Gamalski responded that he did not have the wherewithal to show abutting properties‎. ‎

He merely selected plats and condominiums in the city to show that the proposed ‎

development is in harmony with other subdivisions within the city‎. ‎

Member Gaber noted that the city has ordinances, and it is the Planning Commission's ‎

job to administer those ordinances they are empowered to‎. ‎The density is the main ‎

issue with the proposed development, and density is controlled by the zoning ‎

ordinance, not the subdivision control act‎. ‎The zoning ordinance permits a density of ‎

3‎.‎4 ‎units per acre for the area in which the proposed development is located ‎

regardless of what is existing in the area, such as two acre plots‎. ‎If commissioners ‎

disagree with the proposed development, the answer is not to take the word ‎

"‎harmony‎" ‎out of the preamble to the subdivision control ordinance, and say that ‎

trumps the zoning ordinance density requirements‎. ‎The Planning Commission must ‎

allow the zoning ordinance to be implemented as it is currently written, unless it is ‎

changed‎. ‎The issue of density is a zoning issue itself‎. ‎The Planning Commission ‎

should administer the zoning ordinance but look at the features of the proposed ‎

development and ask what can be done to make it a better development that is more ‎

compatible with the surrounding area‎. ‎One thing he did not hear from the residents ‎

was a critique of the submitted plan‎. ‎There were some comments about the detention ‎

area, but that was all‎. ‎There were no comments regarding side yards facing ‎

Shortridge or the design of the roadways‎. ‎

Member Krupa also took offense at the last minute letter provided by the applicant as ‎

he has not had time to digest it‎. ‎The proposed development gives the appearance of ‎

being its own little world, much like the proposed Country Club Village, which won't ‎

fit in with the rest of the neighborhood‎. ‎He was disappointed that more lots have not ‎

been removed to preserve trees and make slightly larger lots ‎-- ‎but not two acres in ‎

size‎. ‎He would have hoped that the revised plan would blend in better with the ‎

existing neighborhood in terms of ‎80 ‎foot wide lots facing Shortridge‎. ‎Member ‎

Krupa has not seen much willingness on the part of the applicant to accommodate the ‎

Planning Commission's concerns‎. ‎Just because the plan may meet the technical ‎

ordinance requirements, does not mean it must be rubber‎-‎stamped‎. ‎If that were the ‎

case, all commissioners could spend their Tuesday evenings elsewhere‎. ‎The Planning ‎

Commission has discretion on this‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran clarified that the subject review does not fall under Section ‎21‎.‎16‎.‎g‎. ‎of ‎

Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎. ‎Chapter ‎4‎-‎16 ‎of the Code of Ordinances is the standard that ‎

applies, which incorporates by reference the standards that would apply in a tentative ‎

approval of a preliminary plat‎. ‎The section that applies is under the heading ‎

"‎Compliance Criteria‎" ‎in subsection ‎4‎-‎01‎.‎05‎.‎04‎.‎b‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran clarified that Section ‎

21‎.‎17‎.‎d‎. ‎of Zoning Ordinance ‎200 ‎refers to discretionary decisions under the zoning ‎

ordinance‎. ‎A decision on the subject development is not a discretionary decision ‎

under the zoning ordinance; it's a decision under Chapter ‎4‎-‎16‎. ‎The zoning ordinance ‎

does not regulate site condominiums at all except for setbacks and such‎.‎

[ ‎Recess ‎9:10‎ p‎.‎m‎. - ‎9:22‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair reviewed the compliance criteria under Chapter ‎4‎-‎01‎.‎05‎.‎04‎.‎B‎. ‎of the ‎

Subdivision Control Ordinance for the Planning Commission to reference in making its ‎

decisions ‎-- ‎applicable ordinance code provisions and regulations, availability and ‎

adequacy of utilities, an acceptable comprehensive development plan, a reasonable ‎

street and lot layout and orientation, and an environmental plan showing no ‎

substantially harmful effects‎. ‎

To Members Nowicki and Krupa homes facing Shortridge would make it more ‎

harmonious with the existing neighborhood‎. ‎They recalled a similar concern discussed ‎

with the Country Club Village subdivision proposed on the Rochester Golf Course ‎

site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi pointed out that a sidewalk will be required across the front of the ‎

property regardless of whether homes face Shortridge or not‎.‎

To achieve greater harmony with the existing neighborhood Member Gaber discussed ‎

reconfiguring the lots to have ‎6 ‎homes fronting Shortridge and move the detention ‎

pond farther to the north by a couple lots‎. ‎That would maintain the same number of ‎

lots‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Platell described the ‎25 ‎foot buffer and the landscaping around the detention ‎

pond‎. ‎Evergreens would be ten feet in height as planted, deciduous trees would be ‎

three inch caliper as planted‎. ‎In front of the detention pond will be ten‎-‎foot ‎

evergreens and white pines and ten to fifteen feet apart for proper growth‎.‎

Regarding moving the detention pond slightly to the north as was requested at the ‎

previous meeting, Ms‎. ‎Platell explained that the storm outlet is about six feet deep and ‎

rises two to four percent as it heads to the north‎. ‎In order to do that the pond had to ‎

be deeper‎. ‎It is a dry pond and will hold water only during a storm event‎. ‎Short of ‎

having a pumped outlet, it cannot be moved to the north‎. ‎

Referring to Mr‎. ‎Gamalski's concern about the number of curbcuts onto Shortridge as ‎

the reason for fewer lots facing Shortridge, Member Krupa did not think the number ‎

of curbcuts was a significant issue as Shortridge is not a major thoroughfare‎. ‎

Regarding tree preservation, Member Krupa suggested eliminating Lot ‎11 ‎to provide ‎

a better cushion in terms of tree preservation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gamalski was in favor of saving more trees, but he was not willing to eliminate ‎

any more lots‎. ‎He was not willing to give up a lot to save more trees‎. ‎That can be ‎

achieved through the master deed or a condition of an approval‎.‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair pointed out that the Tree Removal Permit will obviously need to be ‎

modified based on the elimination of Lot ‎11‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi anticipated that the number ‎

of trees preserved would increase due to the reconfiguring of lots‎. ‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Tree Removal Permit‎

‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎

(‎Short Ridge Estates‎)‎, to ‎grant the Tree Removal Permit ‎incorporating the five ‎

conditions in the Staff Memo dated December ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎plus a sixth condition and ‎

based on plans dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on ‎

November ‎30‎, ‎1998‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The applicant consider the trees identified by Linda Lemke & Associates as ‎

removals, and provide the necessary tree replacement credits for these trees‎.‎

2‎.‎ The applicant shall provide a performance guarantee in the amount approved by ‎

Staff to ensure the proper planting of the proposed replacement trees‎.‎

3‎.‎ The applicant shall pay into the Tree Fund, prior to issuance of a Land ‎

Improvement Permit, the equivalent cost of planting trees on‎-‎site to the Tree ‎

Fund for those trees not planted in the amount approved by Staff‎.‎

4‎.‎ The applicant adjust replacement tree locations so that they are at least ‎10‎ feet ‎

from underground utilities‎.‎

5‎.‎ The applicant indicate the location of tree protection fencing on the Tree ‎

Preservation Plan‎.‎

6‎.‎ The tree removal numbers be adjusted to reflect the elimination of Lot ‎11‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Krupa, Nowicki, Ramanauskas, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Kaiser ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Granted

2000-1894

Request for a Wetland Use Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎- ‎Short Ridge Estates‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair declared ‎Item ‎2‎. ‎Wetland Use Permit‎ and ‎Item ‎3‎. ‎Natural ‎

Features Setback Modification‎ ‎MOOT‎ as they are no longer needed‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin noted that the revised preliminary plan will need to be submitted before ‎

the final preliminary plan can be scheduled for Planning Commission review‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Preliminary Plat Sheets prepared by Atwell‎-‎Hicks Inc‎. ‎and dated ‎

received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on November ‎30‎, ‎1998‎; ‎

Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated December ‎28‎, ‎1998‎; Letters from Linda ‎

C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates dated December ‎18‎, ‎1998 ‎and September ‎18‎, ‎1998‎; Letter ‎

from Reid, Cool & Michalski, Inc‎. ‎to Mr‎. ‎Herbert Lawson dated November ‎9‎, ‎1998‎; ‎

Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated November ‎3‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from ‎

Atwell‎-‎Hicks, Inc‎. ‎dated November ‎2‎, ‎1998‎; Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi ‎

dated October ‎13‎, ‎1998‎; Letters from J & L Consulting Services dated ‎3 ‎August ‎

1998 ‎and ‎27 ‎May ‎1998 ‎with enclosures; Environmental Impact Statement prepared ‎

by Atwell‎-‎Hicks, Inc‎. ‎dated April ‎13‎, ‎1998‎; Land Use and Tree Removal Permit ‎

Application; Wetland Use Permit and Application; Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Commission Notice of Meeting for Wetland Use Permit and Tree Removal Permit‎.)‎

Discussed

2000-1895

Request for a Natural Features Setback Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎- ‎Short ‎

Ridge Estates‎

Discussed

2000-1896

Request for Preliminary Site Condominium Plan ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎- ‎Short Ridge ‎

Estates‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎(‎Short Ridge Estates‎)‎, to ‎

approve the preliminary site condominium plan ‎incorporating the findings in the ‎

packet, with no changes‎.‎

MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF ‎

A SECOND‎.‎

* * * * * * * *‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair asked for another motion to either approve with conditions or deny‎.‎

Member Gaber pointed out that even though the applicant has indicated an ‎

unwillingness to eliminate any more lots, a motion for approval can still be made with a ‎

condition to eliminate a lot‎.‎

Member Nowicki pointed out that it is not the Planning Commission's responsibility to ‎

reengineer the project‎. ‎However, Mr‎. ‎Staran thought that a condition could be made ‎

to change the project‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran stated the four options available to the Planning ‎

Commission ‎-- ‎approve the plan that's in front of the commission, approve the plan ‎

with conditions, deny the plan, or table the matter to allow the developer to make the ‎

suggested changes if he is willing to make those changes rather than risk a denial‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gamalski was amenable to flip‎-‎flopping lots in order to arrange frontage on ‎

Shortridge‎. ‎The applicant has worked with staff to preserve trees‎. ‎They can ‎

probably come up with some sort of restriction incorporated in the condominium ‎

documents to address the trees‎. ‎But they cannot take another lot out‎.‎

Since the applicant is not willing to eliminate another lot, Member Ruggiero suggested ‎

reorienting ‎2 ‎lots to face Shortridge for a total of ‎5 ‎lots facing Shortridge ‎-- ‎Lot ‎1 ‎and ‎

another one in the location of the proposed detention pond‎. ‎Some lots have been ‎

increased by ‎10 ‎feet along the west side of Cascade Drive; that increase could be ‎

recaptured‎. ‎This would help preserve the stand of trees in the current Lot ‎11‎. ‎

Fronting lots on Shortridge would help create a more harmonious‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Platell ‎

conceded it might be possible to do that although it would be close to the natural ‎

feature setback‎.‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair summarized the suggested changes‎: ‎have ‎5 ‎lots facing Shortridge, ‎

eliminate Lot ‎11 ‎and dedicate it to open space, renumber the remaining lots to still ‎

have ‎26 ‎lots total‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi suggested conditions to a motion to approve that would meet the ‎

developer's desire to not lose any more lots and yet maximize the tree preservation‎: ‎

Reorientate two lots on the west side of Cascade to front onto Shortridge; swap Lots ‎

16 ‎and ‎26 ‎with Lots ‎20‎, ‎21 ‎and ‎22 ‎so there are three lots between Cascade and ‎

Manasota facing Shortridge; reorientate current Lots ‎11 ‎through ‎15 ‎so that current ‎

Lot ‎11 ‎can be eliminated to maximize the number of trees saved; either shift the whole ‎

road infrastructure nine feet to the east, or eliminate the open spaces and keep the ‎

road the same to accomplish that; Lot ‎11 ‎would then become open space; shift Lot ‎5 ‎

a distance of ‎24 ‎feet to the south to enlarge the open space area; reduce the widths of ‎

Lots ‎2 ‎through ‎5 ‎to ‎72 ‎feet to avoid encroaching on the natural features setback on ‎

existing wetlands; maintaining a minimum of ‎85 ‎feet in width for the two lots on the ‎

west side of Cascade with ‎108 ‎feet along Cascade and ‎92 ‎feet at the corner‎. ‎The ‎25 ‎

foot landscape buffer along Shortridge would then disappear‎. ‎

Item ‎4‎. ‎Preliminary Site Condominium Plan Approval ‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎

(‎Short Ridge Estates‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎approve the Preliminary Site ‎

Condominium Plan ‎ with the five findings in the Staff Memo dated December ‎28‎, ‎

1998 ‎as modified and four conditions, based on plans dated received by the City of ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Department on November ‎30‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ All applicable Ordinances and Code provisions can be met‎.‎

2‎.‎ Adequate public utilities are available for use in the proposed development‎.‎

3‎.‎ A comprehensive development plan is not needed since the adjacent sites are not ‎

expected to be subdivided‎. ‎Therefore, no connections with the existing ‎

subdivision are expected‎.‎

4‎.‎ The preliminary plan indicates a reasonable street and lot layout has been achieved ‎

based on the conditions included in the motion‎. ‎The proposed layout allows ‎

all zoning standards to be met while at the same time protecting the wetlands ‎

and natural features setback on the property‎.‎

5‎.‎ An environmental impact statement and plan have been incorporated into the ‎

design and layout of the plan proposal showing no substantially harmful ‎

effects‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Reorient Lots ‎1‎ and ‎2‎ on the west side of Cascade to front onto Shortridge‎. ‎

2‎.‎ Swap Lots ‎16‎ and ‎26‎ with Lots ‎20‎, ‎21‎ and ‎22‎ and front Lots ‎20‎, ‎21‎ and ‎22‎ onto ‎

Shortridge between Cascade and Manasota‎.‎

3‎.‎ Reduce widths of Lots ‎2‎ thru ‎5‎ to avoid encroachment into the natural features ‎

setback of the existing wetlands‎.‎

4‎.‎ Eliminate current Lot ‎11‎ and specify as open space and reorient Lots ‎12‎ to ‎15‎ ‎

accordingly‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Nowicki, Ramanauskas, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Krupa‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Kaiser ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

2000-1909

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎012 ‎- ‎Powerhouse Center, a ‎

26‎,‎375 ‎square‎-‎foot retail center comprising a gymnasium, retail sales area and ‎

restaurant on ‎5‎.‎825 ‎acres, located on the south side of Auburn, east of ‎

Rochester Road, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎35‎-‎100‎-‎043‎, zoned B‎-‎3‎, Shopping Center ‎

Business, Minoru Yamasaki, Inc‎.‎, ‎6841 ‎North Rochester, Suite ‎300‎, Rochester ‎

Hills, MI ‎48306‎, Applicant‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated December ‎28‎, ‎1998 ‎has ‎

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

Philip Vestevich, property owner; Robert Szantner, architect with Minoru Yamasaki ‎

were present‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich highlighted the changes made to the site plan‎. ‎The building height has ‎

been reduced by one foot; the dumpsters have been changed to compactors‎. ‎

Regarding lowering the first floor elevation, they have concluded they are right on the ‎

limits of the city's engineering standards for maximum slopes for traffic safety‎. ‎They ‎

are trying to keep the building as low as possible for economic reasons; they cannot ‎

lower the height without compromising engineering safety issues related to access to ‎

the property and onsite circulation‎. ‎The other issues mentioned at the November ‎17‎, ‎

1998 ‎meeting are addressed in the staff memo‎. ‎The building layout has not changed‎.‎

Member Krupa asked if the issue of site plan approval versus revised site plan ‎

approved was ever resolved‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran responded that there are different ways of ‎

looking at it, all with little consequence, because one way or the other the Planning ‎

Commission has to approve or deny the subject site plan‎. ‎It was Mr‎. ‎Staran's opinion ‎

that the Planning Commission did not have to address anything with Meijer's in ‎

considering the subject site plan‎. ‎It is within the Planning Commission's purview to ‎

address the landscape buffer to assure that it is maintained because the conditions ‎

imposed on the Meijer's site plan are still in effect‎. ‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair accepted additional or new comments from the public although this ‎

was not a public hearing‎.‎

Nicole Stec, ‎505 ‎Buttercup Dr‎.‎,‎ expressed a heartfelt plea for a green zone ‎

between the adjacent Wildflower Subdivision and the encroaching commercialization‎.‎

Melinda Denninger, ‎3136 ‎Primrose,‎ whose house is just past the ‎

proposed garbage area, asked that the site plan be denied because she feels it does ‎

not meet ordinances‎. ‎The developer has resisted giving consideration to the needs of ‎

the residents‎. ‎It will have a negative impact on the city‎. ‎It is a bad design, and the ‎

developer should start over with the design‎. ‎She is afraid of flooding in the Wildflower ‎

Subdivision; the current drainage system is already overburdened‎. ‎The building should ‎

be a minimum of ‎100 ‎feet from the property line adjoining the subdivision‎. ‎Garbage ‎

and loading areas should be located at the farthest possible point from the residences‎.‎

John Przybysz, ‎3120 ‎Primrose,‎ reviewed the municipal powers in the City ‎

Charter‎.‎

Jamie Dolmage, ‎3695 ‎Hazelton,‎ suggested flip‎-‎flopping the building so the ‎

garbage would be in Meijer's parking lot‎.‎

Joe Peplinski, ‎3359 ‎Primrose,‎ concerned with anticipated drop in property ‎

values which will offset any tax base increase for the proposed development‎.‎

Robert Lahiff, address on file,‎ attorney for a group of Wildflower ‎

Subdivision residents, sent to commissioners a Supplemental Submission in ‎

Opposition to the proposed development‎. ‎His opinion is that it has been adequately ‎

demonstrated that the applicant is attempting to twist, subvert, and evade many ‎

technical requirements as well as the spirit of many of the ordinances applicable to the ‎

subject development‎. ‎The laws should apply to all‎.‎

There were no more comments from the public‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich addressed flipping the building‎. ‎From a planning point of view it is a ‎

very poor orientation for a commercial building as parking with attendant noise and ‎

disruption would be very close to the adjacent residences instead of the relative quiet ‎

of the back of the building‎. ‎With the front of the building facing west it would be ‎

oriented toward the commercial intersection, which gives the best exposure and ‎

makes it viable‎. ‎To orient the building to the east would be a formula for failure for the ‎

subject project‎.‎

Regarding the reduced building height Mr‎. ‎Vestevich stated that none of the building ‎

will be visible from the ground floors and backyards of adjacent houses‎. ‎From the ‎

second floors of homes only the very top of the proposed building would be visible‎. ‎

Even a part of the Meijer's building is visible from the second story of homes‎. ‎He ‎

bought the property two years ago from Meijer's‎.‎

Member Ruggiero discussed with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi the comment in Mr‎. ‎Lahiff's latest ‎

submittal that the lot width should be required to be ‎400 ‎feet from north to south‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Rizzardi stated that lot width is measured at the front yard setback line; the required ‎

lot width does not have to be for the entire length of the parcel‎. ‎That standard ‎

addresses structures on irregularly shaped lots and lots on a curve‎. ‎In the subject case ‎

the lot width is measured at the ‎75 ‎foot front yard setback line‎. ‎

Member Ruggiero also discussed with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi the comment in Mr‎. ‎Lahiff's latest ‎

submittal that parking spaces are improperly allocated in setback zones‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi ‎

responded that Footnote J in the Schedule of Regulations allows parking in the ‎

required front yard for B‎-‎3 ‎properties provided a ‎10 ‎foot greenbelt is provided ‎

between the proposed right‎-‎of‎-‎way line and the parking lot‎.‎

Member Ruggiero further discussed with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi the comment in Mr‎. ‎Lahiff's ‎

latest submittal regarding the wetland drainage course‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi responded that ‎

Dr‎. ‎Jaworski has determined that there are no regulated wetlands on the subject ‎

property because they are associated with the storm water detention basin‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎

Jaworski visited the site and reviewed national wetland maps as part of his ‎

determination and concluded that the drainage course was created by grading on ‎

adjacent properties‎. ‎It is not technically a storm water detention basin and is not ‎

designated as a wetland or drainage course on any official city maps‎. ‎The subject site ‎

was originally intended to be a third basin for Meijer's but it was never used as such‎. ‎

The other basins on Meijer's property are oversized to accommodate storm water ‎

detention‎. ‎Even though wetland vegetation exists on the site, it is not a designated ‎

wetland‎. ‎It also would not be regulated if it is man‎-‎made‎. ‎However, wetlands can be ‎

created under certain circumstances‎. ‎Member Ruggiero perceived that the subject ‎

site contains wetlands whether or not they were intentionally created‎. ‎She had trouble ‎

getting around that as well as what may happen in the future when another developer ‎

shows an aerial map from ‎20‎-‎odd years before which did not show a wetland and ‎

suggests that it was created by surrounding development‎. ‎Such a scenario occurred ‎

recently with Easthampton Subdivision No‎. ‎2‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that Dr‎. ‎Jaworski has been the city's recognized wetland ‎

professional since ‎1989‎. ‎The Commission could ask that he clarify his review‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi clarified that the so‎-‎called wetlands on the subject site are there as a ‎

result of a maintenance issue‎. ‎The water is there because of a restrictor and some ‎

type of clog‎. ‎If that was not there, the water would flow freely‎. ‎In order to meet the ‎

ordinance definition of wetland it would have to be at least two acres in size‎. ‎It is not ‎

being used as a storm water detention basin and maintained accordingly‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Staran discussed the responsibility of the City in supporting conclusions reached ‎

by a potential buyer of a parcel of land through his own due diligence‎. ‎Typically the ‎

City has no responsibility in that process except to make records and ordinances ‎

available‎. ‎Due diligence investigations are handled by the property owner and his own ‎

consultants‎. ‎The City is not involved in corroborating results‎. ‎A person can buy a ‎

given site with certain expectations and based on information provided by the city, but ‎

it still may not turn out the way one expects because the development process can be ‎

complicated and each step has different requirements‎. ‎It happens every day‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi reviewed the Meijer's original site plan requirements for the buffer were a ‎

50 ‎foot greenbelt with a ‎75 ‎foot setback‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szantner added that the height of the ‎

berm remains constant for its entire length, following the slope of the land; the berm ‎

varies in width from the minimum of ‎50 ‎feet near Auburn Road to almost ‎100 ‎feet to ‎

the south‎. ‎The berm will be narrowed by approximately ‎20 ‎to ‎30 ‎feet to provide for ‎

parking space depth and aisle width‎. ‎The height of the berm will still remain constant‎. ‎

The parking spaces are required to meet the ordinance‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added that ‎

extra parking spaces are included on the plan‎.‎

Member Krupa discussed the lighting plan with Mr‎. ‎Szantner‎. ‎As shown on the ‎

submitted photometric plan, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi described the range of foot‎-‎candles at the ‎

top of the berm from ‎4 ‎to ‎16 ‎or ‎17‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szantner explained that the effect of the ‎

landscaping will not create a glare source‎. ‎At the service door and dumpster location ‎

at the rear of the building the lighting fixtures have been placed on the wall and have ‎

been lowered below the height of the parking lot lamps‎. ‎They are willing to massage ‎

that to get the right effect, but they have already reviewed it with staff‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas wondered if the building could be T‎-‎shaped and face both the ‎

east and the west‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Vestevich responded that customers and deliveries would then ‎

co‎-‎mingle, which would not be desirable‎. ‎It would create congestion and traffic ‎

problems‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Szantner added that they could do something along that line to ‎

accommodate a specific tenant, but they would not want to design that into the ‎

building‎.‎

[ ‎Recess ‎11:26‎ p‎.‎m‎. - ‎11:35‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair summarized Commissioners' thoughts thus far regarding the subject ‎

parcel‎: ‎the parcel is an unusual shape, irregular in shape, similar to a dog leg or hockey ‎

stick; the difficulty in developing the subject site is due to the irregular shape of the lot ‎

and its directly abutting residential properties on the east; restrictions imposed by ‎

Meijer's impede development right up to the west property line‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich responded that the restrictions imposed by Meijer's have nothing to do ‎

with the location of the building; Meijer's retains the right to review and approve a ‎

proposed site plan ‎-- ‎which they have‎. ‎No prospective tenant would rent space that ‎

faces to the east and away from the traffic lane‎. ‎The current sign ordinance ‎

restrictions would prohibit any signage on the back wall of the proposed building if it ‎

were facing east; combining the service and retail traffic in the same lane would be ‎

hazardous and unfeasible‎. ‎It did not appear to be good planning to Mr‎. ‎Vestevich to ‎

orient the building to the east‎. ‎The Vice‎-‎Chair believed the front of the building should ‎

be oriented to the north because Auburn Road is the thoroughfare, but the site does ‎

not lend itself to that‎. ‎It did about ‎10 ‎years ago when it was originally laid out‎. ‎But ‎

the change in the Meijer's site plan, that carved out the subject parcel, left it in its ‎

current shape‎. ‎There would have been a lot more flexibility in building design as well, ‎

before the subject parcel was carved out‎. ‎Now it is a very difficult parcel to develop, ‎

which explains the reaction of the neighbors and the Commission‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich pointed out that the easterly boundary is not the problem; the westerly ‎

boundary abutting Meijer's property is the problem‎. ‎If the parcel were more squared ‎

off without the unusual angles, the proposed building ‎-- ‎or a larger one ‎-- ‎could be ‎

placed in the exact same location with the same ‎75 ‎foot setback‎. ‎Meijer's could have ‎

placed their own building in the same location‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Vestevich conceded that it is an ‎

irregularly shaped piece of property, but that doesn't mean the building on the east ‎

cannot be placed where it is‎. ‎In fact, he would submit that is the only place that the ‎

proposed building can be placed, according to his criteria‎. ‎He does not have more ‎

land‎. ‎And the Vice‎-‎Chair emphasized that is the problem‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Vestevich pointed out ‎

that he has ‎5‎.‎8 ‎acres of land; it is a buildable site that would house a much larger ‎

building‎. ‎He is not asking for a variance which an irregularly shaped parcel might be ‎

entitled to in order to increase the building space‎. ‎In evaluating this project they made ‎

reasonable assumptions that somehow the law applies in this city‎. ‎If wetlands are not ‎

on an official city map, the assumption should be that it is not a wetland‎. ‎Sure, the ‎

neighbors would prefer to see an open field adjacent to their houses, but that is not the ‎

reality‎. ‎The applicant has given consideration to buffer upon buffer that the Master ‎

Plan even identifies as a leading example of a buffer in the city‎. ‎And they are prepared ‎

to enhance this prime buffer‎. ‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair emphasized that he understood the applicant's perspective‎. ‎But the ‎

applicant bought a piece of property that is tough to develop well‎. ‎The parcel, as it ‎

was when the original Meijer's site plan was approved, was far larger and offered far ‎

more opportunity to do a less intrusive development of a far larger size because it ‎

would have allowed more design flexibility‎. ‎There would have been more room to do ‎

it better‎. ‎What the applicant is stuck with now, given the applicant's criteria, is a very ‎

intrusive design to the people to the east‎. ‎The Vice‎-‎Chair described the decision he is ‎

faced with‎: ‎given the applicant's recalcitrance to even consider the effect of the subject ‎

development on the neighbors, he is asking for an up‎-‎or‎-‎down vote‎. ‎The Planning ‎

Commission meets twice a month to look at proposed developments that could be far ‎

better for everyone concerned‎. ‎When one establishes his own set of criteria for a ‎

design, that closes off alternatives‎. ‎The applicant believes what he has presented to ‎

the Planning Commission is the best for himself; but given the circumstances of the ‎

shape and orientation of the subject property, there are some serious negatives to ‎

everyone else but the applicant‎. ‎If it were possible for the applicant to do what he ‎

wants and for the neighbors to get what they want, the Planning Commission would ‎

not ‎*‎be here‎ continue to be here discussing it‎. ‎

When Member Nowicki looks at the proposed development, it appears to be ‎

overbuilt based on the configuration of the site itself‎. ‎Rather than a ‎"‎bowling alley‎" ‎

building, it would be possible to place a more square building near the front of the site ‎

and place parking in the rear‎. ‎Member Nowicki perceived many problems with the ‎

proposed development and has difficulty resolving a lot of them‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich was very disappointed to hear these comments‎. ‎The fears and ‎

devastation predicted by the neighbors just is not going to happen‎. ‎There will not be a ‎

lot of disruption, turmoil and noise‎. ‎There are many commercial developments ‎

adjacent to residences throughout the city, and there is not a general welfare problem ‎

with respect to that if they are properly screened and well managed‎. ‎That is what they ‎

expect to do‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Vestevich disagreed with Member Nowicki ‎-- ‎it is not an overbuilt ‎

site; it is underdeveloped for the amount of acreage; the parcel's funny configuration ‎

would justify variances to get more square footage than they are asking for; they have ‎

been sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors; they have done everything they can to ‎

reasonably use this property; orienting the retail frontages to the east is a disadvantage ‎

to the homeowners because all the activity would be placed adjacent to them‎. ‎It ‎

puzzled the applicant how such a proposal could even be considered ‎-- ‎other than to ‎

throw a monkey wrench into it‎.‎

Member Ruggiero reiterated her biggest concern is the rear elevation facing an ‎

abutting residential property‎. ‎While she understood that technically it is a side yard ‎

and can be ‎75 ‎feet, it does not match the spirit and intent of the ordinance‎. ‎The rear ‎

of a commercial building shall be ‎100 ‎feet from abutting residential property, ‎

according to the ordinance‎. ‎It is the rear of a building even though it is a side yard‎. ‎

All she is asking is that the building be moved ‎25 ‎feet to the west and retain the ‎

proposed orientation‎. ‎Ruggiero repeated her perception that the applicant is unwilling ‎

to compromise parking, building configuration, or anything else for ‎25 ‎lousy feet‎. ‎And ‎

she is offended by that‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Vestevich responded that moving the building ‎25 ‎feet to the west would ‎

compromise the parking‎. ‎Yet Member Ruggiero pointed out that there are ‎70 ‎excess ‎

parking spaces, and the applicant is unwilling to concede any of those spaces because ‎

he might need them in the future‎. ‎There may even be room on the site to relocate ‎

those ‎70 ‎excess parking spaces‎. ‎Member Ruggiero believed there are other options ‎

but she hasn't seen any of them‎. ‎The applicant may have explored other options and ‎

even discussed them, but the Planning Commission has not seen them‎.‎

After conferring with his associates for a few moments, Mr‎. ‎Vestevich requested that ‎

this item be tabled to allow time for reevaluation‎. ‎He confirmed with Commissioners ‎

that the items to be reevaluated included moving the building ‎25 ‎feet to the west, the ‎

placement and orientation of the parking, and talking with the neighbors‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Vestevich stated that he has had unproductive meetings with the neighbors who had ‎

unrealistic expectations; the architect has met with city staff for the last ‎10 ‎months; ‎

economics won't justify a smaller building; reducing the amount of parking will not ‎

allow a restaurant‎.‎

Member Gaber did not necessarily share Member Ruggiero's feelings that the spirit ‎

and intent of the ordinance is being violated‎. ‎He thought the definitions of front ‎

setback, rear setback, etc‎. ‎were clear in the ordinance‎. ‎Member Gaber had no major ‎

objections to the current proposal‎.‎

Member Boswell anticipated that moving the building ‎25 ‎feet farther to the west would ‎

make the situation worse for the residents‎. ‎The applicant would probably put a row ‎

of parking along the east property line for employees, and the proposed wall mounted ‎

lighting on the rear of the building would be inadequate for a parking area‎. ‎Light poles ‎

would probably be installed which might create additional lighting toward the ‎

residences‎. ‎Member Boswell had to agree with Member Gaber‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎012 ‎

(‎Powerhouse Center‎)‎, to ‎table‎, at the applicant's request, the requests for a Tree ‎

Removal Permit and Site Plan Approval to allow time for the applicant to reevaluate ‎

options‎. ‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Kaiser ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Site Plans prepared by Minoru Yamasaki & Associates dated received ‎

by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department October ‎15‎, ‎1998‎; Revised ‎

landscape plans and utility plans dated received by the City of Rochester Hills ‎

Planning Department November ‎10‎, ‎1998‎; Revised building elevations and tree ‎

survey dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department December ‎

23‎, ‎1998‎; Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated December ‎28‎, ‎1998‎; Staff ‎

Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated November ‎10‎, ‎1998‎; Letters from Linda C‎. ‎

Lemke & Associates dated December ‎8‎, ‎1998 ‎and November ‎6‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from ‎

Minoru Yamasaki dated December ‎23‎, ‎1998‎; Attachment #‎1‎, revised Faxed Plan by ‎

Gibbs Planning Group, Inc‎.‎; attachment #‎2‎, Our Conceptual Proposal For Northern ‎

Portion of East Property Line by Gibbs Planning Groups, Inc‎.‎; Attachment #‎3‎, Our ‎

Conceptual Proposal for Mid Portion of East Property Line by Gibbs Planning Group, ‎

Inc‎.‎; Letter dated November ‎2‎, ‎1998 ‎from J & L Consulting Services; Legal ‎

Description ‎- ‎Exhibit ‎"‎A‎" ‎from Nowak & Fraus dated received by the City of ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Department July ‎2‎, ‎1998‎; Legal Description ‎- ‎Exhibit ‎"‎B‎" ‎

from Nowak & Fraus dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Department July ‎2‎, ‎1998‎; Exhibit A, ‎26 ‎Ft‎. ‎Wd‎. ‎Mutual Drive Access Easement ‎

prepared by Nowak & Fraus dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Department July ‎2‎, ‎1998‎; Letter dated October ‎30‎, ‎1998 ‎from Foster Meadows & ‎

Ballard with Homeowners' Petition Objecting to the Proposed Powerhouse Center, ‎

162 ‎signatures; Letter dated June ‎25‎, ‎1998 ‎from Residents of Wildflower Subdivision; ‎

Letter dated June ‎29‎, ‎1998 ‎from Residents of Wildflower Subdivision; Letter dated ‎

received June ‎25‎, ‎1998 ‎from The residents of the Wildflower Subdivision; Letter ‎

dated June ‎8‎, ‎1998 ‎from Melinda Denninger; Letter dated June ‎1‎;‎7‎, ‎1998 ‎from The ‎

Residents of the Wildflower Subdivision; Letter undated to Mayor Snell from The ‎

Residents of the Wildflower Subdivision with newspaper articles attached; ‎

Supplemental Submission in Opposition to Powerhouse Gym Development dated ‎

December ‎22‎, ‎1998 ‎prepared by Robert Lahiff‎.)‎

_____________________________________‎

[ ‎Exit Gaber ‎12:11‎ a‎.‎m‎. ‎, Wednesday, January ‎6‎, ‎1999‎ ]‎

Discussed

2000-1910

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎012 ‎- ‎Powerhouse Center‎

Tabled

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1921

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎95‎-‎030 ‎- ‎Rochester Hills Tennis & ‎

Swim Club, a ‎49‎,‎000 ‎square‎-‎foot expansion of the existing ‎58‎,‎000 ‎square‎-‎foot ‎

facility located on the north side of Avon, west of Rochester Road, Parcel Nos‎. ‎

15‎-‎15‎-‎476‎-‎038 ‎and ‎-‎037‎, zoned I‎-‎1‎, Light Industrial, Rochester Hills Tennis & ‎

Swim Club, ‎200 ‎West Avon, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48307‎, Applicant‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin introduced Robert Kagler of McKenna Associates who will be ‎

assisting the Planning Department in site plan and plat reviews as well as rezoning ‎

requests when Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi leaves the city‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Kagler joined the commissioners at ‎

the table‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated December ‎29‎, ‎1998 ‎has ‎

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

Messrs‎. ‎Rob Lavoie, engineer with Nowak & Fraus and Tad Krier, landscape ‎

architect, were present at the table‎. ‎Also present in the audience were Jocil Rogus, ‎

president of the Rochester Hills Tennis & Swim Club; Gary Urich, builder; Dave ‎

Holderness, project manager‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Lavoie explained they have worked closely with the city's Planning Department ‎

regarding the development of the subject project‎. ‎Throughout numerous reviews with ‎

the city they have addressed all of the concerns and comments that have been raised ‎

by city staff and consultants‎. ‎Consequently, they feel they have developed a plan that ‎

is very constructable, it meets the requirements of the club, and they believe it meets ‎

the requirements of the city‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that McKenna Associates reviewed the subject plan for the ‎

technical zoning requirements, and staff coordinated the reviews with McKenna, Linda ‎

Lemke and other staff members‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added that a buffer modification is one ‎

of the requests but was not included in the staff report‎. ‎The modification is for along ‎

the road on the west side of the property next to the Church of Christ‎.‎

There were no comments from the public‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Lavoie explained that the property behind the proposed expansion to the north is ‎

currently being marketed‎. ‎Some interest has been shown in it, but there is no specific ‎

buyer at this time‎. ‎The detention basin has been sized to accommodate the future ‎

development of the parcel to the north‎. ‎Extensive engineering studies were done to ‎

determine the capacity of the outlet watercourse and to design a basin that would ‎

achieve the city's objectives and at the same time reduce the number of trees that ‎

might be impacted‎. ‎They looked very closely at relocating the detention basin farther ‎

to the east to save more trees, but it was determined that it would have to be deeper ‎

because it would be located farther away from the outlet watercourse‎. ‎It would also ‎

be more problematic in terms of maintenance‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin and Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi identified the parcels to the north of the subject site ‎-- ‎

a ‎10‎-‎to‎-‎15‎-‎acre bee farm that fronts on Rochester Road, and eventually Yawkey ‎

Chapman Subdivision about a half‎-‎mile to the north‎. ‎

Member Krupa reviewed that even though the proposed detention basin has been ‎

sized for future development, he recalled during recent Master Plan discussions the ‎

area was identified as possibly Special Purpose with something related to the ‎

university with a road out to Rochester Road‎. ‎He was concerned about providing a ‎

way out of the parking lot and the impact that would have on any potential ‎

development on the interior‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that Engineering is aware of the residual parcel study ‎

currently in process‎. ‎the city's ultimate plan is for some sort of shared or regional ‎

detention facility that could accommodate all of the properties in the area that are yet ‎

to be developed‎. ‎It might turn out that the proposed detention basin on the Rochester ‎

Hills Tennis & Swim site might be replaced by a different facility, and that would be a ‎

subject of negotiation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi clarified that the proposed Home Depot site will not be dumping water ‎

onto the subject site‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Lavoie added that it is their intention to fill the existing detention basin located in ‎

the front yard of the property‎. ‎In so doing, they are able to eliminate the unsightly and ‎

problematic outlet that goes across the Church of Christ property along Avon Road‎. ‎

They will be taking that drainage and directing it to the north, where it naturally flows‎. ‎

So they are really improving the situation for the adjacent church and will be cleaning ‎

up their own front yard to make a more attractive site‎. ‎

Member Ramanauskas reviewed the parking spaces proposed and confirmed with the ‎

applicant that an adequate amount of landscaping has been provided‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Lavoie clarified that the reason for the buffer modification is the change in grades ‎

as shown on the elevations‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated that the performance bond has been increased to reflect the ‎14 ‎

additional replacement credits‎.‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Tree Removal Permit‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎95‎-‎030 ‎

(‎Rochester Hills Tennis & Swim Club‎)‎, to ‎grant the Tree Removal Permit ‎

incorporating the two conditions in the staff report dated December ‎29‎, ‎1998‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The applicant provide ‎14‎ additional replacement credits to cover the potential ‎

removal of and damage to trees which have been identified by Linda Lemke ‎

& Associates‎.‎

2‎.‎ The applicant provide a performance guarantee in the amount of ‎$41,530.00‎ to ‎

ensure the proper planting of the proposed replacement trees‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Gaber, Kaiser ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Granted

2000-1922

Request for a Buffer Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎95‎-‎030 ‎- ‎Rochester Hills Tennis & ‎

Swim Club‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Ramanauskas, in the matter of File No‎. ‎95‎-‎030 ‎

(‎Rochester Hills Tennis & Swim Club‎) ‎, to ‎grant the Buffer Modification ‎ ‎

incorporating the three findings in the staff report dated December ‎29‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ There are natural features in the area such as significant grade changes and existing ‎

trees which meet the spirit and intent of the required buffers‎.‎

2‎.‎ Compliance with the strict letter of the zoning ordinance would require the removal ‎

or damage to the existing natural features in the area‎.‎

3‎.‎ The adjacent property is developed for a non‎-‎residential use; therefore, the ‎

adjacent use does not require the same amount of buffering as the zoning ‎

ordinance requires‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Gaber, Kaiser ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Granted

2000-1923

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎95‎-‎030 ‎- ‎Rochester Hills Tennis & ‎

Swim Club‎

The Vice‎-‎Chair stated that the applicant can assume since the Planning Commission is ‎

not asking a lot of questions, it is probably because the applicant has done such an ‎

excellent job‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Lavoie hesitated to take all the credit ‎-- ‎he wanted to credit the ‎

Planning Department as Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi has been very instrumentally helpful in the ‎

development of the subject project, and Mr‎. ‎Lavoie was disappointed that Mr‎. ‎

Rizzardi was leaving the city‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Lavoie added that City Engineer Jim Dietrick and ‎

McKenna Associates have also been very helpful, and they had a very good ‎

relationship throughout this development‎. ‎The subject project is a very important one ‎

to the community as they have over ‎400 ‎family memberships‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Lavoie added they expect to be successful in selling the property to the north of ‎

the subject site‎. ‎Public safety aspects of any proposed development would ‎

necessitate a secondary access to the site‎.‎

Item ‎3‎. ‎Site Plan Approval‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎95‎-‎030 ‎

(‎Rochester Hills Tennis & Swim Club‎) ‎, to ‎grant Site Plan Approval ‎ incorporating ‎

the six findings and one condition in the staff report dated December ‎29‎, ‎1998‎, based ‎

on site plans dated received September ‎29‎, ‎1998 ‎and architectural plans dated ‎

received May ‎12‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The site plan indicates that all ordinances can be met‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed improvement to Avon Road is expected to mitigate the additional ‎

traffic that will be generated by the proposed expansion‎. ‎The applicant is also ‎

proposing to provide a stub for emergency vehicle access to the site and for ‎

the site to the north‎.‎

3‎.‎ The parking area is designed to promote effective internal circulation‎. ‎there is ‎

adequate movement for vehicular, pedestrian, and commercial traffic ‎

throughout the site‎.‎

4‎.‎ The expansion is proposed to be designed similar to the existing building‎. ‎

Furthermore, the proposed addition will not be visible from any public ‎

thoroughfare‎.‎

5‎.‎ The building will have a positive financial impact on the community by providing ‎

additional tax base to the City‎.‎

6‎.‎ The development is not expected to have any harmful effects on the natural ‎

features of the site‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

1‎.‎ The applicant provide a performance and maintenance guarantee in an amount of ‎

$15,851.00‎ to ensure the proper planting and survival of the proposed ‎

landscaped materials‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Corneliussen, Gaber, Kaiser ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Site Plans prepared by Nowak & Fraus dated received by the City of ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Department September ‎29‎, ‎1998‎; architectural plans dated ‎

received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department May ‎12‎, ‎1998‎; Staff ‎

report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated December ‎29‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from McKenna ‎

Associates, Inc‎. ‎dated September ‎14‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & ‎

Associates dated October ‎14‎, ‎1998‎; Letter from The Rochester Hills Church of ‎

Christ dated July ‎14‎, ‎1998‎; Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Nowak & ‎

Fraus, dated received May ‎12‎, ‎1998 ‎by the City of Rochester Hills Planning ‎

Department; City of Rochester Hills Planning Commission Notice of Meeting for Tree ‎

Removal Permit; Land Use and Tree Removal Permit Application‎.)‎

Granted

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business to come before the Planning Commission‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Vice‎-‎Chairperson Rosen reminded Commissioners that the next meeting is a ‎

SPECIAL Study Meeting scheduled for January ‎12‎, ‎1999‎. ‎The next Regular Meeting ‎

is scheduled for January ‎19‎, ‎1999‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business to come before the Planning Commission, ‎

Vice‎-‎Chairperson Rosen adjourned the regular meeting at ‎*‎12‎:‎39 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎ ‎

12‎:‎39 ‎a‎.‎m‎. ‎Wednesday, January ‎6‎, ‎1999 ‎Michigan time‎.‎