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, February 17, 1998

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson Eric Kaiser called the Regular Meeting to order at ‎7‎:‎30 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎in ‎

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Planning & Zoning News, December ‎1997‎

B‎.‎ Materials just handed to the Chair regarding Agenda Item IVB‎. ‎

C‎.‎ A public hearing notice received by the Chair regarding a special land use ‎

request by Silverman Development in Auburn Hills on February ‎19‎, ‎

1998‎ at ‎7:30‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎regarding a detached condominium one family ‎

development zoned R‎-3‎ located on the northeast corner of Tienken ‎

and Squirrel‎. ‎Member Nowicki indicated he plans to attend as he has ‎

attended previous meetings regarding this item and will give a report to ‎

the Planning Commission at the next meeting‎.‎

D‎.‎ A zoning map prepared by Rochester Hills GIS regarding Agenda Item ‎

IVB‎.‎

E‎.‎ Communication from the Older Persons' Commission dated February ‎16‎, ‎

1998‎ regarding Agenda Item IVB discussing the need for senior ‎

housing in the area‎.‎

F‎.‎ Proposed schedule of meeting locations during the renovations to the ‎

auditorium for City Council, Planning Commission, ZBA, and Traffic ‎

and Safety Board‎.‎

G‎.‎ Memo from Patricia Goodwin regarding the Rochester Community ‎

Schools Rezoning Request ‎(‎File No‎. ‎97-052‎) ‎along with a Preliminary ‎

Draft of the Minutes of February ‎3‎, ‎1998‎ which was included with ‎

packets delivered to Planning Commission members‎. ‎The consensus ‎

of the Planning Commission was that the preliminary draft lacked the ‎

flavor of the discussion on February ‎3‎, ‎1998‎, and they asked for more ‎

detailed minutes due to the seriousness and sensitivity of the topic‎. ‎

The Planning Commission was not prepared to approve the minutes ‎

until changes are made‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1437

Request for an Extension of Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎93‎-‎353 ‎- ‎King Centre ‎

West Office Building, located on the north side of Barclay Circle, east of ‎

Hampton Circle, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎26‎-‎327‎-‎001‎, ‎-‎002‎, ‎-‎003 ‎and ‎15‎-‎526‎-‎302‎-‎002‎, ‎

zoned O‎-‎1‎, Office Business, K Y Development, ‎305 ‎Barclay Circle, Suite ‎1000‎, ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎48309‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated February ‎9‎, ‎1998 ‎has been ‎

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

Present for the applicant was Janet Drobnich from KY Development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi had nothing to add to the staff report‎. ‎He recommended one change in ‎

the recommended conditions of the extension of site plan approval‎. ‎The extension is ‎

requested until February ‎1‎, ‎1999‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Drobnich had no formal comments to make regarding the subject request and had ‎

no objections to the request change in the condition to increase the amount of the ‎

landscape bond to $‎33‎,‎683‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, seconded by Krupa, in the matter of File No‎. ‎93‎-‎353 ‎(‎King ‎

Centre West Office Building‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎grant an Extension of ‎

Site Plan Approval ‎until February ‎1‎, ‎1999 ‎incorporating all the previous findings and ‎

conditions from the previous approvals plus increasing the landscape bond‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The requirements of all applicable city ordinances can be met‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed screening appears to meet the intent of the landscape screening ‎

requirements in the Zoning Ordinance‎.‎

3‎.‎ The adopted Master Land Use Plan of the City of Rochester Hills proposes office ‎

use on this property and the proposed development appears to help achieve ‎

the plan's office goals and objectives‎.‎

4‎.‎ The proposed development will be compatible with existing development in the ‎

area‎.‎

CONDITION‎:‎

1‎.‎ That the landscape bond be increased to the amount of ‎$33,683.00‎ to cover the ‎

cost of required landscaping‎. ‎

Discussion on the motion‎:‎

Since several years has passed since the commission has actually seen a site plan, ‎

Member Ruggiero wondered if there are any regulated trees now on the subject site‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi responded that the entire Hampton Park is not regulated since it was ‎

platted prior to ‎1988 ‎when the Tree Conservation Ordinance became effective‎.‎

Member Rosen wondered if the subject site plan was one of the longest running ‎

approved site plans yet unconstructed in the city‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Drobnich emphasized that the ‎

project is in process and has gone through several revisions, but the construction plans ‎

cannot be located in the city‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi has discovered some plans on his desk of ‎

an undetermined origin‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Drobnich will contact him regarding those plans‎. ‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated February ‎9‎, ‎1998‎; Letter ‎

from KY Development dated January ‎12‎, ‎1998‎; Landscape Contract dated received ‎

by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department January ‎28‎, ‎1998‎; Planning ‎

Commission Meeting Minutes of February ‎18‎, ‎1997‎, February ‎6‎, ‎1996‎, February ‎7‎, ‎

1995‎, and February ‎1‎, ‎1994‎.) ‎

Granted

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1834

Request for Rezoning Recommendation ‎(‎Public Hearing‎) - ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎005 ‎- ‎An ‎

Amendment to Zoning Ordinance ‎200 ‎to rezone a ‎.‎36‎-‎acre parcel from B‎-‎2‎, ‎

General Business, to B‎-‎1‎, Local Business, located at the northeast corner of ‎

Auburn and Hartline, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎28‎-‎453‎-‎074‎, Shakeel A‎. ‎Niazi, D‎.‎D‎.‎S‎.‎, ‎6964 ‎

Crooks, Suite ‎3‎, Troy, MI ‎48098‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated February ‎11‎, ‎1998 ‎has ‎

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

Present were David Layne with Century ‎21 ‎Town & Country, the realtors involving in ‎

the sale, and Dr‎. ‎Niazi, applicant‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi presented the staff report and reviewed the conclusion which basically ‎

supports the rezoning request as it is consistent with the Master Land Use Plan, it is a ‎

downzone which would allow less intense uses than the B‎-‎2‎, General Business zoning ‎

district‎. ‎B‎-‎1‎, Local Business zoning district would allow a more reasonable building ‎

envelope as well as more flexibility in the site design‎. ‎The zoning would be similar to ‎

many other properties along the strip of Auburn Road where the parcel is located‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi compared the setbacks between the two subject zoning districts‎: ‎B‎-‎2‎, ‎

General Business requires ‎50 ‎foot front and rear yard setbacks; B‎-‎1‎, Local Business ‎

requires only a ‎25 ‎foot front yard setback with a ‎50 ‎foot rear yard setback‎. ‎In ‎

looking at other recent site plans that have been approved for the subject section of ‎

Auburn Road, B‎-‎1‎, Local Business would allow a better parking lot layout in relation ‎

to the building‎. ‎Otherwise, the building would have to be dead‎-‎center on the site with ‎

parking located on two sides of the building‎. ‎B‎-‎1‎, Local Business would allow the ‎

building to be pushed all the way to one property line and closer to Auburn Road, ‎

which would allow a double bay of parking‎. ‎A good example is Rochester Hills ‎

Mirror and Glass; an ideal example is Signature Office Building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Layne offered to display a drawing of the proposed building‎. ‎The Chair ‎

explained that a particular site plan cannot be considered by the Planning Commission ‎

in their recommendation to City Council on a rezoning request‎. ‎Rezoning requests ‎

must consider all the possible permitted uses that could go on the site, not only the use ‎

that the applicant plans to develop‎. ‎The applicant could change his mind, he could sell ‎

the property, or any number of things could occur‎. ‎A rezoning request must be ‎

considered on the merits of the rezoning alone, so as to avoid any appearance of ‎

"‎spot‎" ‎zoning which is illegal‎. ‎The drawing of the proposed building was not ‎

distributed to commissioners‎.‎

The Chair asked the applicant to explain why the Planning Commission should ‎

recommend that City Council rezone the property‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Niazi explained that it is a ‎

downzone; it is a local business which he would expect to be less objectionable to the ‎

surrounding area; it is a more professional building which would draw less traffic and ‎

site lighting‎. ‎The Avon Middle School across the street and neighboring residential ‎

make it an ideal location for a dental office‎. ‎It will upgrade the area and bring more ‎

taxes to the city‎.‎

The Chair reviewed the other permitted uses in the B‎-‎1‎, Local Business zoning ‎

district, and mused that such uses as a health club, restaurant, private club or theater ‎

would be unlikely to be developed on the subject site because of the limited acreage‎. ‎

He wondered if it would appear that this was just a way to avoid the buffer, greenbelt ‎

and setback requirements of the ordinances‎. ‎All the other principal permitted uses in ‎

current B‎-‎2‎, General Business zoning classification of the property are also permitted ‎

in the B‎-‎1‎, Local Business zoning district‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained no, in terms of the buffer requirements because B‎-‎1‎, Local ‎

Business and B‎-‎2‎, General Business have the same buffer requirements along the ‎

north property line adjacent to the residential properties‎. ‎B‎-‎1‎, Local Business would ‎

allow the building to be closer to Auburn Road, thereby lessening the impact to the ‎

adjacent residential areas‎.‎

The Chair ‎opened the public hearing‎.‎

No persons came forward to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the ‎

rezoning request regarding File No ‎98‎-‎005 ‎(‎Niazi‎).‎

The Chair ‎closed the public hearing‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Krupa, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎005 ‎(‎Niazi ‎

Rezoning‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎recommend approval‎ of the request to ‎

rezone a ‎0‎.‎36 ‎acre parcel identified as Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎28‎-‎453‎-‎074‎, located on the ‎

northeast corner of Auburn and Hartline, ‎from‎ B‎-‎2‎, General Business, ‎to‎ B‎-‎1‎, Local ‎

Business, based on the conclusions in the Staff Report dated February ‎11‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The proposed zoning is still consistent with the Master Land Use Plan‎’‎s ‎

designation of Convenience or Comparison Commercial on this site‎. ‎

2‎.‎ The zoning request from B‎-2‎ to B‎-1‎ is generally considered a down‎-‎zone‎. ‎

Therefore, the change in zoning will minimize impacts to the residential uses ‎

adjacent to the property‎.‎

3‎.‎ The current zoning of B‎-2‎ severely limits the allowable building envelope‎. ‎The B‎-‎

1‎ zoning will allow for a better building and site layout‎.‎

4‎.‎ The proposed zoning is similar to the zoning on other similarly sized and shaped ‎

parcels in the general area‎.‎

Discussion on the motion‎:‎

Member Rosen pointed out that, after reviewing the zoning map with Member Gaber, ‎

it appears that the area of the subject request is equally split between B‎-‎1‎, Local ‎

Business and B‎-‎2‎, General Business, actually slightly favoring B‎-‎1‎. ‎If the subject ‎

rezoning request is approved by City Council, it would tilt that balance further toward ‎

B‎-‎1‎, Local Business, which would be appropriate for that area‎. ‎Making the area less ‎

intense would appeal to Member Rosen‎. ‎

Roll call vote‎: ‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Gaber, Kaiser, Krupa, Nowicki, Ramanauskas, ‎

Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated February ‎11‎, ‎1998‎; Environmental ‎

Impact Statement dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department ‎

on January ‎23‎, ‎1998‎; Property Assessment prepared by Michael H‎. ‎McDermott on ‎

January ‎23‎, ‎1998‎; Letter dated January ‎22‎, ‎1998 ‎from property owner Anthony ‎

Bonacci; Agreement of Sale and Land Contract Sale Addendum dated ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎97‎; ‎

Letter dated January ‎22‎, ‎1998 ‎from Dr‎. ‎Shakeel A‎. ‎Niazi; Memorandum dated ‎

January ‎21‎, ‎1998 ‎from Shakeel A‎. ‎Niazi; Affidavit dated January ‎22‎, ‎1998‎; Location ‎

Map for ‎1390 ‎W‎. ‎Auburn Rd‎.)‎

Recommended for Approval to the City Council Regular Meeting

2000-1803

Request for Rezoning Recommendation ‎(‎Public Hearing‎) - ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎035 ‎- ‎An ‎

amendment to Zoning Ordinance ‎200 ‎to rezone two parcels totaling ‎10‎.‎38 ‎acres ‎

from R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, to SP, Special Purpose, located on the east ‎

side of Adams, south of Auburn, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎31‎-‎301‎-‎007 ‎and ‎-‎022‎, Robert ‎

Gillette and Frank Piku, American House Retirement Home, ‎4050 ‎W‎. ‎Maple, ‎

Suite ‎108‎, Bloomfield Hills, MI ‎48301‎, Applicants‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated February ‎9‎, ‎1998 ‎has been ‎

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

The Chair reviewed that the subject request was referred back to the Planning ‎

Commission by City Council to consider some purported new information‎.‎

Present were Joanne and Gary McDonald representing the applicants‎. ‎They ‎

displayed a graphic of the subject sites‎. ‎

The Chair referenced additional correspondence dated February ‎11‎, ‎1998 ‎from ‎

Joanne McDonald to the Planning Department‎. ‎as well as the communications listed ‎

earlier and distributed by Ms‎. ‎McDonald this evening‎: ‎a list of ‎18 ‎advantages to ‎

rezoning parcel #‎15‎-‎31‎-‎301‎-‎007 ‎& ‎022 ‎from R‎-‎4 ‎to SP; newspaper article from The ‎

Detroit News of Friday, February ‎6‎, ‎1998 ‎"‎Mom inspires senior housing‎"‎; letter dated ‎

February ‎17‎, ‎1998 ‎from Gary McDonald; letter dated February ‎16‎, ‎1998 ‎from James ‎

J‎. ‎Jones of MCS Associates to Joanne McDonald‎. (‎Said documents have been ‎

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

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi referenced new correspondence included in the packet‎. ‎He had no ‎

additional comments to make‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎McDonald said she has a statement from American House stating that the ‎

driveway currently belonging to the McDonalds and used by Mrs‎. ‎Sophie Miller will ‎

not be affected‎. ‎She also pointed out that Mrs‎. ‎Miller's outlot does not have its own ‎

driveway‎. ‎The statement is intended to assure Mrs‎. ‎Miller that the construction of the ‎

senior housing facility will not in any way be affected‎. ‎Conversations with Mrs‎. ‎Miller ‎

had indicated that she did not object to elderly housing being built on the subject site, ‎

but she was very concerned about losing her right to use the driveway‎. ‎The ‎

importance of that use is the presence of a sink hole in the front of her property which ‎

would preclude the relocation of a driveway on her own parcel‎.‎

The Chair pointed out that the Planning Commission is not able to approve senior ‎

housing for the subject site; they can only make a recommendation on the rezoning ‎

and must consider all the permitted uses in the SP, Special Purpose zoning district‎. ‎

The other issue is that they are being asked to reverse ‎"‎spot‎" ‎zone in that Mrs‎. ‎Miller's ‎

parcel would become a residential parcel completely surrounded by SP, Special ‎

Purpose‎. ‎Even the petition signed by residents that the commissioners have received ‎

addressed the desire for the commission to rezone for elderly housing, which the ‎

Planning Commission cannot do‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎McDonald reviewed the other principal permitted uses in the SP, Special ‎

Purpose zoning district and she discounted all of them as potentials for the subject site ‎

based on the varied requirements that they could not meet‎. ‎

Mrs‎. ‎McDonald was not familiar with the concept of ‎"‎spot‎" ‎zoning‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎McDonald ‎

believed the SP, Special Purpose zoning would be a natural progression from the ‎

identical existing zoning in the area‎. ‎Since Mrs‎. ‎Miller's property is subject to the same ‎

constraints under R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential as the subject property currently is, ‎

Mr‎. ‎McDonald did not see a disadvantage to her‎. ‎In the long run it would be best for ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Miller's property to remain R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential‎. ‎Eventually, it would ‎

probably turn to SP, Special Purpose if she were to sell it as it would be the best use ‎

of the property and give her the best return on the land‎. ‎It would be difficult to build ‎

anything else on her parcel because of the physical constraints of the land‎. ‎In the ‎

meantime Mrs‎. ‎Miller would still have access to the McDonalds' driveway and ‎

American House is willing to protect her driveway‎. ‎American House is probably the ‎

best thing that could happen to her property‎. ‎If the property moves out of Mrs‎. ‎

Miller's hands, the McDonalds could not protect the driveway for her; American ‎

House is willing to‎. ‎It is unfortunate that Mrs‎. ‎Miller has been unwilling to discuss this ‎

issue further for fear of losing her access to the driveway, and she probably does not ‎

realize that their real intent is to protect the driveway for her‎. ‎It would appear to Mr‎. ‎

McDonald that the SP, Special Purpose ordinance was written for this type of ‎

situation‎. ‎There does not seem to be anything between the permitted density of ‎4 ‎units ‎

per acre for R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential and the permitted density of ‎40 ‎units per ‎

acre for SP, Special Purpose‎. ‎The way that American House has planned the ‎

development matches his vision of the land‎. ‎It is a beautiful piece of land and he ‎

would like any development on it to enhance it‎. ‎

The Chair identified a number of competing issues ‎-- ‎the SP, Special Purpose and ‎

R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential in terms of density‎. ‎This may be a good item for master ‎

plan attention, the update of which will take place during ‎1998‎. ‎Even the consultant ‎

has recommended that we resolve the conflict between R‎-‎4 ‎and SP densities which ‎

would be suitable for senior housing‎. ‎But that would require a change in the ‎

ordinance‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎McDonald asked if the density could be addressed through a conditional land ‎

use‎. ‎Everything still would require both Planning Commission and City Council ‎

approval‎. ‎The Chair thought it might be possible‎.‎

Member Nowicki had made that comment initially about the uses permitted by City ‎

Council after review and recommendation of the Planning Commission and it is further ‎

stated in the ordinance itself about reasonable conditions which, in the opinion of the ‎

Planning Commission and City Council, are necessary to provide adequate protection ‎

to the neighborhood and to the abutting properties‎. ‎Member Nowicki recalled that ‎

this was a concern when the SP, Special Purpose ordinance was written; it was the ‎

intent to establish some kind of control over the size of the parcel and density‎. ‎He had ‎

some problems with the consultant's statements about this being ‎"‎spot‎" ‎zoning because ‎

the consultant did not point out the fact that American House does abut SP, Special ‎

Purpose with the senior housing facility Peachwood Inn‎. ‎Member Nowicki saw that ‎

the subject rezoning request, if approved, would make the SP, Special Purpose zoning ‎

contiguous with the American House and Peachwood zoning except for the small R‎-‎4 ‎

parcel ‎-- ‎Mrs‎. ‎Miller's parcel‎. ‎All these comments he makes with the understanding ‎

that specific uses cannot be considered for rezoning requests; however, SP, Special ‎

Purpose does allow senior housing‎. ‎From personally visiting the site as well as the ‎

Peachwood site, Member Nowicki confirmed that it would be contiguous‎. ‎Senior ‎

housing is in demand‎. ‎The topography of the subject site limits the type of ‎

development possible for it‎.‎

The Chair inquired what noticing procedures were followed for the subject request ‎

because Mrs‎. ‎Miller did not get noticed for tonight's meeting‎. ‎Mrs‎. ‎McDonald stated ‎

that Mrs‎. ‎Miller did initially call before the first meeting and indicated that she did not ‎

object to the rezoning‎.‎

Member Gaber described a possible solution to eliminate the potential for spot zoning ‎

-- ‎instead of having SP, Special Purpose zoning along Adams Road, retain the R‎-‎4‎, ‎

One Family Residential zoning along the frontage of Adams Road from the boundaries ‎

of the American House property all the way north and rezone the property behind it as ‎

SP, Special Purpose‎. ‎This would eliminate a single R‎-‎4 ‎parcel being surrounded by ‎

SP‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎McDonald acknowledged that would be possible and described Member ‎

Gaber's suggestion on the graphic‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎McDonald and Member Gaber estimated the ‎

depth of the possible R‎-‎4 ‎portion to be approximately ‎200 ‎feet‎. ‎The American House ‎

proposed site plan does not show anything for that ‎200 ‎foot depth according to Mr‎. ‎

McDonald because of the topography‎. ‎The only thing it would be suitable for is a ‎

driveway‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that it could not be used for a driveway because ‎

you would be using R‎-‎4‎, a lower intensity zoning, to access SP, a higher intensity‎. ‎An ‎

option could be to access the site from the existing American House site‎. ‎A potential ‎

road could be built to public road standards‎. ‎

‎

Member Gaber acknowledged the submitted topographic information and referenced ‎

the conclusion in the McKenna staff report that the conditions are not severe enough ‎

to make single family development of the site as zoned unfeasible‎. ‎He also referenced ‎

the conclusion in Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi's cover memo that the Planning Department does not ‎

believe enough new information has come forward to change the staff's ‎

recommendation to approve the rezoning request‎. ‎He asked in what detail did the ‎

Planning Department and‎/‎or Engineering Services review this new information‎. ‎What ‎

type of additional information would staff require to make this determination as a ‎

factor in the analysis?‎

Mrs‎. ‎McDonald pointed out the report by the civil engineer regarding the sanitary ‎

sewer situation ‎-- ‎to develop as R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential some type of sanitary lift ‎

station would be required‎. ‎She explained that American House would be slab ‎

construction with no basement so a sanitary lift station would not be required‎. ‎This ‎

was the opinion of an engineer engaged by another developer who considered ‎

purchasing the site‎. ‎Four other developers have looked at the site for possible ‎

development as R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, and they all state that a sanitary lift ‎

station would need to be installed‎. ‎What would be the ramifications of that as far as ‎

the city is concerned; who would maintain that pump? Mr‎. ‎McDonald felt that a slab ‎

construction was the only practical way of building in there, which would not be ‎

acceptable for residential‎. ‎

The Chair argued that the applicants are predicating this on the plan that they want, ‎

and that is the problem‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi responded to Member Gaber's questions‎. ‎When this request originally ‎

came forward, he had many conversations with the McDonalds regarding the subject ‎

property and stated to them that staff probably could recommend approval of the ‎

rezoning request if they could get Mrs‎. ‎Miller's parcel zoned SP, Special Purpose‎. ‎

The McDonalds did not have to own Mrs‎. ‎Miller's parcel in order to get it rezoned‎. ‎

That is the point at which Mrs‎. ‎Miller became frustrated with being bothered and they ‎

could proceed the way they wanted to‎. ‎The new information about the sanitary sewer ‎

does not preclude development of the site as R‎-‎4‎. ‎There are several pump stations ‎

around the city‎. ‎It would be very costly and it would severely alter the grades, but any ‎

development on the subject site would except possibly RCD, One Family Cluster‎. ‎

Also, basements are not required; many houses in the city have no basement‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas described his own property with a walk‎-‎out and a septic field ‎

in the front and he has no problems‎. ‎It is very kindhearted of the McDonalds to ‎

protect Mrs‎. ‎Miller's driveway, but what would happen when they are gone? A new ‎

property owner may not want to honor that agreement‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎McDonald emphasized ‎

that he and American House will protect her driveway‎. ‎Also, slab constructions are ‎

not in demand; most people want basements‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas also pointed out that elderly housing is being considered in the ‎

Master Plan Update‎. ‎

Responding to Member Corneliussen's question Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated the approximate ‎

acreage of American House is ‎8 ‎acres; Peachwood is ‎30‎. ‎As a district if landowners ‎

in the future were to sell or combine parcels, Member Corneliussen pointed out that ‎

the SP, Special Purpose could expand and allow other permitted uses to be ‎

developed on the site‎.‎

Member Rosen urged returning to the intended purpose this evening ‎-- ‎to consider the ‎

new information presented and decide if they want to change their recommendation‎. ‎

If the Planning Commission determines that enough new information has been ‎

presented to reconsider their recommendation, perhaps the request should be ‎

renoticed‎. ‎He summarized the new information regarding the sewer, disagreement ‎

over the elevation of the site, history of attempted contact with Mrs‎. ‎Miller‎. ‎Lift ‎

stations are not uncommon in the subject area‎. ‎Member Rosen did not see any ‎

convincing evidence that the subject site is not appropriate as R‎-‎4‎. ‎The terrain might ‎

possibly make the site more appropriate as RCD‎. ‎His main concern was with ‎

isolating a piece of property that does not want to be included‎. ‎The rezoning might ‎

be more feasible if the parcels were much more contiguous‎. ‎If Mrs‎. ‎Miller's parcel ‎

were included, it would be more cohesive‎. ‎Member Rosen saw a potential threat for ‎

inappropriate development if not rezoned SP, Special Purpose‎. ‎Member Rosen ‎

believed the right thing is not to change the current zoning‎.‎

The Chair pointed out that the existing Master Land Use Plan is not in agreement with ‎

the subject request‎. ‎The Master Land Use Plan is being updated during ‎1998 ‎and the ‎

need for senior housing has already been identified‎. ‎As Member Corneliussen ‎

reminded us, there is the potential for creating close to a ‎50 ‎acre SP, Special Purpose ‎

area‎. ‎The Chair believed the new information was not compelling enough to cause a ‎

change of mind‎.‎

Member Gaber stated that City Council would appreciate the Planning Commission's ‎

recognition that the three issues mentioned in Council's resolution from January ‎7‎, ‎

1998 ‎were considered regarding the sanitary lift stations, contiguity of the SP zoning ‎

classification to eliminate ‎"‎spot‎" ‎zoning, and the history of attempted contacts with ‎

"‎outlot‎" ‎owner Mrs‎. ‎Miller, and that the Planning Commission has decided either to ‎

change their original recommendation or stand by it‎.‎

The Chair recommended that this item be discussed during the upcoming Master Land ‎

Use Plan update, and he invited the McDonalds to participate in the process‎. ‎The ‎

Chair pointed out that the Master Plan can be changed without input from a property ‎

owner‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated that if Mrs‎. ‎Miller requested her property be rezoned SP, Special ‎

Purpose, that might change the situation‎.‎

Member Rosen added the zoning of Mrs‎. ‎Miller's property is not the only problem; ‎

we must look at the comprehensive development‎. ‎The way the proposed site is laid ‎

out is not a good site design‎. ‎If Mrs‎. ‎Miller's parcel were included, it would make ‎

much more sense‎. ‎There are problems with the concept because of the Miller parcel‎. ‎

At the present time the applicants cannot combine the parcels in a way that would ‎

make sense‎. ‎Eventually, however, the situation will resolve itself‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎McDonald added that he did not see what difference that would make since the ‎

only place to build on her property is where the house is, because of the terrain‎.‎

Member Gaber concurred with much of what Member Rosen said‎. ‎Member Gaber ‎

recommended waiting for the Master Land Use Plan Update‎. ‎He encouraged the ‎

McDonalds to stay in touch with the Planning Department to find out when the Master ‎

Plan meetings are scheduled‎. ‎Member Ruggiero dittoed Member Gaber's comments ‎

and made the same motion from the October ‎21‎, ‎1997 ‎meeting‎.‎

RESOLVED‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Corneliussen, in the matter of File No‎. ‎

97‎-‎035 ‎(‎American House Rezoning‎)‎, that the Planning Department prepare a memo ‎

to City Council based on tonight's discussion indicating that the Planning Commission ‎

did review the matter as requested by City Council at their January ‎7‎, ‎1998 ‎meeting, ‎

including the items City Council found new, and that the Planning Commission finds no ‎

cause to change their earlier ‎recommendation to deny‎ the request to rezone two ‎

parcels of land totaling ‎10‎.‎38 ‎Acres ‎(‎Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎31‎-‎301‎-‎007 ‎and ‎

15‎-‎31‎-‎301‎-‎022‎) ‎from‎ R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, ‎to‎ SP, Special Purpose‎.‎

Discussion on the motion‎:‎

Member Nowicki described Peachwood Inn as the ‎"‎Cadillac‎" ‎of senior housing; ‎

American House is the one that addresses the working class‎. ‎All American Houses ‎

are not in the same category‎. ‎This is why he has been trying for American House to ‎

expand in Rochester Hills because the city needs that type of housing for those seniors ‎

who cannot afford Cadillacs‎. ‎The Master Land Use Plan Update is down the road ‎

every bit by two years and some people can't wait that long‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Kaiser, Krupa, Ramanauskas, Robbins, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Nowicki ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

After the vote the Chair applauded the McDonalds for their efforts to serve a need in ‎

the community and encouraged them to continue‎. ‎He explained that City Council ‎

often makes their own decision which can be contrary to the Planning Commission's ‎

recommendation‎. ‎The Master Land Use Plan Update is happening now‎. ‎It would ‎

take a compelling change of circumstances to make a change in zoning now‎. ‎Member ‎

Nowicki pointed out that rezoning the subject parcels would not be spot zoning ‎

because the parcels would be contiguous with other SP, Special Purpose parcels; but ‎

it would create a small spot zoned parcel‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo dated February ‎9‎, ‎1998 ‎prepared by Paul Rizzardi; Letter dated ‎

2‎-‎11‎-‎98 ‎from Joanne McDonald; Letter dated ‎1‎-‎14‎-‎98 ‎from Gary McDonald; Letter ‎

dated January ‎12‎, ‎1998 ‎from Richard W‎. ‎McDonald; Letter dated ‎1‎-‎13‎-‎98 ‎from ‎

Joanne McDonald; Petitions signed by ‎64 ‎residents; Letter dated August ‎6‎, ‎1997 ‎to ‎

Mrs‎. ‎Miller from Joanne McDonald; Letter dated ‎10‎-‎23‎-‎97 ‎to family members of ‎

Sophia D‎. ‎Miller from Joanne McDonald; Letter dated October ‎29‎, ‎1997 ‎to Mr‎. ‎Bill ‎

Robertson from Joanne McDonald; Staff Report prepared by McKenna Associates ‎

dated October ‎2‎, ‎1997‎; City Council Meeting Minutes of January ‎7‎, ‎1998‎; Synopsis ‎

of City Council Meeting of January ‎7‎, ‎1998‎; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ‎

of October ‎21‎, ‎1997‎; Notice of Public Hearing for October ‎21‎, ‎1997‎; ‎"‎Advantages ‎

to rezoning parcel #‎15‎-‎31‎-‎301‎-‎007 ‎& ‎022 ‎from R‎-‎4 ‎to SP‎" ‎dated received February ‎

17‎, ‎1998‎; The Detroit News, February, February ‎6‎, ‎1998 ‎"‎Mom inspires senior ‎

housing‎"‎; letter dated February ‎17‎, ‎1998 ‎from Gary McDonald; letter dated February ‎

16‎, ‎1998 ‎from James J‎. ‎Jones of MCS Associates to Joanne McDonald‎.) ‎

Recommended for Denial to the City Council Regular Meeting

2000-1835

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎036 ‎- ‎AirTouch Monopole, a ‎

125‎-‎foot tall wireless telecommunication monopole, located on the north side of ‎

Hamlin between John R and Dequindre, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎24‎-‎401‎-‎003 ‎and ‎

15‎-‎24‎-‎326‎-‎004‎, zoned I‎-‎1‎, Light Industrial, Matthew A‎. ‎Gibb, ‎1126 ‎North Main, ‎

Rochester, MI ‎48307‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated February ‎10‎, ‎1998 ‎has ‎

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

Present were Mr‎. ‎Matthew Gibb and Mr‎. ‎Jonathan Crane representing AirTouch ‎

Cellular; Mr‎. ‎Leonard Dieffenbach, senior engineer for AirTouch; plus other AirTouch ‎

personnel‎. ‎A graphic of the site was displayed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi refreshed commissioners' memories about the recent rezoning request for ‎

the subject parcels which changed the zoning from R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential to ‎

I‎-‎1‎, Light Industrial‎. ‎The property does abut I‎-‎1‎, Light Industrial on the entire eastern ‎

side and most of that area of the city is master planned for Light Industrial use‎. ‎The ‎

proposed monopole is ‎125 ‎feet tall and will be located at the southeast corner of the ‎

large ‎11 ‎acre parcel where the pond is located‎. ‎

One thing not mentioned in the staff report but which commissioners might want to ‎

think about‎: ‎consider if the subject site is an appropriate location for a cellular ‎

tower‎/‎monopole‎. ‎If deemed appropriate, consideration might be given to a taller pole, ‎

up to ‎140 ‎feet, to accommodate co‎-‎location in the future‎. ‎A ‎125 ‎foot monopole does ‎

limit co‎-‎location opportunities‎. ‎The surrounding area is master planned industrial, and ‎

the property is zoned industrial‎. ‎Most recent wireless communication towers are ‎

around ‎130 ‎feet with a co‎-‎locator at ‎110 ‎feet, providing approximately ‎10 ‎to ‎20 ‎feet ‎

of separation between two different antenna platforms‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gibb stated that a foundation for the pole of significant strength is proposed to ‎

handle a pole with three carriers‎. ‎As the company providing the service and ‎

developing the project, AirTouch would be in a position to fully commit themselves to ‎

agree to future co‎-‎locations should there be a desire by other carriers to locate on the ‎

pole‎. ‎They would put the foundation in place to support such a structure and then the ‎

new carrier, with appropriate site plan approval, could thereby swap the pole out, the ‎

foundation being in place‎. ‎AirTouch would install a temporary pole of ‎120 ‎feet in ‎

height with ‎5 ‎feet of antenna for a day or two until a new carrier can install a larger ‎

pole‎. ‎That is a more favorable approach rather than building an existing structure that ‎

would be too tall for them to use‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi spoke generally stating if the pole is approved at ‎125 ‎feet with one user, ‎

administratively they would allow a taller pole that's reasonable through site plan ‎

review to encourage co‎-‎location‎. ‎It would be better if the Planning Commission ‎

would grant the taller pole tonight with a condition that a lower pole can be installed ‎

until it can be swapped out‎. ‎Usually when pole swaps are done, a new foundation is ‎

put in next to the existing one and build a new pole‎. ‎In the subject case, Mr‎. ‎Gibb has ‎

been very up‎-‎front by stating they would put in a temporary pole so they don't lose ‎

their own service and build a new pole next to it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi would like some ‎

documentation that this is possible‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gibb restated the process and added that the ‎

old foundation is removed and the area is regraded; he was willing to provide the ‎

requested documentation‎.‎

Member Ruggiero asked the applicant to respond to a statement in the staff report ‎

which mentioned the possibility of co‎-‎locating on a Sprint tower at the Allen Industrial ‎

Building at John R and Avon, and why that site was unusable‎. ‎She also asked if there ‎

was not a tower at Hamlin and Dequindre in Shelby Township‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gibb stated there ‎

is an existing Ameritech tower in Shelby Township at Hamlin and Dequindre‎. ‎He ‎

asked the engineer to respond to these questions‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gibb stated that AirTouch has existing towers at Dequindre and M‎-‎59‎, and by ‎

the railroad tracks in downtown Rochester‎. ‎The logistics of moving closer to each of ‎

those existing towers is their current focus‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dieffenbach addressed the issues raised by Member Ruggiero‎. ‎They looked at ‎

the Sprint location and right now their proposed location is approximately two miles ‎

from each of their existing towers‎. ‎Moving to the Sprint site would put them ‎

approximately within a mile of their site near the railroad tracks, and would put it three ‎

miles from their other site‎. ‎The traffic off‎-‎load would not balance out‎. ‎The existing ‎

site already covers all that territory; they need to balance between the existing sites to ‎

off‎-‎load the traffic‎. ‎The Shelby Township tower would put it too far to the east and ‎

leave some coverage gaps to the west‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gibb added if the proposed site were moved farther to the east, in the very near ‎

future it would create a need to again off‎-‎load the two existing sites which already ‎

have traffic problems, plus the third site which would be more in the heart of the city ‎

would have to go closer to Rochester Road‎. ‎This is just because of the way the ‎

engineering of the system works‎. ‎Placing the tower to the east would not solve the ‎

existing capacity problems for the Rochester site‎. ‎From an engineering standpoint, ‎

they would be too close to the other sites so create a situation where they would be ‎

covering all the area they need to cover from a capacity and coverage standpoint ‎

without the need in the future for yet another tower‎. ‎Moving it either way ‎-- ‎to the ‎

Sprint tower up by Avon Road or to the Ameritech tower will not solve the ‎

downloading and capacity towers but would potentially create a future problem and ‎

require them to ask for yet another tower‎. ‎Depending on the size and coverage of the ‎

area, towers are typically placed about two miles apart‎. ‎They are closer together in ‎

denser areas‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi informed the Planning Commission that, of the five major cellular carriers, ‎

this is the last proposed pole that he is aware of‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gibb reviewed the rezoning request last year for the subject site‎. ‎Member ‎

Nowicki noted the site plan indicates that the ‎70 ‎foot strip is still zoned R‎-‎4 ‎instead of ‎

I‎-‎1‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gibb stated that was an oversight, and they will submit a corrected revised ‎

site plan‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gibb discussed the configuration of the proposed sidewalk along the entire length ‎

of the residentially zoned parcel‎. ‎AirTouch has no problem constructing it but would ‎

prefer to make it a straight path instead of angling it toward the road‎. ‎The parcel ‎

immediately to the east of where the road will be currently has a house on it even ‎

though it is being marketed as industrial, and a straight path would make it contiguous ‎

and would avoid the added complications of angling it toward the road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi ‎

stated that Engineering Services made the recommendation to angle the bikepath, and ‎

he was reluctant to change it without consulting with the City Engineer first; there may ‎

be some safety and right‎-‎of‎-‎way issues to be addressed‎. ‎The Chair suggested that the ‎

bikepath issue be left to resolution between Planning staff, Engineering staff, and the ‎

applicant‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gibb discussed the five recommended conditions on the last page of the staff ‎

report‎. ‎They agree with them except condition number ‎4 ‎regarding irrigation for the ‎

landscaping‎. ‎There is no practical means to install a self‎-‎sustaining irrigation system, ‎

particularly considering the small amount to be installed‎. ‎Their facility does not use ‎

water at any time; the fire suppression system is not water‎-‎based; no bathroom ‎

facilities are proposed for the unmanned facility‎. ‎He asked that the condition be ‎

amended to say that AirTouch will guarantee the replacement of plantings that would ‎

die‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi responded that an irrigation system is not the only way to address ‎

that‎. ‎The applicant could engage a water maintenance program‎. ‎This is more of a ‎

code enforcement issue‎. ‎Any waiver from this ordinance requirement would require a ‎

variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals‎. ‎The Chair stated that the language in ‎

condition number ‎4 ‎is general enough to accommodate the applicant's concerns and ‎

staff's recommendations‎.‎

The Chair identified additional conditions that could be made a part of any motion to ‎

approve‎:‎

an affidavit indicating that the subject site is being prepped for three‎-‎provider ‎

co‎-‎location, the applicant agrees to a pole swap on the existing foundation at a future ‎

date understanding that they want to build at ‎120 ‎feet, note on the site plan itself that ‎

the site is ready and available for co‎-‎location; change the zoning on the ‎70 ‎foot wide ‎

strip from R‎-‎4 ‎to I‎-‎1 ‎on the site plan; the bikepath shown on the final approved site ‎

plan be consistent with the city Planning and Engineering staffs, in consultation with the ‎

applicant‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎97‎-‎036 ‎(‎Air ‎

Touch Monopole at Hamlin Road‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎grant Site Plan ‎

Approval ‎ incorporating the recommendations and conditions in the staff report dated ‎

February ‎9‎, ‎1998‎, plus additional conditions, and based on the site plan dated ‎

received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on January ‎9‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

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

2‎.‎ The applicant is designing this site to accommodate a second PCS provider‎.‎

3‎.‎ The site improvements will produce virtually no additional traffic‎.‎

4‎.‎ The proposed improvements are not expected to impact the vehicular and ‎

pedestrian circulation of the site‎.‎

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

features of the area‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ All trees located on the berm need to be shifted ‎15‎ feet from the overhead utilities‎.‎

2‎.‎ Plantings near to the existing regulated trees need to be shifted so that they are not ‎

located within the dripline of these existing trees‎.‎

3‎.‎ Indicate correct spelling of botanical names‎.‎

4‎.‎ Provide an approved irrigation system or some other readily approved water ‎

supply by the Forestry Department‎.‎

5‎.‎ Provide a performance and maintenance guarantee in the form of cash, bond, or ‎

letter of credit in the amount of ‎$11,635.00‎ to ensure the proper planting and ‎

survival of the proposed landscaping‎.‎

6‎.‎ The applicant provide an affidavit that the site will be available for three ‎

co‎-‎location antennas, be built currently at ‎120‎ feet but be able to be amenable ‎

to a pole swap and the foundation be able to receive a future pole swap, and ‎

the site shall be prepped for co‎-‎location‎. ‎The maximum height of the pole in ‎

the event of a pole swap shall be ‎140‎ feet‎.‎

7‎.‎ The zoning on the ‎70‎ foot wide strip be changed from R‎-4‎ to I‎-1‎ on the site plan‎.‎

8‎.‎ The bikepath issue be left to resolution between Planning staff, Engineering staff, ‎

and the applicant‎.‎

Discussion on the motion‎:‎

Member Gaber confirmed with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi that a pole swap does not require site ‎

plan approval‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added if an equipment shelter is included, administrative ‎

review of the site plan would be required; if only a cabinet is used, no site plan ‎

approval would be required‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated February ‎10‎, ‎1998‎; Site ‎

Plans prepared by Midwestern Consulting and dated received by the City of ‎

Rochester Hills Planning Department on January ‎9‎, ‎1998‎; Letter dated October ‎27‎, ‎

1997 ‎from Steven M‎. ‎Krohn; Letter dated January ‎19‎, ‎1998 ‎from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & ‎

Associates; Environmental Impact Report prepared by C & W Consultants, Inc‎. ‎

dated May ‎23‎, ‎1997‎; Option to Lease and Exhibit A dated March ‎10‎, ‎1997‎; City ‎

Council Meeting Minutes of September ‎17‎, ‎1997 ‎and August ‎27‎, ‎1997‎; Planning ‎

Commission Meeting Minutes of July ‎15‎, ‎1997‎.) ‎

Granted

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

A‎.‎ 1999‎ CIP Update ‎

Member Rosen reported that the committee reviewed the initial round ‎

of ratings for the various projects comprising the CIP‎. ‎The committee ‎

discovered a surprising amount of cohesiveness and flow in the ratings ‎

of projects‎. ‎The plan is to present a full spreadsheet to the Planning ‎

Commission at the March ‎17‎, ‎1998 ‎study meeting‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for March ‎3‎, ‎1998 ‎at the Environmental Education Center on Avon Road‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎9‎:‎25 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎