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, August 4, 1998

CALL TO ORDER

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

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber ‎(‎enter ‎7‎:‎44 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Audrey Ruggiero ‎(‎enter ‎7‎:‎38 ‎p‎.‎m‎.)‎

Absent PC‎: ‎None‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Patricia Goodwin, Planning Director‎

Michele Goldstein, Planner‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ The Chair announced that the Planning Commission is the first city body to ‎

conduct a public meeting in the newly opened public assembly area of ‎

city hall‎.‎

B‎.‎ SEMCOG Regional Update ‎- ‎July ‎27‎, ‎1998‎

C‎.‎ Letter from American Planning Association dated July ‎15‎, ‎1998‎ regarding ‎

upcoming programs‎

D‎.‎ Planning & Zoning News, July ‎1998‎

E‎.‎ Memorandum dated July ‎21‎, ‎1998‎ from Katherine Beebe to be discussed ‎

under Any Other Business‎

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1868

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎015 ‎- ‎Guardian Savings and ‎

Loan, a ‎2‎,‎864 ‎square‎-‎foot savings and loan bank and ‎14‎,‎592 ‎square‎-‎foot ‎

speculative office building, located at the northwest corner of Rochester and ‎

Wabash, Parcel Nos‎. ‎15‎-‎27‎-‎427‎-‎058 ‎and ‎-‎059‎, zoned O‎-‎1‎, Office Business, ‎

Sam Dorchen, Dorchen‎/‎Martin Associates, ‎29895 ‎Greenfield Rd‎.‎, Southfield, MI ‎

48076‎, Applicant‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated July ‎23‎, ‎1998 ‎has been ‎

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

Present were Sam Dorchen and Ken Moreland of Dorchen‎/‎Martin Associates; Pat ‎

Williams and Al Bayer of Nowak & Fraus; Randy Holloway representing the owner; ‎

Michael Zimmerly and Bill Steiner from Dykema Gossett‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin referenced the staff report prepared by Paul Rizzardi and included in ‎

commissioners' packets‎. ‎Staff is not in receipt of any additional information other than ‎

what is in the packet‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin noted the one recommendation which staff ‎

strongly supports is that the applicant consider providing a cross‎-‎access easement to ‎

permit traffic from Regal Office Colony to gain access to Wabash and the traffic signal ‎

located at the intersection of Wabash and Rochester Road‎. ‎Staff has worked very ‎

diligently with the applicant, and the applicant has been very cooperative in limiting the ‎

ingress‎/‎egress from Rochester Road to right‎-‎in‎-‎right‎-‎out only‎. ‎The across‎-‎access ‎

facilitates traffic movement and circulation for both the proposed project as well as the ‎

Regal Office Colony development‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin pointed out a typographical error ‎

on Page ‎4 ‎of the staff report, Reason No‎. ‎4‎: "‎John R and South Boulevards‎"‎ ‎should ‎

read ‎"‎the intersection of Rochester and Wabash‎".‎

Continuing, Ms‎. ‎Goodwin referenced the Buffer Modification portion of the staff ‎

report and stated that staff is recommending that the ‎"‎finger‎" ‎or sliver of property that ‎

runs westerly be left without requirement for a wall, fence, or berm, but that the tree ‎

replacement credits be applied in this area if possible‎. ‎The adjoining neighbors have ‎

indicated in discussions with the city that they would be in agreement with that‎. ‎The ‎

subject site is a commercial development; under the tree preservation ordinance ‎

commercial developments are not required to adhere to the ‎37 ‎percent tree ‎

preservation requirement‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen stated that they are in favor of the buffer modification and the placement ‎

of the trees in the panhandle area described by Ms‎. ‎Goodwin‎. ‎His associates had ‎

nothing to add‎.‎

[ ‎Enter Ruggiero ‎- ‎7:38‎ p‎.‎m‎. ] ‎

The Chair accepted comments from the public even though this was not a public ‎

hearing‎.‎

Peggy Ann Kralick, ‎2506 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Road,‎ past president of the Regal ‎

Office Plaza Condominium Association, was present to see the project through as she ‎

was the one who initiated the cross‎-‎access agreement and spoke in favor of the ‎

cross‎-‎access agreement wherever it is located‎.‎

David Bommarito, ‎2550 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Road,‎ owns a unit in the Regal ‎

Office Plaza‎. ‎One of the reasons they purchased was because the access was ‎

promised‎. ‎Traffic conditions are currently dangerous in the area‎. ‎If they lose some ‎

parking spaces as a result of the cross‎-‎access, he would appreciate them being ‎

squeezed in some place on the site‎.‎

There were no further comments from the public‎.‎

Member Nowicki discussed the proposed handicap parking for both proposed ‎

buildings‎. ‎the State requires that handicap parking be placed in the most readily ‎

accessible location to the buildings‎. ‎The main entrance to the bank building is located ‎

in the middle of the building, and the handicap space should be located right in front of ‎

the door, rather than at either end of the building as shown on the site plan‎.‎

[ ‎Enter Gaber ‎- ‎7:44‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen responded for the number of handicap spaces required they located ‎

them where they felt the use would be most frequent‎. ‎He pointed out the entry doors ‎

to the proposed buildings and stated that there are handicap parking spaces at each‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen explained that the maneuvering space for a car was located such that a ‎

handicap passenger would be in front of the entrance when coming off the ramp‎. ‎If ‎

required, Mr‎. ‎Dorchen was willing to relocate the handicap parking space directly in ‎

front of the entrance door to the proposed bank building‎. ‎Acknowledging that the ‎

driver of the vehicle may be the handicapped person, Mr‎. ‎Dorchen explained that they ‎

tried to put it in the best possible location; they did not try to evade the code‎. ‎

Member Nowicki requested that the handicap parking space be relocated closer to ‎

the entrance to the bank‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen was agreeable to that‎.‎

Regarding the office building, Mr‎. ‎Williams explained that there is detention for water ‎

in the parking lot, and water detention in a handicap parking space is not allowed‎. ‎

Therefore, the handicap spaces have to be farther away from the catch basins that are ‎

right in front of the entrance to the proposed office building‎. ‎Member Nowicki added ‎

that the State's handicap requirements do not include catch basins, and the city has not ‎

determined that the catch basins must be in the proposed locations‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen ‎

added the handicap parking spaces are concentrated at the north end of the proposed ‎

office building‎. ‎There is no main entrance to the building; there are individual ‎

entrances to offices‎. ‎The passenger is more likely to be the handicapped person ‎

rather than the driver, according to Mr‎. ‎Dorchen's discussions with other communities‎. ‎

Member Nowicki requested that the handicap spaces be moved to the center of the ‎

proposed office building to provide equal accessibility to either end of the building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen was agreeable to moving the handicap spaces to the center of the ‎

proposed office building‎.‎

Member Nowicki summarized his request that the handicap parking spaces be in front ‎

of the entrance of the proposed bank building, and in the center of the proposed office ‎

center‎. ‎The regulations specify the maneuvering space, access space, curb cuts, and ‎

so forth‎. ‎Member Nowicki was not going to determine those for the applicant‎. ‎

Member Nowicki confirmed that generally the wheelchair involved would most likely ‎

be on the passenger side rather than the driver's side‎. ‎Member Rosen confirmed ‎

Member Nowicki's statement and added that generally vans are used for handicapped ‎

persons, and most of the ramps are on the right hand side of the vehicle‎. ‎There is a ‎

movement toward equipping passenger cars with the apparatus to bring the wheelchair ‎

up to the driver's side‎. ‎Having the access ramp on the right side of the handicap space ‎

probably makes sense for the short term‎. ‎Member Rosen suggested considering an ‎

additional handicap space on the opposite side of the access ramp so that the access ‎

space is accessible from either side of the vehicle‎.‎

Member Corneliussen turned the discussion to the ‎22 ‎foot wide requested cross ‎

access aisleway‎. ‎The proposed number of parking spaces is three over the required ‎

minimum for the subject site‎. ‎It appeared to Member Corneliussen that a cross ‎

access easement would take up at least two of those excess parking spaces, and the ‎

recommended location for the cross access is in the proposed location of the ‎

dumpster along the north property line‎. ‎Member Corneliussen asked the applicant ‎

where else the dumpster could be located and what the impact would be on the ‎

parking count‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen explained that they had gone through two reviews with ‎

the Planning Department before they were aware of the request for a cross access ‎

easement, and it is not part of the legal description of the subject site‎. ‎The adjacent ‎

Regal Office Colony property owners want the cross access‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen has not ‎

been able to find any way to bring a cross access easement across the subject site ‎

without causing a great deal of hardship in terms of liability, the grade change, and ‎

maintenance‎. ‎The adjacent site is approximately ‎4‎.‎5 ‎to ‎5 ‎feet higher in elevation than ‎

the subject site and would require a ten percent slope for a road onto the subject site‎. ‎

It would increase the amount of traffic entering the subject site because they have not ‎

planned for it‎. ‎Even if they had known about it in the very beginning, they could not ‎

have planned for it because of the steep grade‎. ‎They feel compassionate to the ‎

neighbors, who have expressed interest and pleasure in the fact that an office facility ‎

will be built on the subject site‎. ‎But there was no easement requiring that access and ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen did not think it would be safe‎. ‎There may be other places, even on the ‎

Regal Office Colony site, to provide that easement without going through the ‎

applicant's property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen did not feel they can satisfy that request because of ‎

the existing grade, liability, and maintenance in addition to the cost imposed‎. ‎They ‎

have already reduced the size of the building through the staff reviews because of the ‎

landscape requirements on the west side of the site‎. ‎Therefore, Mr‎. ‎Dorchen is ‎

objecting to Condition No‎. ‎2 ‎in the staff report‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen explained the requested buffer modification along the western property ‎

line‎. ‎The ordinance requires either a wall or a landscape buffer between residential and ‎

office zoning and they propose a masonry screen wall along the western property line‎. ‎

There is existing vegetation in the area now, and they would plant replacement trees in ‎

that area as well‎. ‎

Member Ramanauskas commented that the applicant is using a rather innovative ‎

method for constructing the wall‎. ‎The screen wall comprises a standard wall built on ‎

pier footings with a steel beam supporting the wall‎. ‎The steel beam span sections will ‎

protect tree roots that would normally be impacted by the wall construction‎. ‎This ‎

allows more trees to be saved‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that the cross section detail of ‎

the wall as shown on the plan is what would be enforced unless there were a revised ‎

cross section submitted and approved, so it would not have to be included as a ‎

condition of approval‎.‎

Member Nowicki studied the access lane on the south side of the proposed office ‎

building and asked if the Fire Department made any comments about the north side of ‎

the building or the back of the building‎. ‎It appeared that there was a parking space ‎

and a loading zone in the northeast corner‎. ‎Since the Fire Department has always ‎

been concerned about access to a building, Member Nowicki wondered how ‎

emergency vehicles would access the northwest corner of the building‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin ‎

responded that the Fire Department typically requires either access from three sides of ‎

a building or requires the building to be within ‎300 ‎feet as the hose lies of a hydrant‎. ‎

In the subject case the Fire Department is satisfied that this layout meets their ‎

requirements‎. ‎A written approval from the Fire Department is on file‎. ‎Historically the ‎

Fire Department has required access on all sides of a building‎. ‎More recently they ‎

have required access from three sides of a building as long as there is a hydrant ‎

available within ‎300 ‎feet‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen added they have worked very closely with the ‎

Fire Department to resolve this‎. ‎It might seem strange to have the concrete drive ‎

adjacent to the south side of the proposed office building when there is a street ‎

adjacent to the building also; however, the Fire Department felt in order to maintain ‎

the fire access‎

they wanted it in that location‎. ‎There is emergency coverage for the north side from ‎

the fire hydrant‎. ‎It did not make sense to Member Nowicki to have a concrete fire ‎

lane adjacent to a street to cover the south side of the proposed office building and ‎

have no fire lane on the north side of the building‎. ‎Member Rosen was also baffled ‎

and asked the applicant if perhaps the Fire Department was relying on the Regal ‎

Office Colony to the north to provide emergency access‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen responded ‎

no, that each site has to stand alone in their coverage‎. ‎

The Chair stated the staff report indicates that staff has had conversations with the ‎

applicant who has indicated verbally being amenable to providing cross access with ‎

the adjacent property owner to the north‎. ‎The Chair asked Mr‎. ‎Dorchen to explain ‎

the apparent change in posture regarding the cross access‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen responded ‎

that their attitude has not changed, they never felt the access in the location mentioned ‎

in the staff report was the appropriate place for such‎. ‎There are other locations more ‎

appropriate for a cross access easement, such as along the west side of the proposed ‎

office building‎. ‎If it is the intention for the city to provide access to Wabash Road for ‎

Regal Office Colony by bringing it in across another site where there is no easement ‎

and none is required, puts a real hardship on the site for the reasons stated earlier‎. ‎

There is some land they have available for an easement, and they would still be in ‎

conformance with the ordinance, there's a ‎25 ‎foot landscape buffer required from the ‎

building to the rear property line; there are ‎35 ‎feet available‎. ‎It might also be possible ‎

to obtain some property from the adjacent parcel to the west‎. ‎The panhandle is ‎

approximately ‎40 ‎feet wide; a drive in that location would be in line with the drive on ‎

Regal Office Colony‎. ‎That was not discussed with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi to any great extent ‎

other than the fact that it seemed as though rezoning was an issue‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin responded to the rezoning issue by stating that the required buffer is ‎25 ‎

feet from the property line, and within that ‎25 ‎feet there can be no structures, ‎

driveways, parking, signs, or other such uses‎. ‎So the buffer would have to be ‎25 ‎feet ‎

from the lot line, which would mean that the driveway would have to fit in between the ‎

building and the buffer‎. ‎That would mean acquiring additional property‎. ‎The ‎

panhandle has already gone through several zoning changes‎. ‎

It would be difficult to justify a rezoning based on needing to provide an additional ‎

driveway, but it is possible‎. ‎That is the zoning district line, and the city has maintained ‎

that line, particularly through the last round of rezonings‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen indicated they ‎

would be cooperative with the property behind them in order to find a way to ‎

accomplish that cross‎-‎access‎. ‎They have tried to find a way to accomplish that‎. ‎It ‎

might be possible to move the property line ten feet closer to their proposed building‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen could understand the difficulty of rezoning in order to provide a ‎

cross‎-‎access‎. ‎

The Chair stated if it were moved to approve the site plan conditioned on obtaining an ‎

easement, obtaining a change in the property line, and‎/‎or obtaining a rezoning, would ‎

be much more onerous than the condition suggested by Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi in the staff report ‎

which would take into account a sharing of the expenses for paving and regrading‎. ‎

Member Nowicki stated if the proposed fire lane on the south side of the office ‎

building were moved to the north side to the panhandle area, that might provide an ‎

access to the adjacent site‎. ‎He remembered that possibility being discussed in ‎

connection with other proposed site plans for the subject site‎. ‎The Chair reiterated ‎

that possibility‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Williams added there is a ‎4‎.‎5 ‎percent to ‎5 ‎percent grade difference throughout ‎

the panhandle area and the adjacent site‎. ‎Putting a cross‎-‎access drive in that area still ‎

would not improve the safety because a ‎9 ‎or ‎10 ‎percent grade would still be required ‎

in order to get a drive down below the finish floor‎. ‎

Roger Harding, address unknown, ‎came forward and stated he is very familiar with ‎

the area and was active in opposing Lone Star developing on the subject site‎. ‎The ‎

grade is not very steep at all in the panhandle area; the grade is much steeper near the ‎

proposed location for the dumpster‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Williams acknowledged that the existing slope is not that steep but will have to be ‎

increased in order to provide for the finish floor elevation‎.‎

Member Corneliussen and Mr‎. ‎Dorchen discussed other alternatives‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen ‎

stated the proposed office building is almost to the setback line and a number of ‎

parking spaces would be sacrificed for an easement on the north side of the building‎. ‎

The Chair added that it could be argued that the building is fairly close to the setback ‎

and is fairly large for the site, which drives the parking requirement and other ‎

dimensions‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen added they have already reduced the size of the proposed ‎

office building with every review they have had with the Planning Department‎. ‎The ‎

proposed landscaping helps to mitigate the size of the building‎. ‎To Member Nowicki ‎

the elevations seemed to indicate that a driveway would be possible around the ‎

proposed office building‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen thought a driveway behind the building would ‎

be a more viable solution to keep the cross‎-‎access separate from their traffic pattern‎. ‎

They have tightened up the site with the cooperation of the Planning Department‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Dorchen summarized that they are in favor of the Regal Office Colony having access ‎

to Wabash, but they cannot provide it safely in the area suggested in the staff report‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen has met, as recently as yesterday, with the Regal Office Colony people ‎

and explained their situation‎. ‎

Member Rosen referred to the July ‎17‎, ‎1998 ‎note from Kenneth Moreland regarding ‎

completion and filing of the amendment to the Master Deed‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen did not ‎

believe the master deed related to the cross‎-‎access‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Steiner explained that the ‎

amendment relates to property acquired by Guardian which was an expansion of the ‎

condominium‎. ‎The condominium developer amended that and there was a question ‎

about the legal description‎. ‎The title insurance company has submitted the amendment ‎

and it is ready to the recorded‎. ‎It has nothing to do with the cross‎-‎access‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin clarified that Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi's intent was not to dictate the exact location ‎

where a cross‎-‎access had to occur ‎-- ‎given their understanding of the grades and the ‎

absence of construction details, rather to indicate that the applicant was amenable to a ‎

cross‎-‎access easement somewhere on the subject property‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi had ‎

indicated there was a willingness by the applicant to consider an easement for a drive ‎

access from Regal Colony somewhere on the subject property between the two ‎

proposed buildings‎. ‎With regard to trying to accommodate a cross access driveway ‎

for the benefit of the office zoned property, it would have to occur all on the office ‎

zoned property with a ‎25 ‎foot buffer separating the residential from the office zoning at ‎

the property line‎. ‎The buffer would start at the property line of the non‎-‎residential ‎

zoned property‎. ‎The applicant's west property line would have to be moved ‎

westward for whatever distance and then the buffer and then the driveway, so the ‎

driveway would be all on the office property‎. ‎That would require a rezoning, which ‎

was the situation previously on the subject site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen added that seemed to ‎

be the difficulty with this particular solution‎. ‎

The Chair's opinion was that the applicant was overstating the engineering problem‎. ‎

He reviewed the criteria of Section ‎21‎.‎16 ‎of Zoning Ordinance ‎200 ‎and the ‎

responsibility of the Planning Commission to address those criteria‎. ‎For as long as the ‎

Chair could remember, a cross‎-‎access was always intended and expected to be ‎

included on the subject site for the Regal Colony Condominiums and the people who ‎

use that site‎. ‎The Chair acknowledged the hard work and time that the applicant has ‎

obviously put into this project‎. ‎The intended use is a desirable one‎. ‎The Chair was ‎

not sure which direction the applicant wanted the Planning Commission to take‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Steiner was struggling with the fact that the Regal Office Colony was built without ‎

an access easement, and the residents bought their properties without an access ‎

easement, and the Planning Commission approved it without an access easement‎. ‎It ‎

appeared to him that the issue of the access easement was raised during litigation ‎

between Regal and Mr‎. ‎Borowy the previous owner‎. ‎The result of that litigation did ‎

not give them any rights to an access easement‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Steiner affirmed the safety issues ‎

in connection with the access easement although the proposed site plan generally ‎

meets all the ordinance requirements‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Steiner would like the site plan approved ‎

without the requirement for a ‎22 ‎foot access easement across the middle of the ‎

subject property for the Regal Office Colony Condominiums‎. ‎

The Chair countered that the Planning Commission was not trying to give the adjacent ‎

property owner a right that they failed to obtain by some other means; the Planning ‎

Commission's concern is for the harmonious development of Rochester Hills in general ‎

and all residents who might use both sites‎. ‎The Chair added that the cross‎-‎access is ‎

not something that happened with Regal Office; it's something that has always been ‎

talked about as having to occur to develop those parcels correctly‎.‎

Member Ramanauskas discussed raising the finish floor elevation to around ‎767 ‎feet ‎

or ‎766‎.‎6 ‎feet‎. ‎The existing grade around the proposed dumpster is ‎767 ‎feet and ‎769 ‎

feet in the proposed parking area‎. ‎By raising the office building two feet, the retaining ‎

wall could be lowered which would allow for the cross access‎. ‎Some fill might be ‎

necessary‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Bayer confirmed that an excessive amount of fill would be required ‎

for the parking lot to maintain safe grades from the building to the parking areas‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen stated the possibility of Regal visitors parking on the proposed site has ‎

not been a major concern‎. ‎

If the applicant is not granted a buffer modification, Member Rosen clarified with Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin that the ‎40 ‎foot wide panhandle strip would require either a berm or a ‎6 ‎foot ‎

obscuring screen as well as ‎40 ‎percent visual obstruction in order to meet the ‎25 ‎foot ‎

buffer requirement on the south and west sides‎. ‎The north side would not require a ‎

buffer because it abuts office zoning‎. ‎

[ ‎Exit Gaber ‎9:05‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Member Ruggiero did not believe the Planning Commission could impose a ‎

requirement for the cross access easement on the applicant‎. ‎

Regarding the buffer modification request, Member Ruggiero recalled a medical office ‎

development on the northwest corner of South Boulevard and Rochester Road which ‎

also had a panhandle‎. ‎She recalled that the buffer modification was granted with a ‎

requirement for a couple additional trees to be planted‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen pointed out that ‎

they have agreed to plant ‎47 ‎replacement trees in the panhandle area of the subject ‎

site‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen repeated their willingness to cooperate‎. ‎

[ ‎Reenter Gaber ‎9:12‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen pointed out that the west elevation of the proposed bank building will ‎

face the parking lot, so that the rear of the building will face Rochester Road with ‎

matching building materials and architectural treatments on all four sides‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Dorchen submitted renderings of the building elevations‎. ‎Member Ruggiero pointed ‎

out the corner is highly visible‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen described the proposed landscape plantings‎. ‎Member Ruggiero would ‎

like to see the maximum number of trees planted on the site, particularly along the ‎

streetscape of Rochester Road‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Dorchen had no problem planting more trees, ‎

but they are restricted by the distance from a building and distance from utilities‎. ‎They ‎

had difficulty finding room for all the trees‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen explained that minimal signage is proposed but did not have details ‎

because they usually are not part of the site plan except to indicate the location of a ‎

monument sign‎. ‎The proposed site is not like a retail facility that might be concerned ‎

with visibility of signs‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Moreland explained his understanding of the allowable ‎

signage per his discussion with Jack Sage‎.‎

The Chair summarized that a possible motion for approval would include at least ‎3 ‎

more trees to be installed on the east elevation, with at least one of those a Douglas ‎

Fir, to be determined in cooperation with Linda Lemke and the Planning staff‎.‎

[ ‎RECESS ‎9:27‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎to ‎9:38‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

The Chair accepted comments from the public although this was a public hearing‎.‎

Camelia Barafac, ‎110 ‎Wabash,‎ immediately adjacent to the west of the ‎

subject property and to the south of the panhandle, requested a wall along her north ‎

property line for the safety of her children‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen expressed surprise since most people prefer a landscape buffer ‎

to a wall; ‎47 ‎trees along the panhandle would provide an adequate buffer‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Dorchen objected to a fence for security problems‎. ‎Member Rosen ‎

recommended sticking with the strict requirements of the ordinance‎.‎

John Petrie, ‎131 ‎Wabash,‎ whose property is adjacent to the west end of ‎

the panhandle, was concerned that installing a wall would kill a lot of trees; and trees ‎

provide a noise barrier‎.‎

Camelia Barafac, address on record‎, changed her preference to a fence ‎

and trees instead of a wall as requested earlier‎. ‎

There were no further comments from the public‎.‎

Member Nowicki questioned whether the notice requirements were properly met ‎

since the map on the Tree Removal Permit notice did not illustrate the subject parcel in ‎

its entirety‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin responded that the city's parcel maps still show the ‎

panhandle area as belonging to the condominium development‎. ‎The map in the notice ‎

was not intended to be a comprehensive map‎. ‎

Item ‎1‎. ‎Tree Removal Permit‎

MOTION‎ by Boswell, seconded by Krupa, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎015 ‎

(‎Guardian Savings and Loan‎)‎, to ‎grant the Tree Removal Permit ‎consistent with ‎

the conditions in the staff report dated July ‎23‎, ‎1998‎, Linda Lemke's letter dated July ‎

7‎, ‎1998‎, requirements for replacement credits and‎/‎or trees as well as a provision for a ‎

bond‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ An itemized cost be submitted to Staff for review and approval‎.‎

2‎.‎ A performance guarantee in the form of a bond, letter of credit, or cash for ‎47‎ ‎

replacement credits be placed to ensure the planting of the replacement trees‎.‎

3‎.‎ The applicant evaluate if additional replacement trees can be planted in the strip of ‎

land located in the northwest corner of the subject site‎. ‎If room exists, ‎

replacement credits should be planted in this area‎.‎

4‎.‎ Prior to issuance of a Land Improvement Permit, the applicant shall remit into the ‎

Tree Fund an amount approved by Staff, the equivalent cost of any ‎

replacement credits not planted on‎-‎site‎.‎

5‎.‎ The applicant shall provide a tree replacement guarantee in the form of a bond, ‎

letter of credit or surety in an amount to be set and approved by City staff‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

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

Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Nowicki ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Granted

2000-1869

Request for a Buffer Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎015 ‎- ‎Guardian Savings and ‎

Loan‎

The Chair suggested a condition of approval of the requested buffer modification ‎-- ‎a ‎

cyclone fence along the northern property line of the Barafacs' property, which is the ‎

southern property line of the panhandle and continue to the westernmost portion of the ‎

panhandle, if that property owner desires a fence‎. ‎Member Gaber had a problem ‎

agreeing to a cyclone fence as it would not provide the required screening‎. ‎He would ‎

not want to set a precedent‎. ‎

Item ‎2‎. ‎Buffer Modification‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Corneliussen, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎015 ‎

(‎Guardian Savings and Loan‎)‎, that the Planning Commission ‎approve the Buffer ‎

Modification‎ in the panhandle area with the findings and conditions in the staff report ‎

dated July ‎23‎, ‎1998‎, plus two additional conditions based on plans dated received by ‎

the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on July ‎17‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Meeting the literal requirements of the zoning ordinance‎’‎s screening standards will ‎

not provide any additional screening of the property from the residential ‎

property to the west‎.‎

2‎.‎ The arrangement of the site is a practical difficulty not common to other ‎

commercial properties‎. ‎The rear yard of the site contains a sliver of land ‎

which is not useable, and any screening in this property will not offset the ‎

impacts of the subject development‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ The required number of replacement trees to be planted in the panhandle, minus ‎

three trees requested for the east side of the bank building‎.‎

2‎.‎ A cyclone fence be installed along the southern portion of the panhandle westerly ‎

from the masonry wall across the first adjacent lot and the second adjacent lot ‎

if desired by those property owners‎. ‎

Discussion on the motion‎:‎

Members Gaber and Rosen and the Chair discussed that the purpose of a buffer is not ‎

only to screen but to separate‎. ‎A cyclone fence would separate but not screen‎. ‎Vines ‎

planted on the cyclone fence would provide screening‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Kaiser, Krupa, Ramanauskas, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Gaber, Nowicki, Rosen ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Approved

2000-1870

Request for Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎015 ‎- ‎Guardian Savings and Loan‎

MOTION‎ by Ruggiero, seconded by Boswell, in the matter of File No‎. ‎98‎-‎015 ‎

(‎Guardian Savings and Loan‎)‎, to ‎grant Site Plan Approval ‎ incorporating the five ‎

findings and conditions #‎1 ‎and #‎3 ‎in the staff report dated July ‎23‎, ‎1998‎, plus three ‎

additional conditions based on the site plan dated received by the City of Rochester ‎

Hills Planning Department on July ‎17‎, ‎1998‎.‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

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

2‎.‎ The proposed building meets the City‎’‎s architectural guidelines and is compatible ‎

with other buildings in the area‎. ‎The building is designed with a brick exterior ‎

with decorative accents‎. ‎Furthermore, the building will only be about ‎20‎ feet ‎

tall‎.‎

3‎.‎ The proposed parking lot layout is expected to provide safe pedestrian and ‎

vehicular circulation‎. ‎Sidewalks are provided from the public thoroughfares to ‎

the buildings on‎-‎site as well as within the parking lot‎.‎

4‎.‎ A minimal increase in traffic is expected to be generated from this use, and ‎

Rochester and Wabash Roads are expected to adequately accommodate any ‎

such increase in traffic‎. ‎The impact on Rochester Road traffic will be minimal, ‎

and possibly improved, if cross‎-‎access to the property to the north is ‎

obtained‎.‎

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

and characteristics of the site as documented in the applicant's Environmental ‎

Impact Statement‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ Appropriate signage be placed at the Rochester Road entrance to inform ‎

Rochester Road traffic of proper entry restrictions and a No Exit sign within ‎

the site‎.‎

2‎.‎ A performance and maintenance guarantee in the form of a bond, letter of credit, ‎

or cash be placed with the City to ensure the planting and survival of the ‎

proposed landscape materials‎. ‎The amounts of the guarantees shall be ‎

approved by Staff‎.‎

3‎.‎ Relocate the handicap parking spaces to immediately in front of the respective ‎

buildings‎.‎

4‎.‎ Three ‎(‎3‎) ‎additional trees be installed and made part of the landscape plan on the ‎

east elevation of the Guardian Savings & Loan building, at least one of which ‎

is to be a Douglas fir‎.‎

5‎.‎ Relocate the trash receptacle from the north corner of the proposed office building ‎

on the west side of the site to the westernmost parking space on the northern ‎

property line‎.‎

6‎.‎ The applicant shall provide a landscape plan guarantee in the form of a bond, ‎

letter of credit or surety in an amount to be set and approved by City staff‎.‎

Roll call vote‎:‎

Ayes‎:‎ Boswell, Corneliussen, Gaber, Kaiser, Krupa, Ruggiero‎

Nays‎:‎ Nowicki, Ramanauskas, Rosen ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Site Plans and Architectural Plans dated received July ‎17‎, ‎1998 ‎by the ‎

City of Rochester Hills Planning Department prepared by Dorchen‎/‎Martin Associates; ‎

Staff Report dated July ‎23‎, ‎1998‎; Environmental Impact Statement; Letter dated July ‎

17‎, ‎1998 ‎from Kenneth Moreland of Dorchen‎/‎Martin Associates; Memo dated July ‎

14‎, ‎1998 ‎from Stephen B‎. ‎Dearing; Fax dated July ‎8‎, ‎1998 ‎from Management ‎

Recruiters; Letter dated July ‎8‎, ‎1998 ‎from Regal Office Plaza Condominium ‎

Association; Notice of Preservation of Right of Entry ‎(‎Ingress‎/‎Egress‎)‎; Letter dated ‎

May ‎11‎, ‎1998 ‎from Regal Office Plaza Condominium Association; Letter dated June ‎

8‎, ‎1998 ‎from Guardian Savings; Letter dated March ‎3‎, ‎1998 ‎from Dorchen‎/‎Martin ‎

Associates; Letter from Linda Lemke dated July ‎7‎, ‎1998‎; First Amendment to ‎

Second Amended and Restated Master Deed of Regal Office Plaza from W‎. ‎A‎. ‎

Steiner, Jr‎.‎; Tree Removal Permit Notice of Meeting‎.)‎

_____________________________________‎

[ ‎Exit Gaber ‎10:30‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Approved

DISCUSSION

2000-1743

Proposed Historic Preservation Plan ‎- ‎Review of Preliminary Draft‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Michele Goldstein dated July ‎27‎, ‎1998 ‎has been ‎

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

Present was Lois Golden, City Council member and former chairperson of the ‎

Historic Districts Commission‎.‎

[ ‎Reenter Gaber ‎10:33‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Ms‎. ‎Goldstein explained that the subject document is being submitted to the Planning ‎

Commission for comment and review and possible endorsement‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goldstein ‎

thanked the Planning Commission and Historic Districts Commission members who ‎

served on the subcommittee which prepared the subject policy document‎. ‎They spent ‎

a tremendous amount of time and work on the project‎. ‎Planning Department staff ‎

conducted a lot of research and held meetings with HDC members to identify issues of ‎

concern to develop a policy document that would guide the HDC, Planning ‎

Commission, and other boards and commissions of the city in an advisory capacity‎. ‎

The need for an historic preservation policy is illustrated by the fact that the current ‎

Master Land Use Plan contains one paragraph addressing historic preservation‎. ‎In the ‎

past there has been only a very small amount of information available to guide the ‎

Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, or City Council, or any other boards ‎

regarding historic preservation‎. ‎The proposed draft presents policies, issues, goals, ‎

and objectives that would assist the city in dealing with historic preservation issues and ‎

acting in a proactive manner‎. ‎The report discusses five areas that have been identified ‎

as having the most concern to the city ‎-- ‎Existing and Potential Sites, Development ‎

and redevelopment, Zoning and Land Use for Historic Properties, Public Awareness, ‎

and Economic Feasibility‎.‎

Member Nowicki said the proposed document is a good document, but he wondered ‎

where the funding would come from for implementation of the policies‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goldstein ‎

responded that much of the implementation plan would be funded by grants when ‎

possible‎. ‎The proposed objectives in the draft Historic Preservation Plan are not ‎

mandated items ‎-- ‎they represent a master historical plan compared to an ‎

implementation plan‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goldstein has also spoken to Katherine Beebe, the current ‎

Master Land Use Plan Update consultant, and attorney John Staran for their ‎

comments‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Beebe has not seen any red flags, but she plans to review it with ‎

Barry Murray for his expertise‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Staran's only general concern related to the role ‎

of the Historic Districts Commission‎. ‎The proposed document is only an advisory ‎

document‎.‎

Member Rosen mentioned a couple items‎. ‎On Page ‎6 ‎regarding Objective ‎2‎. ‎Zoning ‎

Board of Appeals decisions will consider the context of a site i‎.‎e‎. ‎its historical ‎

character and will be consistent with zoning ordinance text or regulations‎.‎ ‎Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin responded that the Zoning Board of Appeals authority is limited and without ‎

discretion in many instances‎. ‎It would be the intent down‎-‎the‎-‎line to add some ‎

additional standards that could be used when dealing with designated historic ‎

properties‎. ‎Member Rosen pointed out that the ZBA often runs into the restrictions in ‎

Section ‎24‎.‎03‎.‎d‎. ‎of Ordinance ‎200 ‎regarding practical difficulties or unnecessary ‎

hardships, and wondered how State limitations could be changed; city ordinances can ‎

be changed‎. ‎When it's appropriate and meaningful, it's a good thing to be able to do; ‎

but not just a give‎-‎away‎. ‎Yet he cautioned against unintended consequences‎. ‎

Member Rosen offered the following suggestions‎:‎

·‎ The Planning Commission is mentioned only once under Participants‎. ‎He ‎

wondered if that meant the Planning Commission would not be involved to any ‎

great extent or if it was an oversight‎. ‎

·‎ Page ‎14‎, Item ‎3‎ at the top of the page, ‎Integrate historic preservation issues ‎

into plans for land use, transportation, parks and recreation,‎.... ‎sounded ‎

like a Master Land Use Plan topic, with which the Planning Commission is ‎

heavily involved‎.‎

·‎ Planning Commission involvement in Item ‎4‎ on Page ‎14‎, ‎Improve vehicular ‎

access routes in and around Historic Districts‎...‎ ‎was arguable‎.‎

·‎ Item ‎6‎ on Page ‎14‎, ‎Promote strategies for reducing and calming traffic and ‎

incorporate into Transportation Plans‎ could benefit from Planning ‎

Commission involvement‎.‎

·‎ Page ‎15‎, Item ‎3‎. ‎Maintain the landscape with existing road patterns in and ‎

around historic districts‎.‎ ‎could also benefit from Planning Commission ‎

involvement as it relates to the Transportation Plan‎.‎

·‎ The Planning Commission is included on Page ‎15‎, Objective No‎. ‎1‎ under Goal ‎5‎. ‎

The Historic Districts Commission should will ‎[‎sic‎] ‎work with the ZBA ‎

and Planning Commission to ensure that preservation concerns are ‎

considered in their decisions‎.‎

·‎ Page ‎16‎, Item ‎3‎. ‎Require compatibility between new and existing ‎

development as a criterion in development review‎.‎ ‎The Planning ‎

Commission does plan reviews‎.‎

·‎ Page ‎20‎, Goal ‎7‎. ‎Objective ‎1‎. ‎Plan public expenditures, create matching ‎

grants‎...‎ ‎Perhaps this should explicitly mention the CIP, Capital Improvement ‎

Plan‎.‎

·‎ A Web site should be considered as a way of gaining national attention and ‎

recognition‎. ‎It could be included on the existing City's WebPage‎.‎

In response to Member Rosen's comments, Members Ruggiero and Ramanauskas ‎

had interpreted the reference to ‎"‎PD, Planning Department‎" ‎under the column labeled ‎

"‎Participants‎" ‎as meaning the staff report and initial review prepared by the Planning ‎

Department for the Planning Commission‎. ‎

The Chair offered the following comments‎:‎

·‎ The numbering of issues, goals, objectives, et cetera appeared to be somewhat ‎

burdensome‎.‎

·‎ Page ‎18‎, Objective ‎5‎. ‎the reference to Eagle Scouts should be changed to a more ‎

generic designation, such as ‎"‎service groups‎".‎

·‎ The document clearly demonstrates a tremendous amount of work and the ‎

participants are to be commended for their efforts‎.‎

·‎ The Planning Commission, PC, is not listed in the List of Abbreviations on Page ‎

21‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goldstein informed the Planning Commission that the draft Historic Preservation ‎

Plan will be presented to the Historic Districts Commission on August ‎13‎, ‎1998‎, ‎

seeking their endorsement of the plan‎. ‎Comments are also expected from Ms‎. ‎Beebe, ‎

Mr‎. ‎Murray, and Mr‎. ‎Staran as well as the HDC‎. ‎The only other additional items ‎

intended to be included in the proposed draft that the Planning Commission has not ‎

received are maps that are currently being updated with correct Sidwell numbers‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goldstein displayed a sample map‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that the reason for seeking comments from the Master Plan ‎

consultant was to ensure that there would be no conflicts or contradictions between ‎

the proposed preservation plan and components of the Master Land Use Plan ‎

Update‎. ‎The Planning Department wanted to have the proposed draft Historic ‎

Preservation Plan done in advance because the Planning Department just assumed ‎

responsibility for the HDC in January ‎1998 ‎and needed a definitive policy document ‎

to provide adequate support to the HDC‎. ‎The intent of the proposed Historic ‎

Preservation Plan is to enhance existing policies‎. ‎

Once the proposed plan is approved and implemented into the city's comprehensive ‎

plan, Member Gaber questioned whether it would impose requirements on any ‎

proposed development or project presented to the Planning Commission in terms of ‎

requiring an additional process of review‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goldstein responded that the subject ‎

plan will serve as a guide for Planning Department staff when reviewing site plans‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin referenced ‎71 ‎N‎. ‎Livernois and the proposed Country Club Village ‎

Subdivision containing the Rochester Hills Golf Course Clubhouse as examples of ‎

how the subject plan would assist in the review process‎. ‎However, if there are no ‎

historic features or significant cultural or historic resources associated with the ‎

property, then the subject plan would not apply‎. ‎The other opportunity for guidance is ‎

on major road projects such as the Hamlin Road project, which is currently stalled ‎

because of the Metzer property‎. ‎The State Historic Preservation Office has identified ‎

the Metzer property as an historic resource‎. ‎Conflicting points of view may arise ‎

among all the bodies and documents involved, but that is the whole purpose of ‎

promoting public dialog based on adopted policies‎.‎

Member Gaber asked if the subject plan would apply to any other properties other ‎

than those listed in the plan, and how the initial determination would be made to apply ‎

the guidelines in the subject plan‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin responded that a property is either ‎

listed as an historic site or it is identified as a potential historic site‎. ‎One thing the ‎

subject plan accomplishes is to assemble all potential historic sites in one document‎. ‎

With the adoption of the subject plan they would become part of the Master Plan and ‎

would be updated on a regular basis‎. ‎Other than that, determinations would have to ‎

be made on a case‎-‎by‎-‎case basis‎. ‎If an historic feature cannot be identified when a ‎

development plan is received by the city, the policies in the subject plan would not be ‎

applied to that property‎. ‎

Member Gaber referenced the trees on Chris Gillou's property on Tienken and ‎

remembered that she claimed the trees were an historic resource‎. ‎The subject plan ‎

would cover the issue of those trees, but the Historic Districts Ordinance does not‎. ‎It ‎

appears that the subject plan adds another layer of review on any proposed ‎

development‎. ‎The Historic Districts Ordinance applies to the structure, whereas the ‎

subject plan is more expansive by applying to the features‎. ‎Member Ruggiero pointed ‎

out that the State Historic Ordinance supersedes the city's ordinances‎. ‎In fact, the ‎

subject plan was reviewed by State historic officials who made comments which have ‎

been incorporated into the draft‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎Goodwin added that the city ordinance now ‎

covers historic resources such as trees and artifacts‎. ‎

Member Rosen cautioned that the subject proposed plan should be limited carefully ‎

enough to protect against abuse yet be wide ranging enough to be able to do the job it ‎

is intended to do‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin stated that the subject plan is a guide; it is not a mandate unless there is ‎

an historic designation‎. ‎The subject proposed plan is a policy just as any other land ‎

use policies are‎. ‎Member Gaber added that other land use policies are implemented ‎

through zoning decisions and other types of land use planning tools‎. ‎The ‎

implementation schedule in the subject proposed plan is different and appears to be ‎

broader reaching than the Master Land Use Plan or Transportation Plan‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin acknowledged Member Gaber's concern and pondered changing the ‎

term ‎"‎implementation‎" ‎to ‎"‎master policy plan‎". ‎The CIP ‎(‎Capital Improvement Plan‎) ‎

and budget plan are implementation plans of the city's comprehensive plan‎. ‎She ‎

perceived the subject proposed plan as a master plan or strategic plan as a way of ‎

actualizing the goals and policies‎. ‎It could be made a separate document and the ‎

policy part of it could be left as part of the Master Plan‎. ‎

The Chair suggested a resolution recommending the draft Historic Preservation Plan ‎

for adoption‎

as the policy document of the Historic Districts Commission and for inclusion in the ‎

draft Master Land Use Plan Update subject to public hearing later in the year‎. ‎That ‎

would provide a lot of opportunity for scrutiny, not just by the Planning Commission ‎

but by the public as well‎. ‎The Chair would like a real comprehensive item in the ‎

Master Plan if it is appropriate‎. ‎The Chair acknowledged Member Gaber's concerns ‎

but he was not able to resolve them now‎.‎

That way of handling it would make sense to Member Gaber‎. ‎Then it would be ‎

incorporated into the master plan update process‎. ‎Member Rosen suggested ‎

including the policies and strategies in the Master Plan, and the goals and actions in the ‎

CIP‎. ‎And the Historic Districts Commission would have the primary input on that‎. ‎

The Chair clarified that the Planning Commission does not need to discuss the nuts ‎

and bolts or pick the plan apart tonight‎. ‎The Historic Districts Commission is looking ‎

for some guidance from the Planning Commission as to whether or not it is basically ‎

good‎. ‎If a resolution is made along the lines suggested earlier, there would still be time ‎

to digest and study the subject plan in more detail, especially after the Historic ‎

Districts Commission has moved on it to see what is and isn't included in the Master ‎

Land Use Plan Update‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Golden explained that one of the reasons for the proposed plan is that the HDC ‎

was bombarded with requests for historic designation in a very short period of time, ‎

and she predicted that would not stop‎. ‎The proposed plan is a response to those ‎

requests‎. ‎It's better to have a plan and have something set into place instead of ‎

reacting to each situation‎. ‎The proposed guidelines are fairly rigid; it's not that easy to ‎

be designated historic‎. ‎There are very specific guidelines and criteria for determining ‎

historic designation‎. ‎Not everything becomes designated and not everything stays ‎

designated‎. ‎In some instances you don't even have to be designated to be protected, ‎

such as the house at ‎2040 ‎Livernois at the corner of Hamlin‎. ‎It is eligible for the ‎

national registry, but it is not designated locally because federal funds are involved‎. ‎

The Historic Districts Commission is not involved with this house at all‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Rosen, seconded by Nowicki, that the Preliminary Draft of the ‎

Proposed Historic Preservation Plan for the City of Rochester Hills be a policy ‎

document for the Historic Districts Commission for inclusion in the draft Master Land ‎

Use Plan Update subject to public hearings and incorporating the changes and ‎

modifications suggested this evening, and subject to the determination by the Master ‎

Land Use Plan consultant that there are no contradictions between this and the ‎

proposed Master Land Use Plan Update‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goldstein commented that Ms‎. ‎Goodwin will be presenting the work that has ‎

been going on here at an Oakland County Planning and Development conference at ‎

Meadowbrook Hall on September ‎16‎. ‎It will be an all day conference discussing ‎

preservation planning as a tool, and Ms‎. ‎Goodwin is one of the keynote speakers‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Michele Goldstein dated July ‎27‎, ‎1998‎; Draft Historic ‎

Preservation Policy dated July ‎23‎, ‎1998‎.)‎

Approved

2000-1871

Request for Elimination of Historic Designation ‎- ‎Bordine's Nursery, located at ‎

1805 ‎S‎. ‎Rochester Rd‎.‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Memo prepared by Michele Goldstein dated July ‎27‎, ‎1998 ‎has been ‎

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

Present was Lois Golden, City Council member and former chairperson of the ‎

Historic Districts Commission‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goldstein reviewed the history of the subject site‎. ‎The house on the site was ‎

demolished in ‎1997‎, and the property owner is seeking the elimination of historic ‎

designation because they want to develop the property further but have not submitted ‎

any plans to date‎. ‎With the existing historic designation they would need the approval ‎

of the Historic Districts Commission in order to expand‎. ‎The HDC created a ‎

subcommittee and prepared the preliminary report‎. ‎The subcommittee recommended ‎

elimination of historic designation, and the HDC made a resolution recommending the ‎

same‎. ‎Included in the packet were comments from the State Historic Preservation ‎

Office and the Office of the State Archaeologist‎. ‎The public hearing regarding the ‎

subject item is scheduled for the HDC meeting on August ‎13‎, ‎1998‎. ‎The Planning ‎

Commission's comments this evening would be forwarded to the HDC for August ‎13‎, ‎

1998‎; it would move on to City Council after that‎. ‎The Planning Commission's role is ‎

to consider any possible land use issues ‎-- ‎not the historic issues on the site‎. ‎This is ‎

before the Planning Commission because the Historic Districts ordinance requires that ‎

the HDC's preliminary report be transmitted to the Planning Commission and the state ‎

agency‎. ‎The Planning Commission can choose to not make any comments if desired‎.‎

The Chair and Member Nowicki remarked that the zoning and the possible uses of ‎

the subject site are unchanged regardless of historic designation or lack of same‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin reported that the Bordine property was not specifically discussed ‎

during Master Land Use Plan Update workshops due to miscommunications of ‎

locations‎. ‎During independent discussions with Corey Bordine he indicated that he ‎

would like to look at alternative land use options with the adjoining property owners if ‎

the Planning Commission were amenable to that‎. ‎She thought this might be discussed ‎

during the Rochester Road corridor workshops‎. ‎If the demolished house were still ‎

standing, its existence and designation would not have made any difference to the ‎

current Master Land Use Plan Update deliberations ‎-- ‎only if the potential use of the ‎

building were limited to one use or the other‎. ‎Depending on the condition of the ‎

house, it could have been used as an office since the property was zoned for office‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Golden explained that the criteria for designating Bordine's are not the national ‎

standards‎. ‎There was little documented history available regarding the subject site ‎

compared to the Rochester Hills Golf Course Clubhouse on the proposed Country ‎

Club Village Subdivision site‎. ‎There is the potential for a land use issue considering ‎

that possible Indian burial grounds exist on the site; no documentation has been found, ‎

however‎. ‎An archeological study is not required by either the city's or the state's ‎

historic ordinances‎. ‎The State Archeologist's Office has been notified of the potential ‎

elimination of historic designation‎. ‎

It is noted in the record that the Chair ‎declared‎ that the Planning Commission has ‎

received the City of Rochester Hills Historic District Study Committee Preliminary ‎

Report ‎- ‎Bordine Nursery and the recommendation for elimination of historic ‎

designation regarding Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎23‎-‎300‎-‎002 ‎located at ‎1805 ‎South Rochester ‎

Road as required by Chapter ‎4‎-‎06 ‎Historic Districts Ordinance of the City of ‎

Rochester Hills‎. ‎The Planning Commission assumed that the Historic Districts ‎

Commission would take no action that would impact the possible uses of the subject ‎

property under the laws of the city‎.‎

[ ‎Exit Golden ‎11:17‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Staff Report prepared by Michele Goldstein dated July ‎27‎, ‎1998‎; City of ‎

Rochester Hills Historic District Study Committee Preliminary Report ‎- ‎Bordine ‎

Nursery; Letter from Corey Bordine dated January ‎7‎, ‎1998 ‎to Ms‎. ‎Patricia Goodwin; ‎

Letter from Brian D‎. ‎Conway to Ms‎. ‎Michele Goldstein dated June ‎26‎, ‎1998‎.)‎

Discussed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

2000-1823

Master Land Use Plan Update ‎- ‎Revised Meeting Schedule‎

(‎Ref‎: ‎Memorandum from Katherine Beebe to Patricia Goodwin dated July ‎21‎, ‎1998 ‎

regarding Proposed Schedule‎--‎Planning Commission Review‎.)‎

Ms‎. ‎Goodwin reported that Ms‎. ‎Beebe has developed an aggressive schedule for ‎

Phase II of the Master Land Use Plan Update‎. ‎She emphasized the urgency in ‎

meeting the schedule in order to complete the update in a timely manner‎. ‎She has ‎

asked Ms‎. ‎Beebe for a draft preliminary report on all master plan activities to date for ‎

Phase I‎. ‎City Council is about to embark on the Strategic Plan process‎. ‎Ms‎. ‎

Goodwin plans to propose a joint meeting with City Council at some point so that the ‎

Planning Commission can update Council on the master plan activities and Council can ‎

update the Planning Commission on the strategic plan activities‎. ‎More communication ‎

and collaboration would be beneficial for all‎. ‎Although the two processes are ‎

different, they are related‎. ‎

As a resident Member Rosen suggested finding a way to explain to the general ‎

population how all the various plans of the city fit together and how they all work ‎

together‎. ‎This may encourage greater participation on the part of citizens‎.‎

Discussed

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next Regular Meeting is ‎

scheduled for August ‎18‎, ‎1998‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎11‎:‎23 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎