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, December 7, 1993

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

Gene Ferrera‎

Jeff Hauswirth‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

James Rosen‎

George Sadowski‎

Patricia Somerville‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Larry Ternan, City Attorney‎

COMMUNICATIONS

Letter dated ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎93 ‎from J‎. ‎P‎. ‎Trembowicz, Pres‎. ‎of the Quail Ridge ‎

Homeowners Association expressing traffic and safety concerns at the ‎

entrance to the Rookery Woods Subdivision‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1438

Discuss Administrative Guidelines for Architectural Review‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the Planning Commission adopted the manual that ‎

was prepared by Gerald Luedtke & Associates‎. ‎The Planning Commission ‎

had a study session August ‎10‎, ‎1992 ‎to discuss these Administrative ‎

Guidelines for Architectural Review‎. ‎She noted that the document was ‎

primarily to be used by the staff in guiding applicants through the site plan ‎

review process, particularly with regard to design issues relative to their ‎

elevations for a new building‎. ‎Within the document, there are some ‎

references, particularly to building permits and how those would be handled ‎

since building permits go directly through the Building Department when a ‎

new tenant wants to occupy an existing building or if there were plans to ‎

modify or add an existing building by the current property owner‎. ‎

Prior to sending this document to the City Council for their consideration, ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan expressed some concerns particularly about the building permit ‎

issue‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out that the guidelines are not ordinance ‎

requirements, however, they are intended to give clarity and depth to ‎

statements that are found throughout the ordinance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan commented that the question of architectural review is really a ‎

legal question that could be explored much further‎. ‎He recalled a statement ‎

in the version adopted by the Planning Commission which said that any ‎

significant building plans that the Building Department took note of would ‎

be referred to the Planning Commission and any site plans would also be ‎

reviewed in respect to architectural design‎. ‎He mentioned to Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

before it was adopted that he had a problem with this if it was to have any ‎

"‎teeth‎" ‎in it and to be a basis of denial of permits and then also in respect ‎

to pulling something out of the normal Building Department procedure‎. ‎As ‎

he understood it, the Planning Commission went ahead and adopted it with ‎

some understanding that he would talk further with Ms‎. ‎Goodwin about it, ‎

which is why he is before the Planning Commission this evening‎.‎

He said the question of architectural review and architectural standards, of ‎

whether or not it may have legal enforcement, is a question that deserves ‎

some research on its own‎. ‎If it's legal, then it should be in the form of an ‎

ordinance and not guidelines from the Planning Commission‎. ‎If that's what ‎

the Planning Commission intends and if they believe that it should be left ‎

the way it is, then he believes they should propose a resolution to the City ‎

Council and request them to resolve whether or not they want, from a legal ‎

standpoint, to do this, and then if they do, to adopt an ordinance and give ‎

the Planning Commission instruction as to how it should be approved‎. ‎In ‎

lieu of that, he said that he would be content if the Planning Commission ‎

modified what they adopted so that it's clear that it's a guideline and it only ‎

applies to site plans that normally come before them‎. ‎However, an ‎

applicant for a building permit that doesn't require a site plan, such as a ‎

single family home, has a right to a building permit if the person meets the ‎

standards of the Building Code‎. ‎What the Planning Commission has done, ‎

by their guidelines, is instruct the Building Department to jerk out anything ‎

that requires a building permit for which there's not a site plan and send it to ‎

the Planning Commission for their review, and if they're not considering a ‎

site plan for it, he has fears that it may not just be a review utilizing ‎

guidelines‎. ‎The Planning Commission will have to approve it even if the ‎

application doesn't meet the guidelines‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan suggested that the Planning Commission allow Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

and himself to modify what they adopted in a way that takes away the ‎

thought that these provisions apply to building permits, even when the ‎

building permit is for something that has some significance architecturally, ‎

but for which there is no site plan‎. ‎Then, maybe just soften the language ‎

somewhat so that it applies to site plans only and applies to them as a ‎

guide only‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan continued by stating that this is a legal question of whether they ‎

can enforce guidelines even in site plan circumstances‎. ‎He thinks there's ‎

enough give and take in the site plan procedure that it's beneficial for the ‎

Planning Commission, the applicant, and the city to have a dialogue ‎

concerning the architectural features of the buildings that will be constructed ‎

on a site plan‎. ‎He doesn't take exception with the idea that the Planning ‎

Commission adopted the guidelines, so long as they use them as ‎

guidelines only and that they be used for the matters that are coming before ‎

them and in such a way that they won't turn down a site plan on this basis ‎

only‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that he can embrace this idea but if it's left in its present ‎

form, he feels that he has to write a letter to the City Council and indicate ‎

that the Planning Commission has exceeded its authority and to disregard ‎

the guidelines‎. ‎He said he doesn't want to do this and he doesn't say it as ‎

a threat‎. ‎He suggested that they modify the guidelines and use it for site ‎

plans for dialogue with the applicant, or if they feel more strongly about it, ‎

that they ask him to work with them and ask the City Council to enter into ‎

the area of architectural reviews which would require legal study as to ‎

whether it's legally possible and then how to do it correctly if it is and to do it ‎

by ordinance rather than guideline‎. ‎

Member Sadowski said that what he had in mind when the Planning ‎

Commission was discussing this was the possibility of curtailing the ‎

garishness in commercial buildings of this nature that would not be ‎

compatible with other buildings in the area‎. ‎There have been some notable ‎

successes in requesting the developers of commercial property to modify ‎

their designs‎. ‎Some of these building designs, even those that are ‎

company logo, can get carried away with themselves, becoming more of an ‎

eyesore than a locator‎. ‎He said that he didn't know that these guidelines ‎

needed any ‎"‎teeth‎" ‎in it‎. ‎Most people are reasonable and see that the ‎

Planning Commission has their best interest in mind‎. ‎He said he would like ‎

to see a way to bring this forward in a pleasing manner‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that he believes that this can be a very effective tool as a ‎

dialogue, to give developers something to make them think about it‎. ‎He ‎

said he mis‎-‎spoke when he mentioned single family residential because ‎

this is clearly limited to commercial, office, manufacturing, institutional and ‎

multiple‎-‎family residential complexes‎. ‎He said he agrees with Member ‎

Sadowski with regard to his intent and purpose for the guidelines‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that he thought that the next step in this process ‎

would be to look at it as an ordinance rather than guidelines‎. ‎He said that ‎

part of the problem is that Mr‎. ‎Luedtke came before the Planning ‎

Commission about a year ago with what he called ‎"‎an ordinance‎." ‎He said ‎

this was way too cumbersome to throw out onto the public‎. ‎A site plan ‎

came before them not too long after that which caused the Planning ‎

Commission to think about creating these guidelines‎. ‎The guidelines were ‎

only meant to be a temporary measure until staff and Mr‎. ‎Ternan could ‎

develop an ordinance to present to the Planning Commission‎. ‎He said that ‎

concerns relative to aesthetics are very important to him and he feels that, ‎

as a community, they should develop something that provides the ‎

developers a guideline so they know there are concerns with aesthetics ‎

and what's happening to this community‎. ‎He did not believe that the ‎

Planning Commission intended to hold up any building permits‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that he would read it that way regardless of how it was ‎

intended‎. ‎He felt that it's on risky ground when the words say one thing, ‎

which may be different than what was intended‎.‎

Member Nowicki recalled from the very beginning that Mr‎. ‎Luedtke was ‎

strongly in favor of architectural control‎. ‎He said that most of the examples ‎

that Mr‎. ‎Luedtke presented to them was something that was built years and ‎

years ago‎. ‎Most of the buildings constructed lately do have some ‎

architectural features in them‎. ‎Member Nowicki expressed to Mr‎. ‎Ternan ‎

that if he feels there are things in the guidelines that would create problems ‎

that he would point them out so the Planning Commission could review it‎. ‎

He recalled earlier in the discussion that one of the commissioners said he ‎

wasn't aware of any court cases challenging the architectural control ‎

ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said he doesn't think that's the case‎. ‎He said he hasn't ‎

researched it but noted that Michigan communities have generally stayed ‎

away from architectural control‎. ‎In some other states where there is ‎

architectural control, there has been significant litigation over it and the ‎

courts have upheld it in some states‎. ‎The architectural standards may have ‎

some life in Michigan, but it's got to be done with very carefully drawn ‎

standards‎. ‎It takes some legal research and then the development of the ‎

ordinance, if it's possible, and then it is necessary to be ready for possible ‎

legal challenges because they do come as soon as you start defining how ‎

someone can construct something‎. ‎If someone's denied a permit because ‎

they can't have the structure which they want, that seems to challenge them‎. ‎

Besides the guideline in a site plan circumstance, he feels they should ‎

adopt a specific resolution asking the City Council to make a decision as to ‎

whether it wishes to authorize the work that needs to be done and to move ‎

ahead on it‎. ‎

Responding to Member Nowicki's question regarding problems he has with ‎

the guidelines, Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that what he would change and what the ‎

commission adopted is very slight‎. ‎He said he could provide a revised ‎

version with certain areas crossed out, to be considered for further revision‎. ‎

For example, he said he would take out any reference to potentially holding ‎

up a building permit for which there is not a site plan‎. ‎Otherwise, he would ‎

leave everything in place and let the Planning Commission use it as a tool‎. ‎

He said if they wish this to go to the City Council, it should be by specific ‎

resolution‎.‎

The Chair asked if the motion made by Member Rosen at the September ‎

7‎, ‎1993 ‎Planning Commission meeting was sufficient, which was to send ‎

the guidelines to the City Council for the purpose of eliciting their comments ‎

on the process‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that perhaps he hasn't seen the resolution‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that it appeared that if the document went forward to City ‎

Council as it had been adopted by the Planning Commission, legal counsel ‎

would not be in a position to recommend their concurrence‎. ‎That is why the ‎

staff is back before the Planning Commission tonight asking for these ‎

modifications‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that if what they're talking about doing is in the form of a ‎

study and an ordinance, asking for the Planning Commission's concurrence ‎

of City Council of these guidelines is not direct enough‎. ‎He feels they need ‎

a specific resolution that expresses to the City Council their concern about ‎

aesthetics and architectural features of new construction and ask that the ‎

Council authorize a study and development of an ordinance to advance that ‎

concept‎. ‎To just ask for concurrence of the guidelines is not what he thinks ‎

they need‎.‎

Member Rosen said he recalled that they were going to try it as a guideline ‎

in the site plan review process first to see how it worked‎. ‎He didn't recall ‎

any attempt to move quickly toward an ordinance‎--‎maybe ‎3‎-‎5 ‎years‎. ‎He ‎

thought they were missing a final version of this document‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that the motion made on September ‎7‎, ‎1993 ‎only ‎

directed two minor changes and did not request that the document come ‎

back to the Planning Commission‎. ‎There was no direction to delete the ‎

references to building permits‎. ‎That was why they were halted‎. ‎Up until that ‎

time, the document had been revised to reflect the motion that was made ‎

for those changes‎. ‎When the issue was raised about the building permits, ‎

that was not discussed as being deleted‎. ‎

Member Rosen stated that it was at the August ‎10‎, ‎1993 ‎study meeting that ‎

they asked to have the references to the building permits deleted‎. ‎That's ‎

why he asked if there would be another printing of it because the original ‎

changes from August ‎10‎th haven't been made yet‎.‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Ternan if he was concerned mostly about the ‎

language on page ‎2 ‎where it states, ‎"‎Building permits for major additions ‎

or changes to existing structures which will have a major aesthetic effect will ‎

be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission‎ ‎"‎prior‎"‎ ‎to‎...." ‎He ‎

wondered if the words ‎"‎prior to‎" ‎were his main concern with regard to ‎

litigation‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that this is correct‎.‎

The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Ternan if he had considered what language, other than ‎

deleting that entire sentence, did he think it would be subject to any type of ‎

review whether it's prior to or holding up?‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan replied that there's a right to obtain a building permit if a site ‎

plan is not required, by following the construction code‎. ‎He doesn't think ‎

that the Planning Commission's adoption of the guidelines can have any ‎

impact on that circumstance, absent an ordinance which would be adopted ‎

by the City Council‎.‎

The Chair sensed from previous discussion regarding these guidelines that ‎

there seemed to be little, if any, interest in raising this to the level of ‎

ordinance‎. ‎He said that he didn't feel that this was the direction they ‎

wanted to move in at this time‎.‎

Member Ferrera suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that ‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan make his changes, in writing, to them for review and discussion ‎

at another meeting‎. ‎At that time, they can further discuss the guidelines ‎

based on the issues that Member Rosen raised, as well as discuss the ‎

issue of what they want City Council to do‎. ‎

The Chair said that Member Ferrera's suggestion could be informally sent ‎

to City Council requesting that Mr‎. ‎Ternan prepare some changes on this ‎

document with his legal opinions and hold off sending the document to ‎

Council until the Planning Commission meets again concerning this topic‎.‎

Discussed

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1464

Discussion regarding proposed Sign Ordinance revisions‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin noted that the Planning Commission requested that staff ‎

consider certain revisions to ‎Section ‎1810 ‎- ‎Signs‎ in light of the discussion ‎

during the study meeting held August ‎10‎, ‎1993‎. ‎Four specific areas were ‎

requested to be considered‎:‎

1‎.‎Reduction in the minimum height of signage and eliminating ‎

pole‎-‎mounted structures in favor of ground mounted ‎

monument‎-‎type sign structures‎.‎

2‎.‎Consideration of the sign structure or supports in calculating the overall ‎

sign area‎.‎

3‎.‎Incorporating language that will regulate the size and number of message ‎

units on any given property in the city‎.‎

4‎.‎Requiring that all sign lettering be in upper and lower case letters ‎(‎not all ‎

upper case letters‎).‎

She noted that the purpose of the discussion is to determine more clearly ‎

what the Planning Commission would like to see in the ordinance in these ‎

four areas based on staff's findings‎. ‎

Another issue is whether or not a major re‎-‎work of the sign provisions is ‎

necessary from the Planning Commission's perspective, and if so, that a ‎

resolution to City Council should be sent requesting that the City Attorney ‎

work on this with the staff‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that he does have, in a draft form, the four specific ‎

amendments listed‎. ‎He said that perhaps they could schedule this for a ‎

study meeting on January ‎18‎, ‎1994 ‎to go over the revised architectural ‎

guidelines and also get into the ordinance changes they requested‎.‎

The conceptual issue that he would like to address is whether they just want ‎

to make these changes as piece‎-‎meal changes to the ordinance and be ‎

content with that or do they want a major overhaul of the sign ordinance and ‎

what might that involve‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that the present sign provisions ‎

were adopted about ‎10 ‎years ago‎. ‎They were taken from a book on model ‎

ordinances written by a land use lawyer in Ann Arbor‎. ‎He felt that this ‎

ordinance is very difficult to work with on an administrative level‎. ‎The ‎

difficulty of working with it is probably something that ought to be reckoned ‎

with‎. ‎He said they might consider starting over again and trying to look at a ‎

new ordinance from someplace where it's working‎. ‎The provisions for ‎

signs can be very complicated when you try to set standards for a very ‎

diverse community and very different circumstances in various areas of the ‎

community‎. ‎He wouldn't want to see them start with a different ordinance ‎

just because there's criticism of how they've worked with it‎. ‎He said if they ‎

are going to work with an entirely new ordinance for regulating signs, he ‎

thought that he would opt to finding out the one that has the concepts they ‎

want, and then be reasonably satisfied that the administrative staff and the ‎

public are able to work with it and understand it‎. ‎He said the question is, do ‎

you feel there's sufficient reason to start over and plan to adopt a new ‎

ordinance? He said that perhaps that requires some comment by the ‎

Building Department and others before making that decision‎. ‎He wasn't ‎

sure that the Planning Commission was in a position to know for sure ‎

whether this is something that really needs to be reworked or not‎. ‎He said ‎

they can make amendments to it to accomplish their specific purposes, ‎

which will do in the interim while one new ordinance is developed, or they ‎

can drop the idea of a new ordinance depending on what the Planning ‎

Commission wants to do‎.‎

Member Ferrera agreed with Mr‎. ‎Ternan and commented that if staff is ‎

satisfied with the way the ordinance is working, then they may not need to ‎

have a total revamping of the ordinance‎. ‎His was concerned that, ‎1‎) ‎the ‎

cost to enforce the sign ordinance was so great relative to the revenues that ‎

it generated for that enforcement and, ‎2‎) ‎the difficulty that their staff had in ‎

trying to communicate what the ordinance was saying to the business ‎

community particularly and the sign makers, that warranted a substantial ‎

change in the ordinance‎. ‎He said he still gets informal feedback from some ‎

of the staff in the Building Department that this ordinance is difficult to deal ‎

with‎. ‎However, if Building Department staff doesn't feel that the ordinance ‎

needs any drastic change, then he's open to that‎. ‎He said the four issues ‎

noted in the staff memo of December ‎2‎, ‎1992 ‎are a different issue‎. ‎The ‎

issue of the total revamp had to do with how the ordinance was enforced or ‎

able to be enforced‎. ‎These four items are changes to what we're asking ‎

the ordinance to do for us‎--‎the height of the sign, consider the sign structure ‎

as part of the sign quantity, lettering on the sign, etc‎. ‎The hope was that ‎

some or all of these issues could be incorporated with the current ‎

ordinance, knowing that a major revision to the ordinance would probably ‎

take years‎. ‎He strongly urged that these changes be made to the current ‎

ordinance and that secondly, that the City of Rochester Hills review the ‎

ordinance in its entirety, but separately, independently, and after these ‎

changes‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that perhaps at the study session in January, they could ‎

look at the specific four amendments to the current ordinance and at the ‎

same time, look at revamping the ordinance as a separate matter‎. ‎He ‎

suggested they invite representatives of the Building Department to attend ‎

and perhaps some of the business community and discuss that a little ‎

further‎. ‎

Member Rosen felt that the sign ordinance gets complicated because of ‎

the exceptions in it to deal with, what are perceived to be, special ‎

situations, i‎.‎e‎. ‎B‎-‎4 ‎(‎Freeway Service‎)‎, and the difference between B‎-‎1‎, B‎-‎2‎, ‎

and B‎-‎3‎. ‎He wondered if it would help simplify the ordinance by eliminating ‎

some of the provisions, like B‎-‎4 ‎and perhaps standardizing the non‎-‎pole ‎

signs into monument signs‎. ‎

Member Ferrera said it's going to take some time to refine this ordinance ‎

or develop another ordinance and he didn't want to wait to make these ‎

changes‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said they don't want to wait either, therefore, he would move ‎

ahead with the changes‎. ‎He asked Ms‎. ‎Goodwin if she asked Mr‎. ‎Luedtke ‎

if he had worked with other communities with a sign ordinance that he ‎

would recommend‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that she spoke with Mr‎. ‎Luedtke today‎. ‎He has done a ‎

sign ordinance for East Lansing‎. ‎She said there are a number of sign ‎

ordinances they could look at prior to the study session and perhaps make ‎

some recommendation on those which they think might fit the purpose, ‎

although she wasn't completely clear on what would be the ideal ordinance‎. ‎

She felt there was support for the four issues mentioned earlier‎. ‎Jack ‎

Sage, who is the person most directly involved in sign permits and ‎

applications in the Building Department, is in support of all four changes‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin mentioned further that there is a fifth issue that City Council ‎

wants the Planning Commission to look at, which relates to real estate ‎

signs‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Ternan said that another issue he looked at is whether they have all the ‎

provisions in the Zoning Ordinance, or do they have all provisions ‎

pertaining to signs outside of the Zoning Ordinance, or whether you have it ‎

split‎. ‎He said it's clearly recommended, when you deal with different sign ‎

provisions for different zoning districts, that takes on a nature of a Zoning ‎

Ordinance‎. ‎Also, to bolster the authority and legal authority in respect to ‎

regulating aesthetics, that it should be under the Zoning Enabling Act‎. ‎

There's good reason to have regulations which regulate the size and ‎

location of signs in the Zoning Ordinance‎. ‎He's also aware that a number of ‎

communities don't have provisions in the Zoning Ordinance and they're not ‎

challenged‎. ‎If it's too cumbersome, he said he would be flexible enough to ‎

place it all in one place‎. ‎

Member Nowicki said he's always had a problem with the city's sign ‎

ordinance‎. ‎He felt it should be more specific and not written so that you're ‎

referring back and forth to different paragraphs and subsections‎.‎

Discussed

2000-1465

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎89‎-‎174 ‎- ‎Angelo's Crushed Aggregate ‎

Facility, located in Avon Industrial Park, west of Crooks, north of M‎-‎59‎, Parcel ‎

Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎29‎-‎251‎-‎006 ‎through ‎-‎013‎, zoned I‎-‎2‎, Heavy Industrial, Michael Gleeson, ‎

26400 ‎Sherwood, Warren, MI ‎48091‎, Applicant‎

Mr‎. ‎Michael Gleeson and Mr‎. ‎Neiro DeRubeis were present‎.‎

The subject site is composed of Lots ‎13 ‎through ‎20 ‎of the Avon Industrial ‎

Subdivision‎. ‎Angelo's Crushed Concrete also utilizes the ‎10‎-‎acre parcel ‎

just west of it, at the western end of Avon Industrial Drive‎. ‎The property is ‎

used to store commercial equipment‎. ‎Also, two large stockpiles are ‎

located on the property which appear to supply the asphalt plant located on ‎

the adjacent ‎10‎-‎acre parcel to the west‎. ‎

The Planning Commission previously approved site plans for two other ‎

parcels owned by Angelo Iafrate; the parcel just west was approved as a ‎

site for an asphalt plant and a concrete plant‎. ‎The Iafrate Company owns ‎

the triangular piece located east of the intersection of M‎-‎59 ‎and Grand ‎

Trunk Western Railroad‎. ‎Located on this parcel is an asphalt crusher which ‎

the applicant proposes to relocate to the subject parcel‎.‎

(‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin's staff report has been placed on file and by reference ‎

becomes part of the record hereof‎.)‎

Mr‎. ‎Gleeson explained that asphalt is crushed during the winter when it is ‎

hard so that it doesn't clog the crusher‎. ‎They take in other materials and ‎

crush them to also feed their asphalt plant‎. ‎Along side the railroad on the ‎

north side, they will have an obscuring fence as required by the ordinance‎. ‎

In front of that, they will put ‎5‎' trees to break up the look of the fence‎. ‎On the ‎

east side of the property is Wickes Lumber where they intend to put some ‎

foliage‎. ‎They intend to install a two‎-‎foot berm with ‎29 ‎five‎-‎foot high trees ‎

spaced at ‎15‎' intervals‎. ‎Although this is not required within the confines of ‎

an industrial park, they want to do this for the sake of aesthetics‎. ‎Along ‎

Avon Industrial Drive, they will install ‎54 ‎trees which will be five‎-‎foot high on ‎

a six‎-‎foot berm‎. ‎They will be staggered at ‎15‎' intervals‎. ‎The west side ‎

faces their asphalt plant and they do not intend to screen that‎.‎

Member Nowicki asked Mr‎. ‎Gleeson if his drawing reflects everything on ‎

the site presently‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gleeson replied, ‎"‎yes‎." ‎Member Nowicki said he ‎

visited the site today and was shocked to see piles of scrap metal and ‎

construction material, much of what appeared to be junk‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gleeson said that as a construction company, they have a lot of ‎

equipment‎. ‎He said that they keep some of the old equipment for parts‎. ‎

He said that he would be willing to walk the site with Mr‎. ‎Nowicki or anyone ‎

else to identify and eliminate some of this junk that he refers to‎. ‎

Member Nowicki commented on the poor condition of the asphalt drive ‎

through the site‎. ‎He said that the road where the trucks drive up the ‎

mountain to unload the concrete, is a mud field‎. ‎He wondered if there ‎

would be an improvement to this portion of the site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gleeson said that they would endeavor to clean that up‎. ‎He commented ‎

that there's been a lot of wet weather over the past few weeks‎. ‎He said that ‎

it is not normally this way‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked Ms‎. ‎Goodwin if the storage of construction vehicles ‎

are permitted on this site‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin replied that it is permitted because ‎

the site is zoned I‎-‎2‎, Heavy Industrial‎.‎

Member Nowicki said he understands that construction vehicles would be ‎

permitted, but not junk‎. ‎He said there is a bunch of crushed culverts and ‎

tubing, which has nothing to do with crushing concrete or an asphalt plant‎.‎

Member Somerville said that she didn't feel that ‎29 ‎trees would do much as ‎

far as berming and protection on the east side of the site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gleeson said that the ordinance does not require them to put any trees ‎

there‎.‎

Member Somerville said that, to be a good neighbor, she hoped they would ‎

be willing to berm very heavily all along that property line‎. ‎She said that for ‎

years people in that area have put up with the dust and smoke from this ‎

concrete crushing operation‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gleeson didn't feel that adding trees would prevent the mobile home ‎

park from dust and smoke‎. ‎He said they intend to install a six‎-‎foot berm ‎

with ‎54 ‎trees which would be placed ‎15‎' on center‎. ‎They are doing this on ‎

the east side along Avon Industrial Drive because they felt that the amount ‎

of trees would be sufficient to make it more aesthetically pleasing‎. ‎He said ‎

they are doing it because they want to, but it's not in the ordinance‎.‎

Member Somerville said that she realizes that it's not in the ordinance, ‎

however, she would like to see them berm even more heavily than they are‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gleeson said that he doesn't have a problem putting in some additional ‎

trees along there‎. ‎He felt that this is the best they can do there‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked if they would be crushing concrete at this particular ‎

location‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gleeson replied, ‎"‎no, that their concrete crushing is solely in ‎

the far westerly portion of the property‎. ‎He said that this will not change‎--‎the ‎

only thing that they do at the front end of the site is to move the crusher ‎

periodically and crush what they refer to as asphalt, to be recycled into the ‎

asphalt plant‎. ‎They also bring in materials they get from other jobs that ‎

have sand‎/‎gravel content and they crush that and size it‎. ‎That material is ‎

also used in the making of asphalt‎.‎

Member Ferrera expressed some concern that the site plan sheet doesn't ‎

show the access road the way it is shown on the Master Plan sheet‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the site plan dated ‎9‎-‎27‎-‎93 ‎is actually what the ‎

staff reviewed and what they are recommending approval on‎. ‎She ‎

requested that the applicant provide a concept plan or a master plan that ‎

would show both the asbuilt conditions and the proposed plan so that the ‎

Planning Commission would have information about the total site‎. ‎Her ‎

understanding was that the Master Plan was for presentation purposes ‎

only‎. ‎

Member Hauswirth asked Ms‎. ‎Goodwin why a legal combination of the ‎

parcels is not recommended as a condition of site plan approval‎. ‎If there is ‎

no intention to keep the parcels legally separated, why are they and why not ‎

just make it a condition of the approval that the lots be combined‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that the Planning Commission could make that a ‎

condition of approval‎. ‎Staff has raised that issue, but because the property ‎

is currently under common ownership, they have not required it at this time, ‎

however, if there was a sale of either property, then a cross‎-‎access ‎

agreement would be a condition of any future site plan approval‎. ‎She has ‎

discussed this with the applicant, but because the property is being ‎

developed jointly, they've not pursued it‎.‎

Member Hauswirth asked if it wouldn't seem more prudent to have them ‎

accept the condition, if it's approved, to either legally combine the two ‎

parcels or to have the parcel to the west give an easement to the east‎. ‎

The Chair said that since there's common ownership, he didn't feel the ‎

Planning Commission could justify requiring a burden on either of the ‎

properties‎.‎

Member Rosen asked for clarification on the relocation of the crusher‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gleeson said they temporarily moved the crusher from the back up to ‎

the front to crush materials that normally would never be put at the back‎. ‎

The asphalt plant is at the front of the site and the asphalt is crushed, sized ‎

and recycled‎. ‎

Member Rosen asked if there was only one ‎"‎jaw‎" ‎crusher‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gleeson ‎

replied ‎"‎yes‎." ‎Mr‎. ‎Rosen asked if there were other crushers‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Gleeson ‎

said there are some screens that go along with it, because the material has ‎

to be screened and sized after it's crushed‎. ‎Member Rosen then asked if ‎

the jaw crusher was approved for two locations and Mr‎. ‎Gleeson replied, ‎

"‎yes‎." ‎

Member Rosen said that the master site plan before them this evening ‎

appears to show two crushers‎. ‎He felt that they could legitimately claim that ‎

they have approval for both crushers, not one in two places at alternate ‎

times‎. ‎He asked if there had been any problems with the crusher located ‎

on the western portion of the site with regard to complaints of noise, dust or ‎

enforcement actions‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that she is not aware of any recent complaints‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gleeson said that the decibel readings that they have in industrial areas ‎

cannot go beyond the property line any more than ‎75 ‎decibels‎. ‎They are ‎

well within that range‎.‎

Member Rosen asked if any engineering studies had been done on the ‎

crusher located in the north or northeast location‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gleeson said that studies had not been made on that particular spot, ‎

but they have been made on the asphalt plant and they do stay within the ‎75 ‎

decibels, which is required‎. ‎When they are producing asphalt, they use ‎

water to suppress the dust‎. ‎He said that they have a DNR permit which ‎

subjects them to these regulations‎.‎

The Chair said that the applicant's master site plan and the notes provided ‎

in the packet seem to reflect that they are asking for permission to move ‎

one crusher to the site they are asking for approval on tonight ‎(‎one crusher ‎

on the overall site‎).‎

The Chair asked for verification from Mr‎. ‎Gleeson if he would be willing to ‎

install more trees on the east side of the property per Member Somerville's ‎

earlier request‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Gleeson replied that he would agree to that request‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Ferrera, support by Hauswirth, in the matter of File No‎. ‎89‎-‎174 ‎

(‎Iafrate's Crushed Aggregate Facility‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎

approve the site plan‎ dated Received October ‎28‎, ‎1993‎, with the ‎

following conditions‎:‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎The requirements of Zoning Ordinance ‎200 ‎can be met‎.‎

2‎.‎All applicable information for site plan approval has been submitted‎.‎

3‎.‎There will be a satisfactory and harmonious relationship between this ‎

development and the existing and prospective development of ‎

contiguous land and adjacent neighborhoods‎. ‎The site is within a ‎

developed industrial park, and will be similar to others in setbacks ‎

from the road, landscaping and use‎.‎

4‎.‎Landscaped berms along the north, south and east property lines will ‎

provide an effective transition between land uses, particularly on the ‎

north, where the property backs to multiple‎-‎family zoning‎.‎

5‎.‎The site plan is in conformance with the adopted Master Land Use Plan ‎

objectives, pertaining to industrial development in the city‎.‎

6‎.‎That only one jaw crusher is approved to be moved back and forth ‎

between the two crusher sites ‎

(‎parcels ‎2 ‎and ‎3‎). ‎The ‎

aggregate material, screens and ‎

other equipment would remain on ‎

both sites‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎That a bond be posted in the amount of $‎21‎,‎625‎.‎00 ‎to secure the ‎

screening and‎/‎or landscaping improvements‎.‎

2‎.‎That the additional trees and tree spacing, as agreed to by the applicant, ‎

be provided and included in a revised site plan‎.‎

3‎.‎That a road be included in a revised site plan that's in conformance with ‎

the master site plan dated Received November ‎29‎, ‎1993‎, and that ‎

staff approve the location of the road on the revised site plan ‎

submission, and that the revised plan should reflect the trees on the ‎

east property line every ‎15 ‎feet planted in a staggered fashion‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎Boswell, Ferrera, Hauswirth, Nowicki, Rosen, Sadowski, Somerville, ‎

Kaiser‎

Nays‎:‎None ‎ MOTION CARRIED‎

Approved

2000-1466

Discussion regarding Light Industrial zoning districts permitted uses and ‎

associated development standards‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin presented her staff memorandum dated December ‎2‎, ‎1993 ‎

(‎Staff report has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the ‎

record hereof‎.) ‎In her presentation, she lists four issues that the Planning ‎

Commission has been asked to consider‎:‎

1‎)‎The staff continues to administratively limit office area in I‎-‎1 ‎industrial ‎

building to no more than ‎50‎% ‎only when it is evident that ‎

adequate parking can be provided on site to handle the ‎

increased demand‎.‎

2‎)‎That the integrity of the Light Industrial district should be protected by ‎

continuing to enforce the current limitation on principal ‎

permitted and conditional uses as listed in Section ‎1300‎.‎

3‎)‎That the Planning Commission may wish to look at planning for ‎

appropriate ORT sites elsewhere in the community and ‎

encourage these ‎"‎hybrid‎" ‎businesses to locate there‎.‎

4‎)‎That the staff look, in the future, at proposing amendments to the ‎

standards in the Light Industrial zoning district to clarify these ‎

intentions‎. ‎For example, one thing might be to modify the ‎

parking requirement so that if you have greater than ‎50‎% ‎of ‎

the space devoted to office that you would have to meet the ‎

parking standards for office use‎.‎

DISCUSSION‎:‎

Member Sadowski said he doesn't see any harm is combining uses in the ‎

industrial zoning districts which are a lighter use which may be more than ‎

50‎% ‎of the actual industrial use‎. ‎

Member Nowicki said that the ORT ordinance says that the parking ‎

requirements shall be flexible‎. ‎With regard to a mixed use in the industrial ‎

district, a similar flexibility could apply as a conditional parking in the ‎

industrial zoning without getting too involved of trying to come up with ‎

percentages because it will change with every business or any mixed use‎. ‎

He didn't see how they could come up with a standard‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that this would be fine for new sites‎. ‎However, the ‎

problem is where they already have a developed site‎. ‎

Member Nowicki felt that they would have the same problem in ORT zoning ‎

once it was initially developed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Nowicki said that we would have that ‎

situation in any use that changes from one use to another‎. ‎He gave an ‎

example that you could have a shopping center that may end up as a ‎

warehouse with a huge parking lot, or it may be a warehouse that ends up ‎

as a shopping center with the opposite situation‎.‎

Member Hauswirth said that his overall concern relates to chasing ‎

businesses away from the area‎. ‎He doesn't feel this makes any sense at ‎

all‎. ‎To be so restrictive when our neighboring communities aren't as ‎

restrictive would be detrimental‎. ‎At the same time, it doesn't make sense, ‎

for purposes of bringing in business, to start unraveling all the logic that's ‎

been applied in coming up with what they have now‎. ‎He summarized his ‎

comments by saying that they should continue with item #‎1‎, start doing #‎4 ‎

and in the process, implement #‎3‎. ‎He suggested that Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

continue the process that we are doing now and just administratively handle ‎

the situation‎. ‎He felt they should begin now looking at what the Planning ‎

Commission believes is the direction to go with any amendments that ‎

would not put us in a non‎-‎competitive position‎. ‎His overall feeling was to ‎

not rush in and change something just to chase business‎. ‎

Member Rosen agreed with Member Hauswirth and asked if going from I‎-‎1 ‎

to ORT would be upzoning or downzoning‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin felt that it would be upzoning in terms of property values‎. ‎In ‎

terms of land use, it would be downzoning because it would be going from ‎

a more intense to a less intense use‎. ‎From a market value standpoint, the ‎

space in ORT is going to be more expensive and valuable‎.‎

Member Rosen asked if it would be worthwhile to look at some I‎-‎1 ‎areas ‎

within the city where the owners could apply for ORT which would give them ‎

more flexibility‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that she would have to look into that and pointed out that ‎

perhaps they could have a ‎"‎floating zoning‎" ‎or an ‎"‎overlay zone‎" ‎which ‎

could be used when the parking space was adequate‎. ‎If the question was ‎

strictly of mixed use versus light industrial then you could apply for the ORT ‎

designation which would then make mixed use permitted‎.‎

Member Sadowski asked Ms‎. ‎Goodwin if she's noticed any different trends ‎

in the industry that's coming this way in terms of being lighter industry or ‎

more technical industries that would lend more towards lightening up the ‎

zoning‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that she is seeing a variety‎. ‎Traditional light industrial is ‎

still coming‎. ‎She said that one of the reasons to preserve the light industrial ‎

is because of the proximity to the Oak Tech Park‎. ‎Apparently, certain ‎

hi‎-‎tech light industrial firms don't want to be right in Auburn Hills or in the ‎

Oak Tech Park, but they want to be close by‎.‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Chair explained that the Planning Commission received a copy of a ‎

memo addressed to City Council from Mr‎. ‎Jeff Cohee regarding the ‎

M‎-‎59‎/‎Adams Rd‎. ‎interchange project‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that the memo was intended for the Planning ‎

Commission's information and was not intended for discussion at this ‎

meeting‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin distributed a memo from the City of Auburn Hills Zoning ‎

Board of Appeals regarding a proposed variance‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that ‎

she is looking for a determination of whether or not they want to send a ‎

resolution to the City of Auburn Hills‎. ‎She felt that there might be cause for ‎

some concern from a planning standpoint‎. ‎The property is located at the ‎

west municipal boundary at Butler Rd‎. ‎Butler Ridge would be the ‎

development that would be occurring on the Rochester Hills side‎. ‎This ‎

property is currently developed for a ‎50‎,‎000 ‎sq‎. ‎ft‎. ‎office building‎. ‎

Apparently Letica Corporation is looking to purchase that property‎. ‎One of ‎

the conditions of the purchase would be that they consider constructing a ‎

20‎,‎000 ‎sq‎. ‎ft‎. ‎building for a research related lab, however, they want to ‎

place the building along the east property line so as to create an ‎"‎L‎" ‎and do ‎

that by means of an interior walkway‎. ‎In order to do that, they would have to ‎

encroach the ‎100‎' buffer that is required from that zoning district ‎

(‎Technology and Research District‎) ‎by eighty feet‎. ‎This means that the ‎

building would be sitting twenty feet off of the property line‎. ‎They state in ‎

their application that the woods, wetlands and topography in that area is ‎

such that the homes would be adequately screened anyway with just the ‎20‎' ‎

setback‎. ‎The Rochester Hills Planning staff feels that even if the property ‎

were developed for homes, there would be at least a ‎35‎' rear yard setback ‎

and twenty feet is really quite inadequate for screening‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin feels ‎

that the topography is ‎not‎ such that the land is sloping in that area and the ‎

finished grade elevation of those homes would make them below the ‎

building and it would be very visible‎. ‎She said the question is whether or ‎

not the Planning Commission would want to send any sort of resolution in ‎

objection or stating any reasons that the Auburn Hills Zoning Board of ‎

Appeals might want to consider‎. ‎

The Chair suggested, as a favor to our neighbor ‎(‎Auburn Hills‎)‎, Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin may want to ask them to call their legal attorney and ask if their ‎

public hearing notice is going to be acceptable since they put a date‎/‎day ‎

that's in conflict with the current calendar‎.‎

Member Ferrera asked to be excused from voting on this item since Letica ‎

Corporation is a client of his firm‎. ‎

There was no opposition from the Planning Commission regarding ‎

Member Ferrera's request‎.‎

Member Hauswirth felt that our city would be doing a disservice to future ‎

citizens in Butler Ridge by not appealing to Auburn Hills to consider not ‎

granting the variance‎. ‎He felt that twenty feet is a far cry from one hundred ‎

feet‎. ‎He was not at all interested in considering thirty‎-‎five feet‎. ‎He was in ‎

favor of appealing to Auburn Hills that the required setback be left at ‎100‎' ‎

and in lieu of an L‎-‎shape, stick with an I‎-‎shape‎. ‎

The Chair asked Ms‎. ‎Goodwin if she knew if the Auburn Hills public hearing ‎

notice was sent to residents within ‎300 ‎feet and if it included notices to ‎

Rochester Hills residents‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that most municipalities notice the neighboring ‎

municipality, who in turn, send notices to their own residents‎.‎

Member Rosen agreed with Member Hauswirth that they express their ‎

opposition to the granting of the variance and that no reduction in the ‎

setbacks be allowed based on the fact that no practical difficulty exists, no ‎

hardship or unusual circumstance exists and that it wouldn't do substantial ‎

justice‎.‎

Member Sadowski also agreed and commented that they would be very ‎

remiss in their duties if they didn't voice their educated objection‎. ‎He felt ‎

that a nicely worded resolution be sent to the Auburn Hills ZBA expressing ‎

their opposition‎.‎

MOTION‎ by Sadowski, support by Somerville, to cause a correspondence ‎

to be prepared for mailing to the Auburn Hills Zoning Board of Appeals for ‎

incorporation into their public hearing on the issue of the modification being ‎

requested by Letica Corporation, and that it incorporate the language of a, ‎

b, and c of Ms‎. ‎Goodwin's memo, excluding the second sentence of ‎

paragraph b, summarizing that the Rochester Hills Planning Commission is ‎

in total opposition to the modification being requested‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎All‎

Nays‎:‎None‎

Abstain‎:‎Ferrera‎

MOTION CARRIED‎

The Chair noted that he really feels that they should tell the Auburn Hills ZBA ‎

that their notice may be deficient and should check with their city attorney ‎

before they go any further‎.‎

___________________________‎

b‎)‎Chairman's Discussion Items‎

Concerning minutes, in the future, the Chair requests that typographical ‎

errors simply be submitted to the secretary before the meeting begins‎. ‎

This can be done either in writing or by phone call to the secretary or Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin or just mention it sometime prior to the meeting‎. ‎There won't be ‎

any comment about the minutes during the course of the meeting‎. ‎

The Chair said that it's been brought to his attention that the length of the ‎

Planning Commission meetings and‎/‎or the length of their discussion on ‎

some items, particularly site plan and plat plan reviews may be too long‎. ‎

He prefaced any of his further comments by saying that he isn't convinced ‎

that this is the case, however he wanted to bring this forward‎. ‎He said that ‎

there shouldn't be a lot that they need to discuss on site plan approvals and ‎

plat plan approvals since the packets most often have the necessary ‎

materials‎. ‎If they feel that the reason there's so much discussion is ‎

because of a lack of back‎-‎up information in the packets, then they should let ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin know so it can be corrected‎.‎

He said that, in the future, he will not ask the Planning Department to make ‎

oral summaries of the staff reports and material that has been included in ‎

the Planning Commission's packet‎. ‎If there are things that the Planning ‎

Department has to add to the discussion he will ask at the beginning of the ‎

discussion if there is anything they wish to add or changes that should be ‎

brought to their attention before they hear from the applicant‎. ‎

If it's a public hearing, he will alert the public as to the nature of the ‎

discussion and go from there‎. ‎If there's a particular topic where he or Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin feels the staff report should be read, then he would ask for it to be ‎

presented‎. ‎He felt that it would be helpful to the public if there were one or ‎

two full packets left at the counter at the back of the auditorium for their ‎

perusal‎. ‎On the front of the packet, he suggested that a note state that the ‎

packet should be left on the counter for the duration of the meeting‎. ‎If ‎

someone wants to review it, they would have the opportunity to do so‎. ‎

Member Ferrera suggested that staff reports be provided to the applicants ‎

prior to the meeting‎. ‎

Member Hauswirth agreed that it would be helpful to give the staff report to ‎

the applicant in advance so that they can be prepared to add any additional ‎

comments they may have that are not contained in the report‎.‎

The Chair said that another way to frame the discussion is to put a motion ‎

on the floor early in the meeting‎. ‎Even though in Robert's Rules of Order, ‎

there is no discussion until a motion is made, he said that we don't require ‎

that and he doesn't really want to do this‎. ‎However, if any of the Planning ‎

Commissioners agree that they're taking too much time, this would be a ‎

way to streamline that discussion‎. ‎Also, in lieu of this, he could limit the ‎

time that the commissioners speak on each topic‎. ‎

Member Nowicki suggested that possibly the Planning Department could ‎

request extra plans so that they can be sent to the Planning Commission ‎

members with the packets so they can be reviewed and raise questions ‎

ahead of time‎. ‎This would help them to be familiar with the plan prior to ‎

coming to the meeting‎. ‎He said they might want to consider using visual ‎

aids such as the slide projector for the benefit of the audience‎. ‎Also video ‎

enhancement of site plans may want to be looked into‎. ‎Also perhaps ‎

setting up tables behind them to lay the plans on might make it easier than ‎

laying them on the floor‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that these are very good suggestions that she will look ‎

into for the upcoming year‎.‎

The Chair asked if there's any burden they could put on the applicant to ‎

bear some of the obligation, responsibility or cost of getting those plans to ‎

the Planning Commission, for instance, shrinking the site plans to make ‎

mailing them easier‎.‎

Member Hauswirth was concerned that sometimes even the full size plans ‎

have details that are hard to read‎. ‎He felt that getting the plans in advance ‎

of the meeting so he could review them at his leisure and get his questions ‎

together would help him go through the process much more quickly‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that one thought is that she could ask the applicant to ‎

mail the plans directly to the Planning Commissioners‎. ‎The reason the ‎

Planning Commission hasn't mailed plans is that they usually only have ‎10 ‎

copies and they like to have them brought to the meeting so they can be ‎

placed back in the file‎. ‎These are the plans that get stamped and ‎

distributed to other departments for their files‎. ‎She said they could ‎

increase the number of plans requested from ‎20 ‎to ‎30‎.‎

Member Ferrera said that he doesn't want them mailed to him‎--‎not from the ‎

city or the applicant‎. ‎Either way, it's added cost for processing, distributing ‎

and mailing‎. ‎

Member Nowicki agreed and said if the applicant is getting in touch with ‎

the Planning Commissioners personally, there could be criticism of that‎.‎

The Chair said that he tends to agree with Member Ferrera in that he ‎

doesn't really want them mailed either‎. ‎Another aspect of a discussion he ‎

had with Ms‎. ‎Goodwin is that very soon they are going to have some type of ‎

a video presentation to the Planning Commission to help them in this ‎

process, in reading plans and going through the site plan approval process‎. ‎

He noted that most of them, because of a lack of time, have not been able ‎

to take advantage of the conferences and seminars that the city has money ‎

to send them to‎. ‎In lieu of being able to do this, Ms‎. ‎Goodwin is in the ‎

process of deciding the best way to give them some instructional ‎

demonstration in how to go through this process more efficiently‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin said that this would be focusing on site plan review‎. ‎She felt ‎

that perhaps having the plan on a table might be the easiest thing we could ‎

do to start off‎. ‎If the plans are out on the table or tacked up on the board, ‎

they are available to look at when the commissioners begin arriving at the ‎

meeting‎.‎

Member Rosen suggested that perhaps an ‎11 ‎x ‎17 ‎reduction of the ‎

clearest print which shows the most pertinent information would be ‎

extremely helpful‎. ‎He thought the new way of handling corrections on ‎

minutes was a great idea‎. ‎Regarding the discussion time on agenda ‎

items, one option might be setting a guideline for the first three topics‎. ‎He ‎

felt that although they may not reach those guidelines, it may tend to keep ‎

them more focused‎. ‎

Member Boswell said he doesn't particularly like the idea of setting a time ‎

limit‎. ‎He said that they may strive to finish an item in ‎30 ‎minutes, only to ‎

discover that they have a problem that didn't surface prior to the meeting‎. ‎

He didn't think that time limits would work‎.‎

Member Nowicki asked, if a resolution is made and the Planning ‎

Commission discusses it, and someone wants to cut off the discussion, ‎

they could just call the question‎. ‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair announced that the next meeting date will be December ‎21‎, ‎

1993‎. ‎

Member Sadowski announced that he would not be in attendance at the ‎

December ‎21‎, ‎1993 ‎meeting‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

meeting was adjourned at ‎10‎:‎35 ‎p‎.‎m‎.‎