Crystal Report Viewer

1000 Rochester Hills Dr.

Rochester Hills, MI

48309

(248) 656-4600

Home Page:

www.rochesterhills.org

Rochester Hills

Minutes

Planning Commission

Chairperson William Boswell, Vice Chairperson Deborah Brnabic

Members: Gerard Dettloff, Dale Hetrick, Greg Hooper, Nicholas O. Kaltsounis, David A.

Reece, C. Neall Schroeder, Emmet Yukon

7:00 PM

1000 Rochester Hills Drive

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson William Boswell called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00

p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium.

ROLL CALL

William Boswell, Deborah Brnabic, Gerard Dettloff, Dale Hetrick, Greg

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

Present

8 -

David Reece

Absent

1 -

Quorum present.

Also present: Derek Delacourt, Deputy Director, Planning and

Development

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary

Chairperson Boswell welcomed new Planning Commissioner Dale Hetrick,

who had been appointed the previous evening by City Council.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2009-0552

November 17, 2009 Regular Meeting

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

Approved as Presented. The motion CARRIED by the following vote:

Aye

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

Yukon

8 -

Absent

Reece

1 -

COMMUNICATIONS

A) Planning & Zoning News dated November 2009

B) Shelby Township Master Plan - CD format

C) Emails (2) from Melinda Hill, dated 12/15/09 re: Zoning Ord, NE

Corner of Hamlin and Livernois (agenda item)

There were no further Communications brought forward.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2009-0393

Discuss potential for Conditional Rezoning for the northeast

corner of Hamlin and Livernois - City File No. 04-013; Parcel

Nos. 15-22-351-001, -002; Signature Associates.

(Reference: Memo prepared by Derek Delacourt, dated December

11, 2009, and letter from Signature Associates had been placed on

file in the Planning and Development Department and by reference

became part of the record thereof.)

Present for the applicant were Chileshe Mulenga (arrived 7:43 p.m.)

and Cathy Wilson, Signature Associates, One Town Square, Suite

1200, Southfield, MI 48076.

Mr. Delacourt gave a summary of the project, advising that in 2005,

the applicants requested a Rezoning of the properties from

single-family residential to O-1, Office. The matter of a Rezoning had

been requested for the subject properties prior to the availability of a

tool called Conditional Rezoning, and it was denied at that time. This

year, the applicants came back asking to re-open the discussion, and

the Planning Commission discussed the matter at its October 20,

2009 meeting with respect to the possibility of using Conditional

Rezoning. One of the things that came out of that meeting was that

the Commission could potentially consider it if there were conditions

offered by the applicant to mitigate some of the concerns of the

Planning Commission - height of the building, loss of vegetation,

landscape requirements, etc. The applicants submitted a letter

subsequently, offering conditions they felt would address the

concerns, including that the Planning Commission would have final

approval of the height,and the applicants would preserve 30% of the

trees. The applicants wanted input from the Commissioners, and if

they got a favorable response, the next steps would be to file a

formal application and come back for a Public Hearing and

recommendation from the Planning Commission to City Council.

Chairperson Boswell clarified that the Commissioners would be

voicing their concerns and ideas for what they would like to see on

the corner or not, and the applicant would come back for a formal

Conditional Rezoning request. He asked what would happen then.

Mr. Delacourt said it would be the same process as any other

Rezoning request, with the addition of conditions. There would be a

notice in the paper 15 days prior to the meeting and a Public Hearing

would be held. The notice would state that conditions were provided

and available for review by the public. The Planning Commission

would make a recommendation to City Council for the final

consideration.

Ms. Wilson introduced herself, noting that Mr. Mulenga would be late.

Ms. Wilson advised that she was presenting as a follow-up to the

previous meeting, and they were hopeful Conditional Rezoning would

be a way to allow them to do a development on the parcels that would

be mutually agreeable to the owners and the City. They wanted it to

be something the City would be proud of and want on the corner, and

they were looking for an indication of support from the Planning

Commission.

Mr. Kaltsounis referred to a proposed development north of Bordines,

and said it was ultimately used for marketing the property. For the

subject property, he was concerned that what they were doing would

allow the applicants to better market the property, noting that

Signature Associates dealt more in sales. He wondered if they were

actually interested in building something on the property or if it was

just marketing. He was concerned that if it were sold, the next

person might not have the same passion for the property. They could

not really tie down what it would look like, and they had to think about

everything that could be built there.

Ms. Wilson agreed that Signature Associates was not a developer.

They were a brokerage, property management and corporate

services company. In this case, they were representing the owner of

the property, a subsidiary of Talon Group, on the rezoning and

marketing of the property. She had an unusual relationship because

she used to work with Talon on the property for six or seven years

prior to being at Signature and was still very close with the owner of

Talon. She remarked that when someone worked on properties for

that long, they became like children. She assured that the goal was

to have a quality development.

Mr. Kaltsounis asked if Talon owned the property, and Ms. Wilson

clarified that the same owners of Talon owned the property on the

corner.

Mr. Yukon referred to the meeting of October 20, and said that during

the presentation, they discussed the market shifts locally and

nationally in the housing market, and it was stated in the Minutes that

there would be a drop of between 15-25% up to 2011. He asked

about all the vacant office space in the community and whether they

felt a Rezoning would support a tenant if they built on the property.

Ms. Wilson said there was still activity seen in certain sectors of the

office side. They felt that there would be demand for office before

residential, especially for a high traffic intersection such as Hamlin

and Livernois.

Mr. Yukon pointed out that the letter they submitted stated that there

might be potential new use for Crittenton Hospital and Oakland

University, and he asked Ms. Wilson if she could expand or had

more than the general information stated.

Ms. Wilson agreed it was general, but she felt that the site’s highest

and best use would be medical office. There was the Beaumont/

Oakland University project for a medical school, and they had

relationships with both Beaumont and Crittenton Hospitals and other

medical users. They felt that was where the growth, especially in

Rochester Hills, would be.

Mr. Yukon noted that Barclay Circle had a lot of medical offices,

many which were vacant, and that there was other vacant medical

around the community. He wanted to make sure that if the parcels

were Rezoned that something would be built, and they would not stay

vacant.

Ms. Wilson said that she was familiar with the properties on Barclay,

and she was not sure why they remained in the condition they were.

Other properties had been developed since those, and she was not

sure why they were just sitting there.

Ms. Brnabic referred to the applicant’s letter, in which it stated that

they would comply with all building, elevation and design restrictions

for the submitted project, but she felt that was fairly general. She

recalled that the Commission gave the applicants an indication that

they did not want three stories and would not go along with anything

higher than two, and less would be better. If the applicants submitted

a Conditional Rezoning request, she expressed that the conditions

would have to be more specific. She explained they would have to

state that they would not go higher than two levels, and add that they

would also comply with specific design and other restrictions. To

just to say they would comply with the Ordinances would mean, as

an example, that in O-1 they could go higher than two stories.

Ms. Wilson said they would be committing to two stories, and they

understood that was the desire of the Commission. Ms. Brnabic

asked that it be specifically stated, noting that the conditions as

proposed were too general, and she wanted to make sure they would

agree to two levels or less.

Ms. Brnabic asked the size of the properties, and Ms. Wilson

believed that the total site was 3 ½ acres. Mr. Schroeder asked if

that was with or without the right-of-way, and Ms. Wilson was not

sure, but she thought that without it, the property was closer to three

acres. Ms. Brnabic wanted to find out if the Commissioners were

satisfied with the conditions, noting that there were no specifics and

reminding about everything that could be allowed in O-1. She

mentioned “raising and keeping of animals” and was not sure if an

owner had to have five acres. She read other permitted uses -

laboratories, whether experimental, testing or film and media and

entertainment facilities - and noted that there were other elements in

those categories. She reminded that the Commission could not pick

and choose or ask for conditions, and she was concerned about

other permitted uses being allowed if the site was Conditionally

Rezoned. She wondered if there were any uses the Commissioners

would be uncomfortable seeing at that corner if someone else

developed the property or if the conditions were not specified. She

did not think she would want to see an experimental laboratory on

that site. She also mentioned telecommunications towers being

allowed, and said she would be concerned if those were included.

Mr. Hooper suggested, besides the conditions put forth, which he felt

were fairly generic, that they add limiting the height to two stories, not

allowing wireless communication towers, and stating that

architectural treatments would be significantly brick. He suggested

also that they submit elevations that indicated what type of treatment

they would have for the outsides of the building showing significant

brick cladding. He reminded that it was a significant corner, and they

wanted it developed in top notch fashion and professionally. He

observed that a lot of the existing office space in Rochester Hills was

pretty tired, and that was why it was not renting. He cautioned that if

a new development came in and was not professional, it would not

attract the tenants they wanted.

Mr. Dettloff asked Ms. Wilson to what degree the partnership

between Signature and Talon’s bank financing was in place or if those

types of issues would still have to take place. He questioned what

would happen if the project was approved and ultimately the bank

financing could not be approved. As a worst case scenario, if the deal

fell through and the property was Rezoned, he wondered if the City

could be challenged as to how high the building could be.

Mr. Delacourt said that with Conditional Rezoning, the City would

require a development agreement and statement of the conditions to

be recorded with the title work. The City Attorney could require a

reverter under certain circumstances. The conditions would run with

the property - not with the owner. Someone else could only develop

under the way it was Conditionally Rezoned. Mr. Dettloff said that

was encouraging, and he asked Ms. Wilson to comment on where

they were in the process with financing.

Ms. Wilson said that was probably ahead of where they were. It was

the third time Talon had come in regarding the property, and they had

users in the past. They had some prospects, but they needed to

know in which direction they could go first.

Mr. Kaltsounis concurred with Mr. Hooper and Ms. Brnabic that there

should be no cell towers, and that it should be mostly brick and two

stories maximum.

Ms. Wilson reiterated that the desire was to do a Class A project,

which was what the market would demand. Mr. Kaltsounis said that

they still had to consider the possibility of the property being sold to

someone else. He understood they wanted to do a Class A project,

but someone else might not have that same passion. He recalled

that the developers for the project north of Bordine’s came in wanting

to do a great project, and they could not sell the project as it was.

They finally found someone else that wanted to purchase it, and they

came before the Commission with a Class D project.

Chairperson Boswell noted that the City of Rochester Hills had a long

tradition of having a community of residences. He stated that there

would be a lot of people in town that would wonder why, all of a

sudden, office or non-residential usage was creeping across

Livernois. He asked if there was any thought about that or if any

Commissioners saw that as a possible problem.

Mr. Hooper indicated that the property had been zoned residential for

decades, and he observed that if it was such a great residential

property, a house would have been built on it by now. It had been

vacant all that time. In this particular case, the property was

surrounded by two churches that were not going to go away, which

would provide buffers. If the property was successfully Conditionally

Rezoned to Office, he did not think it would degrade or allow a

significant change to the residential character of the area. If it was

not successful, it would probably remain vacant for the foreseeable

future.

Chairperson Boswell said that he was not advocating one thing or

another, but he noted that there was a possibility a building could be

built in such a way as to not appear too commercial. The

Commission had already stated that they did not want a three-story

block building that looked like an office building. In designing the

building, it could look like it belonged in a residential area. He noted

the understanding that there were churches on either side.

Mr. Schroeder agreed with the comments, and he asked if the

Planning Staff had any thoughts about conditions that should be

attached to the property.

Mr. Delacourt said that the Commissioners brought up the same

concerns that Staff had. They talked with the applicants, and they

did not appear to have a problem offering conditions to mitigate the

concerns raised. He did not think there would be a problem with

other uses being constructed in the future. He thought Staff could

work with the applicant on the conditions mentioned. Residential on

the corner surrounded by residential zoning but developed with

churches, the road improvements, the industrial across the street,

etc., had all been discussed with Staff. He believed the conditions

and the discussion went a long way in mitigating Staff’s concerns

about a Rezoning.

Mr. Schroeder noted that one of his concerns was that they were not

looking at just one corner; they were looking at three. He clarified

that the City owned two of the other corners, and Mr. Hooper agreed

that the City owned the southeast and southwest corners. Mr.

Schroeder said that did lessen the concern. He agreed that the

conditions offered were few and loose, and he stated that once the

property was Rezoned, that was it. Whoever got the property could

do what they wanted with it. He wanted to make sure that they really

tied it down. Mr. Delacourt agreed they could work with the applicant

to tighten them and address some of the other issues. Before the

Conditional Rezoning came back before the Commission, Staff would

ask the City Attorney to take a look at the conditions and make sure

they addressed everything appropriately so they would not run into a

problem with interpretation in the future. Mr. Schroeder hoped there

would be no gray areas.

Mr. Mulenga entered at 7:43 p.m. Chairperson Boswell asked if he

had anything to address, and Mr. Mulenga thought he had spelled it

out pretty well in the letter. He added that they planned to comply

with any and all zoning and landscaping requirements prior to Site

Plan Approval.

Mr. Schroeder suggested that they check the right-of-way situation to

make sure it was locked down. He had been involved in situations

where that had not been acquired. Mr. Hooper asked if that should

be a condition, and Mr. Schroeder said it absolutely should.

Mr. Kaltsounis recalled that the Master Plan Technical Committee did

a lot of talking about the subject property. They wanted to find a way

to not only get the corner built, but to take care of the property all

along Hamlin. That was why they chose mixed-residential. He

stated that a lot of thought went into the property. If he was asked to

approve a building a mile north, he would absolutely not agree to it. A

mile south would even be tough, but because they were on Hamlin

with a lot of office buildings, it would be continuing a theme. With the

churches, it also made it a little easier to decide. They were trying to

lock down certain things because of the economy. He pointed out

that the trees were discussed as to removal “within reason,” but he

suggested that their “within reason” might be different than his. If the

project came forward, he stated that conditions should be more

securely proposed. He would like to see that type of language

cleared up.

Ms. Brnabic referred to allowing an experimental testing laboratory,

and she wondered if it could include hazardous materials. She

realized it was an enclosed building, but said that was a concern.

Mr. Delacourt thought it was safe to assume that if there was a lab or

film processing use, it would involve some type of chemicals, and

additional protections would have to be put in place. Ms. Brnabic

thought that experimental testing was something that seemed better

suited for industrial zoning. She referred to media entertainment and

wondered if it would be appropriate for that location with the hours of

operation involved.

Mr. Dettloff said that from an economic development standpoint, the

project made total sense to him. He agreed with Mr. Hooper that if it

was prime property for residential, it would have been developed long

ago. There was a lot of housing on the market now, and it would not

just go away over night. He liked the idea of pursuing something with

Oakland University and Beaumont, and the location was good. For

the short and long term, he felt it was a good, practical way to go for

Rochester Hills.

Chairperson Boswell called on Mr. Hetrick, commenting that his

appointment had been made less than 24 hours ago. Mr. Hetrick

said that given that the churches were around the properties, he

wondered if it was possible to have the building look somewhat

residential. He asked if that was a reasonable request. One side of

Livernois was industrial and the other was residential, and he asked

if an office building were put up, if it could look a little more

residential. They would want to see a Class A building, and he

suggested that it might be one way to make the situation come out

nicely.

Mr. Mulenga replied that the elevations would be approved by the

Planning Commission, so if that was a request by them, they would

try to comply. Mr. Delacourt said that the applicant could offer that

as a condition if they were interested. It could state that the

architecture would be residential in nature. Those types of things

had been discussed in the past. The architectural guidelines talked

about areas where there was transitional office with residential

buildings. That was not even that far out of the normal Site Plan

review process, and it was very germane to the discussion and

something that could be offered. Mr. Hetrick thought that would be

very good for that particular location.

Chairperson Boswell opened the Public Comments at 7:44 p.m.

Richard Robinson, 875 W. Hamlin, Rochester Hills, MI 48307. Mr.

Robinson advised that he lived across the street from the property

under discussion. He felt that the Commissioners needed to take a

poll to find out the wishes of the residents in the area. He did not

think the majority of the residents would like to see “spot” zoning. He

did not think a lot of people in the area knew about the meeting. He

did not think it would help the value of the residents’ homes, and he

thought that if they started spot zoning it would open the floodgates.

He asked what land the City owned by the intersection of Hamlin and

Livernois, and Mr. Hooper advised that it owned the vacant land on

the southwest corner and the southeast corner. Mr. Robinson asked

what the City planned to do with the land, and Mr. Hooper said it was

unknown. Mr. Robinson said he lived next to the property on the

east, and that gave him a little “warmer” feeling about the situation,

but he noted that there would still be commercial property on the

north corner. He said he knew that realtors liked to see that because

it was worth more than residential. He did not think people should

make a living at the expense of the residents in the area. He noted

that someone mentioned that people in Rochester Hills did not like

property around them to be commercialized, and he did not think it

was advantageous overall for the City. He presumed that it got a little

more tax money, but stated that it was at the expense of the comfort

of the people.

Chairperson Boswell asked Mr. Delacourt what kind of buffering

would have to be provided by Ordinance, noting there was industrial

across the street, special uses on either side and residential across

the street.

Mr. Delacourt said that anywhere the property abutted residential

zoning regardless of the use - a home or place of worship - it would

require a 25-foot width, a green screening wall and some deciduous

plantings at a higher level. There was some flexibility, but those were

the basic requirements for office abutting residential property.

Across the street from industrial there would not be anything required

along the frontage, other than the normal landscaping required if there

was a parking lot on the street. Across from the residential on the

south there would be a ten-foot width and plantings required.

Chairperson Boswell asked what kind of site lines were required on a

traffic circle, noting their discussion about trees, and establishing that

there could not be a green wall. Mr. Delacourt believed that a normal

site clearance would be required for a roundabout, but he had not

reviewed a development by a roundabout. He said he would look into

it and have an answer if the project were to come forward.

Mr. Schroeder said it would certainly be difficult to turn left, but if

people wanted to go south, they could make a right turn and go into

the roundabout and go any direction they wanted. He thought access

would be difficult. Mr. Delacourt agreed, but said he would be

curious to see if the roundabout improved the access management.

He would also be curious about how the driveway locations were

sited on the property.

Chairperson Boswell summarized for the applicants that the Planning

Commission was open to something for the corner, and that if

residential was going to be built, it already would have. It seemed

even less likely with the traffic circle. Regarding the idea of an office

building - medical offices in conjunction with Oakland University or

Crittenton Hospital - he indicated that the Planning Commission

appeared open to that. He urged strongly that it should be no more

than two stories and have primarily brick facades and a residential

look to the building. He thought it might be challenging to compatibly

put as large of a building as they wanted to invest and look

residential. He asked the Commissioners if they had further

comments. Mr. Hooper added that there should not be wireless

towers. Mr. Mulenga said they would work with the elevations to

comply with what was being requested.

Mr. Delacourt brought up notification requirements for a Rezoning for

the applicants. He said that anyone within 300 feet of the property

lines would get notice, including Mr. Robinson. Chairperson Boswell

added that any time an applicant came before the Commission, the

members wanted to know that they had spoken with their neighbors

prior. If that did not happen prior, very often the Commissioners

asked the applicants to communicate with the neighbors, and a

matter could get postponed. Mr. Schroeder suggested that they start

with Mr. Robinson.

Chairperson Boswell asked the applicants if they had any questions,

and none were heard. Mr. Schroeder asked what the next direction

was.

Mr. Delacourt advised that the applicant would digest the information

and if they felt they had a suitable request, a Public Hearing would be

scheduled. It would be up to them to make a formal submittal and

offer conditions they felt addressed the concerns expressed by the

Commissioners.

Mr. Schroeder mentioned right-of-way, and asked the applicants to

make sure it was handled. Ms. Wilson said that she knew Talon had

to negotiate the right-of-ways, and there were substantial pieces

taken from both sides. She was not sure about the property to the

north (one of the parcels under consideration but not owned by

Talon). She asked if there would be a Development Agreement

involved with a Conditional Rezoning. Mr. Delacourt said it depended

upon the number of conditions. The City Attorney would take a look

at things and make a recommendation. If it was more complex, the

City normally required an Agreement. It appeared to him that for this

matter, the conditions were simple and straight forward, and they

would probably not need a separate Agreement, but he would have to

find out.

Chairperson Boswell thanked the applicants.

This matter was Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Kaltsounis asked Mr. Delacourt how things were looking around town.

He said he had noticed that there were some new housing starts and that

there might be signs of life. He asked if they could perhaps go back to

two meetings a month with three or four Site Plans per meeting.

Mr. Delacourt agreed that there were signs of life. Projects were starting

to move forward, and the City was seeing more interest. Staff was busier

from a residential and a commercial standpoint, and people were

requesting more permits and inspections. They were doing more concept

plan reviews, and they felt money was being freed, and developers felt

that Rochester Hills was a good place to invest. There had not been a big

increase in Site Plan submittals, but housing starts and building permits

were up. Things seemed to be moving in a better direction, and the City

wanted to be in a position to be competitive when things turned around.

Mr. Schroeder asked about the status of Tienken Road. Mr. Delacourt

said it was his understanding that the environmental assessment had

been submitted to the Feds by the County and it was in for review. The

preferred alternative was identified as a three-lane road, and the Federal

Highway Administration had to determine the direction for funding. Mr.

Schroeder asked if he had any idea when the project would be scheduled.

Mr. Delacourt was not sure if they would even accept three lanes. Mr.

Hooper said it would not start until 2011, and there was still quite a bit of

right-of-way yet to acquire, and he confirmed the City had the matching

funds.

Mr. Schroeder asked the status of the Crooks and M-59 project. Mr.

Hooper said that it was “hanging on by a thread,” and that Governor

Granholm might eliminate it again. MDOT opted for the standard

T-intersection for the on/off ramps. Mr. Hooper advised that if MDOT

moved forward and there was a new Crooks interchange, it would be

approved from where the boulevard ended south of M-59, including Avon

Industrial Drive, to Hamlin Road. The County said they had no money for

it, and the City would have to step up and do something if it were going to

get done.

The members discussed the meeting schedule for 2010 - meetings on

the first Tuesday of the month. Mr. Delacourt thanked Ms. Gentry for

working with the Planning Commission and wished her well in her new

capacity in the Planning and Development Department. Her former

duties would now be handled by Ms. Sandi DiSipio of the same

department. (That's four - hee).

NEXT MEETING DATE

The Chair reminded the Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting was

scheduled for January 5, 2010.

ADJOURNMENT

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

motion by Brnabic, the Chair adjourned the Regular meeting at 8:07 p.m.,

Michigan time.

_____________________________

William F. Boswell, Chairperson

Rochester Hills Planning Commission

___________________________________________

Maureen Gentry, Recording Secretary