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, October 20, 1998

CALL TO ORDER

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

the Auditorium‎.‎

ROLL CALL

Present PC‎: ‎Chairperson Eric Kaiser‎

William Boswell‎

Paul Corneliussen‎

John Gaber‎

Paul Krupa‎

Eugene Nowicki‎

Audrey Ruggiero‎

Absent PC‎: ‎Christian Ramanauskas‎

James Rosen‎

Quorum present‎

Also present‎: ‎Paul Rizzardi, Planner‎

Michele Goldstein, Planner‎

Susanne Vergeldt, Recording Secretary‎

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2000-1892

July ‎7‎, ‎1998 ‎Regular Meeting‎

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

7‎, ‎1998 ‎be accepted as printed‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Ramanauskas, Rosen ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

COMMUNICATIONS

A‎.‎ Envelope from Katherine Beebe regarding the Master Land Use Plan ‎

Update containing a draft copy of the Local Opportunity Areas report ‎

for review and comment‎. ‎In a subcommittee meeting the Planning ‎

Commission determined to have this information delivered tonight‎. ‎It ‎

is requested that commissioners prepare for the November ‎10‎, ‎1998‎ ‎

meeting by preparing any written comments and turning them in to the ‎

Planning Department by November ‎3‎, ‎1998‎.‎

B‎.‎ SEMCOG Regional Updates dated October ‎5‎, ‎1998‎ and October ‎19‎, ‎

1998‎.‎

C‎.‎ Letter from Mayor Snell to Oakland County Drain Commissioner George ‎

Kuhn regarding drains‎

D‎.‎ Letter dated October ‎16‎, ‎1998‎ from Planning Commissioner Christian ‎

Ramanauskas regarding his proposed return to active duty for the ‎

November ‎17‎, ‎1998‎ Planning Commission meeting‎.‎

E‎.‎ Summary flyer regarding the ‎1999‎ Capital Improvement Plan‎. ‎The flyer ‎

will be made available at City Hall in the Mayor's Office, the Planning ‎

Department, and the public library‎.‎

F‎.‎ 1999‎ Capital Improvement Plan ‎

G‎.‎ Letter dated October ‎13‎, ‎1998‎ to Planning Commission Chairperson Eric ‎

Kaiser from Brenda Savage, chairman of Rochester Hills No New ‎

Taxes‎

H‎.‎ The Chair announced that discussion for tonight's meeting will end at ‎

10:45‎ p‎.‎m‎. ‎

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

2000-1510

Request for Revised Site Plan Approval ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎88‎-‎026 ‎- ‎A‎-‎Autopointe ‎

Collision, located on the east side of Crooks, north of Star Batt, Parcel No‎. ‎

15‎-‎28‎-‎102‎-‎002‎, zoned I‎-‎1‎, Light Industrial, Gary Piontkowski, ‎2185 ‎Crooks Rd‎.‎, ‎

Rochester Hills, MI ‎48309‎, Applicant‎

Present were Gary Piontkowski, owner of A‎-‎Auto Point Collision, and the civil ‎

engineer for the project‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski explained that the request is for an addition to an existing building‎. ‎

The location of the proposed addition will be virtually unseen from the road and ‎

anybody else except for another commercial building‎. ‎The reason for expanding is to ‎

use the land since he is paying taxes on it anyway‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski indicated that he has not seen the staff report dated October ‎13‎, ‎

1998‎. ‎The Chair reviewed the two recommended conditions in the staff report ‎

regarding screening for the existing transformer pad on the south side of the existing ‎

building and in front of the proposed addition, and a performance and maintenance ‎

guarantee in the amount of $‎1‎,‎200 ‎to ensure the planting and survival of proposed ‎

landscaping materials‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski stated that he did not have a problem with ‎

the screening, in the form of landscaping or a wood screen fence‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi ‎

indicated that the landscape consultant did visit the site and recommended the ‎

screening since the proposed location is somewhat visible from the right‎-‎of‎-‎way area‎. ‎

After discussion between Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski and Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi, Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski ‎

preferred concrete block to avoid the possibility of fire with a wood fence‎. ‎The ‎

performance bond was not a problem for Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski‎.‎

The Chair requested comments from the public even though it was not a public ‎

hearing‎. ‎No persons came forward to speak regarding the proposed addition to ‎

A‎-‎Auto Point Collision, File No‎. ‎88‎-‎026‎. ‎

MOTION‎ by Nowicki, seconded by Krupa, in the matter of File No‎. ‎88‎-‎026 ‎

(‎A‎-‎Auto Point Collision Addition‎)‎, to ‎grant Revised Site Plan Approval ‎

incorporating the four findings and two conditions in the staff report dated October ‎

13‎, ‎1998‎, based on plans dated received September ‎29‎, ‎1998‎. ‎

FINDINGS‎:‎

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

2‎.‎ All the buildings are designed to be compatible with the other industrial buildings ‎

on site and are similar to other industrial buildings within this area of Rochester ‎

Hills‎.‎

3‎.‎ The building will have a positive financial impact on the community by providing ‎

additional tax base to the City‎.‎

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

features of the site as documented in the applicant's Environmental Impact ‎

Statement‎.‎

CONDITIONS‎:‎

1‎.‎ That the applicant provide screening for the existing transformer pad‎.‎

2‎.‎ That the applicant provide a performance and maintenance guarantee in the ‎

amount of ‎$1,200.00‎ to ensure the planting and survival of proposed ‎

landscaping materials‎.‎

Discussion on the motion‎:‎

Member Ruggiero recalled in ‎1990 ‎and ‎1991 ‎that there was a concern about drainage ‎

on the subject property, and asked the applicant if any drainage problems have ‎

occurred‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski indicated that drainage is not an issue‎. ‎He encouraged ‎

the commissioners to visit and walk the site‎. ‎The building sits on the highest point of ‎

the subject site‎. ‎There is absolutely no problem with water; the retention pond he was ‎

required to put in is purely a joke‎. ‎There was a problem with a ‎6 ‎inch pipe associated ‎

with the railroad track that had been covered up for many years, but the problem has ‎

been solved‎. ‎He has never had any drainage problems ‎-- ‎neither have any of his ‎

neighbors‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Piontkowski would like to keep the chain link fence around the storage area for ‎

vehicles even though the storage area will be relocated to make room for the ‎

proposed addition‎. ‎The way the proposed addition is designed, the cars stored ‎

outside will not be visible‎. ‎The fence would be to protect against theft‎. ‎

Member Nowicki indicated that the proposed handicap parking spaces are adequate ‎

and well placed‎.‎

Ayes‎:‎ All‎

Nays‎:‎ None‎

Absent‎:‎ Ramanauskas, Rosen ‎MOTION CARRIED‎.‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Site Plans dated received September ‎29‎, ‎1998 ‎by the City of Rochester ‎

Hills Planning Department prepared by Stellar Consulting Services; Architectural Plans ‎

prepared by Kurmas & Associates dated received by the Planning Department on ‎

September ‎29‎, ‎1998‎; Staff report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated October ‎13‎, ‎

1998‎; Letter from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates dated September ‎4‎, ‎1998‎; ‎

Environmental Impact Assessment dated June ‎8‎, ‎1998‎; Planning Commission Meeting ‎

Minutes of May ‎2‎, ‎1995 ‎and April ‎18‎, ‎1995 ‎and September ‎3‎, ‎1991 ‎and July ‎24‎, ‎

1990‎.)‎

Granted

NEW BUSINESS

2000-1893

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎- ‎Short Ridge Estates, a ‎

27‎-‎lot single family residential site condo development on ‎9‎.‎9 ‎acres, located on ‎

the north side of Shortridge, east of Livernois, Parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎34‎-‎326‎-‎002‎, zoned ‎

R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, Herbert Lawson, Windham Realty, ‎6022 ‎W‎. ‎

Maple, Suite ‎415‎, West Bloomfield, MI ‎48322‎, Applicant‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Staff Report prepared by Paul Rizzardi dated October ‎13‎, ‎1998 ‎has been ‎

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

Present for the applicant were Herbert Lawson of Windham Realty and Tom Gizoni ‎

of Atwell‎-‎Hicks, consulting engineers for the project‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that the subject request is for a single family site condominium ‎

project rather than a traditional subdivision plat‎. ‎Under the city's one family detached ‎

condominium ordinance the process is basically the same, and the requirements are ‎

the same‎. ‎However, the Planning Commission has the right to approve a ‎

condominium project rather than City Council having to approve a plat‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained the tree removal request‎. ‎The applicant is proposing to save ‎

42 ‎percent of the trees on the subject site‎. ‎The applicant has worked diligently with ‎

the landscape consultant to preserve the best woodstands on the subject property‎. ‎

The applicant has incorporated two main areas as open space where there are ‎

significant numbers of trees, with the one in the northeast corner having a very nice ‎

oak woodstand of trees‎. ‎Along the eastern property line they are keeping a strip of ‎

open space to preserve the trees in that area and screen the development from the ‎

adjacent development to the east‎. ‎Along the western property line the storm sewer ‎

has been moved so that trees could be saved along the rear property line‎. ‎The ‎

landscape consultant is very happy with the plan that has come forward as well as with ‎

the changes that the plan has gone through‎. ‎

Regarding the wetland use permit, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that wetlands are associated ‎

with a small stream which begins in the northeast corner of the subject property and ‎

flows north up toward Hazelton Road‎. ‎The applicant proposes to fill approximately ‎

one quarter of an acre of wetlands for a road and a very small portion of one lot‎. ‎The ‎

applicant once again met with the wetlands consultant and worked out a better ‎

alternative that preserves more of the wetlands than the original proposal to minimize ‎

the impact on the wetlands‎. ‎The wetlands amount to a small ‎"‎finger‎" ‎portion located at ‎

the farthest point from the stream‎. ‎It appears to staff to be a reasonable request‎.‎

Because the wetlands will end at the property line on Lot ‎7‎, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained ‎

that the natural features setback of ‎25 ‎feet will impact the building envelope‎. ‎The ‎

request is to modify the natural features setback from ‎25 ‎feet to ‎10 ‎feet‎.‎

The Chair reviewed that the wetland use permit is the only item to be forwarded to ‎

City Council for approval‎. ‎Section ‎20‎.‎01‎.‎a‎.‎2 ‎of the Zoning Ordinance regarding lot ‎

averaging would imply a precondition for City Council approval‎. ‎The Chair asked ‎

why lot averaging would not have to be approved by City Council‎. ‎According to Mr‎. ‎

Rizzardi one reason is that the referenced section refers to a plat which receives City ‎

Council approval‎. ‎Secondly, lot averaging does not require specific approval‎. ‎Lot ‎

averaging is a method by right, as opposed to an open space plan which is a special ‎

land use approval requiring City Council approval‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi reviewed the ordinance requirements regarding the natural features ‎

setback modification and summarized that it is not necessary to demonstrate a specific ‎

hardship, just an intent of the six provisions of the ordinance‎. ‎The minimum setback ‎

may be reduced by the Planning Commission‎. ‎Incidental to the consideration of an ‎

application to reduce the natural feature setback, the city may require at the ‎

applicant's expense an investigation to determine the nature, location and boundaries ‎

of the natural features‎. ‎The wetland determination has already been completed‎. ‎The ‎

criteria to be reviewed are the nature and size of environmentally sensitive natural ‎

features, the nature of assessing the economic value of the proposed construction ‎

activity or operation, the feasibility of alternatives, the probable impact of the ‎

proposed construction activity or operation on the natural features, and the cumulative ‎

effect on other existing and anticipated activities in the natural feature, the probable ‎

impact on fish and wildlife and their habitat, the maintenance of historic, scenic, or ‎

ecological or recreational values and character of the area‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Gizoni stated that the staff report has outlined all the aspects of the proposed ‎

development very well‎. ‎They have worked very hard with the city and outside ‎

consultants, and the result is an optimum plan‎. ‎Their preparation did not include ‎

meetings with the neighbors‎.‎

The Chair invited comments from those in attendance at the meeting even though this ‎

was not a public hearing‎.‎

Rocco Pascaretta, ‎733 ‎Shortridge Ave‎.‎,‎ his house is across the street from ‎

one of the proposed drives; believes the road cannot handle extra traffic; had ‎

concerns with safety of children‎. ‎Shoeboxing for the quick buck is not a good ‎

solution‎. ‎He asked that the developer talk to the neighbors to get their input‎.‎

Jeff Shoemaker, ‎761 ‎Shortridge‎, moved here for the rustic nature of the ‎

street and more space, the houses are unique, he is concerned with the proposed ‎

density‎. ‎

David Niedbalski, ‎3403 ‎Hazelton‎, had a problem with the proposed ‎

density within a neighborhood that has mostly two acre lots‎. ‎He wondered if the ‎

developer would pay for the additional road maintenance required by the additional ‎

traffic‎. ‎He asked that the developer rethink the proposed project‎.‎

Paul Driscoll, ‎3736 ‎Orchardview‎, concerned with the wetlands‎. ‎His ‎

neighbors' sump pumps run continuously‎. ‎Most of the lots in the area are a minimum ‎

of ‎100 ‎feet wide ‎-- ‎some are ‎80 ‎feet wide; The ‎"‎shoeboxes‎" ‎will cause property ‎

values to drop; the dirt road cannot handle the additional traffic‎.‎

Brian Graef, ‎845 ‎Shortridge‎, ordinances are in place for a reason; too ‎

many developments have been approved without regard to the final impact; he is ‎

opposed to any trees being cut down in the wetlands; he is opposed to over ‎

maximization of land use or any condominiums in the neighborhood‎. ‎The proposed ‎

project, along with Gunthars Run also on Short Ridge, will more than double the ‎

number of houses on the street, and will result in an additional estimated ‎300 ‎vehicle ‎

trips per day on a dirt road‎. ‎He asked what studies have been done to consider the ‎

impact on the roads‎. ‎He asked what studies have been done to ensure adequate ‎

emergency services for the proposed increase in households‎.‎

Jeannette Duncan, ‎868 ‎Shortridge, ‎moved here for the privacy of the area; ‎

she owns a two acre parcel adjoined by two other two‎-‎acre parcels‎. ‎She was ‎

concerned with setting a precedent with using wetlands; additional traffic will be a ‎

problem‎. ‎The proposed development amounts to a subdivision within a subdivision‎.‎

Paul Staszak, ‎667 ‎Shortridge,‎ asked for a clarification of the condominium ‎

concept and wondered how it would fit into a subdivision; concerned about additional ‎

traffic on a dirt road; impact on the wetlands; if there will be a requirement for a ‎

buffer‎.‎

Rich Mahut, ‎3700 ‎Hazelton, ‎shared all the reasons and concerns already ‎

voiced; the proposed density is very inconsistent with the area even though it is ‎

allowed by ordinance; asked for clarification of the lot averaging concept and the ‎

condominium concept; was concerned with deterioration of the homes because they ‎

would not be owned by individuals; asked if road paving will be accomplished by ‎

means of a Special Assessment District, SAD‎.‎

Steven Brinker, ‎623 ‎Shortridge,‎ feared that the proposed development ‎

would be a standard subdivision within a unique subdivision, and agreed with ‎

everything already said by previous speakers; wants something that will fit in with the ‎

existing subdivision‎. ‎He is opposed to the small lot sizes‎.‎

There were no further comments from the public‎.‎

In response to public comments Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained the condominium concept‎. ‎

Although the proposed dwellings will be called condominiums and will be legally ‎

owned as condominiums, they will look like standard single family homes that are ‎

developed in any other subdivision‎. ‎They will be owned by individuals, not by a ‎

condominium association‎. ‎The approval is being sought under the State ‎

Condominium Act rather than the State Subdivision Control Act, so it is a different ‎

approval process that is allowed by law‎. ‎The difference is that people own exclusive ‎

rights to the individual lots rather than owning the land fee simple‎. ‎

The Chair added that developers have figured out a way around the Subdivision ‎

Control Act‎. ‎That is the impetus behind the increase in the development of ‎

condominiums rather than subdivisions‎. ‎The city adopted the Site Condominium ‎

Ordinance in response to site condominium developments that have been proposed in ‎

the city, such as Rockhaven Estates and Walnut Brook Estates‎. ‎In order for the ‎

subject parcel to be developed as a subdivision, the existing plat would need to be ‎

vacated and replatted and all the existing property owners would need to approve ‎

amending the existing plat, or the developer would have to sue the existing property ‎

owners‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that the allowed density per the zoning ordinance is ‎3‎.‎4 ‎units ‎

per acre for the R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential zoning district‎. ‎The proposed lot ‎

averaging allows the same density but with narrower lots in some areas in order to ‎

achieve a better design and still save more of the natural features of the property such ‎

as wetlands and woodlands‎. ‎Even without lot averaging the same density would be ‎

allowed‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated that an MDEQ wetlands permit is required as well as a city ‎

wetlands permit for the proposed development‎.‎

The Chair discussed Lot ‎7 ‎being the narrowest in width at ‎72 ‎feet, and also being the ‎

lot for which the Natural Features Setback Modification is requested‎. ‎Lot ‎7 ‎appears ‎

to be wedged in there in order to maximize the density‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained the reasoning other than just wanting to squeeze in one more ‎

homesite‎. ‎The city discourages the placement of homesites on wetlands‎. ‎In order to ‎

achieve that, the developer can either make the building skinnier, or move it back ‎

farther on the lot, or fill in the wetlands in the open space area to move the setback ‎

over‎. ‎Looking at the impact on the natural features of the proposed building on Lot ‎7‎, ‎

there will not be any type of intense activity to the side yard of a building, and the ‎

location of the really sensitive area ‎-- ‎the stream itself ‎-- ‎is at the farthest distance from ‎

the lot itself‎. ‎It appeared reasonable to staff to recommend a natural features setback ‎

modification‎. ‎If Lot ‎7 ‎were not in the proposed plan, the natural features setback ‎

modification would not be required, nor would lot averaging be required‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added that the applicant is proposing a ‎15 ‎foot wide buffer strip ‎

consisting of a row of trees along Shortridge between Shortridge and the subject ‎

development‎.‎

The Chair clarified that no rezoning is taking place in order to present the subject ‎

development‎. ‎The site is zoned R‎-‎4‎, One Family Residential, which allows for ‎4 ‎lots ‎

per acre assuming no intrusion in wetlands‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Lawson clarified that all of the interior lots are ‎72 ‎feet wide‎. ‎The reason for that ‎

was to preserve the woodlands and wetlands‎. ‎They have taken a great deal of time ‎

and effort to work with the consultants and the city to save as many trees as possible ‎

and eliminate any problem areas with the wetlands‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Lawson stated they will deed ‎

over the entire lot to the homeowner purchaser just as in a platted subdivision‎. ‎There ‎

will be a subdivision association just as in a platted subdivision‎. ‎There is no difference ‎

in appearance between a site condominium and a platted subdivision‎. ‎They have met ‎

all the ordinances and have made many changes to the plan to meet the ordinance ‎

requirements‎. ‎They would not have brought the plan before the Planning Commission ‎

if they did not believe they have met all the requirements‎.‎

If the subject development is approved, Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that the current ‎

property owner of the subject undeveloped properties would contribute ‎8 ‎benefit units ‎

through an SAD for road paving, rather than ‎27 ‎which is based on frontage on ‎

Shortridge and what they could split off without going through the platting process; ‎

interior lots are not assessed at the same benefit unit as lots with frontage on ‎

Shortridge, they get an indirect benefit at a much lower cost‎. ‎It would still be assessed ‎

at ‎8 ‎benefit units even if the SAD does not go through until ‎27 ‎homes are built in the ‎

proposed development‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi explained that the percentage each prospective homeowner would pay ‎

for the SAD would depend on the amount of frontage on Shortridge‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Lawson ‎

added that he was not aware of an SAD‎. ‎Member Gaber added that it is actually in ‎

process at this time, and the Public Hearing should be held within the next three ‎

months in front of City Council‎. ‎

Member Gaber explained the public hearing process for an SAD‎. ‎City Council ‎

decided to go forward with the process for SADs for Martin Farms and Flowing ‎

Springs subdivisions‎. ‎They are in progress in Engineering at this time‎. ‎The first public ‎

hearing that comes forward will be to review the engineering and estimates that result ‎

from the engineering and review the plans and receive public comment‎. ‎City Council ‎

has recently adopted a new policy including a $‎4‎,‎000 ‎cap on SAD projects as ‎

opposed to previously where residents assumed a certain percentage and the city ‎

assumed the balance of the cost of the project‎. ‎The public will have an opportunity to ‎

voice their opinion, but it will not be the only opportunity for public hearing‎. ‎There will ‎

be a subsequent opportunity when the assessment roll is presented to City Council to ‎

be set‎. ‎Then there is also an opportunity for petitions of objection to be circulated and ‎

brought forward to City Council‎. ‎At that point if City Council decides to go forward ‎

with the project, and petitions of objection come forward with signatures of over ‎50 ‎

percent of the residents within the SAD boundaries, then a super majority vote of City ‎

Council would be required to continue with the project‎. ‎The amount that the property ‎

owner would pay is determined by ordinance‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi described the SAD area for paving as Shortridge in its entirety as well as ‎

Donaldson and Hazelton to the subject area‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Lawson stated they were contacted by a number of the residents about the fact ‎

that they had a proposed paving SAD that was not approved and they were at the ‎

time contemplating doing something on their own‎. ‎They were not sure there was going ‎

to be a paving of the area at all‎. ‎If there was a road paving development, they ‎

certainly would be in favor of it‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Lawson described the type of housing proposed for the development as not being ‎

cookie‎-‎cutter housing; it will be similar to upscale housing in the area in accordance ‎

with the market‎. ‎They will maintain architectural control by approving every single ‎

plan before it is submitted to the city for a building permit ‎-- ‎as they do in all of their ‎

developments‎. ‎They typically develop the property and bring in a builder who will sell ‎

the lots to the homeowners‎. ‎There will be a condominium master deed document that ‎

will set these standards, similar to deed restrictions in a platted subdivision‎. ‎The roads ‎

will be public roads built to city standards‎. ‎He would anticipate the price range of ‎

homes to be $‎200‎,‎000 ‎to $‎300‎,‎000‎. ‎They have not done a traffic impact study‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added that the Fire Department has reviewed the plan and has ‎

recommended approval‎. ‎The Oakland County Sheriff's Department does not typically ‎

review plans or plats‎. ‎

Member Corneliussen's initial reaction to a plan such as the one submitted is ‎

disappointment because it is so straight forward and uneventful; but he thinks it is a ‎

result of the dimensional characteristics of the property‎. ‎It is not unlike a so‎-‎called ‎

bowling alley type of lot with a single drive access‎. ‎Member Corneliussen asked for ‎

details of any other plans or alternatives that the applicant submitted and reasons why ‎

they were not considered further‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi stated very early in the project various ‎

city departments did meet with the applicant for concept plan reviews and looked at ‎

alternatives‎. ‎It was clear that two points of access would be required‎. ‎A boulevard ‎

entrance is acceptable when no other reasonable alternatives are available‎. ‎Another ‎

concept plan showed two cul‎-‎de‎-‎sacs without a connection street; the city preferred a ‎

connection between the cul‎-‎de‎-‎sacs for safety reasons‎. ‎The submitted plan was ‎

considered the best approach‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Lawson explained that the proposed tree preservation plan was driven by the ‎

existing tree lines‎. ‎As a result of discussions with Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi they arrived at the ‎

proposed ‎20 ‎foot tree preservation easement‎. ‎The only way to increase the ‎15 ‎foot ‎

wide easement on the southern property line would be to eliminate a lot‎. ‎The interior ‎

lots meet the minimum ordinance requirements and there is no room for reductions‎. ‎

To Member Gaber the proposed development appeared to be out of character with ‎

the neighborhood because it is essentially a subdivision within a subdivision, although ‎

the applicant has the legal right to develop the property according to the ordinances‎. ‎

If the proposed development were fronting a major road, the situation would be ‎

different‎. ‎Because it does not front on a major thoroughfare, the Planning Commission ‎

must be more sensitive to the concerns of the surrounding areas‎. ‎To soften the visual ‎

and aesthetic impact to the neighbors, perhaps the buffer could be increased‎. ‎He ‎

suggested moving Lots ‎17 ‎and ‎27 ‎back; deleting either Lot ‎21‎, ‎22 ‎or ‎23 ‎and flipping ‎

the other two‎. ‎That would gain ‎35 ‎feet of area along the Shortridge side of the ‎

property for additional buffer‎. ‎Additional trees planned for removal could be replaced ‎

in that area‎. ‎

The Chair found the environmental impact statement curious as it contains no ‎

reference to the resident, and observed, deer, foxes, red‎-‎tailed hawks, rabbits, ‎

skunks, raccoons, opossums, woodchucks, squirrels, and great‎-‎horned owls, whose ‎

habitat will be tremendously impacted by the proposed development‎. ‎Perhaps the ‎

applicant may want to consider using a different environmental consultant‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Lawson had no response‎. ‎

The Chair could find no justification for the natural features setback modification‎.‎

The owner of the subject property, ‎Otto Jancik, ‎754 ‎Shortridge,‎ came forward and ‎

requested to consult with the applicant‎. ‎Directly north of the subject property is ‎250 ‎

year old virgin woods‎. ‎The stream is actually a drainage ditch separating the original ‎

farmable land from the woods‎. ‎This has become the so‎-‎called wetlands created by ‎

another subdivision approved by the city‎. ‎The stream will probably disappear when ‎

the street is paved‎. ‎He acknowledged the presence of a few deer which stay in the ‎

deep woods; raccoons; the red fox have disappeared from the area‎. ‎He has lived ‎

there ‎50 ‎years, and the newer residents in the last ‎15 ‎years were an intrusion to his ‎

rustic environment‎. ‎Pheasant were rampant when he was growing up in the area‎. ‎He ‎

is selling the property because he cannot afford the paving‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Lawson feels that they have addressed the necessary issues‎. ‎They understand all ‎

the various comments and have listened to the residents and commissioners‎. ‎They ‎

meet all the requirements‎. ‎Based on the fact that they have worked with the city and ‎

consultants, a larger buffer will not be effective and will not make a major difference in ‎

the development as proposed‎. ‎It will change the character of the existing area‎. ‎

Eliminating lots and adding trees along Shortridge Road will not change the character ‎

of what is proposed‎. ‎

The Chair reacted to Mr‎. ‎Lawson's remarks‎. ‎Pulling the referenced houses back ‎30 ‎

more feet from Shortridge, landscaping and buffering the houses adjacent to ‎

Shortridge, pulling back Lot ‎6 ‎into Lot ‎7 ‎and eliminating Lot ‎7 ‎will definitely change ‎

the complexion of the proposed development to the existing residents‎. ‎The Chair ‎

explained that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to look at the issues ‎

discussed‎. ‎The ordinance requires the Planning Commission to make sure the ‎

proposed development is harmonious with the existing neighborhood, and that the ‎

roads will be able to service the traffic emanating from the proposed development‎. ‎

Member Gaber wanted to point out that the applicant has done an excellent job of ‎

preserving the existing major stands of trees along three sides of the subject property ‎

and commended the applicant for that‎. ‎But the most visible side to the neighbors will ‎

be the Shortridge side‎. ‎That's why he suggested moving the lots back and extending ‎

the buffer to help preserve the rustic feeling‎. ‎Member Gaber recommended ‎

eliminating Lot ‎7 ‎and Lot ‎22‎, and moving Lots ‎1‎, ‎17 ‎and ‎27 ‎back to allow a ‎40 ‎foot ‎

buffer from Shortridge, and planting the replacement tree credits in the buffer‎. ‎This ‎

might be something the neighbors can live with‎.‎

It bothered Member Corneliussen that no discussions have been held with the ‎

surrounding neighbors‎. ‎The applicant could perhaps negotiate additional screening ‎

with the neighbors‎. ‎There appear to be opportunities to reduce some of the ‎

north‎/‎south dimensions of Lots ‎21 ‎through ‎23‎. ‎He questioned the possibility of ‎

fronting some lots on Shortridge‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Lawson responded that they did consider that ‎

and determined it was better to have them side up to Shortridge‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi added ‎

that the developer cannot landscape or buffer houses fronting onto Shortridge‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎

Lawson added that they have not evaded talking to the residents; they thought their ‎

primary contact was with the city‎. ‎And because they meet all the requirements, they ‎

felt it was not necessary‎. ‎They would be happy to talk to anybody at any time, but ‎

none of the neighbors have approached them‎. ‎They have already reduced the number ‎

of lots‎. ‎The Chair added that the number of lots is not the issue; it's the buffer and ‎

location‎.‎

[ ‎RECESS ‎9:18‎ p‎.‎m‎. - ‎9:29‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

[ ‎EXIT GABER ‎- ‎9:18‎ p‎.‎m‎. ]‎

Mr‎. ‎Lawson restated the suggestions made so far‎: ‎Reduce the width of Lots ‎21 ‎and ‎

23 ‎from ‎106 ‎feet to ‎92 ‎feet; add that ‎14 ‎feet to the ‎15 ‎foot buffer along Lots ‎17 ‎and ‎

27 ‎for a ‎29 ‎foot buffer in front of Lots ‎17 ‎and ‎27‎; eliminate Lot ‎7 ‎completely and push ‎

back Lot ‎1 ‎to create a similar type of buffer; in effect the entire frontage on Shortridge ‎

would have at least a ‎29 ‎foot buffer; rotate Lots ‎21 ‎and ‎23 ‎ninety degrees; eliminate ‎

Lot ‎22‎. ‎Member Corneliussen red‎-‎penned the suggestions on a drawing‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Lawson requested that the requests for a Tree Removal Permit, Wetland Use ‎

Permit, Natural Features Setback Modification, and Preliminary Site Condominium ‎

Plan Approval be tabled to allow time for him to intelligently analyze their options and ‎

meet with the neighbors to get their input‎. ‎

The Chair ‎postponed‎ to a future agenda the requests for a Tree Removal Permit, ‎

Wetland Use Permit, Natural Features Setback Modification, and Preliminary Site ‎

Condominium Plan Approval‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Preliminary Plat Sheets prepared by Atwell‎-‎Hicks Inc‎. ‎and received by ‎

the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department on August ‎26‎, ‎1998‎; Staff Report ‎

dated October ‎13‎, ‎1998 ‎prepared by Paul Rizzardi; Letter from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & ‎

Associates dated September ‎18‎, ‎1998‎; Letters from J & L Consulting Services dated ‎

3 ‎August ‎1998 ‎and ‎27 ‎May ‎1998 ‎plus enclosures; Letter from Herbert Lawson dated ‎

5‎-‎18‎-‎98‎; Environmental Impact Statement dated April ‎13‎, ‎1998 ‎prepared by ‎

Atwell‎-‎Hicks, Inc‎.‎; Land Use and Tree Removal Permit Application; Wetland Use ‎

Permit and Application; Wetland Use Permit and Tree Removal Permit Notice of ‎

Meeting‎.)‎

Postponed

2000-1894

Request for a Wetland Use Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎- ‎Short Ridge Estates‎

Postponed

2000-1895

Request for a Natural Features Setback Modification ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎- ‎Short ‎

Ridge Estates‎

Postponed

2000-1896

Request for Preliminary Site Condominium Plan ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎98‎-‎018 ‎- ‎Short Ridge ‎

Estates‎

Postponed

2000-1898

Request for a Tree Removal Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎90‎-‎253 ‎- ‎Butler Ridge ‎

Subdivision, a ‎159‎-‎lot subdivision on ‎116 ‎acrs, located south of Butler Road, ‎

west of Adams, parcel No‎. ‎15‎-‎19‎-‎300‎-‎004‎, zoned R‎-‎2‎, One Family Residential, ‎

Roscommon Company, Somerset Plaza, ‎2301 ‎West Big Beaver Road, Suite ‎

900‎, Troy, MI ‎48084‎, Applicant‎

(‎Ref‎. ‎Staff Report prepared by Michele Goldstein and Patricia Goodwin dated ‎

October ‎13‎, ‎1998‎, has been placed on file and by reference becomes part of the ‎

record hereof‎.)‎

During the recess from ‎9‎:‎18 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎to ‎9‎:‎29 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎the Chair discussed with the applicant ‎

and citizens the possibility of meeting to discuss the hard issues that neighbors are ‎

anxious to discuss with the applicant‎. ‎Both sides acknowledged that this has not ‎

occurred and both sides want to talk and believe it would be fruitful‎. ‎

The Chair stated that the applicant would like to proceed this evening with staff and ‎

applicant presentations‎. ‎Depending on the time public comments may be accepted ‎

after that with the understanding that the amount of time for each citizen to speak may ‎

be limited‎.‎

Present for the applicant were Stanley Frankel of Roscommon Development ‎

Company; Donald Westphal, landscape architect; Mindy Milos, employee of Donald ‎

Westphal; Gene Zeimet of Zeimet Wozniak & Associates, consulting engineers‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goldstein distributed copies of aerial photographs for commissioners' perusal‎. ‎

She highlighted information that was not included in the staff report‎. ‎Dr‎. ‎Jaworski's ‎

letter dated March ‎1998 ‎referenced lot numbers from an earlier submitted plat‎. ‎In ‎

reviewing the most recently submitted plat dated September ‎23‎, ‎1998‎, the following ‎

changes have occurred in the phasing of the development‎: ‎Lots ‎157 ‎and ‎158 ‎are now ‎

Lots ‎123 ‎and ‎124‎. ‎Additional changes in lot numbers are Lot ‎71 ‎is now Lot ‎36‎; Lot ‎

72 ‎is now Lot ‎37‎; Lot ‎73 ‎is now Lot ‎38‎; Lot ‎82 ‎is now Lot ‎119‎; Lot ‎83 ‎is now ‎120‎. ‎

The locations of the lots are the same‎. ‎Another new piece of information regards the ‎

23 ‎acres of land deeded to the Oakland Land Conservancy‎. ‎The staff report ‎

indicates that it has not yet been recorded‎. ‎The deed has been received by the ‎

Oakland County Register of Deeds and takes approximately ‎12 ‎weeks to be officially ‎

recorded‎. ‎

Ms‎. ‎Goldstein provided a general overview of the site‎. ‎Butler Ridge was originally ‎

Phase ‎3 ‎of the Quail Ridge and Rookery Woods developments which were planned ‎

and approved in ‎1978‎. ‎Butler Ridge originally received tentative preliminary plat ‎

approval by City Council in ‎1994‎. ‎Since that time the developer has been in ‎

negotiation with Oakland University, and a signed consent agreement was drafted and ‎

signed in ‎1994‎. ‎In ‎1998 ‎the city received the subject revised plat with a few ‎

differences ‎-- ‎the changes in lot numbers already mentioned; street names have been ‎

changed; the layout of the streets is the same except for a slight shift; the number and ‎

location of water quality basins are the same‎. ‎The difference between detention basins ‎

and water quality basins can be accounted for by new water quality standards in effect ‎

which go beyond detention purposes‎. ‎Water quality basins retain sedimentation and ‎

control the water flow more effectively‎. ‎The location of the water quality basins is ‎

dependent upon the lowest elevation of the site‎.‎

Another difference explained by Ms‎. ‎Goldstein is the ‎40 ‎foot wetland buffer required ‎

at the time of the original approval which has since been reduced to a ‎25 ‎foot natural ‎

features setback requirement‎. ‎According to the ‎1994 ‎approval the developer will ‎

provide sidewalks and pathways linking the existing westward pathway to the terminus ‎

of the property which ends in the traffic circle at the city boundary with Auburn Hills ‎

and will enable traffic to exit to Squirrel Road‎. ‎The developer will also rebuild the ‎

bridge at Galloway Creek‎. ‎There is minimal wetland impact; the wetland use permit is ‎

requested for sewer tap‎-‎ins and utility easements; there will be no road crossings or ‎

construction of residential units within the wetlands or floodplains‎. ‎

Continuing, Ms‎. ‎Goldstein explained that the woodlands consultant recently ‎

discovered that the tree survey was inaccurate, and determined that it was not ‎

possible to accurately verify the calculations provided on the landscape plans‎. ‎A bond ‎

is recommended in the amount of $‎413‎,‎887‎.‎85‎. ‎A similar approach was taken with ‎

Avebury Dales Subdivision‎. ‎The woodlands consultant recommends that a ‎

provisional tree removal permit be granted conditioned on an accurate tree survey‎. ‎

The traffic engineer recommends the installation of raised intersections and speed ‎

humps as traffic calming measures‎. ‎

Because of the lateness of the hour and the issue regarding meeting with the neighbors, ‎

Mr‎. ‎Frankel stated they have no problem meeting with whomever would be interested ‎

to discuss whatever issues they might have‎. ‎The developer would request that such ‎

meeting be done under the auspices of the Planning Department with the intent to bring ‎

those comments back to the Planning Commission as soon as possible without a long ‎

delay‎. ‎The submitted plan is essentially the same plan that was approved in ‎1994‎. ‎

They were delayed because there was an issue with the neighbors to the north‎. ‎

Unfortunately this required litigation with the university and was eventually resolved ‎

with a consent judgment‎. ‎They would defer a formal presentation to their return date ‎

to the Planning Commission‎.‎

The Chair noted that everyone who submitted a card this evening will be notified of ‎

the time and date of the neighborhood meeting with the developer‎. ‎Anyone else ‎

wishing to meet with the developer was asked to leave their name and address with ‎

the secretary‎. ‎The Chair welcomed speakers at this meeting this evening but ‎

suggested it might be better to first meet with the developer and then address any ‎

unresolved issues when this matter returns to the Planning Commission‎.‎

The following residents passed in favor of meeting with the developer first‎.‎

Debi Schneider, ‎3692 ‎Heron Ridge‎

Dee Helbert, ‎3234 ‎Quail Ridge Circle‎

James D'Agostini, ‎3340 ‎Greenspring Lane‎

Les Walter, ‎3190 ‎Quail Ridge Circle‎

Clay Trible, ‎3300 ‎Quail Ridge Circle‎

Joy Cook, ‎3274 ‎Quail Ridge Circle‎

Tim Hartmann, ‎3226 ‎Quail Ridge Circle‎

T‎. ‎R‎. ‎Cunningham, ‎3282 ‎Quail Ridge Circle,‎ spoke in favor of the ‎

proposed subdivision but had a major concern‎. ‎He wanted the Planning ‎

Commission to understand what they have behind them‎. ‎There is permanent ‎

resident wildlife ‎-- ‎ducks, geese, deer, cranes and other animals in the wetland ‎

area; the area is prone to flooding‎. ‎He requested a complete DNR study on ‎

the wildlife and water fowl habitat so that no further flooding erosion occurs ‎

on the site‎. ‎He asked if the wetland on the opposite side of the Clinton River is ‎

a wetland because it also floods; what designated it a wetland‎.‎

Ms‎. ‎Goldstein offered to meet with Mr‎. ‎Cunningham to discussed his ‎

concerns‎.‎

Additional cards were submitted by the following persons indicating a desire ‎

to be informed of the meeting with the residents and any future Planning ‎

Commission meetings‎.‎

Ed Baron, ‎3310 ‎Greenspring‎

F‎. ‎Khambati, ‎3624 ‎Nesting Ridge‎

Aileen Sundstrom, ‎1640 ‎Park Creek Ct‎.‎, Rochester Hills, MI ‎48309‎

Brian Decker, ‎3814 ‎Sleepy Fox‎

Tom and Jan Tyler, ‎3314 ‎Quail Ridge Circle‎

Denise Warren, ‎3290 ‎Quail Ridge Circle‎

Catherine Hurst, ‎3362 ‎Greenspring Ln‎.‎

There were no further comments from the public‎.‎

The Chair ‎postponed to an undetermined date‎ the requests for a Tree Removal ‎

Permit, Wetland Use Permit, Block Length Waiver, and Tentative Approval of the ‎

Preliminary Plat for File No‎. ‎90‎-‎253 ‎(‎Butler Ridge Subdivision‎).‎

(‎Reference‎: ‎Preliminary Plat Sheets prepared by Zeimet‎/‎Wozniak and Donald C‎. ‎

Westphal dated received by the City of Rochester Hills Planning Department ‎

September ‎23‎, ‎1998‎; Staff Report dated October ‎13‎, ‎1998 ‎prepared by Patricia A‎. ‎

Goodwin and Michele Goldstein; Staff Report dated November ‎16‎, ‎1993 ‎prepared ‎

by Patricia A‎. ‎Goodwin; Letters from Linda C‎. ‎Lemke & Associates dated October ‎

9‎, ‎1998 ‎and September ‎21‎, ‎1998 ‎and September ‎9‎, ‎1998 ‎and November ‎11‎, ‎1993‎; ‎

Letter from J & L Consulting Services dated ‎20 ‎March ‎1998‎; Memo from Stephen B‎. ‎

Dearing dated March ‎17‎, ‎1998‎; Wetland Use Permit Application package dated ‎

February ‎23‎, ‎1998 ‎prepared by Donald C‎. ‎Westphal; Environmental Impact ‎

Statement prepared by Donald C‎. ‎Westphal dated February ‎23‎, ‎1998‎; Land Use and ‎

Tree Removal Permit Application; Wetland Use Permit and Application; Notice of ‎

Meeting for Tree Removal Permit and Wetland Use Permit; City Council Meeting ‎

Minutes of February ‎2‎, ‎1994‎; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November ‎

23‎, ‎1993‎; Consent Agreement‎.) ‎

Postponed

2000-1899

Request for a Wetland Use Permit ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎90‎-‎253 ‎- ‎Butler Ridge Subdivision‎

Postponed

2000-1900

Request for a Block Length Waiver ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎90‎-‎253 ‎- ‎Butler Ridge Subdivision‎

Postponed

2000-1901

Request for Tentative Approval of the Preliminary Plat ‎- ‎File No‎. ‎90‎-‎253 ‎- ‎Butler ‎

Ridge Subdivision‎

Postponed

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

A‎.‎ The Chair acknowledged the frustration expressed this evening by staff as well as ‎

the developers of Short Ridge Estates and Butler Ridge Subdivision regarding ‎

the length of time required to get plans approved‎. ‎The Chair reminded ‎

everyone of the current efforts by all city departments to streamline the ‎

development, permit, and approval processes with the Process Improvement ‎

Program‎. ‎The Chair also reminded everyone that the role of the Planning ‎

Commission is not to ‎"‎rubberstamp‎" ‎projects in an attempt to save time and ‎

money‎. ‎The Chair seemed to recall that in previous years staff and the ‎

Planning Commission had agreed to a procedure where conceptual plans ‎

were presented to the Planning Commission as informal chats before the ‎

public was noticed‎. ‎That procedure has not been happening‎. ‎The Chair had ‎

no problem seeing conceptual projects at their outset as it would reduce ‎

frustration but may require more time totally‎. ‎They could be presented as new ‎

business items, and the developer would not need to be present‎.‎

Member Nowicki responded that years ago they did do something like that ‎

but the city was accused by the developers of discussing a concept plan and ‎

"‎rubberstamping‎" ‎it later‎. ‎Member Nowicki was not sure he would feel ‎

comfortable with a concept plan and getting involved in solving the developer's ‎

problems‎.‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi thought a concept plan meeting may even save the developer ‎

time‎. ‎However, the Planning Commission may not always identify the issues ‎

that may be important to residents‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi suggested moving tentative ‎

preliminary plan approval up earlier in the process‎. ‎The Tree Conservation ‎

Ordinance is under review for possible amendments wherein tree preservation ‎

would be reviewed as a part of environmental preservation rather than a ‎

specific percentage of trees to be saved‎. ‎The tree ordinance has become so ‎

cumbersome that developers now are submitting utility plans at the tentative ‎

preliminary plan stage when only the lot and street layout are required to be ‎

approved‎. ‎Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi envisioned a change in the tree ordinance would ‎

prevent a lot of the frustration that everyone has been experiencing‎. ‎Staff is ‎

asking the woodlands consultant to identify primary and secondary ‎

preservation areas for trees‎. ‎

Mr‎. ‎Rizzardi also indicated that developers are routinely advised to talk to the ‎

residents surrounding their proposed developments‎. ‎The trade‎-‎off is that ‎

residents frequently rally harder against the proposed development, such as ‎

Country Club Village‎. ‎Rather than try to stop a proposed development, ‎

residents should be encouraged to identify changes that would be desirable to ‎

them which then could be presented to the Planning Commission early in the ‎

process‎. ‎

B‎.‎ The Chair read a letter from Member Christian Ramanauskas indicating that he ‎

expected to return to the Planning Commission for the November ‎24‎, ‎1998‎ ‎

special meeting‎.‎

NEXT MEETING DATE

Chairperson Kaiser reminded Commissioners that the next two meetings are ‎

SPECIAL Meetings scheduled for October ‎27‎, ‎1998 ‎and November ‎10‎, ‎1998‎. ‎The ‎

next Regular Meeting is scheduled for November ‎17‎, ‎1998‎.‎

ADJOURNMENT

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

Kaiser adjourned the regular meeting at ‎10‎:‎25 ‎p‎.‎m‎. ‎Michigan time‎.‎