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 16, 1997

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

John Gaber‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Paul Krupa‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1816

November ‎18‎, ‎1997 ‎Regular Meeting‎

Correction to Minutes‎: ‎Page ‎8‎, ‎6‎th full paragraph, ‎5‎th line‎: ‎

Change‎:‎ "‎D‎" ‎

To‎:‎ "‎E‎"‎

Correction to Minutes‎: ‎Page ‎8‎, ‎6‎th full paragraph, ‎8‎th line‎: ‎

Change‎:‎ "‎development‎"‎

To‎:‎ "‎demand‎"‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Nowicki, that the Minutes dated ‎

November ‎18‎, ‎1997 ‎be accepted as corrected‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Krupa ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved as Amended

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Brochure ‎"‎The McKenna Report‎"‎

B‎.‎ Christmas cards‎

C‎.‎ Draft minutes from City Council Meeting of November ‎5‎, ‎1997‎, ‎

pertaining to Agenda Item V‎.‎B‎.‎

D‎.‎ Letter from Bruce Hawkins, ‎115‎ Windsor, Rochester Hills, regarding ‎

Agenda Item V‎.‎C‎.‎

E‎.‎ Ordinance No‎. ‎200-97‎ regarding wireless communications facilities‎

F‎.‎ Agendas, Rochester Hills Historic Districts Commission regular meeting ‎

December ‎18‎, ‎1997‎ and public hearing December ‎18‎, ‎1997‎.‎

G‎.‎ Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi will not be in attendance this evening due to a death in his ‎

family‎.‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1755

Resolution regarding the Master Transportation Plan ‎1998 ‎Update ‎- ‎Resolution ‎

to City Council regarding the City of Rochester Hills Master Transportation Plan ‎

1998 ‎Update as a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan ‎(‎Reference ‎

draft documents previously distributed‎).‎

The Chair stated that only seven Planning Commission members are present this ‎

evening, with one absent and one seat vacant‎. ‎Five votes are required to modify the ‎

Master Plan of which the Master Transportation Plan is a component‎. ‎Although ‎

decisions on master plan items are usually scheduled with a full board present, the ‎

absent Member Krupa has submitted an extensive written opinion regarding this item ‎

* ‎Letter from Bruce Hawkins, ‎115 ‎Windsor, Rochester Hills, regarding Agenda Item ‎

V‎.‎C‎.‎ ‎The Chair pointed out that it might be possible to spend a great deal of time ‎

discussing this issue again this evening and still not arrive at a decision due to the lack ‎

of a full board; when and if a new member comes on board the whole issue may have ‎

to be revisited; and there is a proposed resolution in the packet‎. ‎Member Gaber ‎

indicated that City Council is expected to approve an appointment tomorrow‎. ‎The ‎

Chair informally polled the members to ascertain the possibility of passage of a ‎

resolution‎. ‎Members Boswell and Rosen were not ready to support a resolution‎.‎

The Chair summarized the major concern by commissioners as well as the public from ‎

the previous meeting being the proposed widening of Tienken Road‎. ‎He advised the ‎

commission that the contract with BRW has been fulfilled‎. ‎Any further studies or ‎

changes would incur additional costs, other than simple map or text changes‎. ‎The ‎

Chair distributed to commissioners copies of Member Krupa's letter, Member ‎

Rosen's suggested map and text changes, and the road segment chart‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained the road segment chart which represents the number of ‎

residential and nonresidential parcels abutting roadways that are proposed for ‎

widening in the proposed update and which would be impacted if the Preferred ‎

Alternative Scenario were adopted‎. ‎The total number of parcels represented on the ‎

chart is ‎410‎. ‎There are a total of ‎17‎,‎600 ‎single family parcels in the city and ‎23‎,‎000 ‎

total parcels‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, seconded by Boswell, that the Planning Commission ‎table ‎

until the January ‎27‎, ‎1998 ‎Special Study Meeting‎ a resolution to City Council ‎

regarding the City of Rochester Hills Master Transportation Plan ‎1997 ‎Update as a ‎

component of the City's Comprehensive Plan‎.‎

Discussion on the motion‎:‎

The Chair distributed to commissioners copies of a memo from Gene Franchett of ‎

BRW, Inc‎. ‎

Member Nowicki stated that he considered withdrawing his motion; but in light of the ‎

additional information in the memo he believed it would be proper to discuss it at the ‎

same time that a resolution is adopted at the January ‎27‎, ‎1998‎. ‎

Member Nowicki called the question‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

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

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Krupa ‎MOTION CARRIED‎

Tabled

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1817

Rezoning Request ‎(‎Public Hearing‎) - ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎044 ‎- ‎An amendment to Zoning ‎

Ordinance ‎200 ‎to rezone a ‎2‎.‎5 ‎acres parcel from R‎-‎1‎, One Family Residential ‎

to RCD, One Family Cluster, ‎6460 ‎Rochester Rd‎.‎, west side of Rochester, ‎

north of Orion, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎03‎-‎426‎-‎003‎, Emery and Jacqueline King, ‎6460 ‎

Rochester Rd‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48306‎, Applicants‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Gary Wilson of McKenna Associates, Inc‎. ‎

dated December ‎8‎, ‎1997 ‎has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of ‎

the record hereof‎.)‎

The Chair explained the Public Hearing procedure for the benefit of persons in the ‎

audience and explained that the Planning Commission will only make a ‎

recommendation to City Council to either adopt or reject the subject rezoning request‎.‎

Present were property owners Emery and Jacqueline King, and Douglas McIntosh of ‎

McIntosh Poris, Inc‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin explained that Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi is absent due to a death in his family‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin summarized the staff report prepared by McKenna Associates‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McIntosh stated that they looked at how they could mitigate the issues related to ‎

traffic and noise and increased traffic volume on Rochester Road‎. ‎They came up with ‎

a proposal for a ‎9 ‎unit development which will buffer the newly to‎-‎be‎-‎built ‎

development to the west and south the proposed Quailcrest Subdivision‎. ‎The ‎

proposed ‎9 ‎unit configuration, given its courtyard arrangement, will also provide the ‎

existing single family residence to the north which is set back a greater distance than ‎

the proposed development a further buffer to Rochester Road‎. ‎There appears to be ‎

no way to conceivably develop the subject site as single family residential given the ‎

characteristics of the proposed Quailcrest development to the west‎.‎

The Chair confirmed with the applicants their understanding that a rezoning cannot be ‎

approved with any particular development in mind‎. ‎Anything consistent with the ‎

zoning requirements for the RCD, One Family Cluster zoning district would be able to ‎

be built on the site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎McIntosh ‎*‎said everything they are presenting to the Planning Commission tonight ‎

is consistent with the language of Section ‎5‎.‎00 ‎Intent‎. ‎of Zoning Ordinance ‎200‎.‎

The Chair confirmed with Ms‎. ‎Goodwin that the city staff agrees with the staff report ‎

that the current master plan designates the site cluster housing and that the proposed ‎

RCD zoning is consistent with the cluster housing designation‎.‎

The Chair ‎opened the public hearing‎.‎

Susan Friedlander, attorney representing Mr‎. ‎Jack Karbowski, ‎6400 ‎

N‎. ‎Rochester Rd‎.‎, ‎owner and resident of the parcel adjacent to the north of the ‎

subject site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Karbowski objects to the proposed rezoning‎. ‎One of the original ‎

reasons for master planning the subject site for RCD, One Family Cluster was ‎

because the ‎22 ‎acre site surrounding it was zoned RCD and it could be considered ‎

"‎spot zoning‎" ‎if the single parcel were to remain R‎-‎1‎, One Family Residential‎. ‎That ‎

situation has changed with the proposed Quailcrest Subdivision being developed ‎

under the requirements for R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential, providing a lesser density ‎

than allowed under RCD requirements‎. ‎If the subject site were rezoned RCD, then it ‎

could conceivably be considered ‎"‎spot zoning‎." ‎She referred to the October ‎21‎, ‎

1997 ‎staff report regarding the Quailcrest Subdivision and the recommendation to ‎

waive the Type B buffer‎. ‎There is a single family residence on the subject site so it ‎

obviously can be used as currently zoned‎. ‎She pointed out a possible domino effect ‎

resulting if the subject site is rezoned RCD, One Family Cluster‎. ‎She asked at the ‎

very least to defer a decision regarding the subject rezoning request until it is known ‎

definitely how Quailcrest is developed ‎-- ‎as RCD, One Family Cluster, or R‎-‎3‎, One ‎

Family Residential, and until the Master Plan Update is completed‎. ‎

The Chair ‎closed the public hearing‎.‎

In looking at the proposed Quailcrest development, Mr‎. ‎McIntosh identified ten ‎

proposed sites that would be buffered by the proposed subject site‎. ‎Those ten sites ‎

would otherwise back onto Rochester Road‎. ‎In addition, as a single family ‎

development would not have access to Rochester Road unless it was divided‎. ‎A ‎

portion of it would be rendered unusable, given the site configuration‎. ‎The current ‎

owners have owned it since ‎1986‎. ‎

Member Nowicki provided historical information‎. ‎He worked at National Twist Drill ‎

across the street‎. ‎The area was master planned for office research, but over the years ‎

there were changes in the master plan‎. ‎Cluster zoning was applied to the general area ‎

of the subject parcel because of the hilly nature of the area‎. ‎Over a period of years ‎

some RCD zoned areas in the city were developed as single family, consistent with the ‎

ordinance‎. ‎It is not a matter of having to be developed as cluster; there is an option‎. ‎

Multiple areas were zoned as buffers between commercial and single family residential ‎

areas‎.‎

Member Gaber stated the subject site appears to be a perfect candidate for the ‎

master plan process, despite the fact that a moratorium cannot be placed on rezoning ‎

requests‎. ‎The circumstances of the subject request are different due to the current ‎

changing conditions in the area surrounding the subject site‎. ‎

Member Rosen recommended looking at the land use as well as the zoning‎. ‎Because ‎

of the changes occurring in the area, it might appear as ‎"‎spot zoning‎." ‎He questioned ‎

how it could be undevelopable since it already has a single family residence on it‎. ‎It ‎

might be able to be split‎.‎

Regarding the changing times, Mr‎. ‎King recalled when they bought the parcel the area ‎

was semi‎-‎rural as well as close to town with wildlife, woodlands and rolling hills‎. ‎

Soon after, the area started changing and traffic increased to the extent that now they ‎

feel surrounded and closed‎-‎in‎. ‎The quality of life that they originally purchased has ‎

been severely diminished for them‎. ‎Their privacy is gone‎.‎

Mrs‎. ‎King added that when they developed their plan, they were told they had the ‎

option of developing as R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential, similar to Quailcrest‎. ‎Perhaps ‎

they should have paid more attention to Quailcrest‎. ‎When they were relocating here, ‎

they did research the zoning to the extent that they were satisfied that a fish factory ‎

would not be constructed adjacent to their site; but they could not have anticipated the ‎

change that has occurred in their surrounding area‎.‎

Many commissioners acknowledged the changes that have occurred in the city and the ‎

attendant feelings‎.‎

Member Boswell questioned why the subject parcel should be any different than the ‎

single family developments surrounding it‎. ‎To put cluster housing in the midst of single ‎

family developments would make no sense to him‎.‎

Member Nowicki felt that changing the zoning to RCD, One Family Cluster would not ‎

improve the situation, but rather make it worse‎. ‎There would be more traffic in and ‎

out of the cluster development‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas was bothered by the fact that the applicants are considering ‎

intensifying the very conditions they want to move away from‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎King had ‎

mentioned difficulties with traffic which would be intensified under a cluster ‎

development‎.‎

The Chair stated the basic reason the parcel was master planned RCD, One Family ‎

Cluster was in keeping with the ‎1992 ‎goal of evening out the lines and creating a ‎

buffer, which was the recommendation of the consultant‎. ‎The circumstances have ‎

drastically changed because of the proposed Quailcrest development, and ‎

circumstances have changed the basic motivation for the applicants' original purchase ‎

of the site‎. ‎The Chair advised the applicants of their options, either proceed with a ‎

recommendation on the rezoning request, wait for consideration as part of the master ‎

plan update in ‎1998‎, or wait and see what transpires with Quailcrest‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the Kings would be notified when the Quailcrest preliminary ‎

plat is scheduled for City Council so they can stay informed‎. ‎Then the Kings would ‎

be in a better position to decide what direction to take with their property‎. ‎

Based on the applicants' request that the request for rezoning be withdrawn pending a ‎

decision by City Council on the Quailcrest Subdivision plat, regarding Parcel No‎. ‎

15‎-‎03‎-‎426‎-‎003 ‎at ‎6460 ‎Rochester Road ‎from R‎-‎1‎, Single Family Residential ‎to ‎

RCD‎, One Family Cluster for File No‎. ‎97‎-‎044‎, the Chair ‎declared File No‎. ‎97‎-‎044 ‎

withdrawn‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Gary Wilson of McKenna Associates, Inc‎. ‎

dated December ‎8‎, ‎1997‎; letter dated October ‎28‎, ‎1997 ‎from Jacqueline C‎. ‎King & ‎

Emery C‎. ‎King to Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi; letter dated October ‎28‎, ‎1997 ‎from Douglas ‎

McIntosh to Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi; Environmental Impact Statement for Kingswood dated ‎

October ‎28‎, ‎1997 ‎prepared by McIntosh Poris Inc‎. ‎; letter dated November ‎14‎, ‎

1997 ‎from Jacqueline C‎. ‎King to To Whom It May Concern; warranty deed dated ‎

April ‎25‎, ‎1986‎.)‎

Withdrawn

2000-1661

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎96‎-‎010 ‎- ‎Hazelwood Subdivision, ‎

a ‎35‎-‎lot subdivision on ‎19‎.‎52 ‎acres, located at the southwest corner of Auburn ‎

and M‎-‎59‎, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎34‎-‎126‎-‎001 ‎thru ‎-‎009‎, zoned R‎-‎4‎, One Family ‎

Residential, Socks & Associates Development, ‎54259 ‎Queensborough, Shelby ‎

Township, MI ‎48315‎, Applicant‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated December ‎9‎, ‎1997 ‎has been ‎

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

Present were Joseph Galvin and LeRoy Ashor, attorneys with Miller Canfield ‎

Paddock and Stone, appearing on behalf of Mr‎. ‎Socks, Sr‎.‎; Bob Lindh and Joseph ‎

Cottone of Urban Land Consultants; John Socks, Sr‎.‎; John Socks, Jr‎.‎

The Chair relayed to the commission that while reviewing the agenda for tonight's ‎

meeting with Ms‎. ‎Goodwin he learned that Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi, the project planner for the ‎

subject item, would not be present due to a family emergency‎. ‎As noted earlier, draft ‎

minutes of the November ‎5‎, ‎1997 ‎City Council meeting have been distributed to ‎

members pertaining to this item‎. ‎City Council did not take action on the approval of ‎

the Tentative Preliminary Plat, but they did take care of some variance issues‎. ‎In ‎

addition, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi had spoken to the Chair some time ago regarding the possibility ‎

of deed restrictions that might run with the portion of the proposed site on Hazelton ‎

restricting the use to only a single family home‎. ‎For all these and other reasons it was ‎

suggested to Mr‎. ‎Galvin to perhaps postpone this matter until the next available ‎

meeting so that answers to outstanding questions will be available‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin indicated that none of the outstanding issues relate to the matters before ‎

the commission tonight‎. ‎He offered to supply to Ms‎. ‎Goodwin the attorney general's ‎

opinion together with a copy of any deed restrictions‎.‎

Member Nowicki did not feel comfortable with this as they are being asked to take ‎

action on changes to a tentative preliminary plat which the Planning Commission did ‎

not take action on‎. ‎He has not had sufficient time to study the City Council draft ‎

minutes or the changes‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin stated if the Planning Commission determines to table the matter, that is ‎

OK with him‎. ‎But he would like to explain the issues tonight before the Planning ‎

Commission decides to table‎. ‎He did not want to try to push to a decision based on ‎

perceived inadequate information‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Galvin asked to speak to the substance of the ‎

request very briefly‎.‎

The Chair was not sure how to discuss either request in the absence of a City Council ‎

decision on the tentative preliminary plat‎. ‎The Planning Commission's approval of the ‎

tree removal permit or wetland use permit would presume an approval of the tentative ‎

preliminary plat‎. ‎The Chair foresaw going through the whole process again‎. ‎He ‎

wondered why City Council reconsidered the subject plat after rejecting it ‎

unanimously, and then pass two issues without approving the tentative preliminary plat‎. ‎

City Council could have approved the tentative preliminary plat contingent on an ‎

approval of the tree removal and wetland use permits‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin responded at the time that the Planning Commission made its initial ‎

recommendation to deny the tentative preliminary plat, it chose not to act on the ‎

environmental permits‎. ‎When the recommendation was taken to City Council, a ‎

memo was attached from Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stating that no matter what City Council did ‎

it had to come back to the Planning Commission for the permits‎. ‎They asked City ‎

Council for two variances and tentative preliminary plat approval‎. ‎The variances were ‎

granted, and City Council told them they had to go back to Planning Commission for ‎

the environmental permits before City Council would act on the tentative preliminary ‎

plat‎. ‎

Member Gaber explained that City Council considered taking action on the tentative ‎

preliminary plat but was advised by counsel they were not in a position to do so ‎

because the environmental permits were not obtained‎. ‎If City Council tentatively ‎

approved the plat before the wetland use permit was obtained and it was denied, that ‎

would change the parameters of the plat‎. ‎City Council cannot approve environmental ‎

permits‎.‎

The Chair added that the Planning Commission is still being asked to approve ‎

something that was previously rejected unanimously‎. ‎If the environmental permits are ‎

approved, the Planning Commission is implying an approval of a tentative preliminary ‎

plat which was previously recommended for denial‎. ‎City Council could have made ‎

an approval contingent on the environmental approvals‎. ‎The reason for not doing so ‎

mystifies him‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin reviewed Chapter ‎4‎-‎13 ‎which states a wetland use permit requires a ‎

recommendation by the Planning Commission‎. ‎Chapter ‎4‎-‎12 ‎of the Tree ‎

Conservation Ordinance requires that a tree removal permit be obtained before ‎

tentative preliminary plat approval‎. ‎Staff was directed by counsel to bring these issues ‎

to the Planning Commission‎. ‎The Planning Commission is not being asked to consider ‎

the tentative preliminary plat, but is being asked to consider the environmental requests ‎

either for approval, approval with conditions, or denial‎. ‎City Council cannot proceed ‎

with the tentative preliminary plat until the Planning Commission takes action on the ‎

environmental permits‎. ‎The environmental permits impact street and lot layout‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin clarified for Member Rosen the proper plat contains ‎35 ‎lots instead of ‎40 ‎

lots‎. ‎The current wetland request is reduced from a previous one, due to the ‎

reconfiguration of the road‎.‎

Member Ruggiero why this would be different from any other applicant with similar ‎

requests‎. ‎The plat presented this evening is the same one used to recommend denial ‎

to City Council‎. ‎It has the same road layout and number of lots‎. ‎The only difference ‎

is not showing the sliver by the ‎80 ‎foot boulevard that the applicant attempted to ‎

purchase‎. ‎The confusion comes from going through many layouts with staff to get to ‎

the one Planning Commission eventually saw‎. ‎She referred to the draft minutes from ‎

City Council and quoted from Pages ‎7 ‎and ‎18 ‎of Mr‎. ‎Ternan's letter‎.‎

The Chair summarized the sequence of events‎. ‎Tentative preliminary plat approvals ‎

have been conditioned in the past on satisfying ordinances‎. ‎In this unique instance City ‎

Council rejected the tentative preliminary plat for same reasons plus others that the ‎

Planning Commission did‎. ‎It got back on City Council's agenda and was ‎

reconsidered‎. ‎Variances were added to the reconsideration‎. ‎City Council chose to ‎

address the variances and not the tentative preliminary plat‎. ‎But the variances were ‎

needed in order for the plat to be considered by Planning Commission‎. ‎

Member Boswell did not have a problem with moving forward‎. ‎The normal ‎

procedure is to first review the tree removal permit, then the wetland use permit, and ‎

finally the tentative preliminary plat‎.‎

The Chair was also dubious about approving something possibly contrary to the deed ‎

restrictions‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Galvin believed that any possible restrictive covenants on the subject ‎

property were irrelevant to the requests before the Planning Commission‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin had nothing to add to the staff report, and let it stand as written‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin summarized the three requests‎. ‎1 ‎- ‎They are asking for a wetland use ‎

permit to allow work on a culvert that is part of an existing drain which runs along all ‎

the other lots on Hazelton‎. ‎They are mitigating a wetland by using a wet based ‎

detention pond which, according to Dr‎. ‎Jaworski, is the most appropriate way to ‎

handle detention and Dr‎. ‎Jaworski recommends approval‎. ‎2 ‎- ‎They are asking for the ‎

25 ‎foot buffer from the wetland to be included in the road right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎There will be ‎

no incursion into the wetland by the road, no degradation of the wetland by the road, ‎

and it will have curb and gutter with the same function as set forth in the buffer ‎

ordinance‎. ‎Regarding the modification on the road, they are asking for approval ‎

because they meet ordinance requirements in that no material significant detriment will ‎

occur to the wetland by the modification‎. ‎The purpose for the wetland buffer is met ‎

by the curbing of the road‎. ‎3 ‎- ‎They are asking for a tree removal permit based on the ‎

fact that it is in strict compliance with the Tree Conservation Ordinance, Linda Lemke ‎

recommends approval, and staff recommends approval with conditions regarding ‎

financial guarantees‎. ‎They accept those conditions as appropriate‎. ‎There will be no ‎

material adverse impact on the environment from any of the permits requested; they ‎

meet the intent and the letter of the Tree Conservation Ordinance and waiver ‎

provisions‎.‎

The Chair accepted comments from the public although this was not a public hearing‎.‎

Dennis Higgins, ‎3355 ‎Hazelton,‎ was denied a similar wetland permit to ‎

build his home which would have encroached into the wetland and favors denial for ‎

Hazelwood‎.‎

David Niedbalski, ‎3403 ‎Hazelton,‎ owns the property directly to the west ‎

of the wetland fill where the driveway goes in, was concerned about potential ‎

additional flooding for adjacent lots based on the Environmental Impact Statement‎. ‎

He asked whose responsibility it was to add additional foundation drainage‎. ‎It ‎

appeared that the applicant wants to dump water from the retention basin into the ‎

wetlands and not be responsible for any flooding‎. ‎He requested that the plan be ‎

revised to prevent additional flooding to neighboring lots‎. ‎He showed pictures of his ‎

backyard after a recent minor rainfall‎. ‎He asked that the wetland use permit be ‎

rejected on the basis of potential flooding to the surrounding neighborhood‎.‎

Al Sundell, ‎3390 ‎Hazelton, ‎was denied a similar wetland permit for his ‎

property consisting of almost ‎8 ‎lots‎. ‎If Hazelwood's wetland use permit is approved, ‎

he would like his approved also‎. ‎The proposed development will ruin the wildlife in ‎

the area, and he questions the reasoning behind the change in decision by City ‎

Council‎. ‎He urged rejection‎.‎

Nancy Raffler, ‎713 ‎West Auburn,‎ adjacent property owner, didn't ‎

understand why the sidewalk variance was granted when the ordinance requires one ‎

for a development of more than ‎9 ‎lots‎. ‎She commended the Planning Commission on ‎

their good job in denying the tentative preliminary plat, and if City Council had done ‎

their job properly Mr‎. ‎Socks would not be here tonight‎. ‎All the reasons given by Mr‎. ‎

Galvin at the December ‎9‎, ‎1997 ‎Planning Commission meeting to prevent Home ‎

Depot from building are the same problems facing the neighbors on the Hazelwood ‎

plan‎. ‎If Mr‎. ‎Socks does not meet all the requirements, she would ask that the ‎

Planning Commission deny the requests‎.‎

Pam Bowers, ‎3470 ‎Hazelton,‎ many wild flowers grow in the area and are ‎

protected by Michigan law‎. ‎She asked if the property owner knew at the time of ‎

purchase that access to Auburn Road would not be allowed‎. ‎Flooding on Hazelton ‎

has been a continual problem particularly with the recent construction in the area, and ‎

the Wolf Drain will probably cause more changes‎. ‎Water currently drains into the ‎

wetland area, and if it is filled in, the water will have to go somewhere‎. ‎Has the ‎

developer considered building a bridge over the wetland area for access to Hazelton?‎

No further comments were received by the public‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin responded to the questions and comments from the public‎. ‎The basin will ‎

drain into the wetlands‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Socks is not being treated any differently than Mr‎. ‎

Higgins was, regarding the use of wetlands‎. ‎The difference is that Mr‎. ‎Higgins' house ‎

would have physically encroached into a higher quality wetland area than the one on ‎

the proposed site for the construction of the culvert‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Socks initially requested a ‎

greater amount of fill in the wetlands area and was denied because the encroachment ‎

into the high quality wetland was too much; so he has reduced the request‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Galvin ‎

displayed a map showing the current water flow and identified Mr‎. ‎Niedbalski's ‎

property on the map‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Galvin proceeded to describe how they will improve the ‎

water convergence at Mr‎. ‎Niedbalski's property line‎. ‎The natural drainage course ‎

runs into a ‎30 ‎inch culvert underneath the M‎-‎59 ‎expressway, and in no way will the ‎

water drain along the existing Hazelton Road‎. ‎The culvert will be sized to accept ‎

additional drain flow‎. ‎The proposed work in the wetland is only earth moving ‎

sufficient to adjust the culvert‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski reviewed it and opined that the wetland is ‎

of a low quality and actually functions as a drainage ditch‎. ‎After Hazelwood ‎

Subdivision is built, it will continue to function as a drainage ditch except that it will ‎

work better‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski also stated that the mitigation efforts will improve filtering ‎

of water going into the wetlands‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Galvin stated that the surrounding properties ‎

currently sheet drain onto the proposed site and will continue to do so‎. ‎Catch basins ‎

are designed along the property line to pick up this off‎-‎site sheet drainage, move it ‎

through their property, put it into their basin, then to the wetland, then underneath the ‎

expressway‎. ‎Their drainage will function better because of the catch basins‎. ‎We have ‎

arranged to pick up their water flow and distribute it better‎.‎

Regarding Mr‎. ‎Sundell's comments, Mr‎. ‎Galvin stated that each wetland permit is ‎

parcel‎-‎specific‎. ‎The proposed development has no adverse impact on the ‎

environment as determined by the city's consultants‎. ‎They meet both the letter and the ‎

spirit of the ordinances affecting environmental regulations‎. ‎They have made every ‎

effort to deal with each neighbor's problems, and will continue to do so‎. ‎Home ‎

Depot's problems and characteristics are different, so the solutions have to be ‎

different‎. ‎

Regarding the wildflowers, Mr‎. ‎Galvin said the flowers will continue to grow‎. ‎The ‎

property was bought two years ago and it was known that access to Auburn would ‎

be a problem, but it was not known that permission could not be obtained‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Lindh confirmed the agreement made at the City Council meeting that the ‎

applicant will pave the portion of Hazelton from the existing paved portion to the ‎

proposed entrance, a distance of approximately ‎200 ‎feet, but it would not be done ‎

until the Wolf Drain is completed‎. ‎

[ ‎Recess ‎10:05‎ p‎.‎m‎. - ‎10:16‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

The Chair acknowledged that Mr‎. ‎Galvin asked for faxes over the break; Mr‎. ‎Galvin ‎

stated they did not arrive, but they tried‎.‎

The Chair and Mr‎. ‎Galvin discussed the possibility of an attorney general opinion that ‎

the city has no ability to enforce wetland setbacks‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Galvin explained that the ‎

commission should still discuss the request tonight because even though the ‎

requirement may not be valid, they have proven that they do in fact meet the ‎

requirement‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Galvin added that their requests are brought to the Planning ‎

Commission in accordance with the ordinance‎. ‎In the event that the Planning ‎

Commission were to ignore his argument that the ordinances are not applicable and ‎

choose to enforce the ordinance and in enforcing the ordinance deny his request, he ‎

would appeal it, both on its own merits and on the fact that the ordinance is ‎

inapplicable‎.‎

Member Rosen confirmed with Ms‎. ‎Goodwin that all subdivisions are required to ‎

provide retention or detention of stormwater to achieve the equivalent runoff rate into ‎

the storm system, usually a retention or detention basin in an open space area‎. ‎In the ‎

subject case, it sounds like the wetlands will drain directly into the culvert‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin explained the three parts to the drainage system‎. ‎The site will drain to the ‎

wet bottom basin‎. ‎The wet bottom basin will filter out debris currently going into the ‎

existing wetland with sheet drainage‎. ‎Higher quality water will be going into the ‎

wetland‎. ‎The wetland then will go into the drain under M‎-‎59‎, which it is currently ‎

doing‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified that Hazelwood is not an open space subdivision as a minimum ‎

of ‎4 ‎acres has not been set aside for water detention‎. ‎Hazelwood was platted using ‎

lot averaging‎. ‎There will be an outlot which is typically deeded to the homeowners ‎

association, and there will be a detention maintenance agreement between the ‎

association and the city‎.‎

Member Rosen wondered how the detention basin could be used for wetland ‎

mitigation‎. ‎A wetland area, which is basically an open detention basin, it is not ‎

supposed to be touched‎. ‎However, it also would need to be maintained‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin explained that the ordinance does not require wetland mitigation‎. ‎Perhaps ‎

mitigation is required by MDEQ‎. ‎It could be compared to the wetlands encountered ‎

and created during construction of Hamlin Road‎. ‎Member Rosen added if the ‎

wetland is regulated by MDEQ, the homeowners association would be in the ‎

untenable position of being required to maintain it on one hand, and on the other being ‎

a mitigated area that must remain‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin stated they have applied to MDEQ for a permit‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's ‎

information and theirs leads them to believe mitigation will not be required because of ‎

the minimal impact‎. ‎If it is, there is a sufficient quantity to meet any kind of MDEQ ‎

requirement on the undisturbed part‎. ‎They are not double dipping‎.‎

Member Ruggiero confirmed with Ms‎. ‎Goodwin that before there can be any ‎

construction activity, a wetland use permit as well as floodplain use permit must be ‎

issued‎. ‎According to Ms‎. ‎Goodwin, the wetland use permit issue is in conjunction ‎

with the tentative preliminary plat‎. ‎Floodplain use applications usually don't come into ‎

question until detailed drainage plans and utility plans have been prepared, and that's ‎

when construction plans are prepared‎. ‎Floodplain use is a far more detailed analysis ‎

by Engineering Services which is then forwarded to City Council‎. ‎An applicant can ‎

receive a wetland use permit and still be denied a floodplain use permit, and the failed ‎

floodplain use permit does not necessarily cause a problem with a wetland use permit‎.‎

Member Ruggiero confirmed with Mr‎. ‎Galvin that mitigation of wetlands is created by ‎

dredging, removing soil and land balancing‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin confirmed that they are requesting the full buffer modification‎.‎

The choice of the offset lot on Hazelton to provide the only access to the proposed ‎

subdivision raises questions for the Chair‎. ‎He reviewed the review criteria in the ‎

wetland and tree ordinances which the Planning Commission must consider, ‎

specifically, Chapter ‎4‎-‎13‎.‎09‎.‎03 ‎a and b, ‎"...‎in addition, a wetland use permit shall not ‎

be issued unless the applicant also shows either of the following, the proposed activity ‎

is primarily dependent upon being located in the location where the wetland presently ‎

exists, or a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist‎. ‎Why did the applicant not ‎

choose another access in addition to the proposed one, or without the proposed one, ‎

one more compatible with a major thoroughfare‎. ‎If the site were accessed from the ‎

west, the wetlands would not be impacted at all‎. ‎And a minimum of ‎70 ‎trees will need ‎

to be removed from the access lot alone‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin responded that the proposed activity is the culvert activity in order to allow ‎

passage into the remainder of the site‎. ‎It is the only physical, lawful, available entry ‎

point‎. ‎The Chair claimed that to be self‎-‎created because it was chosen by the ‎

applicant to buy to access the site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Galvin disagreed‎. ‎It is both logically and ‎

legally irrelevant which lot was purchased to access the site‎. ‎There is no differentiating ‎

characteristic of the wetland‎. ‎To the west and to the north of the subject property the ‎

parcels are owned by persons who have refused offers to purchase‎. ‎At the City ‎

Council meeting, we offered to purchase the amount necessary for the notch for an ‎

easement at the proposed entry, but it is not physically available‎. ‎In addition, there is ‎

no prudent feasible alternative‎. ‎The amount of wetland fill requested is minimal, there ‎

is no available alternative, we meet both the letter and the spirit of the ordinance‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin explained why they are not replacing trees on site‎. ‎The areas available to ‎

plaint on are in the wetlands‎. ‎The trees they are replacing on site are not considered ‎

replacement trees and no credit is given for them‎. ‎They have replaced all possible ‎

trees in areas where reasonably possible and would be willing to replace more if ‎

possible‎. ‎And they meet ordinance criteria‎.‎

The Chair confirmed with Ms‎. ‎Goodwin that Linda Lemke's most recent letter of June ‎

1996 ‎is still applicable‎. ‎She is satisfied there have been no changes since that date, ‎

other than the changes indicated by the applicant in the boulevard alignment‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas reviewed topography lines with Mr‎. ‎Lindh‎. ‎The floodplain is ‎

based on existing conditions before any improvements are made, and are subject to ‎

revisions after drainage improvements are installed‎.‎

The Chair asked if the variance for hardship for the sidewalk had not been granted by ‎

City Council, would it change the tree count‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Cottone responded no because the ‎

trees within the right‎-‎of‎-‎way were already designated for removal‎.‎

The Chair reiterated that there is an implied approval of the tentative preliminary plat if ‎

the environmental permits are granted‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Galvin stated that approval or denial of the ‎

environmental permits should be based on ordinance requirements alone‎.‎

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr‎. ‎Galvin indicated they are not willing to ‎

sacrifice any lots in order to save more trees‎. ‎The ‎40 ‎lot subdivision originally ‎

proposed meets the ordinances for development‎. ‎Through negotiations the ‎

subdivision was reduced to ‎35 ‎lots, so the developer has already sacrificed ‎

development in favor of saving more trees‎. ‎They would be willing to save more trees; ‎

however, the analysis performed by the city's consultant indicates that additional trees ‎

are not of sufficient quality to be saved‎.‎

Member Ruggiero appealed to the developer and engineer to save as many trees as ‎

possible‎. ‎and replace all possible trees on site as it appears that some lots will be bare ‎

of trees‎.‎

1‎. ‎Tree Removal Permit‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Gaber, in the matter of File No‎. ‎96‎-‎010 ‎

(‎Hazelwood Subdivision‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎grant the Tree Removal ‎

Permit‎ with the conditions in the Staff Report dated December ‎9‎, ‎1997‎:‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ That surety in the form of a bond, letter of credit, or cash be provided in the ‎

amount of ‎$4,680‎ to guarantee the planting of ‎26‎ replacement trees on‎-‎site‎.‎

2‎.‎ That the applicant place ‎$49,950‎ into the Tree Fund prior to issuance of a Land ‎

Improvement Permit for the remaining ‎333‎ replacement credits‎.‎

Discussion on the motion‎:‎

Member Rosen discussed the right‎-‎of‎-‎way reduction to ‎67 ‎feet as waived by City ‎

Council for a portion of the boulevard entrance between Hazelton and Palomino‎. ‎It ‎

could have a bearing on the tree removal permit in that they would not have to remove ‎

as many trees with the right‎-‎of‎-‎way reduced‎. ‎This could put the applicant in a difficult ‎

spot because meeting the ‎80 ‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way would require the removal of more ‎

trees‎. ‎If the right‎-‎of‎-‎way were narrowed to ‎67 ‎feet for the entire length of the ‎

boulevard entrance, more trees could be saved‎. ‎It appears that City Council's ‎

intention was to keep the right‎-‎of‎-‎way as wide as possible and add the little notch ‎

when and if it becomes available, but that is not what the resolution says‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Galvin explained that the variance was requested for only the notch in order to ‎

keep as much right‎-‎of‎-‎way as possible‎. ‎It was approved per the conditions in the ‎

staff report‎. ‎They are doing their best to do all that the city is asking them to do‎. ‎

They would be glad to take the ‎67 ‎foot issue back to City Council and ask them to ‎

revisit it if the Planning Commission wishes to extend the ‎67 ‎feet for the entire length of ‎

the boulevard entrance‎.‎

The Chair pointed out if the tree removal permit is denied, the applicant can seek a ‎

variance from the Tree Conservation Ordinance from City Council‎. ‎Or they could ‎

modify the tree request excepting the trees in the portion that are impacted outside the ‎

67 ‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎. ‎This also could cause them to take the issue to City Council ‎

which then would give them the forum to argue for the full ‎67 ‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way ‎

throughout the whole piece‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added the reason staff was interested in an ‎80 ‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way was to ‎

address the single access point issue‎. ‎To favor tree preservation over access to the ‎

site would put Council in a tenuous position as well as make it difficult for staff to favor ‎

that reduction‎. ‎The tree removal permit as presented and recommended meets the ‎

letter of the ordinance‎. ‎If there is action to deny the tree removal permit, then there ‎

would have to be findings based on the standards in the ordinance, not the ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way issue‎. ‎The Chair understood that the right‎-‎of‎-‎way is a staff ‎

determination, which gives a reason to deny it in whole or in part‎. ‎The Chair was not ‎

impressed with staff's effort to solve the single access issue with a boulevard, with cars ‎

going in and going out from the same ‎60 ‎foot area‎.‎

Member Rosen did not want to compromise safety for the benefit of trees‎. ‎However, ‎

he sees a difficulty in the resolution where it states, ‎"‎allow the reduction of the ‎

boulevard right‎-‎of‎-‎way for Hazelwood Subdivision from ‎80 ‎to ‎67 ‎feet as provided on ‎

the preliminary plat dated received‎...". ‎It sounds like it is supposed to refer to only ‎

the notch, not the entire length, but that is not what the resolution says‎. ‎He would ‎

prefer that the resolution stated clearly ‎"‎the notch‎."‎

Member Gaber suggested looking at the lines of demarcation on the plat‎. ‎It shows an ‎

80 ‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way everywhere except for the carved out triangle, or notch, which ‎

goes down to ‎67 ‎feet‎. ‎Everywhere else it is an ‎80 ‎foot right‎-‎of‎-‎way and those are the ‎

specifications that have to be abided by‎. ‎

Member Nowicki pointed out that the drawing itself does not show the ‎80 ‎and ‎67 ‎

figures, although it is specified in the findings‎. ‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Nowicki, Rosen, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Kaiser, Ramanauskas‎

Absent‎:‎ Krupa ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated December ‎9‎, ‎1997‎; Plans ‎

prepared by Urban Land Consultants and dated received by the City of Rochester ‎

Hills Planning Department December ‎5‎, ‎1997‎; letter dated December ‎4‎, ‎1997 ‎from ‎

Joseph F‎. ‎Galvin of Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone with exhibits‎: [‎letter from ‎

Linda Lemke & Associates dated June ‎19‎, ‎1996‎; letter dated ‎12 ‎April ‎1996 ‎from ‎

Eugene Jaworski; section of original ‎40 ‎lot plan showing wetlands‎]‎; draft excerpt of ‎

minutes of City Council Meeting of November ‎5‎, ‎1997‎; City Council Meeting Minutes ‎

of November ‎20‎, ‎1996‎; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August ‎20‎, ‎1996‎; ‎

memo from Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin to Kenneth D‎. ‎Snell dated November ‎11‎, ‎1996 ‎re ‎

City Council Business Hazelwood Subdivision; memo from Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin to ‎

Kenneth D‎. ‎Snell dated November ‎11‎, ‎1996 ‎re Hazelwood Subdivision File No‎. ‎

96‎-‎010‎-‎Section ‎34‎; Proposed Resolution‎.)‎

Granted

2000-1818

Request for a Natural Features Setback Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎96‎-‎010 ‎- ‎

Hazelwood Subdivision‎

The Chair reiterated his opinion that no action is required in light of the fact that any ‎

action on a natural features setback modification is in essence unenforceable‎. ‎

2‎. ‎Natural Features Setback Modification ‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Gaber, in the matter of File No‎. ‎96‎-‎010 ‎

(‎Hazelwood Subdivision‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎waive the Natural ‎

Features Setback ‎for the portion of the Natural Features Setback located within the ‎

right‎-‎of‎-‎way limits of the proposed Secretariat Drive with the following findings and ‎

conditions in the Staff Report dated December ‎9‎, ‎1997 ‎with the word change in ‎

Condition No‎. ‎1 ‎from ‎"‎natural features setback‎" ‎to ‎"‎natural features encroachment‎" ‎

approved by the applicant‎:‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The proposed natural features setback is located within the right‎-‎of‎-‎way of a ‎

proposed street‎. ‎The submitted plans indicate that no portion of the adjacent ‎

wetland is located within this right‎-‎of‎-‎way‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed construction of the streets can be accommodated without impacting ‎

the wetlands‎.‎

3‎.‎ The applicant is providing curb and gutter along the proposed street‎. ‎Therefore, ‎

no direct discharge of storm water will be entering the wetlands from where ‎

the natural features setback modification is proposed‎.‎

4‎.‎ Based upon the above, the construction of the roads and the storm water runoff ‎

from the roads is not expected to adversely impact the wetlands if the natural ‎

features setback modification is granted‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The Construction Plans shall not indicate any greater amount of natural features ‎

encroachment within the right‎-‎of‎-‎way of Secretariat Drive than the plans dated ‎

received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on December ‎5‎, ‎

1997‎.‎

2‎.‎ That no direct storm water runoff shall be permitted to flow from Secretariat Drive ‎

into the Wetlands, and that the applicant agrees to provide curb and gutter ‎

along Secretariat Drive‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Gaber, Nowicki, Ramanauskas, Ruggiero ‎

Nays‎:‎ Kaiser, Rosen‎

Absent‎:‎ Krupa ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

2000-1662

Request for a Wetland Use Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎96‎-‎010 ‎- ‎Hazelwood Subdivision‎

3‎. ‎Wetland Use Permit‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Nowicki, in the matter of File No‎. ‎96‎-‎010 ‎

(‎Hazelwood Subdivision‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎recommend denial of the ‎

Wetland Use Permit ‎with the following findings‎:‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The proposed activity, i‎.‎e‎. ‎the road crossing is located at the discretion of the ‎

applicant based on his own statement that this was the only property available ‎

at a reasonable price‎. ‎Other alternatives exist that could potentially be other ‎

areas along Hazelton or in areas to the west that could result in lesser or ‎

potentially no wetlands disruption or disturbance‎.‎

2‎.‎ The proposed wetland mitigation area is a stormwater retention area that is ‎

otherwise required under the Subdivision Control Act and plat process‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Kaiser, Nowicki, Ramanauskas, Rosen‎

Nays‎:‎ Gaber, Ruggiero‎

Absent‎:‎ Krupa ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Recommended for Denial to the City Council Regular Meeting

2000-1819

Request for review and recommendations to City council concerning the ‎

Historic Districts Commission preliminary recommendation to designate the ‎

existing Rochester Hills Golf Course Clubhouse as a noncontiguous Historic ‎

District ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎97‎-‎004 ‎- ‎Country Club Village‎/‎HCD Clubhouse Study, located ‎

north of M‎-‎59‎, west of John R, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎35‎-‎203‎-‎001‎, zoneod R‎-‎3‎, One ‎

Family Residential, City of Rochester Hills Historic Districts Commission, ‎

Petitioner‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Staff Report prepared by Pat Goodwin and Michele Goldstein has been placed ‎

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

Letter from Bruce Hawkins, ‎115 ‎Windsor, Rochester Hills, regarding Agenda Item ‎

V‎.‎C‎.‎

Present was Larry Garon, partner with East Course Limited Partnership, owner of the ‎

Rochester Golf and Country Club for the last ‎11 ‎years‎.‎

The Chair reviewed the Historic Districts Commission statute regarding the Planning ‎

Commission's charge to review and give recommendations to City Council concerning ‎

the Historic Districts Commission preliminary recommendation to designate the ‎

existing Rochester Hills Golf Course Clubhouse as a noncontiguous historic district‎. ‎A ‎

formal public hearing is not required by ordinance although public comments will be ‎

received later in the meeting‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin related that staff reviewed this matter and made a report to the Planning ‎

Commission based upon the standard included in the current Master Plan regarding ‎

historic preservation‎. ‎They also looked at other policy statements developed through ‎

the work of the subcommittee to delineate some goals and objectives for ‎

consideration tonight in terms of land use and consistency with existing development ‎

policies‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin identified two open issues ‎-- ‎there is a lack of defined boundaries for ‎

the proposed historic district, but it probably includes the clubhouse, locker room, and ‎

the existing parking lot‎. ‎

John Dziurman, chairman of the Historic Districts Commission, ‎160 ‎

Oaklane,‎ reviewed the Historic Districts Commission ordinance requirements and the ‎

responsibility of the Planning Commission regarding the subject request‎. ‎He informed ‎

everyone that a public hearing regarding this item is scheduled for December ‎18‎, ‎1997 ‎

before the Historic Districts Commission‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dziurman said the Historic Districts ‎

Commission is in the process of developing an historic preservation plan‎. ‎Most ‎

Historic Districts Commission deliberations deal with residential properties although ‎

they also have review responsibilities for commercial properties‎. ‎If property is to be ‎

declared historic, the city should do everything possible to ease the burden to the ‎

property owner, including finding an appropriate and allowable use‎. ‎According to the ‎

current owners of the subject site the only viable use, if designated an historic site, is to ‎

retain the facility as a restaurant‎/‎banquet facility‎. ‎The national preservation policy also ‎

supports retaining the original and‎/‎or existing functional use of an historical property‎. ‎

The Planning Commission's task tonight is to determine if this type of policy supports ‎

the commission's goals and those of the master plan for the community‎. ‎If it does and ‎

City Council supports this historic designation, then he hoped they would find the ‎

appropriate zoning classification to allow the property owner to retain the property or ‎

find an alternate use which would also support the policies and goals of the Historic ‎

Districts Commission‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dziurman submitted a legal description of the subject site ‎

which is approximately ‎5 ‎acres in size and includes the parking area to the south‎.‎

Lois Golden, vice‎-‎chairman of the Historic Districts Commission, ‎645 ‎

Apple Hill Lane,‎ according to State law and the HDC ordinance they were required ‎

only to transmit the report; therefore the full commission at that point has not evaluated ‎

the data or voted on the historic designation‎. ‎They will do that after the Historic ‎

Districts Commission receives the Planning Commission's recommendations and ‎

comments and after the results of the public hearing ‎

and comments from the State‎. ‎All these will be placed in the final report to be ‎

submitted for City Council's consideration‎. ‎

Robert Jenkins, ‎3621 ‎Bendelow,‎ submitted the original request for the ‎

investigation into possible historic designation‎. ‎He supported Mr‎. ‎Dziurman's ‎

comments regarding an alternate use‎. ‎He asked if an alternate use would have to ‎

conform to all requirements of the zoning ordinance‎. ‎He also asked about a proposed ‎

banquet hall a half mile away from the subject site, referring to Agenda Item III‎.‎A‎. ‎on ‎

the December ‎9‎, ‎1997 ‎agenda‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon stated the critical issue is the implications on land use designation when an ‎

historic district is created‎. ‎He emphasized that the property owner has not sought the ‎

historic designation and does not support it‎. ‎Their concern is if the site is designated ‎

historic that an appropriate land use designation be assigned to the site to allow for the ‎

potential maintenance, restoration and preservation of the structure‎. ‎If the site is ‎

designated historic, another layer of government will be placed on top of a person's ‎

property rights, albeit for the good of the public‎. ‎In essence the city would be saying ‎

that the property or structure is an irreplaceable part of the past history of the City of ‎

Rochester Hills and is more important than the individual property owner's property ‎

rights for the good of the community‎. ‎The subject site does not comply with the ‎

existing zoning of R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential‎. ‎The building has operated as a ‎

restaurant‎/‎banquet facility for many years, is consistent with the preservationists' ‎

theory and the guidelines of the National Historic Preservation Act‎. ‎They would have ‎

the best opportunity to maintain and restore, as well as protect and preserve the ‎

building if they were able to continue to operate it as a restaurant‎/‎banquet facility‎. ‎

That would also allow it to be used by the general public who is supposed to be the ‎

recipient of the intent of historic preservation ‎"‎for the good of the public‎." ‎The building ‎

also could potentially become a landmark for the community, being visible from M‎-‎59‎. ‎

Without the ability to maintain or restore the structure, it would fall into a dilapidated ‎

state very quickly‎. ‎The options of converting the structure into a single family ‎

residence or a clubhouse for the proposed Country Club Village subdivision were ‎

addressed very effectively in the staff report as well as Richard Frank's report which ‎

was included in the packet‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon summarized that no recommendation to create a noncontiguous historic ‎

district should be made to City Council until the Planning Commission is ready to ‎

address the land use designation of the building, and that any historic designation be ‎

simultaneous with a proper land use designation to provide the opportunity to maintain ‎

and preserve the structure‎.‎

Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the proper procedures were followed ‎

according to the Historic Districts Commission ordinance‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Golden clarified that a ‎

study or subcommittee of three HDC members ‎( ‎a fourth member was added later‎) ‎

was formed for the purpose of researching the merits of the original request to ‎

consider the establishment of an historic district for the structures and property ‎

presently known as the Brooklands Golf Club Locker Room‎. ‎The preliminary report ‎

recommending historic designation was that of the subcommittee, not the full Historic ‎

Districts Commission‎. ‎Before a final report and recommendation are made by the full ‎

Historic Districts Commission, more information and comments are being sought, ‎

including those from the Planning Commission‎. ‎The Historic Districts Commission's ‎

final report with its recommendations and those of the Planning Commission as well as ‎

a draft of a proposed ordinance will ultimately be submitted to City Council‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Golden clarified that the Historic Districts Commission has voted to support the ‎

granting of a variance in the event the building is designated an historic site‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dziurman pointed out that there is nothing in the Historic Districts Commission ‎

ordinance requiring the Historic Districts Commission to make a formal ‎

recommendation now‎. ‎

The Chair did not think it would be proper for the Planning Commission to take action ‎

at this point according to the Historic Districts Commission ordinance‎.‎

Member Nowicki wondered if there were any historic structures or uses in the city ‎

that are nonconforming‎. ‎The subject site might be a nonconforming use and that may ‎

answer any questions regarding a recommendation because a precedent has already ‎

been set‎. ‎No one could identify any‎.‎

Member Nowicki pointed out that the subject structure may already be ‎

nonconforming in that it is a banquet use in an R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential zoning ‎

district‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified that the banquet facility is considered an ancillary use ‎

to the golf course, similar to Pine Trace‎. ‎With the dissolution of the golf course ‎

Member Rosen wondered if the status of the banquet facility would be affected‎. ‎It ‎

may need to be rezoned or granted a use variance‎. ‎

The Chair stated a recommendation, whenever it is made, on the historic designation ‎

of the banquet facility should be made on its own merits, aside from any future ‎

proposed use or zoning‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon added the whole purpose of establishing an ‎

historic designation is to provide some means of restoration, preservation or ‎

maintenance so the public can benefit from it‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon urged that the proper means ‎

be in place to ensure that restoration, preservation and maintenance‎. ‎Anything less ‎

would be irresponsible in his opinion because it would not be preserving public trust‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dziurman added that City Council has in a sense appointed the Historic Districts ‎

Commission members as the official study committee, so they are in compliance with ‎

State law in that regard‎.‎

Member Gaber stated the Historic Districts Commission ordinance appears to be ‎

ambiguous enough to be interpreted more than one way‎. ‎His understanding of the ‎

scope of the Planning Commission's responsibility is to determine whether or not the ‎

designation of the subject property as an historic district would be consistent with the ‎

land use policies of the City of Rochester Hills‎.‎

He had difficulty perceiving the compatibility of the subject structure either as a ‎

clubhouse, residential facility or a restaurant‎/‎banquet facility with the surrounding ‎

proposed single family development‎. ‎

The Chair would entertain discussion on the land use designation but recommended no ‎

action be taken until the Historic Districts Commission meets on Thursday, December ‎

18‎, ‎1997‎.‎

Upon questioning by Member Ruggiero, Mr‎. ‎Garon confirmed that he did receive a ‎

letter from Mervat and Basil Denno of ‎1919 ‎Mackwood Drive expressing interesting ‎

in purchasing the clubhouse for use as a single family residence‎. ‎If the clubhouse ‎

remains on the site, it would be the property owner's intention to retain ownership of it ‎

and continue to operate it as a restaurant‎/‎banquet facility‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon identified the square footage of the structure‎. ‎Of the total ‎25‎,‎000 ‎square ‎

feet approximately ‎8‎,‎000 ‎square feet are in the lower rise, round, wooded part; ‎

another ‎12‎,‎000 ‎to ‎13‎,‎000 ‎square feet are in the locker room facility; another ‎2‎,‎000 ‎

square feet in the caretaker's portion at the very end‎. ‎Member Ramanauskas would ‎

like to identify the original structure as it could be a very attractive one‎. ‎Many of the ‎

additions to the building are easily identifiable‎. ‎The existing parking area is in a ‎

floodplain‎. ‎There would be concerns with height limitations, massiveness of the ‎

building as a single family residential structure or duplex‎. ‎As a banquet facility it would ‎

require buffering from the residential community‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon stated the developer's preference is to remove the building‎. ‎However, if ‎

an historic district is created for the structure, there is more than ample room for ‎

buffering‎. ‎The size of the building would block a large portion of M‎-‎59 ‎from the ‎

proposed subdivision‎. ‎The retention of the building is not expected to affect the ‎

marketing of the proposed subdivision‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Garon pointed out that the structure does ‎

not meet the requirements for the R‎-‎3‎, One Family Residential zoning district‎. ‎Zoning ‎

for multiple family use would not preserve its original use, and would require extensive ‎

exterior renovations‎. ‎If it is determined to designate the structure as an historic site, ‎

then the most feasible use would be a continuation of its current restaurant‎/‎banquet ‎

use‎. ‎In terms of traffic, the restaurant would generate traffic at those times when there ‎

would be little residential traffic, so congestion would not be a problem‎.‎

Member Gaber said it may be possible to pursue a rezoning and historic designation ‎

concurrently, as it was with ‎71 ‎North Livernois‎. ‎Member Gaber would still question ‎

the building's viability for any use‎. ‎Member Rosen concurred with Member Gaber‎.‎

The Chair stated the building is unquestionably very unique, but that does not equate ‎

with historical value‎. ‎The Chair is not convinced of the structure's historical value‎.‎

Member Ruggiero said the Planning Commission has recently considered an ordinance ‎

amendment regarding banquet halls and conference centers in B‎-‎2‎, General Business ‎

and B‎-‎3‎, Shopping Center Business districts, and the subject building would not fit ‎

any of the criteria set forth in the proposed ordinance in terms of location on major ‎

thoroughfares; Members Ruggiero and Ramanauskas concurred with the Chair in that ‎

beauty or uniqueness is not enough reason for historic designation; Member Boswell ‎

was not convinced of its historical value; Member Nowicki would be interested in ‎

pursuing the nonconforming status; ‎

Mr‎. ‎Garon brought up the possibility of declaring the site a PUD in light of the city's ‎

proposed PUD ordinance‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that she has researched the possibility of creating a ‎

nonconforming situation for the structure in light of the dissolution of the golf course‎. ‎

The only way to accomplish a legal nonconforming use is through a use variance‎. ‎And ‎

that could be sought only after a rezoning request were denied‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dziurman pointed out that there is a ‎20 ‎percent tax credit to a property owner to ‎

restore commercial property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dziurman urged the Planning Commission members ‎

to read to entire report which may help them determine the historical value of the ‎

subject site‎.‎

The Chair ‎deferred a recommendation‎ on the future land use designation for the ‎

subject property until the Historic Districts Commission makes its recommendation ‎

regarding the designation of the existing Rochester Hills Golf Course Clubhouse as a ‎

noncontiguous historic district‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Pat Goodwin and Michele Goldstein; letter ‎

dated December ‎5‎, ‎1997 ‎from Lawrence R‎. ‎Garon; report titled Rochester Golf Club ‎

Restaurant and Banquet Facility by Richard C‎. ‎Frank dated ‎16 ‎December ‎1997‎; ‎

letter dated November ‎20‎, ‎1997 ‎from Timothy Hartner; Exhibit A; Exhibit B; resume ‎

of Richard C‎. ‎Frank FAIA; letter dated December ‎3‎, ‎1997 ‎from Midwestern ‎

Consulting, Inc‎.‎, Karl L‎. ‎Kleitsch with attachments; City of Rochester Hills Historic ‎

Districts Commission Preliminary Report for Brooklands ‎(‎Rochester‎) ‎Golf Club ‎

Locker Room dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on ‎

October ‎15‎, ‎1997‎; memo from Kenneth D‎. ‎Snell dated ‎23 ‎March ‎1997‎; memo from ‎

Robert H‎. ‎L‎. ‎Jenkins to John Dziurman dated March ‎12‎, ‎1997‎; letter from Timothy S‎. ‎

Hartner to REI Group, Inc‎. ‎dated March ‎25‎, ‎1997‎; letter dated April ‎26‎, ‎1997 ‎from ‎

Michael J‎. ‎Fay of the Donald Ross Society to Steven R‎. ‎Schlundt; information from ‎

Bob Jenkins titled ‎"‎Rochester Golf Course‎"‎; letter dated March ‎24‎, ‎1997 ‎from Paul ‎

A‎. ‎Corneliussen, AIA to Mr‎. ‎John Dziurman; letter dated April ‎22‎, ‎1997 ‎from Hope ‎

Sadowski to Mr‎. ‎John Dzuirman ‎(‎sic‎)‎; letter dated September ‎2‎, ‎1997 ‎from Mervat ‎

and Basil Denno to Lawrence R‎. ‎Garon; legal document listing annual reports; ‎

Brooklands Golf and Country Club Notes and Excerpts from the ‎Rochester Era‎ ‎

(‎newspaper articles‎)‎; newspaper clippings from The Golfer, Detroit News, Rochester ‎

Clarion, The Eccentric; Appendix C‎: ‎Building and Building Department Information ‎8 ‎

pages; fax transmission to Tiffany Dziurman from Michele Goldstein dated October ‎6‎, ‎

1997 ‎including warranty deed; assessing records; miscellaneous drawings from Avon ‎

Township Assessor's Office; Appendix D‎: ‎Meadow Brook Hall Photograph Release ‎

2 ‎Pages; Meadow Brook Hall Reproduction Rights Agreement; letter dated ‎

November ‎20‎, ‎1997 ‎from Timothy Hartner to Lawrence R‎. ‎Garon; letter dated ‎

December ‎3‎, ‎1997 ‎from John R‎. ‎Halsey, State Historic Preservation Officer to ‎

Timothy S‎. ‎Hartner; Local Historic District Study Committee Report Review Sheet‎.)‎

Postponed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

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

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for January ‎6‎, ‎1998‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎12‎:‎30 ‎a‎.‎m‎. ‎Wednesday, December ‎17‎, ‎1997 ‎

Michigan time‎.‎